Just a quick question for you all. There's a team game where a number of players have gotten booted, so I found myself without both of my teammates. In light of this, I decided to propose a NAP with a neighbor of mine who also lost both his teammates. Nothing too complicated, just leaving eachother alone for the time being. He agreed. I was then harassed by 3 people about this, saying I was a bozo/idiot/etc., that I was 'cheating', and that I needed to 'follow the rules'. Nowhere in the description of the game, public chat, or anywhere was it stated that forming temp alliances was against the rules. I checked the Wiki rules for FFA and team games, neither of which prohibited it. I pointed this out, and was again namecalled and told to "stop cheating" and "grow up".
In your opinion, is it 'cheating' to form a temp alliance or NAP with another player from a different team in a team game where it isn't otherwise stipulated that they are prohibited? I'm curious.
Temp alliances/NAPs in team games: 4/22/2016 12:18:10
Alliances are for diplo games, not normal team games. I should also point out that Davidian's response to me saying this was to call me "autistic," and I don't value the opinion of anyone who uses mental illness as an insult.
Have a good weekend everyone! Poon on!
Temp alliances/NAPs in team games: 4/22/2016 12:38:57
Where does it say alliances aren't for normal games?
And when you start your initial statement by calling someone a bozo, I think you give up the high ground on insults. Whatever you feel about my insult being in bad taste, it was no better or worse than yours.
Online, the use the word of 'autistic' is not literal. If you believe it is, then calling someone dumb/idiot/bozo is just as bad, because it's insulting them for an innate lack of intelligence or mental capacity.
You have been unable to back up any of your claims about how the game should be played. My recommendation? If you want something to be against the rules, stipulate it in the description when you first make it.
And no, it's no one's fault, which is why I made my own decisions. Nice try tho.
Temp alliances/NAPs in team games: 4/22/2016 12:58:39
I didn't realize I would have to specify that a game without "diplo" in the title would be playing by non-diplo rules. My recommendation? Next time take the steps to make sure your teammates don't get booted. For example, I texted Pooncrew "don't get booted" and then he took his turn.
Being a bozo is just a synonym for being a jabroni. Nothing to do with mental capacity.
Temp alliances/NAPs in team games: 4/22/2016 13:01:07
Actually, if you look up the word it does refer to intelligence. You can't just decide words mean something else no matter what you want, otherwise you have to recognize the non-literal definition for 'autistic'.
And that sounds like it was your mistake, maybe you should get more experience with regular games without any rules, where temp alliances/NAPs are plentiful. I'll let it go that you didn't realize it though.
I would also suggest you learn some professionalism as the host of a game and not insult someone simply for doing something you 'expect' them to follow without saying it anywhere.
The only difference between diplo games and non diplo games is what is enforceable. It never said anywhere that you can't make temp agreements in regular games.
Temp alliances/NAPs in team games: 4/22/2016 14:02:12
If there are more than two teams of players it's perfectly natural for teams to agree to focus on the team that is a bigger threat to them, and unless the game creator specified that this was not allowed it's very childish to get salty about it. A game with more than two teams is a "team free for all" as in each team looks out for their best interest, which may include forming alliances and NAPs.
Temp alliances/NAPs in team games: 4/22/2016 14:44:14
@davidian the person who's played 25 games of warlight is going to lecture me on how warlight is normally played? You claim we have no experience? Also we don't self admit to being trolls because we aren't
Temp alliances/NAPs in team games: 4/22/2016 14:51:57
Oh, when will people understand that this is one of those topics which needs to be, you know, discussed?
Some people want a gameplay style where alliances and non-aggression pacts are part of the changing strategic landscape.
Some people want a "clean" game which is purely strategic.
Both are correct.
You just need to talk to the people you're playing with and get on the same page.
The best way, if you don't know? Ask.
I'm playing in a 3-team game right now, and we're organizing an alliance against the third team. I've asked the third team if they're OK with this, for the sake of making the game more interesting. Why not?
If you're setting up a game, you might want to specify your preference, as well. It makes a big difference - those are almost two entirely different types of games.
Temp alliances/NAPs in team games: 4/22/2016 17:49:10
Anyway why was vote not offered (and accepted) if boots happenned at turn 0 ? Or wasnt it at turn 0 ?
And alliances should not be allowed and regarded as cheats in FFA (or team games of more than 2 teams) unless clearly specified in the description. Otherwise it is just as unfair as a player having a secret alt in the FFA game. But thats just my 2c ;).
Temp alliances/NAPs in team games: 4/26/2016 22:01:14
In this case it was a special edition game created to celebrate Patriot's Day so it wouldn't be right to end by vote. But even if it was a normal game I don't think vote to end is a good idea just cause someone got booted. It's not fair to the players that want to play and who take their turns in time
Temp alliances/NAPs in team games: 4/27/2016 12:35:50
Well in true bozo fashion I challenged Davidian to a 3 vs 3. With Queefballs, Jamrod, and I vs. Davidian and two open seats (pre reqs on for people above level 13 and boot% below 20) with 3 day boots because he said we can't win a game without booting. Davidian declined so he is a wuss. The End. We Win. BOOM