Conquer Club

Hi, I'm currently in a 4P game and two of my opponents are accusing me of creating a secret alliance with the other player. No matter how much I argue, it seems like they will most likely leave negative feedback for it.

I NEVER made ANY sort of secret alliance with this guy. However, we have unspokenly decided that if either of us were to attack eachother, both of us would be at a disadvantage.

So my question is, how can I remedy this situation? I could actually attack this guy, but again, we're both on the losing side, so it would only hurt both of us. I could make an official alliance, but that will only support the two other guys' idea that we had a secret alliance.

Thats a hard one - if you gave a game number that would help. I have been in a simailr situation and i just did my best to explain that, although we WOULD fight in the future, it was currently not in our interests to do so. If its any kind of decent opponent then they would see that themselves.

Hope that helps and good luck to you!

Rocketry

I'd say keep doing what you are doing now and then get the mods to remove any feedback they give you on the grounds that it isn't factual. If you're not in a secret alliance you're not doing anything wrong, to change your strategy based on the views of the people accusing you would be unfair on the other accused player.

yeah thats a tough one....all you can do is play your game to win, and let it play out....if you have no secret alliance, they are the ones who are ruining the game, not you, so you have nothing to fear....it will probably be obvious by the end of the game there is no alliance...and maybe they will see it, maybe they wont...its an unfortunate consequence of playing that way, and having so many players that actually cheat....

I have one borders all over the place in games, with not so much unspoken alliances, as unaggressive postures to reduce the possibility of attack...its a subtlety lost on some...if you get a neg from them, just respond in a controled fashion and explain...most likely they will be the ones that end up on ignore lists, and not you...my ignore list is 90% made up by people who leave bad feedbacks for stupid things rather than those who have them

hopefully at some point...they will learn...good luck with it though

Implicit collusion happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with it. If they cannot accept your explanation then they are not reasonable people, so there is no point reasoning with them. Just keep playing to win and don't worry about negative feedback from unreasonable players it won't hurt you.

I would suggest that they are just weak players who have no idea about strategy. Ignore them as your strategy will probably put you in the driving seat. If they continue to be assholes about it then put them on your ignore list

Sounds familiar... most likely they will get the site involved and ban you from playing with the other person...i had a similar experiance when i played with my friend. As long as you dont mind not playing with the guy your fine. Secret Alliances are hard to prove, and hard not to prove.

TipTop wrote:Implicit collusion happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with it. If they cannot accept your explanation then they are not reasonable people, so there is no point reasoning with them. Just keep playing to win and don't worry about negative feedback from unreasonable players it won't hurt you.

Good answer. Gold star.

wicked wrote:

TipTop wrote:Implicit collusion happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with it. If they cannot accept your explanation then they are not reasonable people, so there is no point reasoning with them. Just keep playing to win and don't worry about negative feedback from unreasonable players it won't hurt you.

Good answer. Gold star.

wicked and i were in a couple of games that are good example...in both we were next to each other....in one of the games we went back and forth quite a bit....in the other, we have avoided a bloodbath so far....the difference is, she never knows if im going to attack her next round, or vice versa....its just that so far both of us have not done it, whereas in the other we did....two games, same map, practically the same locations....

in one it could look like an alliance, but the players are good, and know the game exactly...its a big game of chicken...sometimes the player who flinches wins, sometime the player who doenst wins....

unfortunately to a new player, 3 rounds of no attacks on a border looks like an alliance....similarly, sometimes 3 rounds of no attacks means an alliance... its tricky stuff...but after a few hundred games most come to understand it.

nothing you can really do. Some players are like that here and in real life. I can speak first hand with another example. I was left feedback because a player thought I attacked him just to preserve some points. this of course was untrue and he had no proof to back it up. It was posted on the forum the previous day about another player doing it and im sure this is where he got the idea from. This game was from a year ago and remains on my record. as long as the feedback is worded correctly, it stands. doesnt matter if its just the players opinion and he has 0 proof to back it up.

