A Question of Etiquette

[arwebb12]

i would go with joeyjordison's stance for the most part, but to be blatantly honest...

i think the pacts/alliances in ffa make CC more realistic. history says that during wartime, diplomacy can shift the course of the conflict significantly... not much unlike Stalin's alliance with the Allies after the Nazi's failed invasion.

the pacts are typically underhanded and cheap, but i think that their availability keeps each player poised and on the lookout for foul play- the way that multilateral combat should be

[Molacole]

ALL alliances find themselves to my ignore list

The idea of standard is everyman for themselves

I agree 100%!

Alliances are for people who lack skill...

That doesn't mean you can't say things like wow red is running away with this game. To actually go forth and form an alliance is cheap. It's not about wether you win or lose, it's about how you win or lose.

[RobinJ]

^
Alliances are a part of the game and, in my opinion add interest to it. However, with good players, alliances aren't needed because they know when to attack the leader and not to fight eachother.

Also, we have to remember what max's rank is! (No offence meant by this)

[tals]

^
Alliances are a part of the game and, in my opinion add interest to it. However, with good players, alliances aren't needed because they know when to attack the leader and not to fight eachother.

Also, we have to remember what max's rank is! (No offence meant by this)

No offence but your own rank isn't so wonderful to making a comment like this

Can't stand alliances - they never seem to work and seem to be a large reason for a lot of the falling outs in game.

Tals

p.s you can check my rank if it actually means anything in this

[Sharky]

In almost every game you play there is an alliance. Most of the time they are just known.. for example if the one player is holding south america and northamerica, your holding oceania a little africa and asia and the last dude has europe. I would not attack europe knowing i need him to be able to put up a fight against north america until i can get some more position on the board.

That's when i laugh when some people go off the handle and go crazy when a couple of players will attack only them for a round. It's the way i have been playing risk for over 30 years.

[tals]

In almost every game you play there is an alliance. Most of the time they are just known.. for example if the one player is holding south america and northamerica, your holding oceania a little africa and asia and the last dude has europe. I would not attack europe knowing i need him to be able to put up a fight against north america until i can get some more position on the board.

That's when i laugh when some people go off the handle and go crazy when a couple of players will attack only them for a round. It's the way i have been playing risk for over 30 years.

That isn't an alliance - its not declared and they have no guarantee that you won't attack them. That is just sound tactics.

Tals

p.s also in a card game - its actually advantageous to take him out at the right moment - usually swings the game, or has for me

[podge]

I don't object to alliances being formed against me, when clearly I am leading the game. my objection comes when the alliance is formed to eliminate me completely. level the playing field by all means, but you must know when to call a halt.
I very rarely seek an alliance in a game, but if I am playing with people of a lesser skill, I will try to make them do my bidding through the game chat. You just don't make it sound like your giving orders.

[tahitiwahini]

To actually go forth and form an alliance is cheap.

The first paragra from the Conquer Club Home Page (http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?page=home):

Risk all your armies on a daring continent grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you eliminate your last opponent.

That's the first paragraph someone sees when they first visit Conquer Club. Maybe it's just me, but it seems to encourage alliances in the bolded part. Indeed it would appear to the typical reader that they are an integral part of the game, along with grabbing continents and eliminating opoonents.

I must be misreading it though, because so many clearly believe that alliances are evil, unsportsmanlike, unneeded, and cheap.

It seems a shame that we are being urged to be evil, unsportsmanlike, and cheap in the very first statement made by the site.

On the other hand, maybe the people who dislike alliances are mistaken.



Maybe they dislike alliances because they aren't very good at them. Maybe they dislike alliances because as highly ranked player they dislike anything that disturbs the orderly progression of lambs to the slaughter. Maybe they dislike alliances because they prefer that their tactical skill and long experience playing the same map be the only determinant of who wins the game.

Who knows? I've never seen a response from the anti-alliance forces to the words quoted above. I invite anyone to do so.

[Luke035]

ALL alliances find themselves to my ignore list

The idea of standard is everyman for themselves

Apparently this is Max's philosophy EVEN in TEAM games...

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=183525#gmtop

[Adran]

To actually go forth and form an alliance is cheap.

The first paragra from the Conquer Club Home Page (http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?page=home):

Risk all your armies on a daring continent grab. Use diplomacy to coordinate a group assault on the game leader. Feel the thrill of victory as you eliminate your last opponent.

That's the first paragraph someone sees when they first visit Conquer Club. Maybe it's just me, but it seems to encourage alliances in the bolded part. Indeed it would appear to the typical reader that they are an integral part of the game, along with grabbing continents and eliminating opoonents.

I must be misreading it though, because so many clearly believe that alliances are evil, unsportsmanlike, unneeded, and cheap.

It seems a shame that we are being urged to be evil, unsportsmanlike, and cheap in the very first statement made by the site.

On the other hand, maybe the people who dislike alliances are mistaken.



Maybe they dislike alliances because they aren't very good at them. Maybe they dislike alliances because as highly ranked player they dislike anything that disturbs the orderly progression of lambs to the slaughter. Maybe they dislike alliances because they prefer that their tactical skill and long experience playing the same map be the only determinant of who wins the game.

Who knows? I've never seen a response from the anti-alliance forces to the words quoted above. I invite anyone to do so.

Well I'm not anti-alliance as such. But lets reply anyway.
I don't ask for them. And unless the situation is very dire I'm unlikrely to accept a formal alliance.
What I might do is use my diplomatic skills in the game chat to point out a few facts etc. to other players to encourage them to think the way I want. prehaps pursuade them all to attack the game leader. I might even do so myself.

Through the course of a game, there are points when two players can choose to leave a mutual border weak when thwey are both occupied elsewhere. As a general rule I do this by slowly reducing the troops, or making sure that I have the force availble to re-capture if the other player thinks that attacking is the best option.

There is a place for them. And I don't dislike people when they take up alliances, I just use it as a consideration about where to attack. (Generally this is more likely to be one of the two allies, as I veiw the alliance as a strong thing, and potentially game warping) But that s my reaction.


Adran

[tahitiwahini]

Adran's seems like a very sensible position to me.

The strongest argument against alliances is that if the players are smart enough there's no real need for the alliance. In such a game one sees informal alliances arise organically and disappear when the precipitating threat disappears. That's fine and true as far as it goes.

But under some circumstances it is quite useful to formalize the agreement such that each party can have reasonable expectations and obligations, especially as effect to timing. So much depends on the particular game situation.