Conquer Club

This is simple in my opinion.
If you like this friend so much play team games. Yes, people do get upset when friends continue to play in 8 player games with each other. Also, I notice you refer to each other by color as if you don't know each other. I understand wanting to play with people you know, but that can be done as team, 1v1 or a group of 8 that you know. This is unfair to the other players who thought this wasn't a team game.

i think it's a bit tricky because all being in the open, if I had been in that game I would surely have used diplomacy with the other 5 players to counter the kiron-xiang alliance. Haven't looked that much into the game, but 6vs2 should do it. In general people proposing these kind of things get crushed by the others for doing so. Iblame the others for not using counter diplomacy.

I think that these kind of diplomacies should be more or less permitted if the alliance holds less than 50% of the troop count on the board. (this case being tricky because of the objectives and I have no clue of where they were standing when the diplomacy ocured)

Anyway, these guys are definitely grat players and there is nothing to be ashamed of to see them conquerors, all being highly based on diplomacy which is definitely one of the most interesting things in risk.

I don't follow their games, but if it's once in a while, and sometimes they are the victim of it well they know what game they're playing...

Nah yeah, you're wrong Betiko, but it is because you didnt read the game log.
It was freestyle. They talked together, both played last, then played first, and one won the game (objective). The 6 other players didnt stand any chance since they had no possibility of playing a turn

kentington wrote:This is simple in my opinion.
If you like this friend so much play team games. Yes, people do get upset when friends continue to play in 8 player games with each other. Also, I notice you refer to each other by color as if you don't know each other. I understand wanting to play with people you know, but that can be done as team, 1v1 or a group of 8 that you know. This is unfair to the other players who thought this wasn't a team game.

This. There has always existed an intent to deceive. These guys are friends (house mates even). No-one else in the games they play probably ever knows that, so betiko's theory of the other players forming an alliance never materializes. They end and start each round in collusion, that's why they play freestyle. They should either play as a team (in team games!) or announce their (as of yet unspoken) alliance in chat from Round 1.

Anyone can top the leaderboard if they've a friend playing on the other team.

No need for this thread.

From what I can tell, the majority of people on this site are convinced that the only way to reach the level of conqueror is to cheat. Also, all those that have been conqueror are clearly mean and evil people.

why not just immediately ban players the very moment they reach #1 on the scoreboard?

That would solve things for everyone, right?

I'd like to propose a question regarding a similar case. The question, in advance, is "at which moment is the rule broken?"

The case

Moment 1 - 8-player standard freestyle flat rate Third Crusade game starts
Moment 2 - red and green get considerably weaker than the others
Moment 3 - in a given turn, red and green are the only two players left to make their moves
Moment 4 - they both conclude their individual odds of winning the game is about 5%
Moment 5 - they realize that, should one of them take the objective this very turn and not have it broken by the other, they will win regardless of how strong the other 6 players are
Moment 6 - red proposes the following deal: he will roll a 30v33 (50.5% roughly) attack against Antiochia (owned by, say, blue). Should red win, he will take the objectives and green will promise not to break it. Should red lose, green will take the objectives and red will promise not to break it. Red makes the offer because 50.5% is better than 5%.
Moment 7 - green accepts the offer because 49.5% is better than 5%.
Moment 8 - the 30v33 is rolled and red wins. Red takes all objectives. Red ends the turn.
Moment 9 - green, who could probably take Antiochia and keep the game alive, prefers to honour his word and ends the turn without attacking.
Moment 10 - red presses "b" and wins the game.

*Moment 6 has a difference regarding the actual case. Instead of taking the 50/50 odds to an outside "tiebreaker" game, the deal never has to "leave" that particular game (for the record, Xiangwang originally offered exactly that with his "taking Granada" bet, but that changed to the 3 outside games deal)

kentington wrote:This is simple in my opinion.
If you like this friend so much play team games. Yes, people do get upset when friends continue to play in 8 player games with each other. Also, I notice you refer to each other by color as if you don't know each other. I understand wanting to play with people you know, but that can be done as team, 1v1 or a group of 8 that you know. This is unfair to the other players who thought this wasn't a team game.

I believe I already mentioned that this deal was a mistaken understanding of the rules based on falling victim to this in many past games. Thanks jsynder748 for your kind defence. I only came back to play from retirement because xiangwang (he was getting bored) wanted me to play against him to spice up his games. We dislike teams mostly because the points win rate is too long compared to loss rates given our rank. It's been seen from our past logs that we can play fine without each other in games (of course it makes sense that our mutual win rate may increase when we play freestyle together, just add our two base chance of winning together). But that's like saying MC and I can't play games together because the chance of our win rate together increases. I usually tend to always refer to people by colour as it's more formal in playing risk (just a habit), unless the game state becomes more personal (aka I want this player X killed). And it is not a team game, we BOTH play to win, it's not like xiangwang is helping me win this game and i will help him win the next. We BOTH WANT to win.

