in the game Europe 1560 www.wargear.net/games/view/31983 two players teammed up which i have no problem with, but one of them did most of the work for there allaince and then purposley stated to throw the game so the player could win and I qoute from the player who threw the game "blue,you decide for me,i see. no problem, you can attack me. you dont have expiriance, you should know that britains 8 troops is nothing in this level of game, when bonus worth 100 units. beside, you had triple units more then black, you didnt have reason to be nerviouse. i neutralize blacks 140 units in london, now if you cant win this game, you should not play risk any more."  I do not like that he purposely threw the game so someoneo else can win. I think there should be actions taken against these players but wanted to know what other people thought first. 

Oooh, tough call.
Annoying? Definitely.
Stupid? Yes.
Illegal? In my opinion, eh, not if it happens once. If numerous occasions or if they in fact are the same person or had a pre-conceived alliance prior to joining the game, then yes that would be illegal I believe. Alliances are acceptable, but can also go over the top too.

I wasn't going to bring it up because I'm over it, but since you did I'll say my peace..

I was quite annoyed as you can see by the comments. While I wouldn't call what they were doing illegal or against the rules, unless they are the same person or had preconceived of this before the game, it is certainly not how or who I want to play with on here.

People can play how they want and if they want to play to lose and be losers that's their prerogative I suppose. Just don't do that shit in a game I'm playing in unless you want me to click your name onto the enemies list.

I really liked the comment "Go look at the sun or something". I give him mad props for that one.

This is something I've been wondering about. If I've been an underdog throughout a game and don't see anything happening, I'm often tempted to go kamikaze on one of the major players on my way out. Technically, this is throwing the game. I'm completely opening myself up to be taken out, while taking as many bonuses as possible.

Is it poor etiquette or is it fairly common here?

Personally I don't like doing that. Sometimes it's fun to cash and blow through and the strategy of it is to use your cards so no one else gets them but it all depends. I really hate (like a game I'm in now) where it is obvious that you have won the game and there is only 1 player left to clean up but that player cashes and just does enough damage to force you to work harder to end it. That's annoying. If I see I have no way to win the game and it's just me and somebody else I just place and end. Anybody who wants to give me the whole "If you're alive than you can still win" crap can SMTN.
All that being said, and being said just from my perspective, this is a game of conquering your enemy and so anytime you do that you are playing the game. I've come back from near defeat many times and those are my favorite victories. You play the game how you would like it to be played, I guess. If you get annoyed (as I do) when players just make the clean up more annoying or when a player just kamikazies with no hope of winning, then don't do it. If you are fine with that style of play against you than feel free to do onto others.
Risky's Rule #1: Win or Lose, you can always start another game.

There are A LOT of players that give up too early. With the luck factor and depending on cards there are a lot of games that can turn around even when there appears to be no hope.
I always recommend being annoying rather than kamikaze (unless kamikaze is the strategy to win) or giving up. In my opinion, never stop trying to win the game until it is completely over.
I do find it EXTREMELY ANNOYING when players say "good game" before the game is over. That's shows ignorance to me.
Always play till the end, be annoying and I guarantee* you will end up coming out on top every now and then.

* Guarantee not really guaranteed...but turn arounds happen quite often.

I dunno Yertle, I've played more games with you than most people have played in total and I have never seen you do anything to annoy me like that. Granted, 99% of those games you already eliminated me before the end of the game but I still don't think that it is bad form to just place and end if you are confident of the outcome. Also, you have to say GG before the game is over because most people don't go back to games after they have been eliminated (I know I don't).
Again, play to win every game but try not to be an annoying douchebag. That is actually my new Rule #1

Oh, and another thing that I have been seeing a lot recently is this whole put 3's or 4's in all your territories even though you have choke points you could easily fill up. I understand it makes you harder to eliminate but it also takes away from your attacking. There are some maps where it is a very good strategy but very few. I just think that saving your units to prevent your early elimination while not moving your units to the front to try and eliminate others is a defeatist plan from the get go. That's just me, however, I don't win very often.

