Conquer Club

OK here is the senario

In a 3 player game, player A starts with a continent and quickly develops the board. With good dice, Player A looks as though he can win game hands down.

Players B and C join forces, and together a approximatly the same strength as player A. After several rounds, Players B and C declare the alliance over and play against each other again.

After the game, Player A leaves negative feedback due to the alliance. Should this feedback be removed?

Rocketry

Obviously yes - it's a legit (and a good) tactic. I wouldn't hold your breath though - I've been waiting months to have mine removed

No, if it is factual and adheres to the guidelines for feedback.

Even so I agree with RobinJ, it's a legit tactic.

the most disgraceful thing is the 3 player alliance ...its nonesense... so stop the whining rock

the feedback is pretty much spot on if you ask me...

you feel you did nothing wrong and it was a viable tactic that you would repeat.

This player is letting other people know that you make alliances like a little bitch.


I would rather lose than peacebear...

Yeah. Alliances are in general lame in my opinion but I understand why people enter into them sometimes. And if he feels that way, well, too bad. It's not a rule violation though, but people have different opinions here I guess. Dunno. No one is innocent.

This recently happened to me, but I didn't leave a negative. I don't mind if I lose, I was the strongest player and then got teamed up against, but I still don't think a negative is required, only when you actually care about the game so much that you would.

Rocketry wrote:OK here is the senario

In a 3 player game, player A starts with a continent and quickly develops the board. With good dice, Player A looks as though he can win game hands down.

Players B and C join forces, and together a approximatly the same strength as player A. After several rounds, Players B and C declare the alliance over and play against each other again.

After the game, Player A leaves negative feedback due to the alliance. Should this feedback be removed?

Rocketry

1.Were you in this scenario before?
2.Did they make a secret alliance?
You want opinion, you got it!
3.If Player A won, then it's pretty unneccesary to leave negative feedback. But if Player A lost due to the alliance, then it's a bit reasonable to leave negative feedback so it shouldn't be deleted.

Honibaz

I find myself in more alliances with high ranked players, than low ranked

but they arent really alliances...more...statements of fact...IE red...im obviously not going to attack you while blue owns 99% of the board kind of things....

but even when offered real alliance, i wont refuse per-se, to keep person from getting mad and demolishing me...but wont accept anything formally usually...and just say its not in my best interest to attack you right now...your safe for a while probably....thats about as in depth as im comfortable getting into...

it also depends on the players... if you know them all, than you can have some fun with the chat and strategies...if they are all strangers, or worse, you make an alliance with the one person you happen to know in the game...thats an entirely different situation... thats not an alliance...its team play

in any case though the game is much more fun without stating intentions...not knowing what everyone is going to do...and trying to get them to do what you want is really what the game is about....

Alliances are an accepted part of the game, just like they've been a part of RISK since its inception. Someone's personal opinion that alliances are "bitchy" or "lame," considering that someone who would describe them so probably wasn't even born when the game came out, has no bearing on the actual function of the game.

i.e. Player A started with an unusual advantage, was whacked by an alliance, and abused the negative feedback function by... whining like lame little bitch over an accepted, strategic aspect of the game which did not involve bug abuse, cheating, or underhanded behavior.

perfectly legit. No negative feeback should of been given. Alliences are part of war. In real life if some allies to take you downyou arent going to say "Im never attacking you again! you fight cheaply"

it was a smart move by players B and C. It was their only chance, and it worked. That's just part of war. It even says so on the box!

It was a perfectly legit move. In my own opinion, and my own game play for that matter, I prefer to have no alliances, and I dont ask for them because I want to challenge myself to win it...myself. But if someone makes an alliance against me, and its announced, well, power to them. Geeze, it not like we get money for our ranks or points, nor are lives or armies actually lost in gameplay, its supposed to be for Fun.

dominationnation wrote:perfectly legit. No negative feeback should of been given. Alliences are part of war. In real life if some allies to take you downyou arent going to say "Im never attacking you again! you fight cheaply"

Dunno. I kind of agree. The whole feedback debacle that went down due to this game seems unnecessary and uncalled for. The two sides just had different opinions on how the game should be played (and no obvious rule violation occured). And both sides seems to have resorted to some foul language and taunting. I think they all should have used the ignore list and went on with their lifes. But, the whole feedback system and the way it's applied, well it invites to these kinds of game style preferences being battled out through feedbacks. And since it's ok to do this, dunno if one can really argue one way or the other. People do hand out feedbacks for alliances, and I guess they might as well if they feel like it. But that's just my two cents.