Now regarding that deal. I understand that you are angry at the single game, it was just a mistaken understanding of the rules based on past experience of being victim to it believing it was legal.

the plot thickens...

Kiron wrote:I believe I already mentioned that this deal was a mistaken understanding of the rules based on falling victim to this in many past games.

Would you mind to post the game numbers?

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=12075780
http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=8807710

two of them I am in

Its really hard to say when the diplomacy is out of the limits.

In the first game of that list we were 3. I proposed to the other two to play at the same time and elliminate all other players. The other two prefered to gamble the objective. Onjectively there is not that real difference between those two mentods as the results would have been the same. Is it illegal to say lets elliminate all other players? I think no.

In any case when two players start a multiple game (not escalating) and because of their history trust each other (either because they are frined or because they are at the same clan or becasue they have play many games together) they will have an advantage against the other players especially if deplomacy is involved.

So what I can say that all these tricks are not illegal but they should be limited when they are being used among players that have a friendly history.

here was another that kiron posted earlier

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=10501692

kiron also disagreed with the decisions of the other players, but they went ahead and played an outside game to decide the winner claiming it was legal.

xiangwang wrote:here was another that kiron posted earlier

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=10501692

kiron also disagreed with the decisions of the other players, but they went ahead and played an outside game to decide the winner claiming it was legal.

That was completely illegal of coarse

Kiron wrote:

kentington wrote:This is simple in my opinion.
If you like this friend so much play team games. Yes, people do get upset when friends continue to play in 8 player games with each other. Also, I notice you refer to each other by color as if you don't know each other. I understand wanting to play with people you know, but that can be done as team, 1v1 or a group of 8 that you know. This is unfair to the other players who thought this wasn't a team game.

1.I believe I already mentioned that this deal was a mistaken understanding of the rules based on falling victim to this in many past games. Thanks jsynder748 for your kind defence.2. I only came back to play from retirement because xiangwang (he was getting bored) wanted me to play against him to spice up his games. 3.We dislike teams mostly because the points win rate is too long compared to loss rates given our rank. It's been seen from our past logs that we can play fine without each other in games (of course it makes sense that our mutual win rate may increase when we play freestyle together, just add our two base chance of winning together).4. But that's like saying MC and I can't play games together because the chance of our win rate together increases.5. I usually tend to always refer to people by colour as it's more formal in playing risk (just a habit), unless the game state becomes more personal (aka I want this player X killed).6. And it is not a team game, we BOTH play to win, it's not like xiangwang is helping me win this game and i will help him win the next. We BOTH WANT to win.

Now regarding that deal. I understand that you are angry at the single game, it was just a mistaken understanding of the rules based on past experience of being victim to it believing it was legal.

First of all, I am not angry. The OP wanted opinions on the matter. I gave mine and I backed it up with good arguments.
1. If you fell victim* to this in the past, then why didn't you report it? *Doesn't the use of the word victim suggest someone wronged? If you felt wronged, then why would you consider it "ok" to continue this type of behavior.
2. If the only reason you came back was to save xiangwang from boredom, then team games would be a good way to play with each other. 1v1 is another option. The behavior in that game suggests that you were playing together.
3. Oh, I thought you only came back for entertainment with xiangwang not points?
4. I am saying that in 8 player versus, you should not be playing with anyone, but against everyone. Yes there is diplomacy, but it seemed that right from the get go you guys were in an alliance.
5. It may be the way you always play, but that doesn't make it less deceitful.
6. You both play to have one of you win. That is the complaint. It is not so much that he is throwing every game so you can get your rank up. It is the fact that by playing together and working together you are trying to ensure that the winner is your or him and not the other 6 players. If you need me to clarify this I can.

One thing you have not talked about but others have brought up is that you take your turns and end turns in ways that benefit you both. Beginning and ending at the same time. This sounds like outside planning to me. It could just be coincidence, but when all of the other things in this post add up it seems intentional.

kentington wrote:

Kiron wrote:

kentington wrote:This is simple in my opinion.
If you like this friend so much play team games. Yes, people do get upset when friends continue to play in 8 player games with each other. Also, I notice you refer to each other by color as if you don't know each other. I understand wanting to play with people you know, but that can be done as team, 1v1 or a group of 8 that you know. This is unfair to the other players who thought this wasn't a team game.

