Vendetta Strategy

by **Rahm Es Hestos** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:06 am

Hello all, just a quick question posed toward ya. Do you think Vendetta strategy, or playing in order to get revenge on another player is an acceptable/decent way to play? I know it's everyone 's right to play the way they wish, but I personally believe that those gamers who choose to ruin games simply to gratify there own childish ego deserve to be shot, then banned from conquer club of course. Case in point, this game:

2656968

by **BaldAdonis** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:14 am

You played for a continent in an escalating game, and didn't give that player a round to move out, even though he implied he would. I think you lost that game on your own.

by **owenshooter** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:01 am

SELF EDIT:i had no idea there was a reading chart test at the bottom of the original post!!! to my merit and credit, i shall let my jackass comments stand, because i still stand by them, even though they are 200% incorrect!!! enjoy!

no, no, no.. he just wants it all validated! you can tell because he didn't post the game number! if he did that, we would be able to see the game and READ THE CHAT... 2 things that surely would sway anyone that reads it, to say he is in the wrong.. just my guess... sooooo, game number,please?-0

by **BaldAdonis** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:19 am

owenshooter wrote:no, no, no.. he just wants it all validated! you can tell because he didn't post the game number! if he did that, we would be able to see the game and READ THE CHAT... 2 things that surely would sway anyone that reads it, to say he is in the wrong.. just my guess... sooooo, game number,please?-0

Have you updated the prescription on your glasses recently owen? I know a good optometrist in the Dalls/Fort Worth area if you need someone.

by **owenshooter** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:21 am

BaldAdonis wrote:
owenshooter wrote:no, no, no.. he just wants it all validated! you can tell because he didn't post the game number! if he did that, we would be able to see the game and READ THE CHAT... 2 things that surely would sway anyone that reads it, to say he is in the wrong.. just my guess... sooooo, game number,please?-0

Have you updated the prescription on your glasses recently owen? I know a good optometrist in the Dalls/Fort Worth area if you need someone.

HA!!! i didn't know it was an EYE EXAM at the bottom of the damn original post!!! ha!! look at that gap!! how am i supposed to see that? is this a forum or an eye exam?!!! ha!! and why would i drive up to DFW when i'm in austin? do you know how long that takes? and with MY EYES, i'd die in a fiery wreck!

now, as a matter of fact, i AGREE with the OP! he didn't do anything, and ended up with this when he didn't do what a player asked him to do, because he was playing his own game:
2008-06-15 23:32:08 - RenewIT: you are forever a enemy now
2008-06-15 23:32:17 - RenewIT: i will fight you the whole game no matter what

soooo, yeah, pretty childish.. agree with the OP, until someone comes along and tells me how i misread the chat, what an idiot i am,and how i should change my opinion... then i will...-0

by **Timminz** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:44 am

I agree with Owen, and Baldy. Vengeful play like that is uncalled for, but so is what you did. However, one was attitude based, and the other, skill (and attitude, since he implied he was willing to let you have the bonus, and you killed him anyway).

by **gdeangel** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:51 am

I'm going to strongly disagree here. I think tit-for-tat is an effective strategy... if used correctly. When someone makes a bone head move, like break your bonus when you are not a threat to them, and someone else is running away with the game, I think it's perfectly legit to inflict a little pain on them... maybe not total suicide and ruin the game, but give a little taste of what they will get if they continue to play like an A$$. And say in the chat why you did it, of course.

Caveat - what I said above is more relevant for flat, or no card games that are going to run long and tend to deadlock. If you looking at esc, then you just have to keep your head and count your cards.

by **detlef** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:55 am

OK, I've read the chat and think that the OP completely, 100% brought that upon himself. Green announced that he was going, not only get out of the way but focus on another player. Red not only attacked him but was an ass about doing so in chat so it's not even like he failed to read the chat (which is a common excuse for such actions). I would like to think I would rise above and not waste myself against such an ass, but I can certainly understand someone doing so.

