Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
Anarkistsdream wrote:It is fairly obvious to me that you were more than likely born in 1988 due to your name...
And you are gonna accuse a 60 year old man who is a well-known and established player here???
You're an idiot.
bcheng1988 wrote:Anarkistsdream wrote:It is fairly obvious to me that you were more than likely born in 1988 due to your name...
And you are gonna accuse a 60 year old man who is a well-known and established player here???
You're an idiot.
It is fairly obvious to me that someone whose vocabulary comprises words like, "gonna" and "idiot," and who thinks that everyone should know everything about his small world (ie. Thomas J is a well-established 60-year old player -- oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the bios section) should go get a life and get out more. Oh, and take it to Flame Wars.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
bcheng1988 wrote:Granted, you've played more games than I, and I appreciate your feedback, but I'd like to wait for another opinion on this. After all, one of them is your dad, so I'm not sure whether your opinion is entirely impartial.
I don't think my accusation was a stretch.
First, you're exaggerating things (which confirms my belief that you're not entirely impartial): I do not own most of the board, or even half of it, or even a third of it. I own the Plains and the River Camp. Aqua (at the time I submitted this) had all of the Great Hall, the Throne, and the entire Inner Wall. Green had both East + West Wars and all of the Outer Wall. Red and Blue also each had a continent bonus. So I don't see how I owned as much of the board as you want the readers here to believe. Maybe I need to relearn how to count? Please teach me.
Second, I DID wait, contrary to what you're trying to say here. I gave them TWO turns, and even ASKED them in the chat about it (they ignored it for a whole turn, which was why I reported them). The FACTS are: they had continent bonuses, they left their continent bonuses entirely undefended, and neither of them attack each other. And, on top of this, the power was quite balanced at that time -- there wasn't a single dominating player that they both had to fear (read my first point again).
Sorry, AAFitz, I appreciate your feedback, but I'm looking for some less potentially biased opinion here.
Steel Panzer wrote:let the mods sort this out
flame wars that way if you want a debate
wacicha wrote:the truth is very simple, when there are 3 players unspoken or not it is always you verses 2. And if you are the strongest of the 3 it is very important to knock you down. Not an alliance secret or other wise. it is the way of a 3 person board.
they are so intent on you and then you kinda question their reasoning and focus them more so on you.
I also have played a few games and have even been accused of a secret alliance in my negative feedback.
And I think you may have jumped the gun also. I am not 60 but dam close.
DaveRH wrote:*sarcasm* I've played Risk for years, I recently found conquer club, and it seems on this site, though secret alliances are not allowed, leaving 1 army on a continent borders with an opponent you're not aligned with is a viable and common strategy *sarcasm*
DaveRH wrote:Risk has been around a long longer than this website. There's no way to rationalize leaving undefended borders / not capitalizing on undefended borders. Other than some sort of agreement / alliance.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users