1.I believe I already mentioned that this deal was a mistaken understanding of the rules based on falling victim to this in many past games. Thanks jsynder748 for your kind defence.2. I only came back to play from retirement because xiangwang (he was getting bored) wanted me to play against him to spice up his games. 3.We dislike teams mostly because the points win rate is too long compared to loss rates given our rank. It's been seen from our past logs that we can play fine without each other in games (of course it makes sense that our mutual win rate may increase when we play freestyle together, just add our two base chance of winning together).4. But that's like saying MC and I can't play games together because the chance of our win rate together increases.5. I usually tend to always refer to people by colour as it's more formal in playing risk (just a habit), unless the game state becomes more personal (aka I want this player X killed).6. And it is not a team game, we BOTH play to win, it's not like xiangwang is helping me win this game and i will help him win the next. We BOTH WANT to win.

Now regarding that deal. I understand that you are angry at the single game, it was just a mistaken understanding of the rules based on past experience of being victim to it believing it was legal.

First of all, I am not angry. The OP wanted opinions on the matter. I gave mine and I backed it up with good arguments.
1. If you fell victim* to this in the past, then why didn't you report it? *Doesn't the use of the word victim suggest someone wronged? If you felt wronged, then why would you consider it "ok" to continue this type of behavior.
2. If the only reason you came back was to save xiangwang from boredom, then team games would be a good way to play with each other. 1v1 is another option. The behavior in that game suggests that you were playing together.
3. Oh, I thought you only came back for entertainment with xiangwang not points?
4. I am saying that in 8 player versus, you should not be playing with anyone, but against everyone. Yes there is diplomacy, but it seemed that right from the get go you guys were in an alliance.
5. It may be the way you always play, but that doesn't make it less deceitful.
6. You both play to have one of you win. That is the complaint. It is not so much that he is throwing every game so you can get your rank up. It is the fact that by playing together and working together you are trying to ensure that the winner is your or him and not the other 6 players. If you need me to clarify this I can.

One thing you have not talked about but others have brought up is that you take your turns and end turns in ways that benefit you both. Beginning and ending at the same time. This sounds like outside planning to me. It could just be coincidence, but when all of the other things in this post add up it seems intentional.

1. I should clarify this point. what I meant when i fell victim to it is not that I knew it was wrong at the time. When it happened to me, I thought it was LEGAL so never reported it. Hence, that what led to this decision because I THOUGHT it was LEGAL, we have already established it was wrong, mistakes happen, i admit that.

2. and 3. I will address these two points together. Yes, i came back mostly to entertain xiangwang. We have more fun playing diplomacy, 1v1 is boring, it's too much to chance and luck (look at the 3 games i won vs. him,it was due to me going first pretty much). Team games are less fun bc u can only have max 4 teams, so less diplomacy to play with compared to 8 players. It's just a preference for diplomacy that makes the game entertaining. To say we don't care about points is not true. Entertaining xiangwang and playing for points are NOT mutuallly exclusive. I still want to maintain my rank, anyone would.

4. we are not from the get go in an alliance. We know it's mutually beneficial to not attack each other from the get go because leads to both self destruction bc we BOTH know how to defend ourselves properly compared to less experienced players.

5. well, that's matter of preference. There is nothing wrong with deceit either way, it is a war game. Diplomacy and politics is all about deceit.

6. That's not necessarily true, it is a coincidence. there is just a higher chance that players who specialize in these maps win vs. less experienced players.

Squirly wrote:No need for this thread.

From what I can tell, the majority of people on this site are convinced that the only way to reach the level of conqueror is to cheat. Also, all those that have been conqueror are clearly mean and evil people.

why not just immediately ban players the very moment they reach #1 on the scoreboard?

That would solve things for everyone, right?

yes, no need for talking such nonsense,
u missed the point big time
are u stoned?

hmm,i just read game chats, and in one moment i get impression that i read team game chat, kiron and xiangwei speak so free abouth positions and what to attack,what to block, who what bonuse to take,where to play , like these its not fog game,
in these game 12395303 , i have impresion that red and light blue create some sharade for blue player, and give hem to play role like he its importan part of game, and in end light blue take suprisse how he hold objective? Like he dont know abouth that?

I dont understand these strategy? with 196 wins become conqueror? what are lowest number of win for Conqueror?

Squirly wrote:No need for this thread.

From what I can tell, the majority of people on this site are convinced that the only way to reach the level of conqueror is to cheat. Also, all those that have been conqueror are clearly mean and evil people.

why not just immediately ban players the very moment they reach #1 on the scoreboard?

