PDA

View Full Version : Medusa V, did GW rig it?



Splagbot
11-09-2006, 00:32
Been mentioned once or twice, did GW rig the campaign?

Personally I think no, there was no need too, Medusa V was a single planet in the wilderness of the Imperium, no impact on the background, means no need to rig.

RampagingRavener
11-09-2006, 00:35
I voted no...but there should have been an "I don't care whether they rigged it or not, because I had fun anyway" option. Because thats what I'd have prefered to put.

BrainFireBob
11-09-2006, 00:35
This comes up every d@mn time there's a campaign, generally from a side that frankly didn't win.

Sometime, people might understand that just because their local region is dominated by army X, doesn't mean that's a worldwide truism.

Grand Master Raziel
11-09-2006, 00:38
Oops. Wasn't paying attention to what I was doing, so I accidentally voted "yes". Sorry about that. My intended vote was "no". However, it does greatly irk me that the *******' ork named character managed not only to escape the planet despite the fact that he was supposed to get trapped there if the Orks didn't win, but also he managed to abscond with an Emperor Class Imperial Battleship! :mad: :wtf:

Charax
11-09-2006, 00:42
I don't think it was overtly rigged, although the way games are weighted and the fact that there are a ton more Imperial players than non-Imperial kind of skews the results a little.

DMG
11-09-2006, 00:56
Well look at the recent Eye of Terror campaign...Chaos supposedly won. Did it actually make a difference? Nope!

Bregalad
11-09-2006, 01:16
I checked the real stats (next to the map) regularly. There was a global ranking for the complete time. 2 days before the end, the ranking was as far as i remember:
1. Imperial Guard
2. Dark Eldar
3. Eldar
4-5 Tau
5-6 Space Marines
8. Necrons
9. Chaos.
Funny thing is, that GW's pet armies SM and Chaos both jumped 5 ranks in only 2 days, after being quite constant for weeks. Even during the campaign the real stats and weekly reported lists were different. Especially Dark Eldar and Tau were hit by this cheating and got undeserved bad end results.

I very much liked the gaming at my store and the interactive events, but the fixed results are really annoying :mad:

mooserehab86
11-09-2006, 01:48
I don't know if it was rigged or not, but I don't really care. I had fun playing in the campaign, and that's enough for me. What GW does with the results is up to them, not that it matters much because it has no influence on the game.

chris_valera
11-09-2006, 02:17
Nah, although I wish GW would just have the balls to restrict the armies, or actually tally the win percentages properly. Or to not introduce goofy game effect cards.

Maybe we'll see a Skull Pass campaign, just Dwarfs and Goblins, with maybe Empire/Orcs thrown in.

--Chris
*********************

Lancaster
11-09-2006, 02:31
Nah, although I wish GW would just have the balls to restrict the armies, or actually tally the win percentages properly. Or to not introduce goofy game effect cards.

Maybe we'll see a Skull Pass campaign, just Dwarfs and Goblins, with maybe Empire/Orcs thrown in.

--Chris
*********************

I don't know, Personally I think the next campaign should actually be signifigant, like "To The Dyson Sphere" or "Through the gates of Cormarragh" or "On the road to Ymgarl" or everybody's favourite "Punch the Tau in the face"

Sephiroth
11-09-2006, 02:32
Nah, although I wish GW would just have the balls to restrict the armies, or actually tally the win percentages properly.

Agreed. Space Marines are supposed to, according to background, be the minority of all forces. Yet during Medusa V, their were almost as many Space Marine players as there were Ork, Tau Necron and Dark Eldar combined.

A limitation should have been in place that required Space Marines to need 2 wins to equal every Guard win, for example.

Of course, you'll get complaints that's not fair.

Lord of ???
11-09-2006, 02:33
The So named Ork Character escaped because the Orks were by far the most organised side when it came to how they attacked where they attacked and most importantly what we put in Narratively into all the Battle reports.

The Fact that Nazdreg escaped not by his main Objective the Hulk but by hijacking a couple of Rides is a Nod to the Ork players for being so Organised

UnRiggable
11-09-2006, 02:35
I know it doesn't affect me in any way, but it's a blow to the ego when your curiosity can't be satisfied. They probably did win, either way it doesn't matter.

The Orange
11-09-2006, 03:06
I don't think it was rigged, I just think GW used 2 different systems for their stats between the Warroom and the Newsletters, thus the huge difference at the end. IMO, the Warroom just stacked all battles together, while the Newsletter reports took an average from each warzone every week, and in the end, averaged those scores.

In the end, I had a bit of fun, but GW made the campaign too Imperrium centered. It would have been nice to look at the map and see something other then reasons why Area A was improtant to the Imperium, or why Area B was important to the Imperium. No real support/objectives was given to the other races.

GrimZAG
11-09-2006, 03:37
If you were in High Games Workshop Command, wouldn't you want to rig it so that your army came out better? or would you be nice to all the other players in the world? I think that's what it would come down to, i voted no by the way.

SisterMordagg
11-09-2006, 05:09
I don't know, Personally I think the next campaign should actually be signifigant, like "To The Dyson Sphere" or "Through the gates of Cormarragh" or "On the road to Ymgarl" or everybody's favourite "Punch the Tau in the face"

Quoted, and voted no.

sigur
11-09-2006, 05:37
I liked the initial idea of Medusa V. Everyone bashing everyone other's head for a doomed planet. That's very 40k and doesn't even had a grain of some "advancing in timeline"/"campaign will effect the fluff or gameplay"-stupidity (apart from the Tau and warp technology thing). It doesn't really matter to me if it was rigged or not, I guess quite some people around the globe had some fun games and that's what it's all about.