Thanks for your responses, guys!

I'll guess I'll just let the game play out and hope the situation takes care of itself. And even if he leaves negative feedback, no one's not gonna play with me because of this one thing, right?

Maybe in the future I'll try to make my attacks look a bit more distributed...

JoeCorden wrote:I'd say keep doing what you are doing now and then get the mods to remove any feedback they give you on the grounds that it isn't factual. If you're not in a secret alliance you're not doing anything wrong, to change your strategy based on the views of the people accusing you would be unfair on the other accused player.

Actually, what you appear to be doing is just as important as what you really are doing. In other words, if you play as if you had a secret alliance you are giving your opponents the same negative experience whether it is spoken or unspoken.

In the case of an unspoken alliance, negative feedback should stand whether the accusation of secret alliance is factual or not (which is impossible to prove anyway).

KidBomb wrote:Maybe in the future I'll try to make my attacks look a bit more distributed...

See, you don't have to do this, but you may want to. It's all about balancing your concerns of strategy and reputation!

KidBomb wrote:Thanks for your responses, guys!

I'll guess I'll just let the game play out and hope the situation takes care of itself. And even if he leaves negative feedback, no one's not gonna play with me because of this one thing, right?

Maybe in the future I'll try to make my attacks look a bit more distributed...

No don't change your tactics for some whining little bitch - it doesn't matter if your attacks aren't distributed 100% evenly because strategy means that they won't be. No-one will hold against you because there would be no truth in it

Edit: just realised I was fastposted by the big man himself

I'd just point them to this thread. I've found appearances of secret alliances are often not the case, it's just sound tactics sometimes, and sometimes just really bad playing.

wicked wrote:I'd just point them to this thread. I've found appearances of secret alliances are often not the case, it's just sound tactics sometimes, and sometimes just really bad playing.

I've notice it seems like some players will accuse of secret alliances when they are very strong and weaker players don't attack each other. I consider it a strategy in itself, because sometimes people will try to avoid the accusation by changing how they're playing, which benefits the stronger player making the accusation. Dirty, cheap tactic. I prefer not to play against players who I feel are accusing others of secret alliances just to gain ground in a game.

I only have 1 negative feedback - It is for a secret Alliance. Anyone that has played for any length of time knows that It is not true of me. But I leave it on to remind me that it is not what you do but what you appear to do that matters to people!!

I encountered two players with an unspoken/secret alliance in a game I was in, who happened to be frequent doubles partners, and I've been thinking about a bit. I'd say there are two important things.

First, an important difference between an unspoken alliance and a secret alliance is what happens in the endgame. In an unspoken alliance, both players have to watch out that the other might backstab them, and so can't afford to completely neglect their internal border - they have to ensure that a backstab once the other players are weakened isn't an immediate win for the ally. In a secret alliance, especially if the two players might play together again, they're more likely to neglect defending against a possible backstab. (If you're in an unspoken alliance and not defending against a backstab, hopefully you'll learn pretty fast that you shouldn't form unspoken alliances.)

Second, if you have a relationship with another player outside one game (you're friends in real life, you're doubles partners, whatever), you're probably more likely to form an unspoken alliance, and you're probably more likely to treat it like a secret alliance. For that reason, if you're concerned about your reputation you should avoid unspoken alliances with your friends, or at least announce that you know each other at the beginning of the game.

Xyl wrote:Second, if you have a relationship with another player outside one game (you're friends in real life, you're doubles partners, whatever), you're probably more likely to form an unspoken alliance, and you're probably more likely to treat it like a secret alliance.

I speak only for myself here, but when I play against the one person I know in real life, I try to make a point of taking him out fast and hard, so I can gloat about it later.

I think directing the people to this thread might be an idea.

