pussies in game 3799237

[jesperrau]

i have to ask now.
im playing a doubles game with 4 teams and when it started to go well, one from the other team cried out in the game chat that my team had to much. for 4 rounds now its been my team against 3 teams. (it still looks fairly ok he he.)
my problem though is that im getting really pissed of, about other teams sharing info and only attacking me and my mate, so the question is..
is it ok for me to put all my troops on taking out the most pussi one (just to shut him up) or is that concidered vendictive ?

jesper.

and please leave youre views on alliances in teamgames, is it ok ? is it pussylike ? or is it just delaying the inevetible ? thanx.

[Jeff Hardy]

always do whats best for you. if you think taking one team (or one player) out will help you win the game because the others will stop attacking you then do that. do not do anything to shut someone up, taking him out of the game and then losing yourself isnt as good as winning. if they only attack you down to a point where you know you cannnot win the game no matter what happens then you might aswell take the pussy down with you but otherwise, do whatevers most likely to win you the game!

Game 3799237

[MeDeFe]

Convince them that they're idiots and should be attacking someone else.

[wacicha]

This is being moved to Q & A.

[Evil Semp]

jesperrau weren't you the first one to shout out someone's position in the game? If you didn't shout out about someone holding most of the US maybe they wouldn't have given out your positions. The only thing said at the start was to watch out for your team.

[jesperrau]

you are absolutly right.... i tried to make a point that he should concentrate on his own game, and not try to scare the other teams, when he had the same big bonus comming his way. so i tried to make him stop in a diplomatic way, but i did not succeed... (should have keept quiet)

and i would like to point out, that i dont mind the alliances in nonteam games, thats part of the rules.

but in teamgames i belive that its good strategi to team up with your teammate, and the fun of "fog of war" is kind of useless if the other teams writes in public what they can see... right ?

[lgoasklucyl]

That's part of the difficulty of 3+ team dubs matches: if you take an early lead and it's not held very, VERY well you're probably going to get double-teamed and lose. Obviously two teams are going to attack another if it means keeping both of them alive instead of letting one team gather a huge advantage.

It sucks, but it needs to be accounted for. A lot of time developing slower in 3/4 team dubs games is important too.

Sucks though.

[jesperrau]

got no problem with attacks from all teams, thats the fun part but it must be against the rules, to share information thats surposed to be hidden by fog of war ?

[FabledIntegral]

i have to ask now.
im playing a doubles game with 4 teams and when it started to go well, one from the other team cried out in the game chat that my team had to much. for 4 rounds now its been my team against 3 teams. (it still looks fairly ok he he.)
my problem though is that im getting really pissed of, about other teams sharing info and only attacking me and my mate, so the question is..
is it ok for me to put all my troops on taking out the most pussi one (just to shut him up) or is that concidered vendictive ?

jesper.

and please leave youre views on alliances in teamgames, is it ok ? is it pussylike ? or is it just delaying the inevetible ? thanx.

Alliances are unnecessary but should be obvious when or when not to do something.

If you think it's worth suiciding the kid, do it. That's fine. Considered vindictive? Who cares. If it's what you'd rather do. Expect to make his foe list though...

[cpurcell]

I agree with most of what everyone else said here. About spouting info supposed to be hidden by the fog, I'm really not sure, but I don't think that it's against the rules, it's just un-sportsmanlike. I also consider alliances to be un-sportsmanlike and extremely cheap. I know that there are plenty of differing opinions out there, but honestly, I'd rather lose to a good player than make an alliance just to try to save my skin. That's not 100% true in all cases before a bunch of people jump down my throat, but usually that's how I feel.
---C