Conquer Club

It's not a normal accusation.

It's just a note on how diplomacy is abused, ruining games where people take part to have fun.

This is not even diplomacy, this is complete cowardice and lack of honour.

Manbungalow, Downey, NASATimp, Murppie engaged not in building their games and playing for themselves, but in sneaky lame gameplay. Just check the chats and game progress.

Game number(s): http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=8498241

I, for once, don't propose any kind of truce with anyone unless I'm really in the lower hand and I need to move my armies and someone in the same situation is just shooting their and my own feet. But what those guys make in that game is just shameless. Games are simply not worth playing with people like this. It's ridiculous,

Really, someone should review the rules on such despicable form of diplomacies. Or ban them at all. There is no such thing as diplomacy unless you want to resist, NOT to simply wipe 3rd teams and play 2 vs 2. If I want to be 2x2, I'll join a 2x2 game.

Best regards.

Such language in the game chat! I'm surprised you're holding yourself up as a bastion of etiquette.

Condestável wrote:Accused:

Condestável



The accused are suspected of:


Other: <Explanation>

Intentionally filing a frivolous and spurious C&A complaint when he should just foe and move on.

Fixed.

Since this isn't a complaint I am going to move this to GD where I think it belongs.

squishyg wrote:Such language in the game chat! I'm surprised you're holding yourself up as a bastion of etiquette.

At war swearing is normal. Specially if you have some point. I just said some F words. "Why don't you play your F game, as you can read". Don't tell me you never sweared.

I prefer to swears and have character, than to be a polite scamp (eg: politician).

Evil Semp wrote:Since this isn't a complaint I am going to move this to GD where I think it belongs.

It borders a complaint. But might be something for the staff to ponder.

Condestável wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:Since this isn't a complaint I am going to move this to GD where I think it belongs.

It borders a complaint. But might be something for the staff to ponder.

What you say in your original post has merit. I would suggest that if you can come up with some way to change it to make a suggestion.

To me, this complaint looks like jealousy.

NASATimp: What exactly does that mean? We leave you alone down south and in exchange get... What?
ManBungalow: (#) Full access to the mini-bar
ManBungalow: (#) A commemorative key-ring
ManBungalow: (#) The warm, happy feeling that you've done a good deed
ManBungalow: (#) Full absolution of all your sins

You're upset that you missed out on such wondrous treasures now bestowed upon NASATimp. Don't be, though. That key-ring he's talking about is nothing but a bent paper-clip and that happy feeling is over-rated.

Master Fenrir wrote:You're upset that you missed out on such wondrous treasures now bestowed upon NASATimp. Don't be, though. That key-ring he's talking about is nothing but a bent paper-clip and that happy feeling is over-rated.

Hahah

Evil Semp wrote:

Condestável wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:Since this isn't a complaint I am going to move this to GD where I think it belongs.

It borders a complaint. But might be something for the staff to ponder.

What you say in your original post has merit. I would suggest that if you can come up with some way to change it to make a suggestion.

Ok. When for example 3 or more people/teams are playing, barring diplomacy unless one person/team has 60% of the map manpower and territories, whatever comes first.

A system would calculate this and a green alert would be displayed.

A box could be ticked by players requesting diplomacy. Any alliance would be visible then by a tag linking teams.

Would the adversary come down to 40%, the light would be red again and diplomacy would not be allowed again until someone was 60% again.

Even secret diplomacy would be better controlled this way, since hunters would have only to check red periods.

Condestável wrote:

Master Fenrir wrote:You're upset that you missed out on such wondrous treasures now bestowed upon NASATimp. Don't be, though. That key-ring he's talking about is nothing but a bent paper-clip and that happy feeling is over-rated.

Hahah

Evil Semp wrote:

Condestável wrote:

Evil Semp wrote:Since this isn't a complaint I am going to move this to GD where I think it belongs.

It borders a complaint. But might be something for the staff to ponder.

What you say in your original post has merit. I would suggest that if you can come up with some way to change it to make a suggestion.

Ok. When for example 3 or more people/teams are playing, barring diplomacy unless one person/team has 60% of the map manpower and territories, whatever comes first.

A system would calculate this and a green alert would be displayed.

A box could be ticked by players requesting diplomacy. Any alliance would be visible then by a tag linking teams.

Would the adversary come down to 40%, the light would be red again and diplomacy would not be allowed again until someone was 60% again.