@Sephiroth: Include only one single player into the game and you'll have the fluff-gameplay-sales problem especially 40k is struggling with.

Splagbot
11-09-2006, 06:55
I voted no...but there should have been an "I don't care whether they rigged it or not, because I had fun anyway" option. Because thats what I'd have prefered to put.

Sorry, never thought of that.

synapse
11-09-2006, 07:28
has medusa even started yet? ;) seriously, i feel medusa was the most boring summer camaign ever, and i lost interest in it before it even started (probably becoause of my feelsing after hearing what happened with Storm of chaos). The Battle for Armageddon remains my favourate, with much much more web and WD coverage.

I voted no - there's no point in GW rigging this one

Kahadras
11-09-2006, 08:24
or everybody's favourite "Punch the Tau in the face"

I'm up for that one! On the matter of Medusa. No I don't think it was fixed. GW really had no real reason to do it as it would have little impact on the 40K universe as a whole.

Kahadras

Scamshouse
11-09-2006, 08:35
When you consider how easy it is for the players to rig it who cares if GW were fixing it as well?

The main point of these things is to have fun.

I don't think GW would have bothered so I voted NO.

Reflex
11-09-2006, 08:43
i belive it was rigged but i havge little or no care factor... if they want the pet armies to do good, then let them.

BrainFireBob
11-09-2006, 08:47
i belive it was rigged but i havge little or no care factor... if they want the pet armies to do good, then let them.

Y'know what gets me about GW campaigns?

That if Marines and/or Guard win, it's because they're "pet armies."

I also followed the results through Medusa V. All but one week Marines were #1. The dispatches have those numbers listed at the bottom- and they haven't been changed as they've been archived.

Marines STOMPED through Medusa V. People really need to come to terms with this.

ORKY ARD BOYZ
11-09-2006, 09:03
gameswork shop didn't rig Medusa 5 in my opinion, I mean, noone has even heard of Medusa 5 before. ( unlike Holy Terra, Amorgeden, The eye of Terror. etc.) who cares if this planet blows up? the GWK people wouldn't. It was interesting and all but it won't have a long term effect on any army that participated.

Senbei
11-09-2006, 09:16
The Fact that Nazdreg escaped not by his main Objective the Hulk but by hijacking a couple of Rides is a Nod to the Ork players for being so Organised

Cudos to the Waaaargh.net ? But there is a point here... I've seen more Narrative from the greenskins than the rest of the universe put together.... Despite their rather strangely fluctuating quality of performance.......

lord_blackfang
11-09-2006, 09:19
gameswork shop didn't rig Medusa 5 in my opinion, I mean, noone has even heard of Medusa 5 before. ( unlike Holy Terra, Amorgeden, The eye of Terror. etc.) who cares if this planet blows up? the GWK people wouldn't. It was interesting and all but it won't have a long term effect on any army that participated.

No impact on the background, but what about sales? How many kids would stop buying SMurfs if they weren't teh l33test army anymore? Better to bump them up and find a scapegoat amongst the armies that don't sell anyway to take the fall.

BrainFireBob
11-09-2006, 09:26
Again, Blackfang, in the week-to-week numbers, Marines did very well (excepting, what, week 5?). Marines are currently a strong army, in a way they haven't been since the rhino rush died. GW didn't need to doctor results like that.

the creator
11-09-2006, 09:44
i played necrons in medusa 5 and we lost with a vengence!

but i dont care to much as the end story with the storm herald and the C'tan was excellent and so well written. we'll be back you filthy, meat puppets...

there sould be a ratio percentage enforced so those armies which are in abundence should not automatically destroy those that are less popular.

Bregalad
11-09-2006, 11:35
Again BrainFireBob, according to the detailed global stats next to the map, SMs were on rank 5 or 6 just 2 days before the end, and Chaos last for weeks. And as these stats were updated more than daily and for all regions, I trust these stats more than some unfounded made-up ranking list in the weekly reports. I wrote an email to GW asking for the differences between those two ranking lists, but of course got no answer.

lord_blackfang
11-09-2006, 11:52
Again BrainFireBob, according to the detailed global stats next to the map, SMs were on rank 5 or 6 just 2 days before the end, and Chaos last for weeks. And as these stats were updated more than daily and for all regions, I trust these stats more than some unfounded made-up ranking list in the weekly reports. I wrote an email to GW asking for the differences between those two ranking lists, but of course got no answer.

My guess is that the global stats just counted all wins, while the weekly reports followed some system for weighing the results (official GW events count more than reports made from home, etc) - and the system itself was probably heavyly biased in favour of teh posterboys.

marv335
11-09-2006, 12:26
there were weekly stats and overall stats. one bad week for the SM was not enough to knock them down.
despite some members boasting of how they were posting 10 marine losses a day from fictitious games
was it rigged?
i very much doubt it. why bother.
and another point, if it was rigged wouldn't they want to boost one of the armies that doesn't sell well?it's not like they need any help to sell SM.

personally i avoided playing any marine armies during M5. i played 4/5 games a week for the campaign and didn't lose any (going from combat patrol to 2000pts)
and i did it mainly with scouts :D

the amount of marine vs marine battles should have made it harder for the marines to get a victory overall.
after all, i often hear on the boards that people only ever see gamers using marine armies.

