I'm in a game (nr 424783) where two players are gone cause they misses turns too much. So now there are 4 players left. One of them is proposing a truce to the other for 3 rounds so the 3rd player can't grow no more. Me, I'm just a loser in this game, but my ass will also be busted in this way. I don't think it is a nice way of kicking other players out of the game by making a truce.
"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."
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
non-aggression pacts between 2 players is completely legal. its a key part of the game. On top of that it truly simulates what war would be like.
People that complain are most likely game leaders at the time that only need a few turns to establish themselves into a dominating situation. If they dont get that small breath of fresh air, they become very hostile that they are being attacked and not other players.
not everyone likes playing people who make alliances, so warning others you made an alliance is perfectly legal and won't be deleted. Goes to game play.
thats why im proud of being a XiGames member, its against our Code of Conduct to engage in such dicietful behavior. we are good enough to win without trickery.
i save that kinda stuff for pissing my friends off on the actual board game
Considering the fact that announced truces, alliances, no fly zones, detente, cease fires etc are an integral part of the game, I believe negative feedback for such actions is misplaced aggression. Descriptions of methods and style of play via feedback sure, but not as a negative. The next step is giving out negative feedback justified with "because they beat me."
Well me beating you goes to show class, so give me feedback for it. Lol
Anyways Feedback is a measure of enjoyment. If you feel your game(won or enjoyment) has been stolen by alliances then you can show to reflect that through feedback. Feedback is not mandatory, Its informative. You read feedback and make up your own mind, on wether or not you want to play him/her, thats up to you. Its kinda like wikipedia, where you have to trust the other to have done his homework before he wrote stuff down.
But on Wiki, if someone posts BS, then it usually quickly gets removed. If someone says in the chat before the games starts that they will leave neg feedback to any that form an alliance, then they warned. Why should secret alliances be forbiden, but secret "rules" for neg feedback are ok?
If I see that someone leaves neg feedback for open alliances, guess what? I'm MORE inclined to form a secret alliance.
"NO Alliances" should be a game selection option so the crybabies can stay out of regular games where it is not against the rules!
wicked wrote:not everyone likes playing people who make alliances, so warning others you made an alliance is perfectly legal and won't be deleted. Goes to game play.
So I can leave negative feedback on an opponent who broke my bonuses and who attacked other players in every one of his turns. I don't like that style of game-play so I can leave a negative.
Well, I believe in this particular case its a full truce till the other players are dead, not just a little lets not kill each other while player Z had 200 more armies than us.
Little alliances, especially temporary ones are fine, and sometimes necessary, but full out truces till the death of another player do ruin the whole point of the game, in my opinion.
However, I, myself, wouldnt waste my time leaving feedback for something this trivial though, but I might be inclined to click ignore on such players, as I have many times.
From reading this thread, I don't think I'll be involved in too many alliances. Sure, it's part of the game and if you can win by doing it then more power to you. I haven't been on here long enough to know too much about what makes a necessary neg. feedback and what doesn't, but I hope more people post here and define their experiences of what should & shouldn't be considered.
wicked wrote:not everyone likes playing people who make alliances, so warning others you made an alliance is perfectly legal and won't be deleted. Goes to game play.
So I can leave negative feedback on an opponent who broke my bonuses and who attacked other players in every one of his turns. I don't like that style of game-play so I can leave a negative.
I'd say open alliances deserve neutral feedback whilst a blatant secret alliance might warrant negative.
An openly declared alliance doesnt generally deserve a negative, but I can definitely see why someone might want it to be negative (some really stupid alliances really do ruin the fun)
As to neg for an opponent who broke your bonus, sure, just go ahead and try it, see if it works
wicked wrote:not everyone likes playing people who make alliances, so warning others you made an alliance is perfectly legal and won't be deleted. Goes to game play.
The moral being leave neutral feedback with a warning, not negative.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe just hit 4 million percent. Some people say it is only 165,000, but they are just being stupid. -Scott Adams, artist and writer of Dilbert
wicked wrote:not everyone likes playing people who make alliances, so warning others you made an alliance is perfectly legal and won't be deleted. Goes to game play.
The moral being leave neutral feedback with a warning, not negative.
leave what you want, depending on how strongly you feel about allainces, and/or how much it screwed you. feedback is your opinion of his gameplay.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
