Conquer Club

Question for the brotherhood:

What's the point of the friends list? I've seen on MANY occasions the following scenario: two friends join a public game, let on through game chat that they know each other, and as soon as one of the other players starts losing, he turns the two friends in as a "secret alliance".

The first pieces of evidence brought up in the accusation are A) the fact that they've played together before, and B) the fact that they're on each others' friends list. I've then seen those players warned not to play public games together to avoid the appearance of secret alliances.

If that's the case, what's the point of a friends list? Seems to me like it's asking for trouble these days.

Just curious to hear what you guys think about it.

U use my friends list to have quick access to which one of my doubles partners is online, to see if we can set up a speed doubles game. I know others use it to do similar things as well

they only get warned if it is obvious that

a)they do not attack each other leaving borders unprotected. (this has to happen a few times)

b)they help there friend to win

i play all the time with people on my friends list and have only been accused once of it then once we both explained that he was attacking both our borders it would of been a stupid move to attack each other as he was the strongest player.


this is my example what a laugh i had was in my first 2 weeks on the site

Game 5768843

Yeah eddie, I've played MANY games like that. The problem is that now the "whiners" are starting to take the accusations to the next level and post "Secret Alliance" accusations in record numbers.

Here's my issue: Why pay for a game you can only partially play? If I had bought Battlefield 2 to play with a friend, but we could only play games where I was the only one on team 1 and he was the only one on team 2, that would RARELY be much fun. I'd love to be able to keep playing public games with my friends (with other players involved) but at the rate accusations are flying, I'll wind up banned before long.

Team games are an option, but again--I'm only getting part of the game for my money

just stick to what i said and the c and a mods will never bust you as long as you dont play together as a team its ok

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. It just bugs me. And because the admins have been telling us to not play public games, I know that's going to come back to bite us next time we're accused, which should be... oooh... a day or two from now?

The Friends list doesn't really do much...it makes it slightly easier to address the recipients of a mass-PM, but doesn't make secret alliances any more frequent or likely to occur.

I'm quite confident that you can be friends with someone or organise a secret alliance with another player without having them on your Friends list.


Typing this, I get the feeling that I'm missing the point of this thread completely..

I use my friends list purely for ease of reference. For example, there are people I want to pm (for example Player865372... whatever)... I can't be bothered to figure out that person's name each time I would like to pm that person; so I put them on my friends list so I can have easy access.

I agree, there is absolutely a secret alliance against me in every game I lose.

pimpdave wrote:I agree, there is absolutely a secret alliance against me in every game I lose.

Every game I lose is full of multies.

natty_dread wrote:

pimpdave wrote:I agree, there is absolutely a secret alliance against me in every game I lose.

Every game I lose is full of multies.

every game i lose is filled with multis in secret alliances

I do all my secret alliances with folks who aren't on my friends list.

Hardline wrote:Question for the brotherhood:

What's the point of the friends list? I've seen on MANY occasions the following scenario: two friends join a public game, let on through game chat that they know each other,

It doesn't always get said in game chat. Game 7150690 for example. You have already stated in the first C&A report against you that you and lumpy are brothers.

Hardline wrote:and as soon as one of the other players starts losing, he turns the two friends in as a "secret alliance".

Family and real life friends can and do talk about the game when they are together.

Hardline wrote:The first pieces of evidence brought up in the accusation are A) the fact that they've played together before,

When there is a secret diplomacy complaint I always check the games that the accused have played together to see if there is a pattern. Just playing a lot of games together is not enough proof.

Hardline wrote:and B) the fact that they're on each others' friends list.

I was unaware that we could view the friends list of others.

Hardline wrote:I've then seen those players warned not to play public games together to avoid the appearance of secret alliances.

Are they warned? Or is it suggested?

Again that is not the case. When real life friends and family play together it can look like they are favoring each other and it can lead to the appearance of secret diplomacy.

Hardline wrote:If that's the case, what's the point of a friends list? Seems to me like it's asking for trouble these days.

Friends list has nothing to do with it.

Hardline wrote:Just curious to hear what you guys think about it.

If two room mates were playing in a three player game don't you think it would be hard not to talk about the game, especially if there was a complaint made about secret diplomacy?

Most secret diplomacy complaints are made because of questionable game play. How would the accuser know (in most cases) that the other players are friends or relatives?

I do think that there are to many secret diplomacy complaints made with out any proof.

Every game I lose is full of multis in secret alliances who use aimbots.

You bring up some good points, Semp, and yeah, I can see where it would be hard not to imagine secrets between friends/relatives. I'm not sure what the solution here is, just seeing what others think of the situation.

Just for the record, though, Lumpy and I are far from roommates. We're in the same state maybe twice a year--I'm 27, married, and living in Mississippi. He's just graduating high school back in Pittsburgh. We're guys, so we don't talk on the phone--our way of keeping in touch is playing CC, believe it or not.

You also brought up something that had confused me previously. You mentioned the difference between "suggested" and "warned". I had been under the impression that only suggestions were made to us, but when the previous cases were cited by later members, the term used was "warned".

I guess it all comes down to "what is suspicious play"? So many players instantly cry "suspicious" as soon as more than one person attacks them, regardless of their strength or rank. What do you guys think? What's the difference between "suspicious" play and simply "annoying" or "frustrating" play?

Hardline wrote:I guess it all comes down to "what is suspicious play"? So many players instantly cry "suspicious" as soon as more than one person attacks them, regardless of their strength or rank. What do you guys think? What's the difference between "suspicious" play and simply "annoying" or "frustrating" play?

It is so easy to cry foul. One reason it takes so long on secret diplomacy complaints is we try to see how the turns were played. Many of the complaints are because one player didn't make the move another player thought they should.

It would be easy if there was always a PM or a wall post to prove that there was secret diplomacy. Other times we have to look at the game log of the game in question. If it looks like suspious game play then we start checking other game logs that the players in question were involved in. When I say suspious I mean not breaking a bonus, clearing out a continent of one players armies and letting the third player take over the continent, killing off all the single countries of one player to set up the kill for another. Each one of these things by themselves might not mean much but when you add them together.