Khaine's_Blood
11-09-2006, 12:58
Yes, it is quite odd, how space marines won,
every single day i went onto the site and checked the leader board. through the majority of the campaign
eldar and dark eldar were winning and space marines were in 5th place almost the whole time (except) the start
even up to the second last day dark eldar were still winning,
but on the final day space marines miraculously rose to first,
so they must have rigged it

marv335
11-09-2006, 13:05
were you looking at the same leaderboard as i was?
because that's not how i remember the stats going.

ss_cherubael
11-09-2006, 13:11
ALL i repeat ALL GW campaigns are rigged, they have said so them selves. as soon as the studio games count for more than any other the whole thing loses credibility

xibo
11-09-2006, 13:15
I can remember IG beeing first place at the last week, dark eldar being second, and base marines about place 5, like it's already been said.

Ironhand
11-09-2006, 13:36
What I think people are missing is that the pure numerical results were only part of the equation. The writeups counted too. The more one side wrote, and the more original they were, that writing had an impact on the results. Hence Nazdreg's escape via Emperor class battleship.

marv335
11-09-2006, 13:45
overall results from the leaderboard (which is still up btw)
week 1. 1st
week 2. 1st
week 3. 2nd
week 4. 1st
week 5. 2nd
week 6. 1st
week 7. 1st
week 8. 1st

from the 9 warzones they had;
1st place x 12
2nd place x 15
3rd place x 12
4th place x 12
5th place x 5
6th place x 9
7th place x 2
8th place x 4
9th place x 1


from 72 weekly standings they spent 51 in the top 4 places.

azimaith
11-09-2006, 14:33
Yes and no. Did they rig it intentionally, meeting in dark basements plotting? Hell no.

Did they rig it by having no cap on numbers for particular armies so that ridiculously popular imperial armies had immense numbers more players than the other races combined?

Yeah.

Inquisitor Maul
11-09-2006, 14:54
Hence Nazdreg's escape via Emperor class battleship.

Retribution actualy ;)

Earlydawn
11-09-2006, 14:56
i played necrons in medusa 5 and we lost with a vengence!

but i dont care to much as the end story with the storm herald and the C'tan was excellent and so well written. we'll be back you filthy, meat puppets...

there sould be a ratio percentage enforced so those armies which are in abundence should not automatically destroy those that are less popular.I agree on both points. The Necron ending was incredibly well-written. If they do a future campaign, it should defenitely have ratios in place to balance the high-pop versus the low-pop armies.

High Marshal Trenth
11-09-2006, 15:46
Dont know why everybody complains about the Imperials, really, WE DO OUT NUMBER YOU, besides orks, dirty orks, anyways, no they didnt rig it, why would they? O no, a backwater planet fell, is the Emperor loosing sleep over it? I thinks not! And yes, we SM's where in the top places almost the whole time......look at almost all of the other races, yellow, yellow, red, red, yellow, you get the point. Imperials? Green, Green, Green, Yellow (o no, not yellow!) Green,.......so ya, we won fairly, sure there was some cheating but hey, EVERY side cheated so dont even complain about it. Also, why are people complaining about the Imperials getting all of the story? The game is based off of the HUMANS...of course the Main Majority of the story is going to be based around us.

the creator
11-09-2006, 16:07
Dont know why everybody complains about the Imperials, really, WE DO OUT NUMBER YOU, besides orks, dirty orks, anyways, no they didnt rig it, why would they? O no, a backwater planet fell, is the Emperor loosing sleep over it? I thinks not! And yes, we SM's where in the top places almost the whole time......look at almost all of the other races, yellow, yellow, red, red, yellow, you get the point. Imperials? Green, Green, Green, Yellow (o no, not yellow!) Green,.......so ya, we won fairly, sure there was some cheating but hey, EVERY side cheated so dont even complain about it. Also, why are people complaining about the Imperials getting all of the story? The game is based off of the HUMANS...of course the Main Majority of the story is going to be based around us.

yeah its based around humans but is that any reason to always let the humans win? no its not. if that was the case i would give up doing summer campaigns as i would know who would win them no matter what i, or we all do. and there is no way im giving up on my 'crons or chaos. this campaign was weak compared with say, armaggedon which was brilliant.

we all lost out as soon as GW said...narative, ie chage it for what we have pre written and planned. this is a business, remember that

Shadowseer Crofty
11-09-2006, 16:36
They didnt need to, the amount of SMurf and guard players meant they had a really high chance of winning.

bob syko
11-09-2006, 16:44
I voted no but I couldn't care less if they did to be honest as long as Nazdreg survived, didn't they drop extra marines in at one point to kill some tau, that seems a bit off.

High Marshal Trenth
11-09-2006, 16:55
yeah its based around humans but is that any reason to always let the humans win? no its not.

I never said that the fluff means that the humans will WIN eveytime, just that the majority of it will be based around us, WIN or LOSE.

Lu Bu
11-09-2006, 17:29
I ask one thing what did games workshop have to gain by "rigging" it. Nothing. It was for fun. This is all paranoid delusions. A friend of mine said a very wise thing once. “In the eyes of the paranoid they can never win.” I say this. It is a game that You play with toy solders. Chill out and relax. They are not out to get you.

