Conquer Club

Let's say you're in a multiplayer game, and make a truce with one other player (with defined terms for ending it). As the game progresses, others are eliminated or all-but-eliminated and the game reaches a point where you and that player are the only two left with any serious chance of winning the game. Is it fair game to break the truce and attack the other player without sticking to the terms you originally agreed?

I mean, no. If there's, say, a two turn notice, it's certainly a dick move to just attack regardless of the situation. Say I'm the other person and have just eliminated a player, leaving my borders open to you assuming I have two turns to shore them up. Then you just attack. You've screwed me. Unless you throw in the caveat stating that when there are two left the truce is over, it should still be honored.

Isn't giving your 2-turn notice and then waiting to be attacked basically inviting the other player to win the game though?

or u can stipulate that if were the only ones left ...
but i usually hit em when/if were only 2 ... and i usually get hit if im the one offing the last player so it evens out

mrswdk wrote:Isn't giving your 2-turn notice and then waiting to be attacked basically inviting the other player to win the game though?

there's a strategy to that as well. basically, three player game truce are dumb.

i'm just giving my opinion. you're asking if it's fair game. i do not believe that it is, by definition, fair game to break a truce regardless of the situation. that being said, would i attack and give the other player the proverbial kick in the nuts? absolutely. then again, my name is nut shot scott for a reason.

lol, why are you even asking? you obviously already broke it, mrs...

You can do whatever you want. If they don't like it, they can suck dick Mod Edit (Razorvich)

mrswdk wrote:Let's say you're in a multiplayer game, and make a truce with one other player (with defined terms for ending it). As the game progresses, others are eliminated or all-but-eliminated and the game reaches a point where you and that player are the only two left with any serious chance of winning the game. Is it fair game to break the truce and attack the other player without sticking to the terms you originally agreed?

It's not fair, but neither is life. It's certainly 'legal' here (not breaking any rules), and it's certainly NOT ethical. IMO, what you do has consequences, so if you do it and want to play another game with that person you may have cost yourself the opportunity to make another truce with them. If the single game win is more important (it decides if you win a tourney or something), then I'd say go for it!

But I mean.... Llama is probs right, I'm sure you attacked

Nut Shot Scott wrote:I mean, no. If there's, say, a two turn notice, it's certainly a dick move to just attack regardless of the situation. Say I'm the other person and have just eliminated a player, leaving my borders open to you assuming I have two turns to shore them up. Then you just attack. You've screwed me. Unless you throw in the caveat stating that when there are two left the truce is over, it should still be honored.

seems crazy you think this way but also think in a round limit game anyone can screw anyone else out of their earned win mate. not sure how you agree with 1 and not the other? unless i've mixed it up somehow.

riskllama wrote:lol, why are you even asking? you obviously already broke it, mrs...

Of course I did, I am just interested in getting the general community view on this sort of behaviour.



I probably worded the poll wrong. EDITED.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Nut Shot Scott wrote:I mean, no. If there's, say, a two turn notice, it's certainly a dick move to just attack regardless of the situation. Say I'm the other person and have just eliminated a player, leaving my borders open to you assuming I have two turns to shore them up. Then you just attack. You've screwed me. Unless you throw in the caveat stating that when there are two left the truce is over, it should still be honored.

seems crazy you think this way but also think in a round limit game anyone can screw anyone else out of their earned win mate. not sure how you agree with 1 and not the other? unless i've mixed it up somehow.