Id say alliances are OK, but only to a certain point. Alliances that last until the player alligned against is eliminated is a is a dirty tactic, because your taking a player that outplayed you out of the game. Its fine if you align to weaken or take away bonuses, but it sucks when great players have 2-3 players team up against them because they couldnt win on their own.

Gold Knight wrote:Id say alliances are OK, but only to a certain point. Alliances that last until the player alligned against is eliminated is a is a dirty tactic, because your taking a player that outplayed you out of the game. Its fine if you align to weaken or take away bonuses, but it sucks when great players have 2-3 players team up against them because they couldnt win on their own.

i agree. in this situation, once all players were equal again, the alliance was declared over

chessplaya wrote:the most disgraceful thing is the 3 player alliance ...its nonesense... so stop the whining rock

lol chess.

What about if Players B and C are as powerful as Player A only when put together.

Its fair for a few rounds surly? To even things out.

Rocketry

In a sense, the whole formal alliance thing seems just to bring bickering to games and to post-games interaction. There always seems to be issues with respect to forming alliances and ending them.

In an ideal game, you have players that knows their way around the game, playing reasonably strategically according to their means. If one player is clearly starting to take over the game, good players don't need a formal alliance. They would simply leave each other alone, focusing on the realt threat. Doing this, one wouldn't have to deal with whining about an alliance. (Ok, there may be a secret alliance claim, but that's a different story.)

alstergren wrote:In a sense, the whole formal alliance thing seems just to bring bickering to games and to post-games interaction. There always seems to be issues with respect to forming alliances and ending them.

In an ideal game, you have players that knows their way around the game, playing reasonably strategically according to their means. If one player is clearly starting to take over the game, good players don't need a formal alliance. They would simply leave each other alone, focusing on the realt threat. Doing this, one wouldn't have to deal with whining about an alliance. (Ok, there may be a secret alliance claim, but that's a different story.)

you have some good points.

Trouble is - you cant always trust the other player to see who is the threat (especially if you are playing with inexperienced players and like you say, this can give rise to the illusion of a secret alliance.

the best thing to do in to make countless multis and then join all his games and gang up on him.

Cronus wrote:the best thing to do in to make countless multis and then join all his games and gang up on him.

Garunteed to work....until your accounts are purged....

Cronus wrote:the best thing to do in to make countless multis and then join all his games and gang up on him.

thats a really good idea...

why didnt i think of it?????????????????????/

Rocketry

Rocketry wrote:

Cronus wrote:the best thing to do in to make countless multis and then join all his games and gang up on him.

thats a really good idea...

why didnt i think of it?????????????????????/

Rocketry

Ill avoid the games that have Rocketry1, Rocketry2, and Rocketry3

agtsmitty wrote:

Rocketry wrote:

Cronus wrote:the best thing to do in to make countless multis and then join all his games and gang up on him.

thats a really good idea...

why didnt i think of it?????????????????????/

Rocketry

Ill avoid the games that have Rocketry1, Rocketry2, and Rocketry3

lol

This alliance was made in the second round. it continued til round 12 0r 13 in a three player game. I didnt state anything against the other players just stated the strategy they use. If they are proud and find nothing wrong with this form of play. Then why are they embarrassed about the feedback.
I spent 2 1/2 playing a RT game i couldn't win. Not becuase of my skills but because of this crap. Real players need not Allign. They see the board and make moves according taking a Risk sometimes on whether their fellow players are aware of their situation. To Allign in such a way means their is no or at least limited risk.
It not only ruins good games. It cripples the players useing it. I have been in many games were i was all but counted out. Came back and won through strategy. When players use alliances they will never get to that level of play. Not to mention truly good players will become discouraged and leave this site.
My motivations arent to insult or penalize rocketry. They are simply to inform and warn future players of his tendencies. Once again if he is proud of his techniuqe then what is wrong with telling the world. I suspect he has already run into trouble with getting people to join games.
In response to his plea, I offered rocket a deal. If he refrains from useing alliances for the next 20 games i'll remove the feedback. He declined. So i guess he choses to continue to use alliances.

SO STAND TALL ROCKET AND ACCEPT YOUR DECISION. IF YOU TRULY FEEL THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WHAT YOU ARE DOING THEN THE FEEDBACK WONT MATTER AND SHOULDN'T BOTHER YOU IN THE LEAST.

IF YOU CANT WIN BY YOURSELF THEN "YOU" NEVER WIN!!!!!