Lyinar
11-09-2006, 17:39
I have to quote one of the chapter headings from The Traitor's Hand... "Paranoia is a very comforting state of mind. If you think they're out to get you, then it means you think you matter."

idinos
11-09-2006, 17:41
You don't know what you are saying Lu Bu, they are real, not toys, and GW is masterminding the fall of mankind through their space marine sales. People who play SM armies should be put in concentration camps to stop this, as well as finally curb their numbers so they don't win the obviously rigged campaigns! Victory to the Tyranids!

VetSgtNamaan
11-09-2006, 18:08
A friend of mine who plays said this about his army. "I do not like marines very much but I like to win so I play marines." Honestly Marines sell themselves it is the by far the first army most people I have talked to play even if they switch to other armies later on. I suppose the the question is not did they rig it but rather why would any one care if they did? Not like it matters one way or the other, if you played and had fun then that is the point of the campaign.

Lu Bu
11-09-2006, 18:14
Well said Namaan.

BrainFireBob
11-09-2006, 19:48
Bregalad, where are these ranking you're speaking of?

The warroom map, that showed the daily regional result for a specific region?

Or somewhere else?

chaos0xomega
11-09-2006, 21:19
It's a conspiracy. A conspiracy I tell you. GW rigged it so that the Imperium of Man could win and they could sell more Imperial Stuff(Vostroyans anyone?), and then they let the Eldar(the next race to be released) win too so they can milk the noobs even more. Can't you see?

Buddha777
11-09-2006, 22:37
Yes and no. Did they rig it intentionally, meeting in dark basements plotting? Hell no.

Did they rig it by having no cap on numbers for particular armies so that ridiculously popular imperial armies had immense numbers more players than the other races combined?

Yeah.

Spoken for truth.

Splagbot
11-09-2006, 22:39
How do you put a cap on the number of certain armies, it's not like you can tell people what armies they can take.

Zzarchov
11-09-2006, 23:46
It was incredibley rigged, I had the endings spelled out for me before the game even begun. Oh don't get me wrong, different people could win and/or lose, but the results were the same. Ie.) The one I was told the most about were the Tau.

They were going to become horrified of the warp and never venture into it (So that background on them doesn't change if in the next campaign or in some book they want them to overrun a navy shipyard or some rogue trader or navigator house).

If they won they would retrieve the Data and see how horrible it was in the warp and say its too dangerous, If they lost they would decide its too dangerous to explore the warp and ban its research due to the damage it can cause to a planet.

pretty much what happened.

So the placings were real, the results pre-chosen.

Bregalad
12-09-2006, 00:22
Bregalad, where are these ranking you're speaking of? The warroom map, that showed the daily regional result for a specific region? Or somewhere else?

They are no longer online. I speak of the stats that were shown next to the map, when you logged in for reporting your results, possibly called warroom in English. The stats were given for the current day and for the complete campaign up to the time you checked, and they were given for each region plus globally. I told you the global results for the campaign up to two days before the end. I checked these results about once per day during the campaign, as I found these most relevant for the outcome and for telling my friends. You could see the number of battles considered each day, and the result was somewhere between 7.9 and 9.5, some sort of ratio between won and lost battles.

The ranking was quite stable during the last few weeks, with IG, Eldar and Dark Eldar top 3, then Tau, and SM always about 5 or 6 and, as said, Chaos firmly on last rank.

Tooooon
12-09-2006, 00:25
Of course!

They always do, I mean come on my friends. This is games workshop where everything is planned in advance, including campaigns. This time they DID tie in player written fluff into the campaign sometimes with a mini story or piece of information, but to a degree that it still matched what they wanted to rig it too, if you get me drift.

This campaign though was just boring I have to say :/ Give me EOT any day ;)

~Dave

azimaith
12-09-2006, 01:07
How do you put a cap on the number of certain armies, it's not like you can tell people what armies they can take.
Only accept the first X number of Space Marines and the first X number of Guard players. Lets say arbitrarily it was 100.

Then 100 randomly chosen marine battles would be submitted and a randomly chosen assortment of 100 necron battles would be chosen ect ect. Then you would have equal numbers of battles rather than 8000 marine battles and 100 necron battles.

Cap'n Umgrotz
12-09-2006, 02:05
Do they not use percentages all ready?
I find it nearly impossible to believe that they don't, or Space Marines would always win and it would make absolutely no sense at all.
Oh yeah, Begalad, how come Orks are always left out of that list you have?

High Marshal Trenth
12-09-2006, 15:20
He's secretly in on the whole "games workshop keeps screwing us, wa wa wa conspiracy" GW does not want the orks to win, GW does not want the orks to be apart of any big story in the near future, GW hates orks, GW hates orks, GW hates orks. MUAHAHAHA! IF he were to mention the orks in his post, people might say, "hey, its the orks! why arnt they complaining all of the time? hmmm maybe we should play them since they seem to have fun, win or lose..." yes, its a conspiracy. Be aware ork players, GW is trying to keep you down <,<

Dosadi
12-09-2006, 16:06
Rigged? Like the last 2 U.S. elections?
I don't really see why GW would need to rig it. Space Marines are gonna sell if they come in first or last. Maby it was way to make the Imperial players feel good after the apparent drubbing they got in EoT.

Dosadi

sanctusmortis
12-09-2006, 16:41
Hey, at least someone didn't totally dominate to just receive a random slapping off a random character just as he was about to achieve something! :rolleyes:

robertsjf
12-09-2006, 18:53
A world died, didn't it? That's all I was promised by the pamphlet....