Ha. Two different things. If I'm in a tournament that rewards an overall winner and I simply need to ensure that someone does not win a single game in order to win a tournament, then that's simply good strategy imo and a no brainer. Same with the guy in the terminator game - his goal was to gain points so he did what made strategic sense to reach his goal and was inexplicably ruled against. As for other round limit games, my point there is you can't tell a player what motivates them - for example, we're in a round limit game and in round 5 you muck up my game, jack a bonus and I end up essentially toast but I am still left in the game because I have a small hold somewhere. Last round comes around and I have a chance to screw you right back, why am I not allowed to do that? Or say you're simply an asshole the entire game and I say f*ck it, it's either blue or red and red is a dick, I'm giving it to blue. Why am I not allowed to do that? Or take this example, what if you break a truce with me and later on I can steal your win from you? Is that wrong? Motivations matter and you can't tell someone that their motivation is invalid but another person's isn't. By telling someone they can't make a move in a game, you're saying that when someone has been determined to be "out of contention" that they have to stop playing, regardless of their situation. And who determines that and when? It's a slippery slope and you risk legislating the game to death. I'm more against the site moderators, especially ones who barely play or just suck at the game, telling other players how to play the game and when it is ok or not ok to attack someone and why than I am any specific instance. If you make a pact with someone and break it, regardless of circumstance, it's just a shit move.

Also, the question at hand is essentially whether or not it's ethical, which it is not. Would I do it? Honestly, not likely unless it was clear that I was going to win regardless or I just felt like being a dick that day. Lastly, this isn't a site moderator threatening to punish someone for playing a game strategically, it's an ethical question. If the question were "should one be punished/censured for breaking a truce at the end of a game" the obvious answer would be of course not. Or if the other question were simply "is it unethical to steal a win from someone in a round limit game", I would say in most cases yes it is unless there is strategic value to it. Doesn't mean I think you should be punished for it by some chowder head with a moderator tag by his name.

Nut Shot Scott wrote:if the other question were simply "is it unethical to steal a win from someone in a round limit game", I would say in most cases yes it is unless there is strategic value to it.

Kinda like how killing someone randomly is wrong, but killing them in order to take their wallet is fine.

mrswdk wrote:

Nut Shot Scott wrote:if the other question were simply "is it unethical to steal a win from someone in a round limit game", I would say in most cases yes it is unless there is strategic value to it.

Kinda like how killing someone randomly is wrong, but killing them in order to take their wallet is fine.

Lol. Nobody carries cash anymore, killing for wallets is so '00's. Do it for the Jordans. Or a Starter jacket.

Nut Shot Scott wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:

Nut Shot Scott wrote:I mean, no. If there's, say, a two turn notice, it's certainly a dick move to just attack regardless of the situation. Say I'm the other person and have just eliminated a player, leaving my borders open to you assuming I have two turns to shore them up. Then you just attack. You've screwed me. Unless you throw in the caveat stating that when there are two left the truce is over, it should still be honored.

seems crazy you think this way but also think in a round limit game anyone can screw anyone else out of their earned win mate. not sure how you agree with 1 and not the other? unless i've mixed it up somehow.

Ha. Two different things. If I'm in a tournament that rewards an overall winner and I simply need to ensure that someone does not win a single game in order to win a tournament, then that's simply good strategy imo and a no brainer. Same with the guy in the terminator game - his goal was to gain points so he did what made strategic sense to reach his goal and was inexplicably ruled against. As for other round limit games, my point there is you can't tell a player what motivates them - for example, we're in a round limit game and in round 5 you muck up my game, jack a bonus and I end up essentially toast but I am still left in the game because I have a small hold somewhere. Last round comes around and I have a chance to screw you right back, why am I not allowed to do that? Or say you're simply an asshole the entire game and I say f*ck it, it's either blue or red and red is a dick, I'm giving it to blue. Why am I not allowed to do that? Or take this example, what if you break a truce with me and later on I can steal your win from you? Is that wrong? Motivations matter and you can't tell someone that their motivation is invalid but another person's isn't. By telling someone they can't make a move in a game, you're saying that when someone has been determined to be "out of contention" that they have to stop playing, regardless of their situation. And who determines that and when? It's a slippery slope and you risk legislating the game to death. I'm more against the site moderators, especially ones who barely play or just suck at the game, telling other players how to play the game and when it is ok or not ok to attack someone and why than I am any specific instance. If you make a pact with someone and break it, regardless of circumstance, it's just a shit move.

