Alliance in a 3 person game by aesofspades91

elcameron · Post by **elcameron** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:08 pm

Negative: Alliance in a 3 player game is worth neg. feedback

aesofspades91's response: sorry dude, its just a strategy that i sometimes use that led me to win the game. no need to be a poor sport about it.

For anyone who is interested.284972

neoni · Post by **neoni** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:22 pm

there's nothing wrong with alliances if they're announced, and that one was.

Molacole · Post by **Molacole** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:42 pm

anyone who creates and alliance against another person in a 3 player games completely sucks ass. NO EXCEPTIONS!

elcameron · Post by **elcameron** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:42 pm

neoni wrote:there's nothing wrong with alliances if they're announced, and that one was.

I feel that an all out alliance in a 3 person game is unsporting. And don't give me that war crap, this is an online game, not war.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:44 pm

elcameron wrote:
neoni wrote:there's nothing wrong with alliances if they're announced, and that one was.

I feel that an all out alliance in a 3 person game is unsporting. And don't give me that war crap, this is an online game, not war.

actually i see nothing wrong. it usually happens when one of th 3 guys gets too strong. :wink:

it happened to me once. the other 2 allied against me and i started losing. with some luck and carefull planning i managed to infiltrate in another part of the map and secure a nice position. i got stronger and asked one of the guys to ally against his ally. he accepted. after some time he betrayed me and i was really pissed. then the first guy that was betrayed eliminated th unsporty guy and in the end i won. :lol:

it's all about diplomacy

Captain Crash · Post by **Captain Crash** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:47 pm

Molacole wrote:anyone who creates and alliance against another person in a 3 player games completely sucks ass. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Sucks? Yes
Illegal? No.

My 2 cents

neoni · Post by **neoni** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:02 am

elcameron wrote:
neoni wrote:there's nothing wrong with alliances if they're announced, and that one was.

I feel that an all out alliance in a 3 person game is unsporting. And don't give me that war crap, this is an online game, not war.

sometimes it is just necessary. if one person holds asia and oceania it is ridiculous for the other two to keep squabling over the four remaining continents and kill each other.

plus, i've won every three player game i've been in where the other two have allied against me. makes it all the more satisfying. :twisted:

Beastly · Post by **Beastly** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:19 am

I had two people make a alliance in a 3 person game before I could even play... and then when i bitched about it, I got left a negative feedback...

Before I could even attack, they had me set up...

So I don't play 3 person games anymore...

it was legal B.S.

flashleg8 · Post by **flashleg8** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:35 am

3 player alliances?
Its bad form I'd say but depends on the game. If one guys clearly ahead then obviously a truce has to be called between the other two, at least till its more balanced. I just hate it if people try to start one in the first or second turn – much too early to know how the game will play out.
I have nothing against alliances in 4 or more player games, in fact I like the diplomacy aspect of risk the most - though its harder online than face-to-face.

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:13 am

No, table talk/ alliances are what makes this game a game of skill rather than a game of luck.

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

tahitiwahini · Post by **tahitiwahini** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:50 am

Legal? Of course, it was announced.

Unsportsmanlike? Why? I've listened to a lot of arguments about this, but none of them made any sense to me. See http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12305

If it upset you it would have been more appropriate in my opinion to leave neutral feedback (especially now that the recipient can respond to it) rather than negative feedback. As is is I think it makes you look like a poor sport. For one thing it makes people curious about negative feedback that has been left for you.

Alliances are a legal diplomatic tactic sanctioned by the rules. Learn how to deal with them if you want to be a better player.

Or, set up private games in which a condition of joining is agreement not to use diplomacy in the game.

elcameron · Post by **elcameron** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:41 am

tahitiwahini wrote:Legal? Of course, it was announced.

Unsportsmanlike? Why? I've listened to a lot of arguments about this, but none of them made any sense to me. See http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12305

If it upset you it would have been more appropriate in my opinion to leave neutral feedback (especially now that the recipient can respond to it) rather than negative feedback. As is is I think it makes you look like a poor sport. For one thing it makes people curious about negative feedback that has been left for you.

Alliances are a legal diplomatic tactic sanctioned by the rules. Learn how to deal with them if you want to be a better player.

Or, set up private games in which a condition of joining is agreement not to use diplomacy in the game.

You miss the point entirely. Using diplomacy is fine, Alliances are fine, all part of the game. I am not being a poor sport, I lost, lost the points, etc. the game is history.

The point is an unlimited alliance in a three person game. Not on one border, or for so many rounds. Just flat out two players eliminating one equal. Not a stronger player, just random. It is unsportsmanlike. And not much fun, even for the winner. No stratagy involved, and really no diplomacy. Diplomacy involves negotiation, compromise, and persuation.

My 2cents[/list]

tahitiwahini · Post by **tahitiwahini** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:43 am

elcameron wrote:You miss the point entirely. Using diplomacy is fine, Alliances are fine, all part of the game. I am not being a poor sport, I lost, lost the points, etc. the game is history.

The point is an unlimited alliance in a three person game. Not on one border, or for so many rounds. Just flat out two players eliminating one equal. Not a stronger player, just random. It is unsportsmanlike. And not much fun, even for the winner. No stratagy involved, and really no diplomacy. Diplomacy involves negotiation, compromise, and persuation.

I went back to look at the game again after seeing your comment.