Daemon king Mad Dog
12-09-2006, 21:14
This comes up every d@mn time there's a campaign, generally from a side that frankly didn't win.

Sometime, people might understand that just because their local region is dominated by army X, doesn't mean that's a worldwide truism.


ah yeah, i was sorta making my vote by my region, how the hell where dark eldar winning? they were about 7th, then in a week (or two or three) moved to 1st!

Pertinax
12-09-2006, 23:12
I say no. On the basis of several points.
1: This is the first case of a campaign that has no influence on the world "story line".
2: The result actually had nothing to say.
3: The structure of the event is just numerical crunching or results.

Now, one could say "yes" on the basis that there are more marine players than anybody else, but that's the kettle and the pot.

BigJon
12-09-2006, 23:22
At first I though all the campaigns were rigged to a point, but now I belive that players rig it by reporting fauls games in mass.

BigJon

UnRiggable
13-09-2006, 02:41
Rigged? Like the last 2 U.S. elections?

The last two elections weren't actually rigged they just didn't use the people's vote. The first was pretty much "The people voted us out, so we trash Florida's votes and cause a havoc. We can't find them, so we use the Supreme Court, an obviously right-wing-dominated branch of government, to decide wether we should recount or not. Hmm, who won that one?". If you are so much of an ass to accept defeat by the people you are supposed to serve and protect when you see it, you should not have ran for that position in the first place.

As for rigging the CAMPAIGN I still stand by my position that it was fair. There are a number of teams under the name 'Imperium' and they probably added up their scores.

The_Patriot
13-09-2006, 02:44
Rigged? Like the last 2 U.S. elections?

Dosadi

The people's vote in the Presidential election doesn't matter since it's the electoral college that votes on the President. :rolleyes:

As for GW rigging the campaign highly doubtful, but it could have been players cheating on the results.

Cap'n Umgrotz
13-09-2006, 02:50
Can someone please tell me if they used percentage wins or not to determine winners?
Because if they didn't, no campaign is ever going to be anything but a Space Marine win.So I can't believe that the numbers of marine players had anything to do with it...surely it would have evened out in the percentages?

cailus
13-09-2006, 03:53
I say no. On the basis of several points.
1: This is the first case of a campaign that has no influence on the world "story line".
2: The result actually had nothing to say.
3: The structure of the event is just numerical crunching or results.

This is why I didn't participate in the stupid campaign. It didn't matter. I played probably about 20 games during this time and none of them were posted.

I also thought the story (or what little of it there was) was garbage. I think they should have army specific campaigns e.g Guard versus Orks as opposed to the "the entire universe is fighting in some little backwater."

Chem-Dog
13-09-2006, 04:17
I don't think it was overtly rigged, although the way games are weighted and the fact that there are a ton more Imperial players than non-Imperial kind of skews the results a little.

This is assuming that Imperial Players win a disproportionate amount of battles.


Well look at the recent Eye of Terror campaign...Chaos supposedly won. Did it actually make a difference? Nope!

This is the problem with only being able to see one timeline, if you could view what would have happened is the Imperials had won as well you could compare the two, personally I was disaapointed the Imperium wasn't lead into an age of glorious expansion.


Nah, although I wish GW would just have the balls to restrict the armies, or actually tally the win percentages properly. Or to not introduce goofy game effect cards.

I agree that game effect cards seem to confuse the issue, I would rather see the simple rule that a win in store qualifies as two wins in the campaign, an incentive for people to play instore.


Agreed. Space Marines are supposed to, according to background, be the minority of all forces. Yet during Medusa V, their were almost as many Space Marine players as there were Ork, Tau Necron and Dark Eldar combined.

A limitation should have been in place that required Space Marines to need 2 wins to equal every Guard win, for example.

Of course, you'll get complaints that's not fair.

But why should that get in the way of your fun ? :p
Yet if this is the case there must have been quite a few examples of Marine on Marine battles, one win for a Marine player = one loss too.


If you were in High Games Workshop Command, wouldn't you want to rig it so that your army came out better? or would you be nice to all the other players in the world? I think that's what it would come down to, i voted no by the way.

If I were the guy in control of this thing I'd want to make it as honest as possible, if you cheat at something like this you end up only cheating yourself.


has medusa even started yet? ;) seriously, i feel medusa was the most boring summer camaign ever, and i lost interest in it before it even started (probably becoause of my feelsing after hearing what happened with Storm of chaos). The Battle for Armageddon remains my favourate, with much much more web and WD coverage.

I voted no - there's no point in GW rigging this one

It as been the "Wait for Warhammer" campaign and I agree, the fun that seemed to be injected into Armageddonb does seem to be missing from latter Campaigns.


When you consider how easy it is for the players to rig it who cares if GW were fixing it as well?

The main point of these things is to have fun.

I don't think GW would have bothered so I voted NO.

This is why they introduced the idea that you have to register your wins against other registered players, but it's insanely easy to set up a free Email address and have a false member taking part, just ally him with the army you want to see loose and have him log every single battle you "play" as a win for you.


No impact on the background, but what about sales? How many kids would stop buying SMurfs if they weren't teh l33test army anymore? Better to bump them up and find a scapegoat amongst the armies that don't sell anyway to take the fall.