Also, the question at hand is essentially whether or not it's ethical, which it is not. Would I do it? Honestly, not likely unless it was clear that I was going to win regardless or I just felt like being a dick that day. Lastly, this isn't a site moderator threatening to punish someone for playing a game strategically, it's an ethical question. If the question were "should one be punished/censured for breaking a truce at the end of a game" the obvious answer would be of course not. Or if the other question were simply "is it unethical to steal a win from someone in a round limit game", I would say in most cases yes it is unless there is strategic value to it. Doesn't mean I think you should be punished for it by some chowder head with a moderator tag by his name.

yeah i think i agree with you then, i wasn't clear on some of your understanding

although if im in a truce with someone and it's coming down to me or them winning and i feel like i have to act now and break the truce to win, or wait and potentially lose, i'm breaking it every time.

Upon further review, I'm changing my answer. If two are left, you should assume the truce is over and play accordingly.

Nut Shot Scott wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Nut Shot Scott wrote:if the other question were simply "is it unethical to steal a win from someone in a round limit game", I would say in most cases yes it is unless there is strategic value to it.

Kinda like how killing someone randomly is wrong, but killing them in order to take their wallet is fine.

Lol. Nobody carries cash anymore, killing for wallets is so '00's. Do it for the Jordans. Or a Starter jacket.

Sounds like Canadians need to put down the beaver traps and embrace 21st century technology:

Contactless technology is a feature introduced in 2007 on many credit and debit cards for transactions of £30 or less. It works by cardholders holding their contactless-enabled card up to a secure reader to make their payments. The card would not usually require a PIN to be entered

My wallet analogy is upheld.

mrs = truce breaker

mrswdk wrote:

Nut Shot Scott wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Nut Shot Scott wrote:if the other question were simply "is it unethical to steal a win from someone in a round limit game", I would say in most cases yes it is unless there is strategic value to it.

Kinda like how killing someone randomly is wrong, but killing them in order to take their wallet is fine.

Lol. Nobody carries cash anymore, killing for wallets is so '00's. Do it for the Jordans. Or a Starter jacket.

Sounds like Canadians need to put down the beaver traps and embrace 21st century technology:

Contactless technology is a feature introduced in 2007 on many credit and debit cards for transactions of £30 or less. It works by cardholders holding their contactless-enabled card up to a secure reader to make their payments. The card would not usually require a PIN to be entered

My wallet analogy is upheld.

Ha! Within about 45 seconds, the CC app on your phone will shut those card down. sounds like you brits need to discover new age security features. and i'm an american, i just live here. dont lump me in with these commonwealthers who can't declare independence properly.

Nut Shot Scott wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Nut Shot Scott wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Nut Shot Scott wrote:if the other question were simply "is it unethical to steal a win from someone in a round limit game", I would say in most cases yes it is unless there is strategic value to it.

Kinda like how killing someone randomly is wrong, but killing them in order to take their wallet is fine.

Lol. Nobody carries cash anymore, killing for wallets is so '00's. Do it for the Jordans. Or a Starter jacket.

Sounds like Canadians need to put down the beaver traps and embrace 21st century technology:

Contactless technology is a feature introduced in 2007 on many credit and debit cards for transactions of £30 or less. It works by cardholders holding their contactless-enabled card up to a secure reader to make their payments. The card would not usually require a PIN to be entered

My wallet analogy is upheld.

Ha! Within about 45 seconds, the CC app on your phone will shut those card down. sounds like you brits need to discover new age security features. and i'm an american, i just live here. dont lump me in with these commonwealthers who can't declare independence properly.

In my experience those apps generally don't work unless the card owner is alive to use them.

UK wins again!!!!

Just because Scott swallows nuttz, please don't lump the rest of us Canadians together with the national broocy.

mrswdk wrote:

are you trying to tell me that jesus didn't ride dinosaurs?