Anti-Tab proposed the alliance before the first round was even over!

You were not the dominant player nor had you been given a continent in the initial deployment.

Anti-Tab shouldn't have proposed the alliance, although his guilt is perhaps mitigated somewhat by the fact that he was apparently new to the game. aesofspades91 should not have accepted it and doesn't have the new-to-the-game excuse.

You should have protested in the game chat. You probably could have convinced Anti-Tab during the game that he was being unsportsmanlike. Or embarrassed aesofspades91 into not accepting. An alliance against the dominant player is justified in my opinion. An alliance entered into the first round of the game against a random player smacks of stupidity at the very least and definitely is unsportsmanlike conduct.

While I think you should have protested in the game chat (I definitely would have), I think the negative feedback you left on both players was justified. I would be more inclined to remove it from Anti-Tab if he were to apologize. I guess I would remove it as well from aesofspades91 if he apologized and admitted his mistake. Short of that, I think the negative feedback is entirely justified.

You should change your feedback to emphasize that the alliance occurred before the first round ended and you were not the dominant player at the time. Had I saw those claims I would never have questioned you leaving them negative feedback.

My position that alliances in 3 player games are just as sportsmanlike as alliances in more than 3 player games stands, but I guess it never crossed my mind that the alliance wouldn't naturally be between the two weakest players against the strongest. That kind of alliance I think is proper. The one that occurred in your game is ridiculous.

elcameron · Post by **elcameron** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:29 pm

Cheers, thanks

dugcarr1 · Post by **dugcarr1** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:37 am

for all u faulkers that are bitching about a 3 player game alliance.
I really hope your not american, and bitcing about that.

MOBAJOBG · Post by **MOBAJOBG** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:56 am

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14818
Beware of multis.

b.k. barunt · Post by **b.k. barunt** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:25 pm

In a good 3 man game, the 2 weaker players go after the stronger one. This shifts around a lot, always with the 2 weaker going after the stronger until someone slips up, the dice rape someone badly, or someone just gets lucky. For 2 of the 3 to gang up on the 1 past the point of where he is stronger is chickenshit. Yea it's legal, but only a cheesewanker would stoop that low.

tahitiwahini · Post by **tahitiwahini** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:44 pm

MOBAJOBG wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14818
Beware of multis.

Well, this pretty much settles it:

aesofspades91, Anti_Tab, UnderScore_R_Us are multis

s.xkitten · Post by **s.xkitten** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:39 pm

Molacole wrote:anyone who creates and alliance against another person in a 3 player games completely sucks ass. NO EXCEPTIONS!

elcameron · Post by **elcameron** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:19 am

This sucks, twice in a week that I got screwed by Multis

wacicha · Post by **wacicha** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:42 am

you forget what the game is! you forget when you join a 3 player game it is already you against 2! always know that whether they allie or not it will seem that way. But for those people who do allie(and I never do) remember there can only be one.

Wacicha

Native American

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:48 am

b.k. barunt wrote:In a good 3 man game, the 2 weaker players go after the stronger one. This shifts around a lot, always with the 2 weaker going after the stronger until someone slips up, the dice rape someone badly, or someone just gets lucky. For 2 of the 3 to gang up on the 1 past the point of where he is stronger is chickenshit. Yea it's legal, but only a cheesewanker would stoop that low.

For once I actually agree with you! :shock:

Alliances in three player games depend on the situation. 2v1 if the 1 is the strongest player is fine but, as said by b.k. barnut, only up to a point (i.e. until the game is even again). One player should not be hunted down and eliminated - that is just a sign of two really shit players who are really desperate

Nameless One · Post by **Nameless One** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:23 pm

I think unspoken truces r better since u both know that u have to attack the stronger guy but u cant trust the other guy so u lose the teamwork and trust but it's much more fairer and u don't get the threat of betrayal because u will expect the other other guy to attack u.

tahitiwahini · Post by **tahitiwahini** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:42 pm

elcameron wrote:This sucks, twice in a week that I got screwed by Multis

If you would like to help prevent other players from having the same thing happen to them, would you consider editing your negative feedback given to aesofspades91 and Anti_Tab to include that fact that they are multis. Also include a link to the thread in the Cheaters & Abuse Forum (http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14818) that indicates aesofspades91 and Anti_Tab are BUSTED multis so people don't think you are just making a baseless accusation. Aesofspades91 and Anti_Tab were investigated and found guilty.

At this moment people who look at aesofspades91 and Anti_Tab's negative feedback do not see that they (really he) have (has) been adjudicated as guilty. You can correct this, if you would like. Use the Leave Feedback button on the Interaction Menu.

One other reason for doing this is as it currently stands all you accuse them of is entering into an alliance in a 3-player game, which I and some others don't regard as illegal, improper, or under the proper circumstances even unsportsmanlike. It's true that in this case I agree with you it was an improper alliance (because of when it started and the fact that you were not the dominant player at the time), but why make someone investigate the circumstances when these players stand convicted of a much more serious offense. What aesofspades91 and Anti_Tab did was far worse than this and their negative feedback should reflect the more serious crime.

Thanks.

elcameron · Post by **elcameron** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:52 pm

Good Idea, it's done. I also posted in every one of warriorpenguin's games that he was busted. He is the other multi I met this week. Thanks for the inspiration.