Oh god! This particular idea is getting a little tiresome, nothing against you Lord_Blackfang, but this idea of "nothing will ever happen unless it benefits the Space Maines" is a load of cobblers, GW have guaranteed sales with the SM's, the army changed almost imperceptably in the last codex, a few buffs and the traits is it, no new units (unless you want to qualify the drop pod), if they were looking to boost the Marines they could have easily done it then.
Emphasis sahould be, and has been, bringing the other races upto scratch.


ALL i repeat ALL GW campaigns are rigged, they have said so them selves. as soon as the studio games count for more than any other the whole thing loses credibility

I see your point here, having games played in GW shops count twice should ballance this out a little though, no?


Yes and no. Did they rig it intentionally, meeting in dark basements plotting? Hell no.

Did they rig it by having no cap on numbers for particular armies so that ridiculously popular imperial armies had immense numbers more players than the other races combined?

Yeah.

As I said before, those popular armies could win 99% of their battles, would it be an issue then? Probably not.


They didnt need to, the amount of SMurf and guard players meant they had a really high chance of winning.

Only if they won a dispropotionate amount of battles.


It was incredibley rigged.....

Endings pre written is one thing (a Win ending and a Lose ending for each isn't out of the question, the Tau ending indicates that they don't want the Tau Warp capable), fudging figures is what we're talking about here.



The people's vote in the Presidential election doesn't matter since it's the electoral college that votes on the President. :rolleyes:

Tell that to Chad ;)

Inquisitor Konig
13-09-2006, 07:47
All I have to say is that even if it were rigged. And that is a big IF (bigger than the type will allow I mind you). I think it was very boring for the Defenders to have won. I mean nothing changed on paper. Granted I play IG, Marines, and Eldar, I would have liked to have seen a lot more crazyness going on. Although I was rooting for my Armies to win the entire time, I think if GW did rig it, they could have made the result a little bit more interesting...
Anyway, maybe I feel that way just because I lost interest in it about half way through and was just as bored with the result.
I'll still play in the next one though... ;)

cailus
13-09-2006, 09:49
Though it is wierd that the forces perceived as evil did in fact lose - Necrons, Nids and Chaos. Dark Eldar kinda drew and they lamely cut off any storyline by killing the Dark Eldar commander. The Orks are still percieved as goofy ****** so they had a sort of victory, complete with lame humour in their plot line.

xiophen
13-09-2006, 13:35
The last two elections weren't actually rigged they just didn't use the people's vote. The first was pretty much "The people voted us out, so we trash Florida's votes and cause a havoc. We can't find them, so we use the Supreme Court, an obviously right-wing-dominated branch of government, to decide wether we should recount or not. Hmm, who won that one?". If you are so much of an ass to accept defeat by the people you are supposed to serve and protect when you see it, you should not have ran for that position in the first place.

I take it that this is sarcasim right? The supreme court has until recently been left leaning for the last 3 or 4 decades. the problem with the origional florida votes is the demicrats had the votes count 3 or 4 times and the result ended the same each vote. then they tried to have only specific counties revoted which is against voting laws. in 04 their was no rigging bush clearing won in the final voting in OH which clinched the win for him.
but back to the topic....



As for rigging the CAMPAIGN I still stand by my position that it was fair. There are a number of teams under the name 'Imperium' and they probably added up their scores.

Of course GW does some rig events on every campaign, This is more for the purpoe of insurng some specific results and also to improve the play of the game. They have the right to steer the events is it bad no as long as they truly dont bone a faction for the fact of wanting to bone them.

BrainFireBob
13-09-2006, 19:23
I take it that this is sarcasim right? The supreme court has until recently been left leaning for the last 3 or 4 decades. the problem with the origional florida votes is the demicrats had the votes count 3 or 4 times and the result ended the same each vote. then they tried to have only specific counties revoted which is against voting laws. in 04 their was no rigging bush clearing won in the final voting in OH which clinched the win for him.
but back to the topic....



Of course GW does some rig events on every campaign, This is more for the purpoe of insurng some specific results and also to improve the play of the game. They have the right to steer the events is it bad no as long as they truly dont bone a faction for the fact of wanting to bone them.

Actually, Florida law has a strict cap on how long it can take them to re-count. What's her name unfairly lost her job and was labelled as trying to "appoint" Bush when she was doing her job instead of acting like the dictator she was accused of.

Bush flat-out won in 2004, incontestable. I'm sick of American Democratic conspiracy theories. You born with your political party? Because it's an affiliation of choice, not one that you must slavishly worhsip in an "us vs them" mentality.

On the same note, I'm sick of players who didn't win Medusa V going on that it was rigged, and trying to show off their cynicism. I'm also sick of whining "It was fixed, SMs always win!"

You see the same campaigns I do? 40K wise, EoT- Marine loss. Armageddon- Imperial tie. Medusa V- Imperial victory. (Mind, EoT BFG- Chaos loss. I've always wondered just how that combination happened. I don't know how other systems tied in.)

xiophen
14-09-2006, 03:31
Actually, Florida law has a strict cap on how long it can take them to re-count. What's her name unfairly lost her job and was labelled as trying to "appoint" Bush when she was doing her job instead of acting like the dictator she was accused of.

Bush flat-out won in 2004, incontestable. I'm sick of American Democratic conspiracy theories. You born with your political party? Because it's an affiliation of choice, not one that you must slavishly worhsip in an "us vs them" mentality.

On the same note, I'm sick of players who didn't win Medusa V going on that it was rigged, and trying to show off their cynicism. I'm also sick of whining "It was fixed, SMs always win!"