While it usually takes much, much longer for me to reach that level of tilt, I have, at some point (usually once it is abundantly clear that I have almost no chance at all at winning because of some dumb ass who put me in that position without substantially bettering his own cause) said, "screw it", and gone suicidal on the guy.

Again, I don't think I would have done so here, but it's not inconceivable.

Note to OP. You'd be better advised to take this opportunity to learn from your own foolish actions than complain about it in the forums. Otherwise, you learn nothing.

by **cre8tiff** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:50 am

I find it far more irritating to play with Russian-roulette types. You know, they don't take anything, just choose SOMEBODY (seemingly at random) #-o

and use the whole game just to wear them down.

by **owenshooter** on Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:11 am

cre8tiff wrote:I find it far more irritating to play with Russian-roulette types. You know, they don't take anything, just choose SOMEBODY (seemingly at random) and use the whole game just to wear them down.

sounds like me trying to get into melissa rountrees panties from 7th-12th grade... anyway, that game chat is pretty interesting. i have never been in a game with chat that pointed at what people should do, etc... i don't know how i feel about that!-0

by **Rahm Es Hestos** on Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:26 pm

Well after actually checking back on this thread, I think a large portion of you who read it misunderstood what was going on. For one, I was going for South America and not Africa (I had 15 men on Brazil right before the turn I took it and then RenewIt brought in 10 men from Central America to Venezuela). For two, he didn't offer to leave South America, he wanted me to leave it and try to go for Africa, which although it did have 2 of his army groupings there that he could of moved, was also occupied by the armies of the other players that I would have had to kill wherein South America was owned largely by me save the 10 men he moved there. Three, he wanted me to hand him a continent while I tried to grab a hold of the much harder to defend Africa. Sure, I might have been an ass about taking SA, but honestly he came into a continent that I largely controlled with an inferior army and expected me to leave....ridiculous.

by **Scott-Land** on Tue Jun 17, 2008 10:35 pm

Retaliatory attacks are almost as gratifying as winning...... you throw the first blow-- don't whine when someone comes back at you. It's not ego nor is wrong-- it's simply a message.

by **bbqpenguin** on Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:22 pm

retaliatory attacks are immature and generally unproductive towards a win... few people would logically do them

with that said, you're not playing against robots, you're playing people. and people don't always make the most logical move. you have to expect this; if you're gonna screw someone over, they might try and return the favor. it's even forseeable someone will constantly attack you for no reason. generally, the second half of risk, diplomacy, comes into play somewhere around here.

of course, even diplomacy fails sometimes (actually, lots of times on websites where everyone from child molesters to 9 year olds who didn't take their ridilin today to PMSing monsters play). unfortunately there's not really much you can do about it. on the bright side, if they really are picking a person at random, it's as likely to be someone else as it is you. you might not complain as much if it were an opponent getting senselessly beat

by **protectedbygold** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:11 am

I personally would always try to win the game honorably. A retaliatory attack cheapens the quality of the game. Human nature being what it is though, we know that deep down it feels so good to bring others down rather than try to lift up the integrity of the game. In general, I think an attack like that is childish.

I voted no

by **Scott-Land** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:21 am

meh-- I have no idea the situation in this case but generally speaking it can be a strategic move. retaliatory attacks im speaking of are about isolation. I play with the same guys and you have to put doubt in their minds- deter them from hitting you because they know you will hit them back. a reputation you're building.

retaliatory as in suicides are very gratifying. your game was already over when they hit a big stack. so winning isn't an option or at least futile. so why not have some fun with a little pay back?

but yeah, the top players think they can recover so they don't retaliate.... doesn't mean they don't want to. they're just giving in for the bigger picture-- a potential win.

by **wcaclimbing** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:30 am

Rahm Es Hestos wrote:I personally believe that those gamers who choose to ruin games simply to gratify there own childish ego deserve to be shot, then banned from conquer club of course.

Anyone in a game with me that ruins a game like that would earn an instant 1 in every rating, and added to the group ignore lists of different clans that I am in. That is awful.