RiskyBack wrote:  I just think that saving your units to prevent your early elimination while not moving your units to the front to try and eliminate others is a defeatist plan from the get go. 

one of my favorite quotes (and i forget who said it) is "an aggressive person may risk defeat but a passive person will risk victory"

I'm with Yertle on this one. As a rule I play hard right to the finish. Crazy things can and do happen with dice. The exception is when the odds against winning are astronomically high, but even then, I don't think it makes much of a difference if I place all my bonus armies on a stack and pass or run them thin into my opponent.

As for the game under discussion, Yes it's annoying ..but legal. If they were paying members, they would be using private messages and I might not even suspect collusion, much less know that coaching was going on. It's when a pattern of collusion is established that it becomes illegal. Short of that, making them enemies works just fine ..that and putting the word out, which puts them under scrutiny and on notice.

I was reading this thread aimlessly as I find the subject interesting. But I found out that I was part of the game mentionned, and even one of the two mentionned. I just want to say my point of view.

This game was a weird one, as I never understood what was Vlajz83's strategy. We had a secret truce for a while, but I was not happy with it and was trying to force him to attack Viper. This is when the quoted message was released. I fully understand and sympathize with Viper as that guy was giving lessons and behaving in a funny way, which was hard to understand as he would attack hard for no gain. I took the benefit of it and won the game. I am not proud of it, but I can swear we are not the same person, nor we had a pre-determined alliance. It was even the first game we played together.

Sorry again Viper.

Generally speaking, I believe it's poor etiquette to suicide or seek revenge when you have no hope of winning. Many players do it, but it's not a good reason.

Toto wrote: Generally speaking, I believe it's poor etiquette to suicide or seek revenge when you have no hope of winning. Many players do it, but it's not a good reason.

Someone had a good message explaining why they did that... who was it? Basically said that "If you cause me to lose enough win equity, I will target you". If you have no chance of winning, it seems pretty strange not to want to take out your enemy, to attack the person in "your" continents. What are the other options? Stack and not attack? Target a random player? Target neutrals if possible?

It makes sense to me. You are sending a message for the next time you meet, or to the other players. It's a part of inter-board strategy, whether it is motivated by spite or not.

And if I find annoying players like that, I don't enemy them, I friend them. Then I see them more easily in the games list, join the game and target them. Much more fun and productive. Though that has rarely been employed by me.

And if what vlajzi83 said qualifies as advice worth heeding, then I'm a Pink Bearded Princess in an Elven Kingdom!!!

In my opinion, never stop trying to win the game until it is completely over.

Since this game nicely proves Yertles point through me stealing an almost sure victory from his green scaly grasp, I think it is appropriate :)

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/36253

BD

BlackDog wrote:

In my opinion, never stop trying to win the game until it is completely over.

Since this game nicely proves Yertles point through me stealing an almost sure victory from his green scaly grasp, I think it is appropriate :)

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/36253

BD

Lol, I kept thinking about posting that link on this thread...but really didn't want to :P

Thanks for bringing it back up...

I'll post this one just to make me feel better: http://www.wargear.net/games/view/33409 :)

Gimli wrote:

Toto wrote: Generally speaking, I believe it's poor etiquette to suicide or seek revenge when you have no hope of winning. Many players do it, but it's not a good reason.

Someone had a good message explaining why they did that... who was it? Basically said that "If you cause me to lose enough win equity, I will target you". If you have no chance of winning, it seems pretty strange not to want to take out your enemy, to attack the person in "your" continents. What are the other options? Stack and not attack? Target a random player? Target neutrals if possible?

It makes sense to me. You are sending a message for the next time you meet, or to the other players. It's a part of inter-board strategy, whether it is motivated by spite or not.

Well, I meant it's poor etiquette to seek revenge when you have no hope of winning, just because you are doing that. I think that you should keep fighting even when the hope of winning is thin. Seeking revenge is generally done despite the loss of this hope, thus it's a kind of suicide.

It also happens to me to send a message (inter-board strategy) but I think it's poor etiquette too.

When you don't have a single chance of winning, fine to attack who has been a pain for you.

Sometimes, when I don't know who to attack, I will attack the very low ranked players as I prefer to loose 18 points against Waldo than 100 against Jason1091 (cf. forum  showthread/1078/Unjust_Ranking_Calculation (I can't paste the link)). But this is bad etiquette too.

here is the link, don't hesitate to give your point of view (to make things change)

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1078/Unjust_Ranking_Calculation