Points system ruined two games so far.

[Joho]

your poker example is biased and shows that you are a bit stupid. With the comparison....it would be if you lose to player A (high rank) you only loose $20, if you lose to player B (low rank), you lose $50.....now only a dumbass would want B to win, so if you were to think you cant win, go for after B
I just read up to that, then couldnt read anymore because your whole statement is bullshit and that point you made actually supports what you are trying to bash.

nice

I also enjoy twisting what people say in order to form a witty post.

So since you read that far I am sure you read where I eluded to it being like poker for >NO<money in that playing wreckless for no reason (10 stupid points) is like having someone at the table going all in every round. It ruins the game for those there actually playing to win. The way you put it makes sense sure, if you look at it from a money standpoint....yaknow the opposite of what I said. Like it has already been stated it comes down to what you want out of the game. A good game (my analogy) or your rank/points (yours).

Although your analogy does fit a bit better with poker, it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I should have used something else though probably.

[Coleman]

I like how people are reposting what I said in my first post to this topic by transforming them into flames.

[HayesA]

Look, why don't we drop this useless debate. I got tossed on some poeple's ignore list, some neg feedback, and some nasty messages questioning my honour. Yay. Lets just simply stop, since it comes down to opinion. I'm sure since all of you are all intelligent people, know that going on and on about someone elses opinion will only lead to flame wars and debates on whose opinion is right.

It's an endless cycle of whose right and whose wrong. So, lets just stop here and now before it goes too far and the mods get involved.

[oVo]

Did you really blow 50+ armies?

[HayesA]

If you mean by blow 50 armies by spinning the game to choose who was going to win... then yes.

[Coleman]

Did you really blow 50+ armies?

Now I wish this was flame wars, I have an awesome response to that.

[HayesA]

Is it dirty? Because the little guys were simply BEGGING to be let free.





Alright, alright. That was the low, dirty old man responce.

[Joho]

Look, why don't we drop this useless debate. I got tossed on some poeple's ignore list, some neg feedback, and some nasty messages questioning my honour. Yay. Lets just simply stop, since it comes down to opinion. I'm sure since all of you are all intelligent people, know that going on and on about someone elses opinion will only lead to flame wars and debates on whose opinion is right.

It's an endless cycle of whose right and whose wrong. So, lets just stop here and now before it goes too far and the mods get involved.

/nod

Through all this it has been a difference of opinion between me and Haynes. I was not even gonna post his name so this would not turn into the arguement it has since I just wanted the input on whether that was a common thing. I am leaving the feedback because I still believe playing in that way is lame, but I have no problems with him personally. I just wont play with someone who plays like that, and me and him have talked about this in the game before it ended. Difference of opinion turned bad because it got personal, everyone has said their piece.

[HayesA]

... you know, I meant it when I said we should play again sometime. Not every game I play will turn out like that.

[treefiddy]

... you know, I meant it when I said we should play again sometime. Not every game I play will turn out like that.

Only the ones you start losing in.

[MeDeFe]

Which is exactly why many people will not want to play you.

[TipTop]

This discussion has been made several times before. I made a long post on the subject to try and reason with a suicider to show him the error of his ways but he refused to reply to it.

Here it is again if anyone cares to read it.



Firstly we need to look at the reason(s) why we are here playing this game. We are here I presume because we enjoy the game of Risk or a game similar to it. For some that is were it begins and ends, collecting points and ranks are to them meaningless.

There is a second group who joined this site to play Risk AND collect Points/Ranks which I presume is the group you fall into. This group are effectively playing two games here, the game of Risk and the Scoreboard game.

I very much doubt there is a third group that only play for points and don't care about the game of Risk. If this group existed why would they play Risk when they could play tiddlywinks or a thousand other games that give out points and ranks for far less effort. I'm sure there are others who would add yet more reasons for playing here, Tournaments/maps/social interaction ect. What unites us all however is the game of Risk. So can we conclude from this that playing for points alone is not the be all and end all. We are all here to play a fun game of Risk too.

Do you agree with me so far?

Now all of these groups play together in harmony most of the time, as, most of the time, the scoreboard game and the Risk game are mutually compatible. You play to win and when you win, you pick up points, which is great for everyone. The problem begins however when players in the 2nd group, decide that they no longer have a realistic chance of winning the game of Risk. So therefore they decide to help the highest ranked player win by making suicidal attacks on a lower ranked player in the attempt to save points in the scoreboard game. Now you can see how the two groups clash.