Even secret diplomacy would be better controlled this way, since hunters would have only to check red periods.

Maybe the system could also calculate when you are able to attack, and prevent you from attacking one team if the other team attacked them last. Or the system could automatically cause the team who is winning to roll double-1s.

Diplomacy isn't against the rules. In fact it is mentioned on this site as a viable strategy. It looks like your opponents picked up on it as an opportunity to improve their chances, and instead of planning for that and/or making a better offer, you've filed a spurious report and want to ban diplomacy.

If you don't like the rules of multi-team games, don't play them. You can always play single team vs team games, or join one of the social groups who have an agreement not to use diplomacy. I don't understand why you want to ruin an aspect of the game that many teams enjoy, just because you don't like it.

I also think that filing a report calling those people cowards is a bit rich. In my opinion it is much more cowardly to make up a false allegation of rule-breaking.

jeraado wrote:

Condestável wrote:

Master Fenrir wrote:You're upset that you missed out on such wondrous treasures now bestowed upon NASATimp. Don't be, though.
I also think that filing a report calling those people cowards is a bit rich. In my opinion it is much more cowardly to make up a false allegation of rule-breaking.

I look a coward to you, because... I don't think cowardice is part of the gameplay? seriously.

I would be coward if, like you, I gave an exorbitant and pompous lecture that I would be unable to give in real life.

As a matter a fact geekness includes cowardice by default.

Dismissed, Sgt Jeraado.

Condestável wrote:
I look a coward to you, because... I don't think cowardice is part of the gameplay? seriously.

I would be coward if, like you, I gave an exorbitant and pompous lecture that I would be unable to give in real life.

As a matter a fact geekness includes cowardice by default.

Dismissed, Sgt Jeraado.

Maybe you could actually read my post before flaming. You don't know who I am, what I do in real life, or what my actual personality is like, so don't try to have a go at me personally. My post is solely related to the issues you raised, and the actions you took.

To be honest I'm surprised you weren't warned for making a spurious accusation. You knew what you were reporting wasn't against the rules, yet you tried to make a case anyway. And yes, to me those actions are cowardly. Would you like to come visit me so I can tell you that in person?

Condestável wrote:It's not a normal accusation.

It's just a note on how diplomacy is abused, ruining games where people take part to have fun.

This is not even diplomacy, this is complete cowardice and lack of honour.

Manbungalow, Downey, NASATimp, Murppie engaged not in building their games and playing for themselves, but in sneaky lame gameplay. Just check the chats and game progress.

Game number(s): http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=8498241

I, for once, don't propose any kind of truce with anyone unless I'm really in the lower hand and I need to move my armies and someone in the same situation is just shooting their and my own feet. But what those guys make in that game is just shameless. Games are simply not worth playing with people like this. It's ridiculous,

Really, someone should review the rules on such despicable form of diplomacies. Or ban them at all. There is no such thing as diplomacy unless you want to resist, NOT to simply wipe 3rd teams and play 2 vs 2. If I want to be 2x2, I'll join a 2x2 game.

Best regards.

I don't know why you're complaining, since you seem to me to be the biggest asswipe in that game.

Condestável wrote:I look a coward to you, because... I think cowardice is part of the gameplay seriously.

I be coward in real life As a matter a fact.

Ok. Foe pile you go.

WHY HASN'T THIS MULTI BEEN MULTI CHECKED AND BUSTED? He did stroll into C&A and file a spurious complaint...

jefjef, are you real? srsly, you are not normal.

Oh and here comes dandruff again. I've to get myself a better shampoo.

Let's play nicely folks. There's a torrent of reports coming from this neck of the woods. Time to take a deep breath and remember that there are real people behind those avatars who don't like being called names.

Condestável wrote:jefjef, are you real? srsly, you are not normal.

Oh and here comes dandruff again. I've to get myself a better shampoo.

Ah ha! Only one multi ever used that particular moniker for me...someone bust this chap, pronto.

Woodruff wrote:

Condestável wrote:jefjef, are you real? srsly, you are not normal.

Oh and here comes dandruff again. I've to get myself a better shampoo.

Ah ha! Only one multi ever used that particular moniker for me...someone bust this chap, pronto.

'Druff, in all honesty, how old are you?

I added you to my friends, 'Druff. You can talk. Sharing is caring.