Conquer Club

Ignore list will. We all get shitty players this is not going to be the correct result

If you think they actually have an unannounced alliance or that you are really dealing with 1 player, not two, then report them. (but DO be sure you have some real evidence!). Else, if you don't like the way someone plays, just put them on your ignore list.

For one thing, sometimes someone claims to suicide to try to either irritate you enough to play irrationally or just to make you THINK they are trying to lose ... but then they go on to win. People play all kinds of ways for all kinds of reasons ... that is called free choice. Put them on your ignore list, then you won't have to deal with them again.

One more thought -- the ONLY times I have suicided (twice inover 2000 games) was when one player consistantly berates, belittled others and tried to dictate the game. Be sure you haven't somehow,"created" or "asked for" this response....

The ignore list - ha! That really stops people from suiciding armies!

This post isn't trying to stop or prevent bad players. Nothing can ever be done about that.

Did you look at the games I put in the post? Both are cases where these players have a chance to still win the game. It may be a slim chance but they shouldn't just throw in the towel. Or even if they throw in the towel, they should still play with integrity. You can't win them all and just because you can't win doesn't mean your next objective is to make sure another player doesn't win too.

Have I suicided my armies. Hell ya! But this is often at the end stages of a game, where there is one dominant player who is definitely going to win and I am grasping for any type of luck or option to survive. But these cases should not be considered as suiciding your armies - this is a case of survival!

Who exactly is going to go around game by game and determine who is "suiciding" and who is "surviving"?

LMR

laci_mae wrote:Who exactly is going to go around game by game and determine who is "suiciding" and who is "surviving"?

LMR

Why would you think I would be suggesting that? Someone would have report it and it would be investigated.

lol

ban me for 2 weeks then...

k

DoctorX wrote:

laci_mae wrote:Who exactly is going to go around game by game and determine who is "suiciding" and who is "surviving"?

LMR

Why would you think I would be suggesting that? Someone would have report it and it would be investigated.

The mods already have enough to do, you want more?

People play different ways for all kinds of reasons. Personally, the ones I put on my ignore list are the ones who want mods or someone else to come in a "fix" every "mistake" they think everyone else has made. In over 2500 games, I have only met a handful that have given up ... until the VERY end. And I have lost to at least one person who claimed they were just going to suicide to end the game... but they went on to win.

Worry about your own tactics, not other folks.

This is a GAME, it is about FUN ...

yah it sucks when you are on the wrong end of a suicide, but it should balance out that you benefit from it as well.

also a suicide is not always a premeditated suicide, sometimes a player is down to one territory which has amassed his armies and the autoattack button goes dreadfully wrong.

Shit happens, --- when you start losing money at this site then complain, otherwise just play on.

suiciding is a legitamate strategy that some players may choose to use. it might not be a good one or win many games, but hey if that's what they want to do, they should be able to do it. just because you happen to be on the recieving end of their strategy isn't grounds for suspension

Sometimes, the only CHANCE you have is to try a "do or die" push. I cannot count the number of times I have read negative feedback that went "I would have won if joe smoe hadn't stupidly tried to attack my 20 armies with his 5" .. Interestingly about half the time it finishes ... "he went on to win, but still..." and half the time "I, (or purple) would have won if it weren't for that". Mostly, I am tempted to put the WRITER on my ignore list.

Chance is a legitimate part of this game and one REASON this game is and has been so very, very popular.

Hey, I respect your guys opinions on this. And after putting some thought into it more, it would be a difficult thing to prove. But what if i defining suiciding a bit better.

I thought of some "acceptable" circumstances for suicide attempts (in a way, I do don't see these as suicide attempts though) :

1. End stages of the game and the dominant player is almost assured a win unless you take the risk and confront a larger army.
2. You attack a heavily fortified front of a stronger player to weaken that army, knowing full well the next player will then be able to easily break their bonus.
3. Less - acceptable - the threat to suicide - hoping to ward off opponents from attacking you.
4. You are cornered and in all likely cases soon to be eliminated by a stronger opponent.

Any others?

The suicide attempt I am referring to is purely spent on revenge and bitterness. This does not make the game fun!

So ask yourself:

1. Do you think revenge should be part of the game?
2. Isn't attacking the worst defense when considering the odds? Wouldn't a suicide attack be considered as a poor strategy from that stand point alone? (yes, some maps award outrageous bonuses and a defense might not hold up, but often not attacking is the better option against stronger armies - the dice can be nasty around here!!)
2. Do you think anyone should just quit a game? Either through suicide, crashing armies, or just purposeful deadbeating?
3. When players have done this, has it screwed with player's strategy; has it caused players to lose games, maybe undeserving players to win games and...
4. Wouldn't you desire a game that is free of this?

I like playing the game with integrity and when I enter the game I expect everyone is playing to win, but to do so in a fashion that respects the game itself. We make deals, we have mutual understandings, we identify stronger players, we get attacked and we understand we could lose. Often we do not understand a strategy employed by other players, but they may have a different plan that just got in the way of yours; but are they playing to win? If they are then maybe they know something I don't and I have to respect that. Most important though, we understand that it is game (more important too is we are not losing money! Or at least I am not!) and there really shouldn't be a game played just to get back at a player. Integrity; playing the game with integrity.

Yeah, yeah, maybe an impossible dream for any game. I will always be nervous when a noobie steps to the plate. Yeah, I have made mistakes and will continue to do so. And yeah, some players are just not good.

