Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:06 pm**

I was left feedback by someone that was angry that I had formed an alliance with someone else and took them our first. For this horrendous act I was given negative feedback.

As I followed all rules and did nothing "wrong" I wrote to get the feedback removed.

This request was denied. It seems you do not have to do anything really wrong, just have someone not like you to get negative feedback.

With this in mind... The best way to protect yourself, should you suspect someone MIGHT leave you negative feedback is to leave it to them first. They don't really have to do anything wrong... all you have to do is not like them very much. Because he will not be ABLE to leave neg feedback, because it will be seen as retaliation.

What is the point of a feedback system that allows personal vendetta's to be perpetrated on people. I pride myself in never breaking my word in a game. I play with skill and try my best to win the game. If that involves making an alliance with the weaker player against the stronger player, of course I will do it.

I wasn't rude I didn't back stab I didn't cuss anyone out. I simply took another player out of the game through diplomacy.

Does this happen often? It seems terribly unfair. Is there further recourse available to stop what is basically a personal smear about legal conduct in a game?

Alarac

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:16 pm**

usually alliances are frowned upon especially in 3 player situations.

you say you allied with another weak player and killed the stronger guy. i wouldn't leave you feedback for it but i would put you on my ignore list.

i agree sometimes 2 weak guys must work together if a third one is getting too strong but they should have a truce only until the game is leveled again.

try putting yourself in the strong guy's position. you have 50-60 armies and the others have 30. you've played great and strategized your moves carefully and al of a sudden it turns into a 2vs1 game and you lose. wouldn't you be pissed?? :wink:

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:17 pm**

Leaving pre-emptive negatives is frowned upon. :evil:

The timestamp is the last thing we look at when determining if it's retaliatory or not, so that's probably not your best plan of action. Better just to play smart and play a good game.

Many players don't like being ganged up on in a 3 player game, as it's seen as unfair. How would you like it if you were the one being targeted so that you had no chance? Alliances are for losers... literally... the only people who make them are people who can't win on their own, else they wouldn't make them. Making alliances of any types is grounds for feedback, as you'll run across people who don't like them.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:28 pm**

I would understand being upset... I would have been too. I would not have ignored the person, I would have wanted to play them again to get even.

I guess I do not understand... I usually try and win the games I play. I use the tools available... When reading the rules I missed the part where allances were illegal of even frowned upon.

As this was my first game, I can only go by what is published for me to read. When playing with my friends, they would actually be angry at me for not giving my nest effort to beat them. With all means available to me.

I agree that I would have been angry. I agree that the player would have been marked by me in the future for aggression.

I even understand him leaving me negative feedback, but I do not understand the Mods allowing it to stand.

As a new player, this was very discouraging to me. As I had been looking for just this type of thing to take up some time. This is an unfortunate turn.

Oh and Wicked. Thanks for the personal jab there... Never have ever been on a forum where a Mod left a personal comment about a poster before... Eye opening in every way.

Loser Alarac

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:56 pm**

Sorry if that was harsh. I'm usually first to notice if a player is new and try not to be harsh with the newbies. My mistake and I apologize. The absolute last thing I want to do is turn away a new player. :oops:

There are basically two types of players here, those who make alliances and those who don't. There are plenty who make alliances and would love to play you. Put a post in the Callouts Forum and I bet you'll find some.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:16 pm**

I don't like alliances, but I'd ever leave a neg. for it, because it's not that bad. Only a neutral, but that's only for 3 player games.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:34 am**

seems u touched a nerve with wicked, thats signs of trouble to come man

but i would have to agree with u that its not right. i have played a a few games where people make alliances and i myself hasve done so as well. but i cant really agree with wicked's point of view that alliances are bad and are made by people who cant win on there own. sometimes in order to survive and comeback from a rough start, the alliance is a way for u to do that.

sure i understadn that whole alliance mentality especially when it comes to 3 way ffa and it turns into a 2vs1. i mean a smart player would ally with the weaker player to take out or at least weaken the strongest player. there are plenty of threads out there that are ful of people saying how x player was an idiot cause he didnt ally in order to atleast weaken the strongest player. there are 2 sides of evrything. :roll:

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:52 am**

wicked wrote:Sorry if that was harsh. I'm usually first to notice if a player is new and try not to be harsh with the newbies. My mistake and I apologize. The absolute last thing I want to do is turn away a new player.

There are basically two types of players here, those who make alliances and those who don't. There are plenty who make alliances and would love to play you. Put a post in the Callouts Forum and I bet you'll find some.

