Teaming up in Singles games

[shaggis]

Whats the general thought on players teaming up in a Singles game?

 

[VetaBANNED]

one of them has to backstab the other eventually right?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

It sucks, but it does happen. When you see that happening, make a note to not play with them again. That's all you can do.

 

[Andraste]

lol you know who you are " Staby McStaby from Backstabsville"

 

[VetaBANNED]

It sucks, but it does happen. When you see that happening, make a note to not play with them again. That's all you can do.

On that note: I've always felt that if players want to work together to defeat the rest of the table it's part of the game. if you see it coming, you'll be far better off in the long run if you learn to counter such alliances with a coalition/alliance of your own instead of simply not playing with those players again - or succumbing to their might. And to be honest, I think it adds more to the game than it takes away in terms of strategy and diplomacy. I would draw a huge distinction between in game alliances and players actively colluding or forming cabals before the game start though - the latter is cheating.

In summary, all is fair in love and war, especially war.

 

[Shepherd]

This is a common tactic in this game, whether here or at another site or if playing at home on a board with dice and little plastic armies. It's going to happen. The Diplomacy feature at this site allows for such activity to occur in an above the board manner - even if it means you're going to get screwed, it's at least nicer to see who is talking and making pacts than to presume by the actions in the game that two players are secretly in cahoots.

The best defense, in my opinion, is to convince one of the two collaborators that they're just doing the bidding of a stronger player... there's only one winner in this game, and whoever comes in second is just the first loser.

 

[Avitray]

Its common, just like what Shepherd said.
Theres no way of escaping this - as long they have been talking in the diplomacy tab.
The only thing you can do to evade... well... nothing much, just try your best and protect the borders and wait for the backstab. (maybe talk to one of them as you are defending . )

 

[serf]

Wow. Diplomacy's my favorite part of any game that allows it, but I'm gonna have to rethink how I use it here, cause apparently I'm breaking some unspoken rules.
EDIT: nvm I think I get it now.

 

[KungFuDuet]

I believe the line was defined a while ago. If you are making a strategic alliance on site with the diplo tab on the game it is about, it is a fair move. If you have agreed to join forces and take out others in games by other form of communication, or any way that is outside of the game diplo tab (or before it starts), then I believe it is against the rules.

 

[doogin]

I think you also need to draw distinction between collusion and players merely teaming up to attack a dominant player in a game. In one game a player got VERY angry that the remaining two players were constantly attacking him (her?). Apparently, he felt we should just let him continue to hold the most regions, have the most armies and most army income.

 

[chefsmitty]

Anybody that's been the stronger player on the board has encountered the "team-up". Its expected when you get an early lead in troop count, regions, commands, etc. Diplo. is there for anybody to use, so it's not an unfair advantage to one/two players. I always see how the diplo plays out, and if it seems two people are "teaming up" then make diplo yourself. I'm sure that one or both of the players would like an easy out of possible loss of troops or commands.

 

[Chilly]

This is a reason that I -HATE- 4-player singles games. If two players decide to team-up, the other two in the game are screwed.

By the time they
1) realize what's going on
2) decide they need to work together to counter-balance
3) come to a level of trust
4) actually are able to redeploy troops, attack commands etc.

the other two players have already established a very dominant lead.

Of course, the counter for this is for the two weaker players to continually attack the same player (pick one of the two dominant ones) in order to bring that player down to their level....and then -hopefully- convince that player they have been attacking that if he helps them attack the leader they will also switch their attacks. Frequently, it is hard for people to see the forest for the trees in this case.

 

[ladynem]

The diplomacy tab is there for a reason, I guess, so people may use it.

I notice that a few people get angry and even start cursing in the chat when they notice one or two people are in the lead. They assume that those people cheat, while those people are just lucky and/or play tactical.
I had it happen to me a few times now, that people just start cursing and yelling that I 'cheat' or whatever because I use the diplomacy tab and/ or just happen to be in the lead, or one time even because I refused an offer to team up against someone - that meant I was a 'cheater' who probably teamed up with the desired target.

I dislike the accusations and the cursing that sometimes comes with it.

 

[PKHustle]

Teaming up is a crucial part of the game and is fine as-is unless people are deliberately helping each other win in every game they play (hinting that it may be one person on two different accounts).