You see the same campaigns I do? 40K wise, EoT- Marine loss. Armageddon- Imperial tie. Medusa V- Imperial victory. (Mind, EoT BFG- Chaos loss. I've always wondered just how that combination happened. I don't know how other systems tied in.)


hehe what Im saying is GW does rig a portion of the games and their effects. Not for any particular faction per say, but they do try to set up some specific results to add to the appeal and drama of the campaigns to keep players involved

Warlord Kyle
14-09-2006, 03:32
Im not complaining or acussing or even pouting. I said yes because 3 days from the end of the tournement sm where around 5th or 6th and ig around 3rd. Im just curious how did they rise so quickly in the last 2/3 day?:confused:

marv335
14-09-2006, 08:19
again, this is how the space marine weekly results played out.

week 1. 1st
week 2. 1st
week 3. 2nd
week 4. 1st
week 5. 2nd
week 6. 1st
week 7. 1st
week 8. 1st

from the 9 warzones they had;
1st place x 12
2nd place x 15
3rd place x 12
4th place x 12
5th place x 5
6th place x 9
7th place x 2
8th place x 4
9th place x 1


from 72 weekly standings they spent 51 in the top 4 places.

there was no "massive jump" in the last few days.

number6
14-09-2006, 22:34
It was incredibley rigged, I had the endings spelled out for me before the game even begun. Oh don't get me wrong, different people could win and/or lose, but the results were the same. Ie.) The one I was told the most about were the Tau.

They were going to become horrified of the warp and never venture into it (So that background on them doesn't change if in the next campaign or in some book they want them to overrun a navy shipyard or some rogue trader or navigator house).

If they won they would retrieve the Data and see how horrible it was in the warp and say its too dangerous, If they lost they would decide its too dangerous to explore the warp and ban its research due to the damage it can cause to a planet.

pretty much what happened.

So the placings were real, the results pre-chosen.
Exactly! This is what was confusing to me about Medusa V. They placed an incredible amount of emphasis on winning and losing -- "for the team!" But I don't think it made any difference whatsoever. GW already had their fluff written. I mean, how can Dark Eldar be one of the top finishers and yet have such a bad ending for the main character for whom the faction was fighting? How can Tyranids lose yet apparently still have the death leaper safe to fight another day? How can the Orks lose yet still get safely get off the planet? (Apparently tricking the overall winningest faction and stealing their equipment to boot! Does that make any sense?!) The only campaign endings that actually seemed to match with the actual posted results were for IG, Eldar, Chaos, and maybe Tau. That's less than 50% accuracy.

On the subject of those rankings vis-a-vis how the campaign "actually" finished -- with IG and SM as the top two finishers with Dark Eldar and Eldar right behind ... I saw the same global weekly and global overall rankings that many of you did. Guard, Dark Eldar, and Eldar were usually the top three and space marines were consistently number 5 or 6. I can't make heads or tails of what marv335 is talking about. What is the use of a global, overall ranking if it doesn't accurately reflect the grand sum total of a faction's ranking? A "global overall" ranking should be accurate or not displayed at all. The fact that smurfs were #5 at the end of the campaign should mean that they weren't one of the top two finishers! Hidden calculations that we aren't privy to flies in the face of the openness -- and the ability of actual players playing actual games to control the outcome -- that was very heavily advertised. In fact, it's a little bit insulting.

Whatever. I had fun. I voted "No, not rigged", but only because the results never actually mattered to the overall 40K fluff or what GW has in mind for the armies, and things turned out exactly as I thought they would anyway. The campaign was a great excuse to play a lot of games. But technically speaking ... yeah. The campaign was rigged. Of course it was! Do you really think that GW would let players playing games affect their decisions regarding game fluff or army development? Get real.

VetSgtNamaan
15-09-2006, 01:12
I would say if the Tau won then GW would have rigged it. After all with the new tau mega force out, the tau looking pretty swanky in the newest Dawn of War expansion. I would say it is a pretty darn line up for a mucho increase in tau sales.

UnRiggable
15-09-2006, 01:54
I take it that this is sarcasim right? The supreme court has until recently been left leaning for the last 3 or 4 decades. the problem with the origional florida votes is the demicrats had the votes count 3 or 4 times and the result ended the same each vote. then they tried to have only specific counties revoted which is against voting laws. in 04 their was no rigging bush clearing won in the final voting in OH which clinched the win for him.
but back to the topic....

OKAY the thing that I'm annoyed about is the fact that several counties in Florida were overlooked in the process, and the amount of recounts caused a Supreme Court decision, 5 to stop recounting and 4 to continue. As for Ohio, there are several precincts that essentially cheated the voter: Within the last week, many minority citizens were switched voting locations without being told, often getting to the corect one before it closed. Also one of the voting places set a Terror Level Ten (on a scale of 1 to 10), which is the only way you can legally count votes 'behind doors' or privately.


Of course GW does some rig events on every campaign, This is more for the purpoe of insurng some specific results and also to improve the play of the game. They have the right to steer the events is it bad no as long as they truly dont bone a faction for the fact of wanting to bone them.