Good save. :roll:

Back to your earlier comment.

Wicked wrote:Alliances are for losers... literally... the only people who make them are people who can't win on their own, else they wouldn't make them.

If I sense I'm in a game where people are going to make alliances I'm going to go for it. It's not my usual strategy but part of winning is getting a feel for the room your in and then exploiting it. While the game is mostly luck, the skill part comes in knowing the odds and being able to predict what your opponents are going to do, as well as interpreting what they least want you to do. Putting your opponents on tilt so they suicide everywhere is insanely fun. Yes I'm a manipulative jerk and it is shocking that I don't have negative feedback for being one.

One thing I have noticed though, and this almost always leads to my downfall, is that if you are in a quiet room don't say anything ever. I don't know why but if I break the silence of a quiet room I am almost instantly ganged up on and destroyed, and my talking seems to be the only factor.

I've gone off topic a bit, my point is that alliances are for winners. Losers are the people that see an alliance is about to happen and don't do anything about it because they feel the idea of alliances are wrong. I am here to win at any cost, and if people are making alliances I want to be in them, not the target of them. If that isn't possible I have quite a few alliance busting strategies at my disposal that I've used with great success but I am not going to share them with any of you. :lol:

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:26 pm**

wicked wrote:Many players don't like being ganged up on in a 3 player game, as it's seen as unfair. How would you like it if you were the one being targeted so that you had no chance? Alliances are for losers... literally... the only people who make them are people who can't win on their own, else they wouldn't make them. Making alliances of any types is grounds for feedback, as you'll run across people who don't like them.

This is completly wrong. Risk is a diplomatic game. Why do you think there is a game chat box?

Alliaces and truces are a major part of the game. They are made by skilled players and provide a huge (and legal) advantage in a game. They add interest to a game.

I have made alliances in three player games and hae had alliances made against me in three players games. This is good gameplay, The two weakest players ally against the dominating power, When the dominating power is no longer dominant the alliances falls apart (as it is no longer in the players interests to unite)

I am suprised a mod has taken this view

Rocketry

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:36 pm**

Alliances are a touchy subject. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just controversial, ergo feedback is allowed to warn others of your playing style.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:53 pm**

Most of the negative feedback people leave is petty bullshit that can pretty much be ignored
with the exception of frequent deadbeats.

I've even seen neg feedback given for what was deemed stupid ramblings in the game chat.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:00 pm**

wicked wrote:Alliances are a touchy subject. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just controversial, ergo feedback is allowed to warn others of your playing style.

there is nothing wrong with alliances. if both players are playing to win, then when the alliance stops being benifical to both players in breaks down.

Rocketry

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:05 pm**

wicked wrote:There are basically two types of players here, those who make alliances and those who don't.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:40 pm**

alliances are wrong. before you jump at my throat read the whole post.

i've been playing risk for ~10 years and in this time i have played numerous variations set-ups and rules. diplomacy is a key aspect of the game BUT diplomacy can be abused and being such a delicate aspect i chose to consider alliance as a bad thing.

i want any of you that are pro-alliance to put yourselves in the following situation.

me and a friend (let's call him X) start a bunch of 3 player games.

people join and right from the start we announce our alliance and crush the third player, let's call him victim.

we're not breaking any rules since we have an open alliance announced in chat. but is it fair for the victim? he has lost points right from the start. does he have a reason to leave neg feedback or put us on ignore? if you look at the rules then no. but if you judge from his perspective i think he has.

this would be an abuse. just like people that attack their partners or deadbeat in all games we would not break the rules but we would abuse the system.

the only alliances i agree with are those unspoken. in the cases where somebody gets so big the others start to attack him to balance the game without anybody saying anything. it's just common sense.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:08 pm**

DiM wrote:alliances are wrong. before you jump at my throat read the whole post.

i've been playing risk for ~10 years and in this time i have played numerous variations set-ups and rules. diplomacy is a key aspect of the game BUT diplomacy can be abused and being such a delicate aspect i chose to consider alliance as a bad thing.

i want any of you that are pro-alliance to put yourselves in the following situation.

me and a friend (let's call him X) start a bunch of 3 player games.

people join and right from the start we announce our alliance and crush the third player, let's call him victim.

we're not breaking any rules since we have an open alliance announced in chat. but is it fair for the victim? he has lost points right from the start. does he have a reason to leave neg feedback or put us on ignore? if you look at the rules then no. but if you judge from his perspective i think he has.

this would be an abuse. just like people that attack their partners or deadbeat in all games we would not break the rules but we would abuse the system.

the only alliances i agree with are those unspoken. in the cases where somebody gets so big the others start to attack him to balance the game without anybody saying anything. it's just common sense.

fair point. it could be said this situation is different. you are not playing to win - you have a previously agreed alliance.

