Moderator: Community Team
Kiron wrote: if the move was illegal, then a warning should be sent out since past precedence shows the move was legal by lack of punishment.
king achilles wrote:This is NOT to be condoned. You should only make "deciding games" if the game you are in is in a stalemate position and everyone else remaining in the game agrees to it. You also just can't say, "I don't think I can win this game. Please attack so and so since we had an agreement from another set of games..." Do not take diplomacy into the next level where friends negotiate on who suicides or throws the game to make sure the other player wins.
Diplomacy should not be to the point where it would dictate you to throw the game away. All players should play to win and not resort to these kind of plays.
Please do not do this again.
king achilles wrote:This is NOT to be condoned. You should only resort into making 'deciding games' if the game you are in is in a real stalemate position and everyone else remaining in the game agrees to it. You also just can't say, "I don't think I can win this game. Please attack so and so since we had an agreement from another set of games..." Do not take diplomacy into the next level where friends negotiate on who suicides or throws the game to make sure the other player wins.
Diplomacy should not be to the point where it would dictate you to throw the game away. All players should play to win and not resort to these kind of plays.
Please do not do this again.
king achilles wrote:
All players should play to win and not resort to these kind of plays.
Please do not do this again.
MoB Deadly wrote:My personal opinion is this is illegal.
Suiciding is illegal.
I think suiciding is illegal unless ALL players involved in the game agree about the tie-breaker game. In this case only 2 people agreed to have a tie breaker game and the rest of the game did not agree.
However, it was in the game chat and the other players should have spoken up if they did not agree with it.
I think the "legal" way they could have done it, was to form a truce not to eliminate each other, and then see how the game plays out after everyone else was eliminated
Edit: I guess I cannot assume the other players in the game did not agree to their plan. Maybe they thought it would fail and let it go. If they did not agree they should have said something saying they did not agree. Im changing my vote
KraphtOne wrote:Not the first time these two have been accused of helping each other win. Kinda surprised they are still allowed to play in games with each other.
SvenTveskägg wrote:Being accused and guilty are of course very diffrent things though... Was it ever obvious that their games were this... shady before?
They have been in a lot of games togheter but they both have higher winning rates when not playing together then when they are in the same games; so it seems really weird that they should be working togheter
Return to Conquer Club Discussion