So, I guess I would just like this site to show a commitment to maintaining integrity by punishing those who are basically disrespecting the game. And yeah, they probably do have enough on their plate; but I think if they want to keep fair and honest players around then they have to make some commitment to weeding out those who take the game too personally.

If you were to suspend a player for suiciding it would mess up all of the other games that that player is in. This can unbalance games and slow the pace to a crawl. For these reasons this is probably not the best suggestion.

Again.. play is individual. If you don't like the way a person plays, put them on your ignore list. There are plenty of folks out there

It's not quite that cut and dry. If you go to the rules section and read the unwritten rules it says that throwing games is a gross abuse and is forbidden. This would cover suiciding for the most part but it is not specific as to what the consequences would be...

Your best bet is to report this in the cheating and abuse reports forum but the 2 week ban is a flawed idea as it hurts players who have nothing to do with the problem.

I like that...the "unwritten rules" say... ( bit of a oxymoron) lol!

I actually reported a player for throwing a game not long ago. He crashed all of his armies (very large armies) into almost all the players who had large armies too. Then said he quit, the game was taking too long for him. Granted, he was right. All the players were building enormous armies but were fiddling around attacking territories with one army but never making a move against each other...very boring( just had one large army and no land bonuses waiting for these guys to duke it out). Even though I hated the pace of the game and his move certainly mixed up the dynamics of the game, I thought it was pretty crappy to just throw the game.

So, I reported it. Sometime later Twill contacted me and said that was not considered as "throwing the game". It was the first and last time I have reported a player. And yeah, I respect Mods are busy, I responded to his email and said I that I was fine with his decision but, hell save yourself sometime and better explain what throwing a game is so you don't have people like me having you chase bogus complaints. I told him I didn't expect a response and I didn't care to get one either.

Okay, so the "unwritten rules" - someone breaks them - what type of punishment should one get?? The ignore list prevents you from playing these players, but hardly stop them from changing their ways. You guys keep saying it is unfair to others for them to get suspended because they slow the game. But you would have no problem with this if they were a multi or regularly had secret alliances.

Question then; what punishment do they get for breaking "unwritten rules"? Or what punishment should they get?

suiciding for revenge is legit, though many consider it to be bad form. however, i sometimes find that, in a given game, if someone particularly fucks me over i'll do everything in my power to f*ck them back. no, i don't care that it wont win me the game, all i care about is if someone essentially takes me out of the game, then i want to take them down with me. this, i believe, is simply part of the game. it's not 100% strategy and luck, there's also an element of diplomacy and predicting opponents moves. if someone suicides it it is because a) you are very unlucky or b) you are a poor diplomat and gave them a reason to suicide you. either way, it's part of the game and not something that should be removed

Thank for the warning bbqpenguin. Glad I don't have to find out for myself - ignore list!

DoctorX wrote:Thank for the warning bbqpenguin. Glad I don't have to find out for myself - ignore list!

coward.

Suiciding is a legitimate strategy in some tournaments in which the results are determined by wins/losses or finish order (first, second, third, etc.)

confused about suiciding.

Maybe I am doing it and don't know it.

When I know I can't win anymore, I find myself attacking the strongest person. The Bob plug-in will list how many armies each player has and every time I start a new round I review the list. Whoever is strongest or gets the most bonuses per round I focus my attention on.

Is that suiciding?

TyLord IV wrote:confused about suiciding.

Maybe I am doing it and don't know it.

When I know I can't win anymore, I find myself attacking the strongest person. The Bob plug-in will list how many armies each player has and every time I start a new round I review the list. Whoever is strongest or gets the most bonuses per round I focus my attention on.

Is that suiciding?

It is a good question.

Here are some cases where I thought suiciding was acceptable:

I thought of some "acceptable" circumstances for suicide attempts (in a way, I do don't see these as suicide attempts though) :

1. End stages of the game and the dominant player is almost assured a win unless you take the risk and confront a larger army.
2. You attack a heavily fortified front of a stronger player to weaken that army, knowing full well the next player will then be able to easily break their bonus.
3. Less - acceptable - the threat to suicide - hoping to ward off opponents from attacking you.
4. You are cornered and in all likely cases soon to be eliminated by a stronger opponent.

Attacking the stronger player is expected and a lot players will adhere to your strategy. But are you attacking the stronger player to the point that you could be eliminated the next round? Are you attacking them because you are bitter with them? It doesn't sound like you are. Suiciders are pretty obvious - they will more than likely announce it in game chat, they continually attack one opponent (regardless of their strength), and it normally occurs after some heated words in game chat. I think you are safe!

Just a bit of advice though. Just because they are the strongest player doesn't mean you should be the one making all the attacks on them. I have seen many games where a player feels obligated to break the stronger player's bonuses. Policemen - I call them - do not stay in the games I have had too long. Sometimes you have sit back and build, hope someone else takes on the responsibility and starts the battle with the stronger player. If your a low on the totem pole during a game you are best to sit back at let others do the work for you. But making that determination of sitting back or attacking is a skill - just try to evaluate the other player's previous actions will help.

insomniacdude wrote:Suiciding is a legitimate strategy in some tournaments in which the results are determined by wins/losses or finish order (first, second, third, etc.)

Suppose in some tournament play suiciding would be acceptable, but those games are a different story. They have different sets of rules and are often on going. I during those games you need be really careful not to piss too many players off because often you are playing the same players in the next game.