Conquer Club

Should people that plays as partners regularly in doubles play against each other in a 3 player game??? I know I have seen people banned from playing together for it before and while I once played games as such with my brother I quit doing so due to seeing people banned from playing each other(now we only play as teams or large allout games). is this just taboo or unfair game play what is your opinion???

Of course they can (and probably should IMO).

Problems arise tho' when it is family/friends that play together in non-team games, especially if they use the same 'puter (i.e. same IP address). Accusations of cheating (secret alliance/multi) invariably arise. Although if you let others know (including Lack and the multi-hunters) what is going on that shouldn't happen.

Well, of course they CAN, but i dont think they SHOULD.

Worst case scenario is things can spill over if one happens to "presume" his partner will be a little lenient, but wipes him out or something, resulting in a clash of wills and hence LOSING a partner who may well have been very effective and a great team!!

No matter how mature i think my parnters may be, beating them more than a few times on 3p or 1v1 games would ultimately deteriorate the relationship.

my view anyway =P

I think that partners still have the work together nature even when not in a team game so I do not battle against any partners I have had.

I to think they should still be able to play in three player games. And if they say in game chat their going to be a lenient with each other then there's no problem.

Puff wrote:I to think they should still be able to play in three player games. And if they say in game chat their going to be a lenient with each other then there's no problem.

how can you see no problem if they say it in chat they arebasically then saying yes we are going to play 2 against 1 just so you no you will be slaughtered, that is utterly ridiculous you have joined the ranks of my ignored you cheap chump player...

Only way I'd think they'd be ok in playing any standard games if they do team games would be to play private games with maybe friends. That's what we do. Only standard games that I'll join with any friends are private ones so there isn't random_player_01 in there. Every other standard games we all play our own and if I see one of them in the game I won't join.

If it were me, I think I'd hit my partner as hard as anyone else - I want to win the game don't I? That being the case, I don't see why anyone would compromise their own strategy by being lenient on one of their opponents. If it does happen, then the game has probably been won already anyway when it no longer really matters

If you don't go after the random guy before to battle out with your friend/familly member that is the other guy you play ( and normally play doubles with..), then yes of course you can.

If you're using the same computer, it's advised to say so at the start of the game.

As long as you don't aliance with him, there is no problems at all.

jc103 wrote:Well, of course they CAN, but i dont think they SHOULD.

Worst case scenario is things can spill over if one happens to "presume" his partner will be a little lenient, but wipes him out or something, resulting in a clash of wills and hence LOSING a partner who may well have been very effective and a great team!!

No matter how mature i think my parnters may be, beating them more than a few times on 3p or 1v1 games would ultimately deteriorate the relationship.

my view anyway =P

I like your politics and totally agree with you

iaedyene wrote:Only way I'd think they'd be ok in playing any standard games if they do team games would be to play private games with maybe friends. That's what we do. Only standard games that I'll join with any friends are private ones so there isn't random_player_01 in there. Every other standard games we all play our own and if I see one of them in the game I won't join.

good idea but again I have had this issue arise against me in the past and firmly believe now that if you play with your teamate you should make sure it is 4 or more person allout game so that it is fair to allthat play and if an alliance is seen being performed by the 2 of you that the others in game may perform an alliance in defense

I never join as the third in any three player because it seems too common that the first two in the game have too much history together.

People should not play 3 player games anyway 2 always gang up on the other. It's just like playing flat rate singles. Totally worthless setting.

so far it is a dead heat

I think it evens itself out, sometimes friends stick up for each other, but just as often someone would target their friend before someone they don't know because of bragging rights and personal rivalries

Georgerx7di wrote:People should not play 3 player games anyway 2 always gang up on the other. It's just like playing flat rate singles. Totally worthless setting.

No cards is far worse than flat rate, without the incentive to attack every round, people just end up stockpiling armies in one place until the feel confident to take a continent, the game just drags on and on

Georgerx7di wrote:People should not play 3 player games anyway 2 always gang up on the other. It's just like playing flat rate singles. Totally worthless setting.

George, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your assessment. Flat rate (and no cards) are not worthless - they just require a very different skill set to escalating. That's why you see some very high ranked players who are able to achieve good scores mainly playing flat rate and no card standard games. I am not biased in this as I enjoy playing all the different settings.

If the cream is able to rise to the top, you can't argue that it's just luck and no tactics. Those games I find need more psychology and diplomacy than escalating, trying to make other players not want to gang up on you.

In any event - I think it's a bad idea to play a 3 player game with your doubles partner, even if you are being completely fair (which is very hard), you leave yourself open to accusations and ill will from the other player. Sometimes it's important to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as doing it.

I don't see any problem playing a bigger game, such as a 6 player, as long as you are confident you wont treat your partner any different.

Genghis Khan CA wrote:

Georgerx7di wrote:People should not play 3 player games anyway 2 always gang up on the other. It's just like playing flat rate singles. Totally worthless setting.

George, I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your assessment. Flat rate (and no cards) are not worthless - they just require a very different skill set to escalating. That's why you see some very high ranked players who are able to achieve good scores mainly playing flat rate and no card standard games. I am not biased in this as I enjoy playing all the different settings.

If the cream is able to rise to the top, you can't argue that it's just luck and no tactics. Those games I find need more psychology and diplomacy than escalating, trying to make other players not want to gang up on you.

In any event - I think it's a bad idea to play a 3 player game with your doubles partner, even if you are being completely fair (which is very hard), you leave yourself open to accusations and ill will from the other player. Sometimes it's important to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as doing it.

I don't see any problem playing a bigger game, such as a 6 player, as long as you are confident you wont treat your partner any different.

I agree with all you said

i play with and against many partners....the key is making sure you play them fairly, but I wouldnt play singles with a family member in a public game, only private...not more than one or two anyways...

and as far as 3 player games go, i love them...with good players the game should never end...so you have to find a way to get the other guy to attack the other guy to take advantage....i find it very fun...more so when the other guy attacks the other guy though

as long as the third person knows the situation, and is happy, should be ok.

prec10us77 wrote:as long as the third person knows the situation, and is happy, should be ok.

so as long as he third person know they will work 2 gether to eliminate him then fight it out that sux

prec10us77 wrote:as long as the third person knows the situation, and is happy, should be ok.

Problem is the 3rd person wouldn't know until the game has started and if they do not agree then what? I just wouldn't want to put anyone into that situation. I've been the 3rd person recently and it was not disclosed to me until they started congratulating each other in chat using RL names that I questioned it. Had I known I was playing 2 friends IRL I prob would not have joined the game.

I have a relativly large group of friends I play all kinds of games with, including doubles and in singles I treat them the same as anyone I'm playing against

Ghengis, that was a very diplomatic response. Also a very logical arguement. The only problem I have is that I don't think that diplomacy has any place in risk, (please nobody quote the first paragraph of the home page, I know what it says). I've found that it always leads to fighting and ill will. I don't play with players who sit there and go, (you'd better attack so and so, or he'll get to strong". And since I play escalating I don't need to to win. I was in a flat game just the other day, ( I was invited, so I joined to be polite), and it was down to the last 3 players, and all were more or less even; now we all know that there is only one way for this to end. One player offered me a truce across a continent border, and so I took it. The other player, a colonel/general at times, got upset saying that it was an unfair play. These are the things that happen in flat games, or any game with this diplomacy. That's why I prefer escalating, less arguements.

Well, I've been told I have a very diplomatic personality george

I see where you're coming from, but I've certainly seen arguments and recriminations in escalating too, for example where one player has taken an unwise thin shot. I must say the times I've needed to have a border truce in flat rate have been very few, and most times it is with a newbie who can't work out who the bigger threat is.

I suppose it comes down to preference - I can definitely respect that some guys don't like playing flat rate, or escalating, or 3 player games, or doubles, or triples. But I think it's a big leap to say that the setting is worthless.

I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one george, but I certainly appreciate your perspective and the rational and respectful way in which you argue it