But nobody has heard of Medusa V, so the incentive to rig it is immediately lost. Its like when you watch the first round of world cup and two teams you've never heard of (like trinidad, sorry if you live there, and some Eastern Europpean country) play eachother, you don't care who wins or loses because it doesn't affect you. I also agree with the statement that GW's execs are cheating the campaign and cheating themselves at the same time, it's like when you lie about your strength at the weight room.

marv335
16-09-2006, 00:02
I can't make heads or tails of what marv335 is talking about.

the first lot of numbers represent each overall weeky placing e.g "week 1 1st place"

the second lot are the collected positions from the regional results.
there were nine different sectors.
that's nine results each week for eight weeks.
over the campaign there were 72 scoring weeks.
i counted how many times SM had a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, place.

while there were some regions where they had a poor showing, by and large they did well. as the results show.

Bregalad
16-09-2006, 00:58
@marv335: As said several times, there were two DIFFERENT rankings during the whole campaign. You speak of the one in the weekly reports, that were undetailed and unfounded and unexplained, just given (questions about these results were not answered).

number 6 and I are talking about the detailed "total globally" ranking given in the warroom, that was updated continuously, listed the number of games evaluated, and was detailed down to regions and weekly results. These results have been founded, detailed, trustworthy and open to everyone. Every coordinated Orkrush could be seen. These numbers are no longer online, but many people have seen and noted them.

No reason was given for two different rankings during the campaign and after, not even when asked. According to the more trustworthy one, SM stayed on rank 5-6 for the last few weeks (total, globally) and Chaos stable on rank 9. Many people including me take this as proof of extreme-rigging the result in favour for GW's pet armies SM and CSM.

The_Patriot
16-09-2006, 01:02
OKAY the thing that I'm annoyed about is the fact that several counties in Florida were overlooked in the process, and the amount of recounts caused a Supreme Court decision, 5 to stop recounting and 4 to continue. As for Ohio, there are several precincts that essentially cheated the voter: Within the last week, many minority citizens were switched voting locations without being told, often getting to the corect one before it closed. Also one of the voting places set a Terror Level Ten (on a scale of 1 to 10), which is the only way you can legally count votes 'behind doors' or privately.



But nobody has heard of Medusa V, so the incentive to rig it is immediately lost. Its like when you watch the first round of world cup and two teams you've never heard of (like trinidad, sorry if you live there, and some Eastern Europpean country) play eachother, you don't care who wins or loses because it doesn't affect you. I also agree with the statement that GW's execs are cheating the campaign and cheating themselves at the same time, it's like when you lie about your strength at the weight room.

You keep forgetting that the people do not elect the president/vice president, but the electoral college does. Your vote on November 8 is meaningless, so if there were voting irregularities in the presidential elections it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans and has no bearing on the real vote that matters which is the electoral college. Try reading the 12th Amendment and Article II Section I Clause II of the Constitution sometime. :angel:

As for GW rigging the campaign it wouldn't serve their purpose to do so. However, players have everything to gain from rigging the campaign to achieve the desired results of the Imperium coming out on top again. GW only promised that a world would die, but left the method of the destruction up to the players based on who won the campaign based on a set list of possibilities for the method of destruction.

Too bad GW didn't list Sisters of Battle or Daemonhunters as a force option because it would have been a great demise to a planet by using exterminatus. :D

Lex Luthor
16-09-2006, 01:51
You must also take into account those who don't actually play, and who decide to submit false battle reports with nothing but crushing victories for their own side, and many accounts to do it with. I feel the campaign was decided more on the fanatism of people doing this, than the real gamers out there playing.

hellfire
16-09-2006, 03:26
probably not
they don't really get more noobs to buy stuff buy rigging a campaign most noobs don't know that campaigns exist

edit @the-patriot: :wtf: almost every state uses majority voting to decide where the electoral votes go and the ones that still use the old system almost always vote with thier populations

Khaine's Messenger
16-09-2006, 04:20
edit @the-patriot: :wtf: almost every state uses majority voting to decide where the electoral votes go and the ones that still use the old system almost always vote with thier populations

While that is true, the electoral college still does not ensure a 100% preservation of the effects of the popular vote, giving the system a bit of a granularity. At least two presidents have indeed won the electoral college while losing the popular vote. This stems primarily from the "winner take all" system present in so many states that guarantees whoever wins the 100% support of all a state's electoral votes (there are a couple that don't use this system, but only a couple).

Which is a good point to make re: this campaign. Just because the numbers sway one way does not mean the results will follow due to whatever arcane means they have to determine victory. I don't think GW rigged it (although I've "heard tell" of various rigging going on), and I'd prefer to think players didn't rig it, but that's only because I prefer to have rose-tinted glasses about this whole situation. The biggest unknown here is who and what is accountable to whom or what. After the "code" got cracked in EoT, one might argue all the fun died. And so here we are...grasping at straws.

The_Patriot
16-09-2006, 04:29
probably not
they don't really get more noobs to buy stuff buy rigging a campaign most noobs don't know that campaigns exist

edit @the-patriot: :wtf: almost every state uses majority voting to decide where the electoral votes go and the ones that still use the old system almost always vote with thier populations

Actually not entirely true. The states use an electoral slate system where every party has their electors. Depending upon how the popular vote goes determines which electoral slate is used. The electoral college votes who they think best fits as president even if they vote for the opposite party. It still doesn't change the fact that the popular vote means exactly jack and crap. Personally I like the old way of doing it which was before partisan politics entered into the fray.

Lord of ???
16-09-2006, 08:57
Guys please get back on topic its about the GW campaign not the Presidential campaign

Splagbot
16-09-2006, 10:59
Yes back on topic please, I don't want to have to close the thread.