Nature
Follow This Easy Process To Get Started Playing Alamaze
Step #1 - Register for Forum Account      Step #2 - Create New Player Account      Step #3 - Sign In  (to issue turn orders and join games)
ATTENTION: After Creating Player Account and Signing In, select the GAME QUEUE link in the Order System screen to Create or Join games.
Alamaze Website                 Search Forum              Contact Support@Alamaze.net


Player Aids             Rulebook             Spellbook             Help Guides             Kingdom Set-Ups             Kingdom Abbreviations             Valhalla             Discord

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Anonymous Collusion
#21
(08-19-2015, 04:59 PM)DuPont Wrote: "To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"

Great quote.   
Reply

#22
(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.

I'm not sure I agree with this, either. My position in any game, anonymous or otherwise, is clear. If you attack me, I will not forgive. You may well put me in a position where I can't win, but then I will do my best to make sure you don't win either. I mean, I won't throw a game to somebody else - I won't invite another player to come take all my PCs so they can win - but I'll stay around your ankle like a rabid terrier and as you try to pivot off to take on a new opponent, you'll find the tattered remnants of my kingdom rising up again to drag you back in. I think playing to prevent your foe from getting the win is an entirely valid style of play. I mean, I don't care WHO wins as long as it's not the guy who jumped me!

Then we will have to agree to disagree.  I stand by my original opinion.   Play to win...anything else is cheese.

I agree with both sides on this.  I play to win but also to DuPonts point if someone attacks me they are going to pay.   Last thing I want is someone thinking a good tactic is to attack me.  We play with the same group of people over and over.   

In the the game referenced for this discussion I played the UN. Was down to 2 PCs my allies WI and BL only the WI had anything.   BL was just an army at that point.   We had been fighting two teams and we're paying the price we saw the number one team just picking off region after region.  So we declared the other teams we were fighting ally and went head long into the other team.  We had no way of knowing if the others would also switch the war effort to stop the number 1 team from winning.  To me this was the only way we could later win if the other clear favorite was taken down.   I still see nothing wrong with it and have had it back fire as well.  I went after the clear leader in another game and did help stop him from winning but had my remaining PC eaten up by someone that would rather just focus on there one goal of attacking me.

I have suspected a group of cheating but can not prove because the way I felt they did it was agree not to attack each other and stay away from the others regions being attack.   I play a ton of games and spot pattern but still have brought none to task in the forum.  Simply without proof one should not drag someone else in the mud.   I still play anon and enjoy them 

In regards to your first point about making sure someone knows they are penalties for attacking you, that's fine and good unless the game is anon.  In regards to your second paragraph...in that example you were still paying "to win".  The point was not that you shouldn't attack the front runner...the point was that you shouldn't only play to decide who wins with no intention of winning yourself.   My personal code of morality, if you will, is that you should always play to win.  If you are only playing to keep someone else from winning because they outplayed you earlier in the game...just seems petty and unsportmanlike to me.  Personally I tip my hat to that person, learn from it, and try to do better the next game.

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.
Reply

#23
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
Reply

#24
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.
Reply

#25
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. 
Reply

#26
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.
Reply

#27
(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 do understand the frustration.   Try accidentally running into LD or DuPont sometime in an anon game.

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
Reply

#28
I think I have some how avoided you in the anon contests I have been in.
Reply

#29
(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
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 Melroy van den Berg.