08-19-2015, 05:34 PM
Alamaze Website
Search Forum
Contact Support@Alamaze.net
Player Aids
Rulebook
Spellbook
Help Guides
Kingdom Set-Ups
Kingdom Abbreviations
Valhalla
Discord
Anonymous Collusion
|
08-19-2015, 05:42 PM
(08-19-2015, 02:57 PM)Kronin Wrote:(08-17-2015, 07:30 PM)Jumpingfist Wrote:(08-17-2015, 04:42 PM)Kronin Wrote:(08-17-2015, 04:27 PM)DuPont Wrote:(08-17-2015, 04:13 PM)Kronin Wrote: I also hope that a team behind would never just play to make sure one team wins over another. You should always play for YOUR team to win! Anything else WOULD be poor sportsmanship IMO. Interesting unsportsmanlike to keep fighting someone attacking you but quitting the contest making it easier for that same attacker to now win is more sportsmanlike. If I attack someone and they have beaten off my attack I am willing to call off the continued attack since I was the aggressor but if they attack me no mercy unless it is really in my best interest. Even in an anon game you know at the end who was playing. Also I do not like the idea of making it easier for anyone if I quit.
08-19-2015, 08:41 PM
I think the presumption is that you would only go all out for an enemy as your first priority if you had no chance of winning. That's seems like a fair strategy in my opinion, take out the fellow who took you out. And it's better than quitting.
-This Khal Drogo, it's said he has a hundred thousand men in his horde
I deleted my first response as it was a little rude. So let me try again. I respect everyone here and everyone has their own code to play by. I don't play a lot of online games cause frankly I find most people who play online games to be rather immature, petty, vindictive, etc. I haven't seen this here at all, probably cause most of us are a little older and grew up playing these types of games.
My personal opinion is really straightforward and simple. Jumpingfist was twisting my words a little bit up above. And really this mostly applied to the team game format, as this was the topic of this thread. The point was, play to win. Getting butt hurt and saying "Let's not try to get back in the game, but let's just make sure team A wins over team B", is not something I agree with. That's a completely different thing that attacking the front runner to give yourself more time to get back in the game, which would still be classified as "playing to win.". Another way to put it. If you are a third place team, and you unofficially ally to help the second place team stop the front winner from winning, cause they are about to...great...and smart. But if you are the third place team and your only goal is make sure that the second place team wins the game....allying all the way to the end of the game with not even trying to win yourself...that's weak and a total game killer.
08-24-2015, 04:50 PM
Just a scenario ...........if team 1 has 5 regions and team 2 has 4 regions it would seem team 3 would work against team 1, but team 3 continues to work for team 1 that has 5 regions trying to help them gain 6 and win? Team 1 has had 5 regions for more then a few turns. This is not considered collusion, but frustration or being just pissed because they were out played by team 2 early in game.
I do not think team 3 really cares as long as they see team 2 go down.
08-24-2015, 05:24 PM
this game sounds familiar and don't have a problem with anyone continuing to attack someone that attacked them. I would maybe be annoyed if someone attacked got beat badly but then continued the fight just to make them not win.
I do understand the frustration. Try accidentally running into LD or DuPont sometime in an anon game.
08-24-2015, 06:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-24-2015, 06:50 PM by Lord Thanatos.)
(08-24-2015, 05:24 PM)Jumpingfist Wrote: this game sounds familiar and don't have a problem with anyone continuing to attack someone that attacked them. I would maybe be annoyed if someone attacked got beat badly but then continued the fight just to make them not win. I am uncertain how I did not make your short list of Iron Willed players in an anon game? Should I feel insulted, my friend? My position regarding the three-team scenario described earlier in this thread: both alternatives are superior to team 3 quitting. I can see myself disengaging from Team 2 to oppose Team 1 (maybe even resulting in Team 2 winning). I can also see myself twisting the dagger in Team 2 wherever I can manage to lodge it (even if Team 1 ultimately prevails); there absolutely MUST be penalties for attacking me, even if you think you outplayed me to get to second place. I am more likely to disengage from Team 2 to oppose Team 1 in an anonymous contest. In a full-diplomacy contest, Team 2 will NEVER be done with me and should have known this prior to attacking me in the first place (absent a negotiated cease-fire). Both scenarios are fair and both should be encouraged by Alamaze players, in my opinion.
Lord Thanatos
08-24-2015, 08:20 PM
I think I have some how avoided you in the anon contests I have been in.
08-24-2015, 10:01 PM
(08-24-2015, 08:20 PM)Jumpingfist Wrote: I think I have some how avoided you in the anon contests I have been in. That is reasonable . . . I remember an anonymous contest where your WA took 1st and my GN 2nd. I was a turn late in flooding the Southern Sands with my emissaries.
Lord Thanatos
|
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |