what is deserving of negative feedback?

[Scottica]

Recently in a game, I noticed a strong player beginning to dominate. I asked for an alliance in game. It was accepted, although the allying player did not leave any borders undefended and could not have broken my continent.

The next turn I found myself with cards and an opportunity to eliminate the allying player for his. I did so. I felt, at the time, that elminating a player for his cards was the best chance I had of beating the strongest player.

The allying player stated that what I did was deserving of negative feedback. Since there was no unprotected border, and I eliminated all his armies regardless, do i deserve such feedback? Or was it just a very dastardly thing to do?

Also, apart from being a multi, deadbeating, and vendetta suiciding, in your opinions, what does deserve negative feedback?

[wicked]

Breaking an alliance is most definitely grounds for feedback. Just making an alliance is grounds for feedback as well, since some people don't like to play with people who do that.

[4 U 2 NV]

Breaking an alliance is most definitely grounds for feedback. Just making an alliance is grounds for feedback as well, since some people don't like to play with people who do that.

YEAH! stop making alliances wicked.

[wicked]

Make me!

[alster]

Recently in a game, I noticed a strong player beginning to dominate. I asked for an alliance in game. It was accepted, although the allying player did not leave any borders undefended and could not have broken my continent.

The next turn I found myself with cards and an opportunity to eliminate the allying player for his. I did so. I felt, at the time, that elminating a player for his cards was the best chance I had of beating the strongest player.

The allying player stated that what I did was deserving of negative feedback. Since there was no unprotected border, and I eliminated all his armies regardless, do i deserve such feedback? Or was it just a very dastardly thing to do?

Also, apart from being a multi, deadbeating, and vendetta suiciding, in your opinions, what does deserve negative feedback?

Well, if you're fishing for an opinion: You were a coward entering into an alliance in the first place. Then you were a coward breaking it.

Reminds me of Roosevelt's words; "the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan"

But well. If you get some negative feedback, don't worry. Everyone gets it. In fact, it would be strange if you never got any.

[kalishnikov]

Recently in a game, I noticed a strong player beginning to dominate. I asked for an alliance in game. It was accepted, although the allying player did not leave any borders undefended and could not have broken my continent.

The next turn I found myself with cards and an opportunity to eliminate the allying player for his. I did so. I felt, at the time, that elminating a player for his cards was the best chance I had of beating the strongest player.

The allying player stated that what I did was deserving of negative feedback. Since there was no unprotected border, and I eliminated all his armies regardless, do i deserve such feedback? Or was it just a very dastardly thing to do?

Also, apart from being a multi, deadbeating, and vendetta suiciding, in your opinions, what does deserve negative feedback?

If I was in a game with you, and you entered into an alliance with another player, I'd leave you Negative feedback.

Instead of making a true alliance, try things like "hey Red, for 2 turns we won't attack each other as Blue is becoming very powerful and will surely eliminate us both." Make sure it's stated in game chat.

It could be argued that my method also is also an alliance, it's true. But in my mind its way better then a flat out non-aggression pact, and your likely to avoid negative feedback on both sides that way.

Some players here feel alliances are perfectly acceptable and use them often, others dislike them greatly; I'm the latter. I'll gladly go out before trying to ally someone unless it's for a turn, maybe 2, to build against a third very strong player.

[lunchmeat]

I don't feel like alliances are necessarily something bad. I think they add a bit of necessary intrigue to a game that can rely too much on luck. Knowing when to make or break an alliance is a necessary skill, and being on both sides (as one who has gotten screwed as well as someone to put a knife in the back of an ally to win the game), I can say it makes the game more interesting. The problem is when some misanthropic loser takes himself and the game too seriously and gets emotionally tied to it.

I can see where secret alliances in this context can be frustrating and definitely should not happen - as it hurts the game in this model. But declaring in front of everyone gives people a chance to respond in kind.

There's a game based on the principle of making or breaking alliances called "Diplomacy" (far more interesting than the Risk model -imho) where no dice are rolled and all moves and conquests are based on subterfuge, manipulation and intelligence.

It's up to you to accept an alliance, and you should remember that everyone is in it to win the game. No one's going to let you have it. Buyer beware and all that.

As for what should provoke negative feedback? I think abuse in the in game discussion, deadbeating and otherwise annoying, game hindering behavior is fair game.

[civver]

Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader.

Guess where that came from.

[lunchmeat]

Well played, well played indeed.