Conquer Club

I tried posting this question in the cheating forum, but nobody is responding.....so here goes.



I wont name the game, but....
Someone has Pm'd me to ask for an alliance in a game. I have told him that it is illegal to PM an alliance, and it must be done ingame.

He sent back saying that it was ok to PM to agree an alliance, as long as it is then declared in-game...who is right ?

Personally, I don't think it's cheating, but it's not the best way to offer an alliance.
Anyway, the FORMATION of such alliance must be done over the game chat, period.

Nah, he should really make the offer in game. Alliances should be made in-game, as the rules state. To me, it's questionable whether or not he would have made it public, had you been willing to keep it to a pm yourself. I was in a situation in a 3 player game, where one of the players pm'd the other, making a suggestion, but that person was new, and didn't understand the rules. This person knows what they're doing, and seems a bit shady to me.

While I don't agree with it, and you certainly run the risk of pissing people off and having them target you to take you out of the game, alliances can be proposed outside the game (in live chat, IM, PM, etc..). Once formed, they MUST be announced in the game chat PRIOR to taking effect, in a language understood by all in the game.

wicked wrote:While I don't agree with it, and you certainly run the risk of pissing people off and having them target you to take you out of the game, alliances can be proposed outside the game (in live chat, IM, PM, etc..). Once formed, they MUST be announced in the game chat PRIOR to taking effect, in a language understood by all in the game.

What's she know, she's just a 'girly mod'!

wicked wrote:While I don't agree with it, and you certainly run the risk of pissing people off and having them target you to take you out of the game, alliances can be proposed outside the game (in live chat, IM, PM, etc..).

That one's 50/50 I think. You may annoy one person if you present it via PM but you may annoy a bunch of people if you present it in game chat and are turned down.

I don't care enough to form alliances unless someone else suggests it. I take my lumps and donate the points.

And you might want to give us more than 6 minutes to respond before making another thread. I deleted your other thread and am moving this where people will actually see it.

I really don't like "formal" alliances. If you want a team, go join a team game. If you joined a singles game, take your knocks (you not referring to anyone in this thread).

I played a 3 player game and the other 2 players allied against me before we took our first turn, because I rejected one player's alliance offer via PM.

Something along the lines of "Red, your borders with me are safe for the next few turns as we have a really powerful player about to eliminate us both" I don't mind as long as it's done in game chat, where all can see.

Otherwise, I think private alliances are kind of cop-out; cheap tactics.

kalishnikov wrote:I really don't like "formal" alliances. If you want a team, go join a team game. If you joined a singles game, take your knocks (you not referring to anyone in this thread).

I played a 3 player game and the other 2 players allied against me before we took our first turn, because I rejected one player's alliance offer via PM.

Something along the lines of "Red, your borders with me are safe for the next few turns as we have a really powerful player about to eliminate us both" I don't mind as long as it's done in game chat, where all can see.

Otherwise, I think private alliances are kind of cop-out; cheap tactics.

This guy's go the right idea.

I agree that alliances or non-aggression agreements are posted on the chat in the game itself. It allows the other players to see what is coming down and possibly plan for the action being taken more appropriately. Going through either PM, or IM, or email is...IMO...borderline cheating. For one, if you were actual at the table playing these games you are going to offer up these deals in the open...why not in the game here? As 2dimes stated, I for one rarely offer up alliances.

All this has already been discussed ad nauseum. I for one don't agree with it, but that's the current policy.

my opinion: you should tell everyone in the chat that the guy offered you an alliance by pm. they have the rite to know, and everyone will probably be pissed, and maybe gang up on him (leaving you poised for victory). secondly, neutral if not neggie feedback for the guy, to warn other people. third, post the person's name and the evidence in the cheaters forum so we can all add him to our ignore lists.

like wicky says, it ain't specifically against the rules, but it's dishonorable and flameworthy.

Also, it would be more fair because since making an alliance is unfair anyways, except for a few situations, u should have a risk of everyone getting pissed off and ganging up on u to even out the possible reward.

I agree with nephilm.

I don't think underhand alliances are fair play, they suck big time. I shall live by the sword and announce in-game what has happened. Thanks for your help.

Huckleberryhound wrote:I agree with nephilm.

I don't think underhand alliances are fair play, they suck big time. I shall live by the sword and announce in-game what has happened. Thanks for your help.

Excellent effort sir...

I don't like alliances - but you must accept the consequences of offering one if it is turned down... much like if you were in front of the board.

PM Alliancing is cheating in my book.

C.

I avoid this by making it a point never to ream PM's during RT games.

The long and short of it is that alliances must be declared in game chat or else it is cheating. However, I do personally sometimes pm someone to get their attention, with something like, "Check the game chat", if they ignore my offer.

RobinJ wrote:The long and short of it is that alliances must be declared in game chat or else it is cheating. However, I do personally sometimes pm someone to get their attention, with something like, "Check the game chat", if they ignore my offer.

I think this is a good idea. It just calls someone's attention to where it should be anyway. No one should take offense at that.

well some take offense to alliances anyway, even if they are announced properly. I've had a number of complaints about feedback for alliances, to which I've said, suck it up cupcake, you made the alliance.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=386063

Enjoy....i'm sure it'll be fun to watch

wicked wrote:well some take offense to alliances anyway, even if they are announced properly. I've had a number of complaints about feedback for alliances, to which I've said, suck it up cupcake, you made the alliance.

No i didn't retardus modicus....i just recieved PMs...get it right, or get it stoopid......stoopid

Go back to reading comprehension dude. I was talking in general, not to you specifically.

"comprehension dude"...is that a book title, or are you just trying to pick on me because i'm drunk and understand context ????

I'm talking generally of course, so don't ban me


tiptoe....through the tulips.....through the tulips.....wont you follow me ...so ......ahhhh Pissflaps.

wicked wrote:well some take offense to alliances anyway, even if they are announced properly. I've had a number of complaints about feedback for alliances, to which I've said, suck it up cupcake, you made the alliance.

The worst has to be the guy that complained about someone breaking an alliance when there were only 2 players left in the game

Kahless wrote:

wicked wrote:well some take offense to alliances anyway, even if they are announced properly. I've had a number of complaints about feedback for alliances, to which I've said, suck it up cupcake, you made the alliance.

The worst has to be the guy that complained about someone breaking an alliance when there were only 2 players left in the game

lmao