So which group is right and which group is wrong? Does suiciding in a game of Risk spoil the game for everyone? If you accept that it does but don't care, then the rest of this post will be not worth reading. We have already established that the game of Risk is what unites us all and if you freely admit spoiling the game of Risk then you don't belong here. If however your of the view that suiciding does not spoil the game then please read on, maybe the rest of this post will help you change your mind.

You say we should play the game the way it was meant to be played. Then the way Risk is meant to be played is for all participants to play to win is this not correct?

Now lets say your a low ranked player in a FFA game. This game has been great fun to play, and you have played it well. You have used great strategy and tactics to increase your chances of winning and now your on the verge of victory. Then a high ranked player who wasn't even in the running decides to make a suicidal attack on you to effectively end your chances of winning. All your great play that led you to this point was for nothing and the game is effectively handed to another high ranked player who did not deserve to win. There is no strategy or tactic the low ranked player can employ to defend himself against the suicider, he is completely helpless. Now if this tactic were to become common place then all FFA games would come down to who suicided on who, no skill, just luck. The game would become a crapshoot and nothing more. You have effectively broken the game that unites us all for the sake of saving a few points!

Now you may say it is not against the rules to suicide on another player so alls fair and you would be partly right. The game we play here is based on the board game Risk which didn't hand out points and ranks so this situation never came up in the board game. The suiciding on players as a legitimate tactic is a recent phenomenon which is a by product of the scoreboard game. I'm sure Lackattack never realised this when making Ranks/Points so therefore never wrote any rules to stop it. As long as this practice doesn't become common place he probably never will but that doesn't make it right! Must we have this rule written down to stop you doing this?

Maybe Lack could make non ranked games and effectively separate us into two communities, is this what you want? Or maybe he could write the rule where suiciding is strictly forbidden. But what if sometimes a strategic move by one player to win the game is mistaken for a suicidal move? Escalation games in particular would suffer from this as often they have to risk everything in one almost suicidal move in order to eliminate another player and grab his cards, if they fall short would they be accused of suiciding? Do we really need to write rules to govern everything or can we just use our common sense!?

Let me give you another example of why it isn't right.

Imagine this Scenario. It is the last race of a Formula 1 Grand Prix season. Fernando Alonso is 9 points clear in the drivers championship Lewis Hamilton is 2nd and is the only one who can beat him. In order for Hamilton to win he has to pick up 10 points(win the race) and Alonso to finish outside the points. The race goes well for Hamilton. He drives superbly and is wining the race, in fact he is so far ahead that only a mechanical failure or an act of god can stop him from victory. Meanwhile Alonso is struggling. He has had an off day by his standards, making some costly errors which have left him trailing far behind and out of contention of even finishing in the points. Hamilton is so far ahead he is about to lap Alonso. Alonso sees him coming in his rear view mirror, he knows his chances of winning the drivers championship are slipping away so he decides to take matters into his own hands. He waits until Hamilton pulls alongside him then he deliberately crashes into the side of Hamiltons car taking both his and Hamilton's car out of the race thus securing the drivers championship. Now I ask you were Alonso's actions justified?

Sorry for the long post, I guess I had a lot to say

[Robinette]

LOTS of words, but well written...
glad I took the time to read it...

[Genghis Khan CA]

Imagine this Scenario. It is the last race of a Formula 1 Grand Prix season. Fernando Alonso is 9 points clear in the drivers championship Lewis Hamilton is 2nd and is the only one who can beat him. In order for Hamilton to win he has to pick up 10 points(win the race) and Alonso to finish outside the points. The race goes well for Hamilton. He drives superbly and is wining the race, in fact he is so far ahead that only a mechanical failure or an act of god can stop him from victory. Meanwhile Alonso is struggling. He has had an off day by his standards, making some costly errors which have left him trailing far behind and out of contention of even finishing in the points. Hamilton is so far ahead he is about to lap Alonso. Alonso sees him coming in his rear view mirror, he knows his chances of winning the drivers championship are slipping away so he decides to take matters into his own hands. He waits until Hamilton pulls alongside him then he deliberately crashes into the side of Hamiltons car taking both his and Hamilton's car out of the race thus securing the drivers championship. Now I ask you were Alonso's actions justified?

Replace Fernando Alonso with Michael Schumacher and you have a real life scenario

[MeDeFe]

Michael Schuhmacher quit after last season, remember?

[gibbom]

I think he's referring to the fact that Michael Schumacher actually HAS done that twice - I believe to Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve who were challenging him in the last race of a couple of seasons.

[MeDeFe]

He did? Now that's interesting, which years were those?

[Genghis Khan CA]

He did? Now that's interesting, which years were those?

1994 - vs Damon Hill, although he was never officially sanctioned for it, both drivers were forced to retire from the final race of the season after Schumacher collided into Hill as Hill was passing him, handing Schumacher the championship.