RenewIT is going on my ignore list. I don't want him doing that in one of my games.
I've had a few people go all out against me in my time on CC. And this is one less that I will have to deal with.

by **realmss** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:27 am

gdeangel wrote:I'm going to strongly disagree here. I think tit-for-tat is an effective strategy... if used correctly. When someone makes a bone head move, like break your bonus when you are not a threat to them, and someone else is running away with the game, I think it's perfectly legit to inflict a little pain on them... maybe not total suicide and ruin the game, but give a little taste of what they will get if they continue to play like an A$$. And say in the chat why you did it, of course.

Caveat - what I said above is more relevant for flat, or no card games that are going to run long and tend to deadlock. If you looking at esc, then you just have to keep your head and count your cards.

agreed. If someone ruins my chance of winning, why would I want them to win?

by **FabledIntegral** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:12 am

I use a vendetta strategy in probably 75% of my games when someone does what I personally deem (which is all that matters, since I'm the one making the moves) a stupid move on me. I can be an absolute ass in games. For example the most recent 8-player escalating I played, someone cashed for 4 (the very first cash in escalating) and wiped me out of Brazil because he didn't want me there.... in other words he took out a 6 of mine early game leaving me with I think around 11 armies on the field. Did I still have a shot at winning? Yeah. But I decided to cash my set instead and suicide into his nearest stack in retaliation.

I basically view it as "I'm not just going to sit around and let someone ruin my game. They ruin my game, I'll ruin their game back." Perfectly acceptable in my eyes.

gdeangel wrote:

I'm going to strongly disagree here. I think tit-for-tat is an effective strategy... if used correctly. When someone makes a bone head move, like break your bonus when you are not a threat to them, and someone else is running away with the game, I think it's perfectly legit to inflict a little pain on them... maybe not total suicide and ruin the game, but give a little taste of what they will get if they continue to play like an A$$. And say in the chat why you did it, of course.

Caveat - what I said above is more relevant for flat, or no card games that are going to run long and tend to deadlock. If you looking at esc, then you just have to keep your head and count your cards.

Not really tit-for-tat is it? Considering you don't just take an equal jab back - or at least I don't^^.

by **gdeangel** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:07 am

FabledIntegral wrote:I use a vendetta strategy in probably 75% of my games when someone does what I personally deem (which is all that matters, since I'm the one making the moves) a stupid move on me. I can be an absolute ass in games. For example the most recent 8-player escalating I played, someone cashed for 4 (the very first cash in escalating) and wiped me out of Brazil because he didn't want me there.... in other words he took out a 6 of mine early game leaving me with I think around 11 armies on the field. Did I still have a shot at winning? Yeah. But I decided to cash my set instead and suicide into his nearest stack in retaliation.

I basically view it as "I'm not just going to sit around and let someone ruin my game. They ruin my game, I'll ruin their game back." Perfectly acceptable in my eyes.

gdeangel wrote:

I'm going to strongly disagree here. I think tit-for-tat is an effective strategy... if used correctly. When someone makes a bone head move, like break your bonus when you are not a threat to them, and someone else is running away with the game, I think it's perfectly legit to inflict a little pain on them... maybe not total suicide and ruin the game, but give a little taste of what they will get if they continue to play like an A$$. And say in the chat why you did it, of course.

Caveat - what I said above is more relevant for flat, or no card games that are going to run long and tend to deadlock. If you looking at esc, then you just have to keep your head and count your cards.

Not really tit-for-tat is it? Considering you don't just take an equal jab back - or at least I don't^^.

I guess that's true, but it's an offensive move I wouldn't otherwise make based primarily on a prior offensive moves against me, so I'd call it a vendetta ...

by **PLAYER57832** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:46 am

gdeangel wrote:I'm going to strongly disagree here. I think tit-for-tat is an effective strategy... if used correctly. When someone makes a bone head move, like break your bonus when you are not a threat to them, and someone else is running away with the game, I think it's perfectly legit to inflict a little pain on them... maybe not total suicide and ruin the game, but give a little taste of what they will get if they continue to play like an A$$. And say in the chat why you did it, of course.

Caveat - what I said above is more relevant for flat, or no card games that are going to run long and tend to deadlock. If you looking at esc, then you just have to keep your head and count your cards.