Sometimes it is good tactics to leave a relatively weak border between you and both concentrate on other foes, because attacking each other would weaken you both. That's not an alliance, it's just sound play. The acid test is: if an opportunity arises to take out the other player, is it taken? ... because it is almost always a correct move to eliminate someone if it's possible.

lackattack wrote:

JoeCorden wrote:I'd say keep doing what you are doing now and then get the mods to remove any feedback they give you on the grounds that it isn't factual. If you're not in a secret alliance you're not doing anything wrong, to change your strategy based on the views of the people accusing you would be unfair on the other accused player.

Actually, what you appear to be doing is just as important as what you really are doing. In other words, if you play as if you had a secret alliance you are giving your opponents the same negative experience whether it is spoken or unspoken.

In the case of an unspoken alliance, negative feedback should stand whether the accusation of secret alliance is factual or not (which is impossible to prove anyway).

KidBomb wrote:Maybe in the future I'll try to make my attacks look a bit more distributed...

See, you don't have to do this, but you may want to. It's all about balancing your concerns of strategy and reputation!

KidBomb - Don't listen to this guy.

Have no idea what he's really doing here. He rarely plays any games, he just make some random posts in the forums now and then. And that is besides the fact that his avatar is so 1980's.

alstergren wrote:

lackattack wrote:

JoeCorden wrote:I'd say keep doing what you are doing now and then get the mods to remove any feedback they give you on the grounds that it isn't factual. If you're not in a secret alliance you're not doing anything wrong, to change your strategy based on the views of the people accusing you would be unfair on the other accused player.

Actually, what you appear to be doing is just as important as what you really are doing. In other words, if you play as if you had a secret alliance you are giving your opponents the same negative experience whether it is spoken or unspoken.

In the case of an unspoken alliance, negative feedback should stand whether the accusation of secret alliance is factual or not (which is impossible to prove anyway).

KidBomb wrote:Maybe in the future I'll try to make my attacks look a bit more distributed...

See, you don't have to do this, but you may want to. It's all about balancing your concerns of strategy and reputation!

KidBomb - Don't listen to this guy.

Have no idea what he's really doing here. He rarely plays any games, he just make some random posts in the forums now and then. And that is besides the fact that his avatar is so 1980's.

Well, I hate to do it, but I kind of agree that lack might not be completely right on this...I take some serious risks in games where i let one player get out of control, waiting for an opening...if the alternative is certain death, or staying away from him, ill stay away every time...

and the main difference between a secret alliance and an unspoken one, is the fact that at any given time either may attack....it is that threat of attack that changes the whole game dynamics....i have had hundreds of these...but at some point...i attack or they attack...but if I talked to them about it, I would know i was safe, and it would ruin the game....assuming im safe, or playing as if Im safe, is completely different...

but these situations really are better with all experienced players...they know that two players sitting next to each other, while not attacking, are completely intent on the others destruction...its only the timing of it thats unclear...

but i didnt look at the example...if a player lets another player just take over, that obviously may warrant a feedback...but I would never leave on for that, unless I thought it was actually spoken...and even then, since its nearly impossible to prove...i wouldnt leave one...

AAFitz wrote:Well, I hate to do it, but I kind of agree that lack might not be completely right on this...I take some serious risks in games where i let one player get out of control, waiting for an opening...if the alternative is certain death, or staying away from him, ill stay away every time...

LOL. I was actually only joking, not attempting to make any analyzes.

However, after having read your excellent post - I concur. I think you hit spot-on there.

alstergren wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Well, I hate to do it, but I kind of agree that lack might not be completely right on this...I take some serious risks in games where i let one player get out of control, waiting for an opening...if the alternative is certain death, or staying away from him, ill stay away every time...

LOL. I was actually only joking, not attempting to make any analyzes.

However, after having read your excellent post - I concur. I think you hit spot-on there.

I knew you were joking, but some jokes just happen to be close to the truth...sorry lack...

Yeah. It's funny because it's true.

Sorry lack. (But get your act together... )