Best Player Ever - Rockit!

by **stealth99** on Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:22 pm

I'd like to offer my congrats to player Rockit.

After REQUESTING a truce with me and having me honor it for 5 weeks, he cleverly outplays me with a move that i'm certain no one else has ever thought of.........Rockit broke the truce.

Not only did this clever "Colonel" break the truce, but he gets full credit for planning it from the very beginning. You be the judge, here is a reply from him after I 'colorfully' chastised him in the game chat:

"You left yourseld open I took a chance...... I am not the first to break a truce and I won't be the last. "

He didn't just rationalize his complete sellout on his morals to win a game of risk, he also pointed out that I am interfering with his fun when I complain about him breaking the truce. Fun this freemium has bought and paid for and certainly deserves from the rest of us:

"It is people like you that make this game not fun with all your verbal diarrhea"

I guess that's my bad there for expressing my displeasure with his truce breaking "strategy".

Anyway, despite the fact that player Rockit does have a small but vocal following, in support of truce breaking, I figured that many of you would like to know this information up front, before playing Rockit, so you don't get 'outplayed' like I did. I've been here from just about the beginning, and I just find out now from player Rockit, that this game is about "total domination". I guess for some, that's all they need to toss their morals out the window.

No worries Rockit I won't be interfering with any more of your "fun". I do this for recreation and generally avoid people such as yourself like the plague. We won't meet again and if winning a game of risk is that important to you then you can gladly have it.

Why does this freemium get 9 active games anyway?

by **Gweeedo** on Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:43 pm

OH no! Not another truce breaker...please say it isn't so!

Nobody cares. But if it makes you feel good to post...feel better now.
Having a truce does not mean you can (or should) leave your(flank unguarded) borders vacant.

A truce can be a save all or break all, depending on how you want to use it.
Players will use it to their advantage (and should)...better win if you break a deal!

I would guess, a player (good player) that breaks treaty's has a greater win percentage than a player that keeps his treaty's.
Use a treaty to gain an advantage, no matter how you chose to use it.

I try not to beak any truces that I might make.
I might be more inclined to 'break' a truce if somebody purposes a truce with me (depending on his current rating), Knowing he is up to no good.

From here on out you should think of a treaty(truce) more like an Armistice.

by **demonfork** on Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:56 pm

You're just not that good at truces.

by **elfish_lad** on Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:27 am

Hmm... interesting. I've heard of this thing called a "truce." It often leads to another thing of which I've heard rumour: losing.

Just ask Machiavelli. You might also call him one without scruples.

E.

by **rhp 1** on Fri Jan 03, 2014 11:56 am

LOL

love people that whine over players breaking truces.... cracks me up...

by **40kguy** on Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:04 pm

Lots of people break truces, just suck it up

by **Leehar** on Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:14 pm

I support you.

As the other kind hearted souls have mentioned, it does happen, so while you can't walk into a truce blindfolded, truce breakers are scum of the earth, and you did a good thing warning the rest of us against him!

by **iAmCaffeine** on Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:11 pm

Do whatever you can within the rules to win.

For example, murder is not against the rules.

by **Rockit** on Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:15 pm

OMG this is so awesome!

First this guys tells me to F-off.
Then he posts this forum debate.
Next he tells me that 17 people have replied to him with problems with me, so be it, I have a list of people I don't like to play with too.
He also adds that 3 people have told him they are going after me in other games, oh no!
Finally, he posts an over 10,000 word reply to me with an in-depth analysis of who and what I am... Apparently I am not a very good person at all.
Now I think I will have to reevaluate everything I have ever know or learned in life.

Thank you stealth you are so wise and tall on that soap box.

by **jefjef** on Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:14 pm

No one below the rank of lehar should be able to create forum threads. Or post.

Word.

and gweedo - stop using my avi. Thief...

by **Gweeedo** on Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:28 pm

@Rockit, he has a rating of 4.4...go figure.

@ jefjef, you are my Hero...I like this Avatar, It demands a certain Respect.
I can not hear you...it is as if You have been foed.

FOE ME WILL YA!

by **betiko** on Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:16 am

Oh shit.. I was wondering how the hell i ended up in this thread and not remembering.. Gweeeedo stole my avatar! Lol

Regarding the OP, if you make truce without round conditions ect these things happen. If there are no precise conditions, spmeone has to break it at some point. When I truce, i say unti which round or which area of the map is concerned by our truce. Or until which point of trimming the dominant player our truce will last, can be till his anihilation. Just trucing without clauses in your contract is ridiculous. I can end up breaking those truces too if the "contract" isn t specific enough and it s basically about who moves first.

by **iAmCaffeine** on Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:49 am

Agreed time to break the truce or not, I would always break a truce if I can certainly win by doing so, or the other person in the party will certainly win if I don't.

by **_sabotage_** on Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:55 am

I don't normally make truces, but recently I have made two. The problem is always ending the truce.

Both games were 6 player games, and both times, once there were three players remaining the truce was off.

In the first case, our truce had been to leave existing borders intact, but when I attacked an area that had not been part of the existing area, it was declared that I had broken the truce and the player pummeled through me wherever he had the chance.

In the second, I gave the player a warning, letting him know the truce was now off, but I did so immediately after my turn in which I didn't attack the player. He then pummeled through me everywhere he could.

In both cases, the third player greatly benefited from the end of the truce. I don't see much of a way around this, for pummeling into the player I had the truce with would leave the third player at an advantage as well, attacking both players evenly would enrage the person I had the truce with and pit him against me to the third players advantage, and waiting until the third player is sufficiently weak would enable the player I have a truce with to pummel me.

A truce which is maintained until the other players are eliminated poses its own set of ricks and ending the truce with many players in a decent position limits the use of a truce. Based on these observations, I think the only benefit of a truce can be in the intention to break it when it would provide you with an overwhelming advantage and do so without warning. As such, a truce is not a truce but more of a promise to attack you later at my own advantage.