Page 1 of 2
Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:08 amby lex1
Interested it people's opinion on Alliances. I'm in a game which got down to 3 pretty evenly matched players. All had roughly the same number of armies, the other 2 were drawing 7 each turn. I was drawing 8. A tit for tat arms race with small excursions developed.
At this point the other 2 plays formed an alliance. They did it openly on chat so there's no back channels stuff going on. I consider this kind of collusion not only unsporting but also cheating. One of the other players considers it a fair part of the game. I personally wouldn't enter an alliance even if It were the difference between winning and loosing. I'm wondering what the general feeling is among other players.
For anybody interested the game, which we're still playing, can be found here:-
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2879904
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:21 amby Stroop
Never ally in a game with 3 players left, it just isn't fair towards the player on his own, who sees his chances of winning slim down to nothing, while he might have been doing awesome before.
Even if you had been stronger, both players should have realized attacking you would be better even without an alliance.
I wouldn't slow down the game either though, as you are playing with a freemium player too
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:37 amby owenshooter
i think alliances are for weak players... if you get outplayed or out-lucked... deal with it and move on to your next game.-0
p.s.-it was very hard to not comment on the "single plater games" and "alliences"... i am feeling kind OR being watched... which is it? hmmmmm....
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:11 pmby Lindax
I personally don't like alliances, especially not when there are only 3 players (left). I agree that it is "unfair" when you fight hard to become the strongest and suddenly you're facing the other two becoming one, stronger opponent. The only thing I do sometimes is agree not to attack at a certain border for a few turns....
MHO
.
.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:30 pmby Simon Viavant
Alliances are an awesome and fun part of the game. Playing without alliances just increases luck by a lot. Yeah, it's kinda unfair when all three of you are equal, but otherwise the game was gonna turn into a complete stalemate and last for months unless it was instantly decided by freakish luck. If I was in their place, I woulda done the same thing. Propaganda and diplomacy can be another factor of a risk game, and it's more fun that way.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:08 pmby owenshooter
Simon Viavant wrote:Alliances are an awesome and fun part of the game. Playing without alliances just increases luck by a lot.
says the guy with 16 wins in 105 games...-0
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:42 pmby Simon Viavant
owenshooter wrote:Simon Viavant wrote:Alliances are an awesome and fun part of the game. Playing without alliances just increases luck by a lot.
says the guy with 16 wins in 105 games...-0
Because people here don't like alliances.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 2:24 pmby gdeangel
There is no problem with this, but it's poor sportsmanship. Maybe I could see it if your breaking a log jam that's been going on for ages. What's even worse in my book is when two strong players make an alliance to kill of the weaker player(s). Foe them.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 3:12 pmby Kemmler
The powers of persuasion often do good.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 3:59 pmby Timminz
gdeangel wrote:Foe them.
That's what I'd do.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:07 pmby hwhrhett
alliances are for players that dont know any better. alliances NEVER truely benefit both parties involved, at least one of them is always a sucker. you can know this for certain by taking notice of the fact that alliances never happen between players captain or above. but alliances are well within the rules, as well they should be. and whenever im in a 3-way tie up and the other two folks are plotting an alliance against me, since i ultimately cant fight 2 people who are targeting me, i try to mostly only fight the person who started the alliance, and make my actions well known in chat. in hopes that this will make them think twice before they try to start an alliance in their next game. also, foe em both, and leave em 1's for gameplay, and 1's for fairness. because even tho its within the rules, an alliance shows an inconcern for fairness, and a complete lack of knowledge on the workings of the game.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:15 pmby White Moose
Kemmler wrote:The powers of persuasion often do good.
So true. You can win quite a lot of games by using persuasion
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:05 pmby FabledIntegral
Alliances don't happen amongst the higher ranked - instead the players might simply both know what's in their best interest and attack the stronger, or something of that sort. Unwritten logic is applied.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:32 amby Sentinel XIV
owenshooter wrote:p.s.-it was very hard to not comment on the "single plater games" and "alliences"... i am feeling kind OR being watched... which is it? hmmmmm....