While I can see your point, I think the issue is that if you do this you will probably not get 5's for attitude or "fair play". I am not saying you should get a 1, but act how you will and then "take your medicine".

(and yes, I have been known to do this on occasion .. not too often, but once in a while ... maybe twice in over 6000 games ... )

Also, in many cases whatever move you do will help one or other player ... so, you just pick one. Maybe there is no reason and maybe there is a reason. Some people decide to consider that a "vendetta" or reason to start one. Not much to do but just say "life is too short to let this upset me."

Anyway, this is just one more reason why ratings with no detail is pretty hard to interpret.

by **detlef** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:46 am

I don't think what you're talking about is vendetta gd. Smacking a guy back who's been making needless offenses towards you has a purpose. Basically saying, "How long do you want to keep this BS up? We can go like this til we're both dead or you can wise up and look elsewhere."

I believe what is being discussed here is, "Gloves off a-hole. For some stupid reason, you've needlessly taken me out of this game without really improving your position on the board. Congrats, now you have a sworn enemy who will devote the rest of his turns to seeing you don't win. How'd that work out? Not so good, eh?"

by **PLAYER57832** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:51 am

wcaclimbing wrote:
Rahm Es Hestos wrote:I personally believe that those gamers who choose to ruin games simply to gratify there own childish ego deserve to be shot, then banned from conquer club of course.

Anyone in a game with me that ruins a game like that would earn an instant 1 in every rating, and added to the group ignore lists of different clans that I am in. That is awful.

RenewIT is going on my ignore list. I don't want him doing that in one of my games.
I've had a few people go all out against me in my time on CC. And this is one less that I will have to deal with.

This is one more reason why I often think we need some kind of "grown ups" league ... though it is not necessarily always an age issue. (some kids play quite nicely and some adults don't). Maybe a "play nice" league????

by **detlef** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:00 am

wcaclimbing wrote:
Rahm Es Hestos wrote:I personally believe that those gamers who choose to ruin games simply to gratify there own childish ego deserve to be shot, then banned from conquer club of course.

Anyone in a game with me that ruins a game like that would earn an instant 1 in every rating, and added to the group ignore lists of different clans that I am in. That is awful.

RenewIT is going on my ignore list. I don't want him doing that in one of my games.
I've had a few people go all out against me in my time on CC. And this is one less that I will have to deal with.

Aren't you guys completely discounting the OP's asinine play? Now, like I stated before, it doesn't seem like enough to make me go tilt the way this guy did but Rahm, you really, really, need to learn more from this than who to put on your ignore list. Your actions in the game where just plain stupid and you made the situation worse by acting like an ass while doing something stupid.

See, there's two ways to avoid players going ballistic on you in a game. One is to add those inclined to do so to your ignore list. Unfortunately, that's rather reactionary because it likely means it already happened to you. The other, far more effective way is to avoid inspiring that behavior in other players.

Now, if you want to act self righteous here and think it was all about him and nothing to do with you, that's your choice. However, if you continue to make ill-advised moves and act like an ass while doing so, your foe list is going to keep growing.

by **ParadiceCity9** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:31 am

Nothin wrong with that.

by **gdeangel** on Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:31 pm

Well here's any honest dilemma I've come up against in a game: suppose a player doesn't respond to something in the chat, like you tell them to move out of the way so you can get to the leader and focus attack, and you are both hanging on by a thread ATM, you just have a more concentrated attack force and slightly better deployment. Instead of getting out of the way, the other guy (who has no chance of surviving a head no directed attack by the leader) deploys more troops on the spot you asked him to move off of (which has not strategic value to him either). Now you know that in a couple of turns you both will be dead, and normally you wouldn't waste troops attacking this guy, or even to get through to the leader, cause you'll probably not have enough left when you get out the other end. If you go through him anyway - maybe just eliminate him entirely cause he's pissing away the game (he's down to 2 adjacent territories, and to go through the trouble of getting through where you plan the offensive means leaving him with 3 guys) - would you call that an "a-hole vendetta"?