Conquer Club

I started this poll just to see if i'm by myself with this, but in some of my games when i end up with the last two people in a game (me being the third) they wanted to gang up on me because i'm the strongest player. I have heard people calling this an alliance. What does every one else think?

it depends on if im in the alliance or out of it...in general i think it should just be a free for all, every man/woman for themself

The solution is, of course, to just play in more xiGAMES Private Games. We have over 15 premium members at this site and there are always at least a couple of xiGAMES Hosted games waiting to be filled.

You can be certain that you will never face an alliance when playing against xiGAMES Members.

xiGAMES Hosted Games are also a safe haven for women and children as all xiGAMES Members play by a Code of Conduct that forbids foul language, harrassment, and dishonorable tactics.

Seriously, though, you wanna talk about GAY...

What's with the Androgynous name, and icon, that your brother uses....lol

Scarus

lol. I can't beleave you said that. now that is funny.

Why you, just wait till i get you in another game I'll show you my tuff side.
Good one though, first time i've been called on it. I've known it all along. You see, it's part of my strategy!

with the last two people in a game (me being the third) they wanted to gang up on me because i'm the strongest player.

So...what are they supposed to do let you win?

It's simply player dynamics with 3-Players left if one player becomes stronger, its instinctive for the other two to knock that one down to their size, at which point another player is stronger and that person *should* get knocked down. And eventually rolls will go one way or a better strategy will win out

You're totally right DarkOne, but there's a difference between common sense, (and playing to win), and formal alliances.

Scarus

Scarus wrote:but there's a difference between common sense, (and playing to win), and formal alliances.

Scarus

I couldn't have said it better Scarus. That is just my point.

Yah I can see what you mean, if its one where it goes until that player is out.

I personally am a strong proponent for the Gay-Straight alliance.

Hey, I got quoted... I'm a fan of the "gay" alliance... it's a very interesting part of the game, especially when the stronger player and the alliance keeps switching. Strategy varies game to game, depending on the players involved.

Hey I got quoted, I thought you might like that. Now I must try find that thread again.

Poll is not spelled "Pole"

Blitz, are you some kind of roving spell check? I could use someone like you. Mind if I pm you when I'm trying to spell a really tough word???

Blitzkreig wrote:Poll is not spelled "Pole"

Blitz cracks me up!!

Scarus

Blitzkreig wrote:Poll is not spelled "Pole"

Sentences end with punctuation.

codymac wrote:Sentences end with punctuation.

Nobody said it was a sentence;

Jota wrote:

codymac wrote:Sentences end with punctuation.

Nobody said it was a sentence;

Nobody said it wasn't, either...

I think its fair to have an alliance like that on a standard game

but I think its unfair to start an aliance like that when there is only three players.

Diplomatic (discretional truces and alliances) games can be very fun, but they are very different form free-for-alls. I think it should be a general courtesy to those who don't like diplomatic games to play only free-for-all in all non-team games.

I see why there would be alliances like that at the end of game, when one is going to win (there no rule against them so they are legal to me, still hate them though). But its logical why they would do that, they don't want to lose and I hate being on the recieving end of those. My tactic against that is when there are only three other players left slow way down and then try to take two them out in one turn. It keeps people from doing that, but it doesn't always work (got tripled team once).

I hate the gays and all of thier alliances

codymac wrote:

Jota wrote:

codymac wrote:Sentences end with punctuation.

Nobody said it was a sentence;

Nobody said it wasn't, either...

it did end in punctuation "<----(a punctuation)

A "gay" alliance really turned on me once

because I was the one who suggested it the person who had been ahead just went for an "up yours" and gave up trying to win and just decided to know me out instead basically forfeiting the game for his revenge!

i like it when they allie against me if i still win it was really worth the effort of taking them both on helps you to plan better i'm in a few games with hunting_high and he likes to get everybody thinking early that i'm aproblem and to go after me quick i think it keeps you on your toes have to be aggresive and definsive at same time

Most of my Risk back-ground is with the board-game version.

In FtF encounters, in-game deals were considered a natural part of play.

Ganging up on the top-dog... was just a fact-of-life

Why is it considered cheating in online versions?

I'm not advocating a pro or con stance on the topic... I'm still in an information-gathering mode