Come on. You have to ask?
I certainly don't like alliance, especially in three-player games. However, I hate it when someone is obviously stronger and one person continues to ignore him/her.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:41 amby whitestazn88
alliances are fair game... nothing to it
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:46 amby FabledIntegral
whitestazn88 wrote:alliances are fair game... nothing to it
Many would disagree with you on that. Three players are equal and two people jump the gun to ally so as to make sure the other two don't ally... that isn't strategically playing, that's singling someone else out. As said previously, and not just by me, you won't find any of these alliances in upper tier games, simply because they are for the silly idiots that can't win a game legitimately by themselves.
I'm not saying there isn't any ''blue why are you attacking me when green is obvoiusly stronger'' or two players focus on one player more than each other, but these situations are
1) when eihter blue is being retarded and not reading the board properly, or green is overexaggerating a situation
2) when both players realize the third is the strongest and attempt to weaken him, although at any point either of them could take advantage of the other attackig the third player and try to sweep them both.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:59 amby whitestazn88
i'm not saying i like it fabled... its happened to me for no reason in the first round because i had 3/4ths of a continent on the drop...
and its not fun, but its within the rules, and if it happens, it happens. this is still just a game
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:44 amby lex1
Timminz wrote:gdeangel wrote:Foe them.
That's what I'd do.
What does Foe mean?
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:02 amby Nikolai
It's perfectly fair and reasonable. I know when I'm playing, if I have the superior position, I always play like the other two are teamed up against me anyway... because I know if they're any good they'll be working together to take me down, alliance or no.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:36 amby Elijah S
Alliencies in single plater games???? WTF!
Dude, if you've got aliens on your platter you should probably call the Men in Black or something!
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:40 amby Sentinel XIV
lex1 wrote:Timminz wrote:gdeangel wrote:Foe them.
That's what I'd do.
What does Foe mean?
foe–noun
1. a person who feels enmity, hatred, or malice toward another; enemy: a bitter foe.
2. a military enemy; hostile army.
3. a person belonging to a hostile army or nation.
4. an opponent in a game or contest; adversary: a political foe.
5. a person who is opposed in feeling, principle, etc., to something: a foe to progress in civil rights.
6. a thing that is harmful to or destructive of something: Sloth is the foe of health.
In the case of Conquer Club, it means to add them to your foe list so you don't have to play them, read their posts, read their in-game chat, etc.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:42 amby Tisha
Sentinel XIV wrote:lex1 wrote:Timminz wrote:gdeangel wrote:Foe them.
That's what I'd do.
What does Foe mean?
foe–noun
1. a person who feels enmity, hatred, or malice toward another; enemy: a bitter foe.
2. a military enemy; hostile army.
3. a person belonging to a hostile army or nation.
4. an opponent in a game or contest; adversary: a political foe.
5. a person who is opposed in feeling, principle, etc., to something: a foe to progress in civil rights.
6. a thing that is harmful to or destructive of something: Sloth is the foe of health.
In the case of Conquer Club, it means to add them to your foe list so you don't have to play them, read their posts, read their in-game chat, etc.
there is a list you can put them on..under Personal Menu, then Control Panel.. then friends/foes
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:21 pmby lancehoch
The foe list has been covered with the player via PM. Please remain on topic.
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:25 pmby whitestazn88
foe-ing is klobbers favorite activity besides making multi's to play circus max with
Re: Alliencies in single plater games.
Posted:
Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:32 pmby Sentinel XIV
whitestazn88 wrote:foe-ing is klobbers favorite activity besides making multi's to play circus max with
lance said to keep it on-topic, azn.
I've already stated my two cents, but I'll add in another penny. If a skilled player can manipulate another player, through an alliance, in order to better his own cause, then good on 'im.