Think about it. When you're in a 4-player game and one person starts getting VERY strong and, because of their troop bonus, could 1v1 and kill ANYONE on the map.. how would you defeat them? You couldn't do it alone. It's balancing the power and when someone is much stronger then everyone else the smartest thing for the rest of the players to do is balance the power via breaking his bonuses. Of course, there are exceptions but if you truly want to win this is what you have to do in most games. In fact, it happens at LEAST two times in just about every game I play.

You have to balance the power.

If your only mindset is, "I don't team up with anyone, and I won't sign any treaty," then you're asking to lose.

There's players A, B, C, and D on the map Classic Evolved. Player A got a lucky starting position and was able to quickly conquer Australia and Antarctica while player B and C are both fighting to take over South America and Africa (each focusing on one). Player D had a sort of unlucky starting position and is trying to build up in Asia/Europe but can't conquer any continents.

The game goes on, and player A is starting to show a huge difference in strength because players B and C had to fight each other for a while to finally get their continents and player D fell behind as well because of no continent bonus. At that point, players B and C should probably form a treaty between South America and Africa so that they can get their feet on the ground before player A is able to overwhelm one of them and keep defending his borders.

If player B and C do not form a truce on their borders, then it is likely that player A will be able to take control of one of their continents while defending his borders in Australia and Antarctica and have a much better chance of winning the game.

It's tactical play. It also encourages people to not be dicks to the rest of the players (because they're more likely to get teamed up on or no one will want to truce with them).

In short, it's fine as is and encourages more strategy, better sportsmanship, and a deeper game.

 

[AAFitz]

I myself think the diplo button ruins the game, because it encourages treaties where mostly they are not necessary. The game is much more fun when the gameplay chat is the gameplay itself which requires actual strategy. Just being the first to enter a treaty, or having a friend in the game, is not strategy.
Its not that there can't be strategy with diplo, but that the strategy options without it are much better.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I myself think the diplo button ruins the game, because it encourages treaties where mostly they are not necessary. The game is much more fun when the gameplay chat is the gameplay itself which requires actual strategy. Just being the first to enter a treaty, or having a friend in the game, is not strategy.
Its not that there can't be strategy with diplo, but that the strategy options without it are much better.

I'm not against ALL diplo per se, and "ruins the game", IMO, is a bit of an overstatement, but I agree that games are more fun and interesting when there is no diplo. I'd LOVE to see an option for "no diplo" in the 'create a game' page.

 

[pahtoz]

I think diplo is an important aspect of majcom. It encourages player interaction and that in itself builds the community. You will always have the "friend" concept even without the diplo so its better to just have it out there and at least that way you can more or less see who is talking. It is as was said that proper diplo is conducted within the game itself. How do you in fact stop RL friends from playing and having each others backs? You cannot and at the end of the day there can only be one winner. That is why if you are going to buddy up rather use the doubles option etc. I for one would like to see the double mercenary game fixed and back in action.

 

[ladynem]

I actually quite like the diplo option, for me it does give a certain depth.
I might be a good idea to be able to create games without diplomacy though, so people can choose their preference.
Couldn't you just start a game and put 'no diplomacy' in the notes?

 

[CaptSweatpants]

I believe the line was defined a while ago. If you are making a strategic alliance on site with the diplo tab on the game it is about, it is a fair move. If you have agreed to join forces and take out others in games by other form of communication, or any way that is outside of the game diplo tab (or before it starts), then I believe it is against the rules.

I know this is an old post but could someone tell me where it is written that diplomacy in a game must be done in the game. That's how I have been doing it but I think others might not be aware of that rule and I would like to apprise them of it.

 

[Chilly]

I know this is an old post but could someone tell me where it is written that diplomacy in a game must be done in the game. That's how I have been doing it but I think others might not be aware of that rule and I would like to apprise them of it.

Here you go: Illegal Diplomacy

Cheating

Cheating is not tolerated here in any form. Cheating can generally be defined as using an unfair advantage against unaware opponents. It sounds ambiguous but you know it when you see it and it generally takes the form of secret diplomacy.

Examples are (but not limited to):

• Colluding with another player to eliminate opponents in a singles game prior to the start of the game.
• Communicating diplomacy with other players using instant messaging or other non-MC channels.

Players have been and will continue to be permanently and ip banned for these offenses - so don't do it.

Definitely appreciate all the help making players aware of the rules.