Rocketry

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:19 pm**

Rocketry wrote:
DiM wrote:alliances are wrong. before you jump at my throat read the whole post.

i've been playing risk for ~10 years and in this time i have played numerous variations set-ups and rules. diplomacy is a key aspect of the game BUT diplomacy can be abused and being such a delicate aspect i chose to consider alliance as a bad thing.

i want any of you that are pro-alliance to put yourselves in the following situation.

me and a friend (let's call him X) start a bunch of 3 player games.

people join and right from the start we announce our alliance and crush the third player, let's call him victim.

we're not breaking any rules since we have an open alliance announced in chat. but is it fair for the victim? he has lost points right from the start. does he have a reason to leave neg feedback or put us on ignore? if you look at the rules then no. but if you judge from his perspective i think he has.

this would be an abuse. just like people that attack their partners or deadbeat in all games we would not break the rules but we would abuse the system.

the only alliances i agree with are those unspoken. in the cases where somebody gets so big the others start to attack him to balance the game without anybody saying anything. it's just common sense.

fair point. it could be said this situation is different. you are not playing to win - you have a previously agreed alliance.

Rocketry

i beg to differ both me and X are playing to win but 1vs1 jsut does not bring enough points so we get another victim to increase the bonus of each game.
:wink:

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:20 pm**

I am a pro alliance player but I have my limits , I despise the idea of players agreeing to ally even before a game starts.That is just plain wrong and totally unfair.
To me the diplomacy that you get once a game gets going is very entertaining. Persuading total strangers to ally with you,leave you alone or attack someone else is a real skill in itself!
Anyway I am learning from experience not to bother trying to do any agreements in normal games- however if I can gather some like minded pro alliance players together we could do our own games and then everyone's happy :wink:

and no one can moan at us :roll:

Oh yes and finally,pro alliance players are not weaker players.We just have a differant outlook on playing the game.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:47 am**

DiM wrote:
Rocketry wrote:
DiM wrote:alliances are wrong. before you jump at my throat read the whole post.

i've been playing risk for ~10 years and in this time i have played numerous variations set-ups and rules. diplomacy is a key aspect of the game BUT diplomacy can be abused and being such a delicate aspect i chose to consider alliance as a bad thing.

i want any of you that are pro-alliance to put yourselves in the following situation.

me and a friend (let's call him X) start a bunch of 3 player games.

people join and right from the start we announce our alliance and crush the third player, let's call him victim.

we're not breaking any rules since we have an open alliance announced in chat. but is it fair for the victim? he has lost points right from the start. does he have a reason to leave neg feedback or put us on ignore? if you look at the rules then no. but if you judge from his perspective i think he has.

this would be an abuse. just like people that attack their partners or deadbeat in all games we would not break the rules but we would abuse the system.

the only alliances i agree with are those unspoken. in the cases where somebody gets so big the others start to attack him to balance the game without anybody saying anything. it's just common sense.

fair point. it could be said this situation is different. you are not playing to win - you have a previously agreed alliance.

Rocketry

i beg to differ both me and X are playing to win but 1vs1 jsut does not bring enough points so we get another victim to increase the bonus of each game.

Sorry, DiM. What you speak of is BLATANTLY unethical, IMO. You specified in your 'hypothetical' situation that you and a friend AGREED PRIOR to the game start to team up on any and EVERY unknown third player, just to increase the bonus in the eventual 1v1 game.

Misrepresentation of the game format.

Speaking personally...
1> I *prefer* 4+ player games. 3-player ends up too quickly as 2 on 1, MOST of the time. This does not always happen, admitted; but it seems frequent from my experience IRL.

2> I see both sides of the Alliance issue. Given that CC *HAS* an established team game format, Alliances in 'normal' (non-doubles, non-triples, non-tournament) games should be rare.

3> I would, under most conditions, NOT leave negative feedback for others making an alliance in a game. It would require either an ex post facto admission of an undeclared (at the time) alliance, or personal vendetta (say, 2 or 3 folks in a large game agreeing early they would 'kill X, then play out the game')

Frankly, if you like alliances and find rabid non-alliance people; or vice versa...

...just add folks to your ignore list. I'm new here, but as i understand it, that will keep them out of your games and keep you from seeing theirs. Simple enough, no?

Conquer Club

Just wanted to grouse

Just wanted to grouse