Conquer Club

I've seen several C&A reports for suiciding in the past and wanted to flesh it out a bit further here, as it seems somewhat subjective.

Scenario: a multiplayer game approach the round limit. Player A has been leading in troops for much of the game. Player B has been gradually creeping up in troop count. Player C is well behind in troops (no hope of winning the game). On the last round, player C hammers player A, resulting in a win for player B.
Is this suiciding and against the rules?
Now modify the scenario a bit: player C and player A have been fighting for much of the game, but the last round the hit from player C is still enough to give player B the win. Is it still suiciding (assuming that the first scenario was)?

I'm honestly confused about this as well. Many years ago, I played a lot of 6-8 player escalating games. As soon as I hit Major, people who were low ranks started suiciding into me. It was like they were afraid that the highest ranked players were going to win... or they felt that taking the highest ranks out meant more points for them if they ultimately won. That tactic never paid off for them, of course. It was just handing the game to whoever goes next, or at least a shot. I just stopped playing games with bad players and that all stopped.

Is it reportable though? I just put it down to bad players with terrible, and somewhat dirty tactics. I never would have even considered reporting it. I might have foed a few of them a long time ago for doing that in more than one game. When there's a pattern, it becomes kinda obvious.

I can maybe understand the reports in the case of some of those terrible tournaments. People are cheating in those by helping friends win, and pulling other tactics like knocking someone out who they consider a threat to their overall score. There's no way to prove most of that beyond a doubt. I blame the organisers though, and not the players. It is a very poor setup if there is room for that kind of asshattery. Maybe they just like the drama it creates, I dunno. I'm sure there are ways to play different kinds of games in tournies without too much room for abuse.

Attempting to regulate motivations and intentions is, in my opinion, simply wrong.

There are paths crossed, feuds, tit for tats, shit talking, diplomacy, poor play, misunderstood moves, simple failures, miscalculations, stupid people, assholes, etc. Attempting to say "he suicided into me and cost me the game at the end because ________ and should be punished somehow" is ridiculous. You foe them or you get them back later or you decide not to participate in those types of games anymore.

How do we know that Player C doesnt feel as though Player A somehow cost them a shot early and decided to pay it back when they could? What if their paths have crossed before and there's bad blood there? IMO this is what you get sometimes for playing round limit games and then playing for the round limit. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I dunno, I'm a crass prick though and think it's all fair. Let people play how they want, it's a game. But I mean, I got in trouble for suiciding into someone AFTER THE PLAYER SUICIDED INTO ME so, there's that.

It's almost impossible to establish someone's motives with any level of certainty, unless they come out in chat and explicitly explain them, and even then those might not be the true reasons.

Sometimes the losing player just wants to punish whomever he thought contributed the most to his loss. Been there. Other times, he sees his 1000-to-1 shot and figures it's worth taking a shot rather than just sitting around and waiting to die. Been there too.

Dukasaur wrote:It's almost impossible to establish someone's motives with any level of certainty, unless they come out in chat and explicitly explain them, and even then those might not be the true reasons.

Sometimes the losing player just wants to punish whomever he thought contributed the most to his loss. Been there. Other times, he sees his 1000-to-1 shot and figures it's worth taking a shot rather than just sitting around and waiting to die. Been there too.

I like both of the reasons Duk mentions as well the idea that one doesn't know their motive.

I don't believe in the concept of suiciding. This is a war game. We venerate the Spartan 300, who one could say suicided against a much greater force when they had "no chance" of winning. When actually they had a small, very small chance of winning. We celebrate the Charge of the Light Brigade. We celebrate the samurai, who had no concept of surrender and would rather die in a hopeless cause than let you take them prisoner. We celebrate many cases of going against the odds.

I mostly don't pay attention to the round limit. So if you are my opponent and its round 18 and I see a way to victory in 4 rounds, I am probably going to go for it. And yes, I will be suprized when the game ends in 20. It happens to me a lot. I have gradually gotten better at picking games. I am not playing Spanish Armada, trench 20 rounds. It just doesn't work. If I see a way to possibly squeeze out a win, I am going for it. If that accidently takes you out of a victory position, too bad. Foe me now. If you don't like how someone plays, Foe them.

But don't come to me and complain about me or someone else suiciding. I don't believe in it.

Good chat.

Agree with all of that.

Almost just as bad is someone who decides arbitrarily they seek to occupy a region of the map regardless of the merit (it might naturally suit your drop not theirs) and they just keep tipping into you to carry out their goal...giving neither of you a chance in the game. Sometimes there is nowhere you can pivot too and a great opportunity elsewhere (better than your spot) for them they ignore. You both just lose.

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
Help is available
Speak with someone today
800-273-8255

I like both of the reasons Duk mentions as well the idea that one doesn't know their motive.

I don't believe in the concept of suiciding. This is a war game. We venerate the Spartan 300, who one could say suicided against a much greater force when they had "no chance" of winning. When actually they had a small, very small chance of winning. We celebrate the Charge of the Light Brigade. We celebrate the samurai, who had no concept of surrender and would rather die in a hopeless cause than let you take them prisoner. We celebrate many cases of going against the odds.

I mostly don't pay attention to the round limit. So if you are my opponent and its round 18 and I see a way to victory in 4 rounds, I am probably going to go for it. And yes, I will be suprized when the game ends in 20. It happens to me a lot. I have gradually gotten better at picking games. I am not playing Spanish Armada, trench 20 rounds. It just doesn't work. If I see a way to possibly squeeze out a win, I am going for it. If that accidently takes you out of a victory position, too bad. Foe me now. If you don't like how someone plays, Foe them.

But don't come to me and complain about me or someone else suiciding. I don't believe in it.

This exactly. Well said, minus the part about not knowing you're in a round limit game.

I just played a game where I had 3 times more men than anyone else through good tactics and a patient strategy of building up my men. Then a blue player suicided against me with every single man he had. I wiped him out down to he only had one man left. the idiot left all his men in one place for 12 turns the whole game after I booted him out of S. America. Then another player finished him. Next, it was red's turn. He was very weak and had no chance of winning. He gets a set and attacks me with every single man just to screw me. However, I survive the banzai attack. This time I punish red by exterminating all his men a few turns later and getting his cards. With a little luck, I defeat the last player and win the game. TWO players suicided against me in one game. I had to beat three players single handed and overcome dirty tactics by two of them who made no attempt to win the game but just attacked me for spite. Unfortunately, these kind of cheap tactics are becoming all too familiar. the thing was, the other players never attacked the third player, green. They ONLY attacked me. I gave the two suiciders a spanking. But will they continue these dirty tactics in other games? Fact: banzai attacks almost always fail and are bad strategy. The purpose of the game is to win at all costs. Not get revenge on a player who outplayed or outfoxed you on the battlefield...

avoid playing 11Joan11 : she is bad for this.