1997 - vs Jacques Villeneuve, Schumacher again collided with the other driver when Villeneuve was passing him on the final race of the season. This time Schumacher was forced to retire from the race and Villeneuve was able to continue and seal the championship. Schumacher was held responsible and later disqualified from the championship following a disciplinary hearing.

[TipTop]

He did? Now that's interesting, which years were those?

1994 - vs Damon Hill, although he was never officially sanctioned for it, both drivers were forced to retire from the final race of the season after Schumacher collided into Hill as Hill was passing him, handing Schumacher the championship.

1997 - vs Jacques Villeneuve, Schumacher again collided with the other driver when Villeneuve was passing him on the final race of the season. This time Schumacher was forced to retire from the race and Villeneuve was able to continue and seal the championship. Schumacher was held responsible and later disqualified from the championship following a disciplinary hearing.

Thanks for that Genghis Khan.

I guess this shoots down the argument that this is acceptable behavior in real life so we should put up with it here too.

[HayesA]

Well, there's a big difference in "accepting it" and "tolerating it." My argument has always been to tolerate it, because, in my opinion, it can be just as good strategy as others. You may not think it's honorable to "suicide" on people, but it's effective. Just as effective as it is to attack one part of a country to take a bonus away from a player, then retreat. Or going into a players' country, and leaving a good sized army there so hold them up for a few turns. This tactic has been in use for how long now? It shouldn't be new to anyone.

[Kinnison]

Yes, but those are tactics to help you win the GAME. The tactic you are defending dioesn't help to win the game, but the METAgame, the points standings.

The debate here is "Which one are we here to play?", as was noted earlier in the thread.

I'm here to play the Game, personally. I'd like to do well in the metagame, but I will not sacrifice ANY chance for game points... Unfortunately, I'm still learning maps and various card/fort options, and my early success is sinking like a rock lately...

Nonetheless, I'll continue to play, trying as hard as I can to win each game placed in front of me on it's own merits, and the points will come...

[MeDeFe]

Well, there's a big difference in "accepting it" and "tolerating it." My argument has always been to tolerate it, because, in my opinion, it can be just as good strategy as others. You may not think it's honorable to "suicide" on people, but it's effective. Just as effective as it is to attack one part of a country to take a bonus away from a player, then retreat. Or going into a players' country, and leaving a good sized army there so hold them up for a few turns. This tactic has been in use for how long now? It shouldn't be new to anyone.

Suiciding is not effective, and guess why. Because it most often leads to the suiciding person losing the game.
No game is lost until you've been eliminated, you can make a comeback from one single army, I've seen it happen myself (and NO, it was not escalating cards). So winning the game while you still have enough armies around to destroy another players chances is a piece of cake really.

[The1exile]

game #, please?

[comic boy]

Well, there's a big difference in "accepting it" and "tolerating it." My argument has always been to tolerate it, because, in my opinion, it can be just as good strategy as others. You may not think it's honorable to "suicide" on people, but it's effective. Just as effective as it is to attack one part of a country to take a bonus away from a player, then retreat. Or going into a players' country, and leaving a good sized army there so hold them up for a few turns. This tactic has been in use for how long now? It shouldn't be new to anyone.

You can play any way you choose as long as you are happy to accept that if you make a habit of suiciding you will get negative feedback and good opponents wont have you in their games.

[HayesA]

I don't get it with you people. I don't use said tactic ALL the time, nor is it the only tactic I use. You people think it's the end all, and be all tactic I use in all my games. It's not. In fact, I've only used it in two of the games I have ever played! Once on a co-worker who was toying with me, and again vs Joho in said game when he controlled over 1/3 the board! He was holding off the other players rather well bud.

You can use the last few games i've played, and am playing in as a good character reference. Hell, i'll even supply the game #s if you're too lazy to search.. I'm actually losing two games, and I'm probably not going to suicide against any opponent. Why am I not going to do this? Because it would be silly in such a large game. Not to mention, it's a last ditch, end-game tactic.

Besides, need I remind you, I see more and more topics coming up on these forums about people stressing over their scores. Hell, a few folk parade the fact that they have 1500 points, 2000 points, 2500 points... etc etc etc. So, you can possibly tell me that people in this game don't stress over their scores.

E/
Furthermore, if you don't want someone to suicide on you, you should have killed said person when he was weak to begin with. In the game on war, and global domination, you cant be afraid to kill the weaker player. If the situation presents its' self, kill the weaker player. They, in fact, let me build up to the 60 guys I had. Something I won't understand, I was weak before. Why leave me alive?