That would solve things for everyone, right?

The "majority" comment is a generalization on your part mate. There have been plenty of legit conquerors on this site. To name a few: poomaker, Scott-land, Jork, sjnap, johnnyrocket24, comicboy, king of gods etc. You NEVER heard any shenanigans regarding the mentioned players game style, tactics etc. The problem lies in the conquerors as of late, which, diminishes the title from the previous players in the past; shame.

Still curious:

"at which moment is the rule broken?"

"Every game to play with kiron, him or you win , isnt it possible that you two have a silent deal?
its possible, that way, no matter which strategy u use, you both can manipulate the game accordingly, simple mathematics,
in a game of 8 guys, 6 mind their own business, one of you can always change the game, and interestingly its mostly the other ones turn, as soon one of you has finished."

"I would have had a different view if there would have not been so many games played together with kiron, thats the only reason why i am not overwhelmed.
If you play that way the strategy is unimportant, its simple an alliance , and this alliance is only broken if the other players realize it, but until they do, its mostly to late.
and you cant prove it, since everybody can make his moves the way he likes it."

"great entertainment, it looks like in the chat, this two guys never met each other before,
the truce is, they have played almost every game together the same style lol, "

"Point is,
if you want to play with a friend, play doubles or 1v1
beating a friend is fun, if he has better strategy and and maybe more talent, then it will be even more success.
But in games of 8 guys, your goal will be always in favour of your teammate, without secret diplomacy.
It is just unfair to the others , since there chances are diminished, only if they are experienced they will realize it early enough to keep the powers balanced, the rest will be depending on dice and cards. "

xiangwang wrote:
"I only played with kiron for only a small portion of my games.

Aslantheking ´s answer, way back in Feb 2011 ( what do we have now - 2013? )

out of 117 games, 40 games with kiron is not a small number, thats 40 percent?
out of 40 games you won 20 times?

i do openly critisize the way or style of your gameplay,
i am not accusing you to be a cheater, or silent diplomacy or whatsoever,
i am not after you or against you,
generally this way of playing with a friend, will be unfair to others and diminish their chances."


My question really is, how many other xiangwangs are involved
( but therefore i would have to check every person he has played since- and how many of them are still playing,
or how many different games have they played after playing kiron-xiangwang)
if kiron wants to be honest, this is the chance to admitt it , and get clean

the ironic thing is, he is a really good player anyway - why on earth throwing this talent away with a gamestyle
nobody will support, kiron the curtain has closed, people have clapped, now they want their money back

Rodion wrote:Still curious:

"at which moment is the rule broken?"

The rule was broken before the game even started.

qwert wrote:hmm,i just read game chats, and in one moment i get impression that i read team game chat, kiron and xiangwei speak so free abouth positions and what to attack,what to block, who what bonuse to take,where to play , like these its not fog game,
in these game 12395303 , i have impresion that red and light blue create some sharade for blue player, and give hem to play role like he its importan part of game, and in end light blue take suprisse how he hold objective? Like he dont know abouth that?

I dont understand these strategy? with 196 wins become conqueror? what are lowest number of win for Conqueror?

FOG just means an extra layer of strategy. We don't believe in the hush hush it's a fog game so don't reveal positions (if you look at previous fog games, with more higher up ranks, positions are revealed and bluffed all the time). Fog just means I can tell u positions, but it's up to you to believe me. It adds another layer of strategy, diplomacy, deceit to the game, which gives more experienced player an edge against unexperienced players. Of course if you shout "hey, don't give away my position", you just told everyone what someone said was true, the more appropriate response is "that's what player X wants you to think ". I fail to understand why people don't like positions revealed in fog, it's the same as people who don't like diplomacy or alliances

The fog option is crap anyone who uses it or any other option that can not be played in real life on a board game has contributed to the degeneration of this site and its members.

AslanTheKing wrote:

Rodion wrote:Still curious:

"at which moment is the rule broken?"

The rule was broken before the game even started.

Why exactly? Because they are friends in real life?

Rodion wrote:

AslanTheKing wrote:

Rodion wrote:Still curious:

"at which moment is the rule broken?"

The rule was broken before the game even started.

Why exactly? Because they are friends in real life?

I think his point is that they have an alliance before the game begins.

Rodion wrote:

AslanTheKing wrote:

Rodion wrote:Still curious:

"at which moment is the rule broken?"

The rule was broken before the game even started.

Why exactly? Because they are friends in real life?

This is not to mention the case I posted was abstract and did not involve friends (I was planning to add the frindship addendum later on). I'm trying to get people to think here and explain why they think something is right or wrong.