Honor

by **KoolBak** on Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:21 pm

Well Z, I will take that as a compliment - thank you my friend.....

I find many many instances where it looks like alliances are being made but it is just common sense on who the hells needs taming...it is a point well taken :wink:

by **dividedbyzero** on Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:21 pm

KoolBak wrote:Analyze all you want; this is a gut feeling that is MY opinion so no amount of analyzing or debating will sway it - whether you call it an alliance, a border treaty, a gentlemans agreemant or an octode rectifier, aliiances, to me, are R E P R E H E N S I B L E. Period.

I play to win but I am proud that I do it on my own (when it happens). I am illogical, I am volitile, I am not a fantastic player, I have fun and I have a spine and balls....POW!

Yeah, it's legal...and yeah, if that's the way you want to play, have at it. Me, I don't like alliances and don't like playing with people that make alliances. If I want to play teams, I play doubles or triples, not singles with agreements.

But that's me. I guess I'm just more in the same vein KoolBak is on this.

dbz

by **spring1** on Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:06 pm

Hey Kool--I got your back, brother...

Alliances are for pathetically weak and obsessive {with winning} people who are invariably choosing to cheapen the very nature of the game...whether they realize it or not. You "pro-cheating" folks should use less analysis and more common sense.

I joined this site and subsequently play this ridiculously addicting game for one reason: FUN. I couldn't care any less about points, standings, or other such nonsense. When someone takes away my FUN by cheating (aka--alliances, treaties, etc.), the FUN is no longer part of the equation. The game becomes inconsequential--there's no longer any point in playing. It's not "part of the game's inherent strategy"--that's the most ludricrous thing I've heard since the de facto double turn argument (<--boy, does THAT bring back some memories! lol).

I have the original Risk game in my basement...I'm not 100% sure if the rules state that alliances are legal, optional, or whatnot...well, I suppose for me, it's completely irrelevant anyways...Legal or not, alliances suck--! Happy, happy, joy, joy!

by **tals** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:52 am

dividedbyzero wrote:
KoolBak wrote:Analyze all you want; this is a gut feeling that is MY opinion so no amount of analyzing or debating will sway it - whether you call it an alliance, a border treaty, a gentlemans agreemant or an octode rectifier, aliiances, to me, are R E P R E H E N S I B L E. Period.

I play to win but I am proud that I do it on my own (when it happens). I am illogical, I am volitile, I am not a fantastic player, I have fun and I have a spine and balls....POW!

Yeah, it's legal...and yeah, if that's the way you want to play, have at it. Me, I don't like alliances and don't like playing with people that make alliances. If I want to play teams, I play doubles or triples, not singles with agreements.

But that's me. I guess I'm just more in the same vein KoolBak is on this.

dbz

My thoughts entirely - for me the game would be a far better game without it.

Tals

by **kclborat** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:05 am

i often like to create a treaty. Often this treaty can save me. If i dont want to arm up brazil and venezuela, i can make atreaty with the african player and move north, giving me way more guys to go for the continent. its legal and is one of the best moves u can make.

by **tals** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:07 am

kclborat wrote:i often like to create a treaty. Often this treaty can save me. If i dont want to arm up brazil and venezuela, i can make atreaty with the african player and move north, giving me way more guys to go for the continent. its legal and is one of the best moves u can make.

A treaty in this form makes sense and is not contentious. The problem I have is the ones that are treatys to get rid of players before proceeding.

That said I would never enter into a treaty in this form - any treaty on the basis of allowing a player to consolidate his position is mad for the accepting player IMHO of course

Tals

by **qeee1** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:18 pm

spring1 wrote:You "pro-cheating" folks should use less analysis and more common sense.

Ouchies, of course common sense is often misleading, plenty of notions in life are counterintuitive enough to show us that we can't always rely on common sense. Seems like you're urging people to ignore analysing things because if they do it'll contradict what you say. Anyway...

I joined this site and subsequently play this ridiculously addicting game for one reason: FUN. I couldn't care any less about points, standings, or other such nonsense. When someone takes away my FUN by cheating (aka--alliances, treaties, etc.), the FUN is no longer part of the equation. The game becomes inconsequential--there's no longer any point in playing. It's not "part of the game's inherent strategy"--that's the most ludricrous thing I've heard since the de facto double turn argument (<--boy, does THAT bring back some memories! lol).

We all joined for fun, and mostly I don't care about rankings (though I'd be lying if I said not at all). Alliances are part of the games inherant strategy in a way that double turns are not. Alliances in risk have been around as long as risk has been around. They don't cheapen the game because they're a part of the game.

Double turns on the other hand are a way of exploiting a glitch in the system by which the game is delivered to you. ie. double turns involve a manipulation that relies upon the fact that the game is being played over the internet. As such double turns rely on manipulation of things outside the game, while alliances involve manipulation inside the scope of the game.

Alliances and treatys ADD to the fun for most, you just have a different conception of fun, which I'd argue is more caught up in this notion of winning than those who embrace alliances. I'd wager that the fun created by alliances are a large part of the reason for risks success.

You influence other players actions lots in risk, alliances are just a less subtle way of doing it.

by **KoolBak** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:35 pm

*Assumes qeeester is fond of frivilous lawsuits too, as they are an inherant part of life....and cancer.....*

D'Oh!!

There I go with inductive logic again.......

by **qeee1** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:58 pm

well I do like cancer... :wink:

by **spring1** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:54 pm

Qeeester--

Two rules are prevalent in life:

1. Spring is always right.

2. If Spring happens to be wrong, refer back to rule #1.

Seriously, this particular debate is neverending...what it really boils down to is simply a matter of preference. I prefer to play strategy-based games with people who don't have to be told when to break up a continent. I prefer to play with individuals who not only understand, but can ultimately conceptualize what every other player's intentions will be. I prefer to play with players who don't need to apply any sort of 'spin' to the game. ie--alliances, treaties, words spoken in the gamechat whose sole purpose is to foster animosity between two other players for the benefit of the instigator. I fully understand why some people might find alliances, treaties, and such intriguing--hell, in the beginning, I even participated in a few myself. Eventually, I found that they were boring. The game and the people I played against were far too easy to manipulate. Underhanded scheming is something that I prefer to leave to the politicians of the world.

On the rare occasion that I do play the board game, alliances/treaties are usually voted down. This is something that is decided and agreed upon prior to the start of the game...options are given, choices are made. My only real bitch is that those same choices are difficult to realize in the on-line version of the game.

By the way, Qeee....why haven't you played a game with me yet? You're not afraid of a little spring, are ya? :wink:

by **qeee1** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:26 pm

spring1 wrote:Seriously, this particular debate is neverending...what it really boils down to is simply a matter of preference. I prefer to play strategy-based games with people who don't have to be told when to break up a continent. I prefer to play with individuals who not only understand, but can ultimately conceptualize what every other player's intentions will be. I prefer to play with players who don't need to apply any sort of 'spin' to the game. ie--alliances, treaties, words spoken in the gamechat whose sole purpose is to foster animosity between two other players for the benefit of the instigator. I fully understand why some people might find alliances, treaties, and such intriguing--hell, in the beginning, I even participated in a few myself. Eventually, I found that they were boring. The game and the people I played against were far too easy to manipulate. Underhanded scheming is something that I prefer to leave to the politicians of the world.

You see when you said this debate is never ending, I thought you were going to move to a conciliatory statement, and say something like, some people find alliances fun, some don't.

But then you draw a different distinction. You draw the distinction between people who like alliances and people who don't, and the distinction is drawn along the lines of everyone who likes alliances are idiots who don't know whats going on in the game, and everyone who doesn't like alliances are all skilled players. I don't think that's fair, plenty of high ranking players favour alliances, like Duggie, or em... me.

And I've played against many a poor Xig member... (no offence to anyone there, and no I won't name names)

Alliances aren't only useful when you're playing bad players, they're useful against good players too. Of course all decent players want to play against people who know whats going on. That doesn't discount alliances however.

By the way, Qeee....why haven't you played a game with me yet? You're not afraid of a little spring, are ya?

Given I've only played 80 games, against maybe 350 players out of 6,000? and you've played maybe 550 players, it's not suprising we haven't come accross each other yet. Send me a singles, flat rate, sequential game no. and pass and I'm in, I'll even promise not to make alliances for the game. If you wanna play escalating you'll have to wait a little longer, I don't like escalating so much, so I play it less often.

EDIT: Heh, look at that formatting further up, alliances first word on the line 4 or 5 times in a row, (at least from where I'm looking) crazy.

by **KoolBak** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:50 pm

Count me in! I like playing with my qeeeester....LOL!!! And I havent had the pleasure of a beating by Sproing in some time......

by **qeee1** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:14 pm

K, I made a game 136892

This one is for honour...

anyone else wants in, send me a pm.

by **KoolBak** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:34 pm

I'm in! Thanks bud-

by **spring1** on Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:39 pm

LOL...Qeee, to describe you as incorrigible would be an understatement!

You remind me of...me!

By the way, I cannot believe that you actually got me to say (type) the two words that I really didn't want to say as a pw to your game! Nice one! :wink:

by **qeee1** on Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:07 am

I do try...

by **MeDeFe** on Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:20 am

It's not my favourite map, but still, if you'll have me I'd like to join.

by **MeDeFe** on Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:45 am

you cannot join game 136892 because you are on KoolBak's ignore list

Now this is unexpected, since when, and for what?

by **KoolBak** on Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:26 pm

LMAO!! I have no idea...I dont think we've even ever played.....

I have 3 pages of "ignored" people, primarily from way back when I would add all the busted multis.....

Bear with me...when you are looking at someones profile, you click "see all games" and "add to ignoe" is right by it....well 2 site upgrades ago, if you accidentally clicked the "ignore" instead of the "see", it added that person without making you verify the addition.....apparently I am the only idiot that did this but I keep finding people that I have ignored that I didnt mean to...like Wicked..you should have heard THAT comment.....and Scarus, my original sponsor into xigames....oops....

Anyway, that is my pitiful explaination...either that or I was drunk and randomly added you..entirely possible as well!

Anyhow, my apologies to you; you are removed; my bad, I think is the correct terminoligy :oops: