Standards of players on AW

Today i saw a game being played with 2 ppl who id added to my enemies list, id encountered them in a 50k world game before where they reset the join limit after one of them was killed, then rejoined and hit the player that had killed him, and eventually in spite of my efforts, eliminating the player.

i joined the game today with the intention of killing them both, started off in europe expanded and sent stealths over to america where these 2 players were fighting a rank 8 south american player. While doing this i expanded into asia to kill the player there.

on realising on big id become, all 4 players allied in an attempt to kill me off, which was fine i love a challenge and victory would mean a great sp boost.

http://gyazo.com/88cec6f3cf0248627bd642e90abcb57c

but once again the 2 players utilised questionable tactics. since i was on my own and fighting on 4 different fronts, they attempted to force the timer to 1 minute turns. even the 3 minute turns i was getting werent really enough.

http://gyazo.com/9628386fdc92bf1a103497c5cc05b1ce

i bs'd the guy here saying id report him. but tbh ive no idea whether this type of gameplay is acceptable. is it and are their rules against it? to me it would seem really bad form.

You may not like it, and not many people do, but you can't really do anything unless there is a moderator there that is willing to use their influence or modcp to stop it. There isn't anything against the rules about it though.

Looks like you switched back to 3min after the 1min turns. Anyways, it happens alot. It is bad form. Did you report it? I'm curious to know if there is am enforceable rule against this.
BTW, if ever you are in a similar situation again and joining is still possible, just PM me in chat and I'll be glad to help out if I'm online

Yea im not sure how the propose changes button works, i wouldve thought all players would have to accept for a change to implement but ive closed many proposals without accepting only for them to implement anyway, so i think its just the host that matters? fortunately when i killed asia host was switched to me so it was kept at 3 minutes, although by right i needed 4 or 5 minutes....

but tbh during that game i didnt have time to get all my moves done nevermind report someone lol

I think it takes a majority vote to change the game time.

Take it as a compliment. You are that good that you need 4 people to beat you. Thats what I think of it.

Also when it's a lot of people allied against you, they need you to vote in favor of a change they propose. If you propose, you only need one of them to accept.

So if there's a lot of timer changing, break alliances and peace treaties and you'll increase your influence in the voting process.

Escrito por notserral, 11.09.2013 at 15:43

Also when it's a lot of people allied against you, they need you to vote in favor of a change they propose. If you propose, you only need one of them to accept.

So if there's a lot of timer changing, break alliances and peace treaties and you'll increase your influence in the voting process.

thats wrong, there is a bug. if the game is 4vs1 this 4 guys can change the gameoptions anyways

Escrito por Lemonade, 11.09.2013 at 15:57

Escrito por notserral, 11.09.2013 at 15:43

Also when it's a lot of people allied against you, they need you to vote in favor of a change they propose. If you propose, you only need one of them to accept.

So if there's a lot of timer changing, break alliances and peace treaties and you'll increase your influence in the voting process.

thats wrong, there is a bug. if the game is 4vs1 this 4 guys can change the gameoptions anyways

I believed that only if they're not allied or if you have peace/alliance with one of them

Escrito por Mr_Own_U, 11.09.2013 at 14:00

Take it as a compliment. You are that good that you need 4 people to beat you. Thats what I think of it.

i actually beat them in the end, won by sp, it was a +5k sp game for me in the end so at least there was some reward

Escrito por notserral, 11.09.2013 at 15:43

Also when it's a lot of people allied against you, they need you to vote in favor of a change they propose. If you propose, you only need one of them to accept.

So if there's a lot of timer changing, break alliances and peace treaties and you'll increase your influence in the voting process.

that would seem fair enough

Laochra if i show u pictures of what they do to my alts you gonna cry! i will just post my favourite since they only manage to beat me on turn 49 and with tb.one more turn and i would win by sp



Bottom line is dont get discouraged by shady tactics,it means u stronk and its always more rewarding when u beat an allyfag

Escrito por notserral, 11.09.2013 at 18:22

Escrito por Lemonade, 11.09.2013 at 15:57

Escrito por notserral, 11.09.2013 at 15:43

Also when it's a lot of people allied against you, they need you to vote in favor of a change they propose. If you propose, you only need one of them to accept.

So if there's a lot of timer changing, break alliances and peace treaties and you'll increase your influence in the voting process.

thats wrong, there is a bug. if the game is 4vs1 this 4 guys can change the gameoptions anyways

I believed that only if they're not allied or if you have peace/alliance with one of them

thats not true.
ask vril, if you dont believe me!!
a group composed of x people can outvote a only person who isnt allied/ in peace with someone

Escrito por Khal.eesi, 11.09.2013 at 22:21

Laochra if i show u pictures of what they do to my alts you gonna cry! i will just post my favourite since they only manage to beat me on turn 49 and with tb.one more turn and i would win by sp

Bottom line is dont get discouraged by shady tactics,it means u stronk and its always more rewarding when u beat an allyfag

what surprises me is that you got screwed over by high ranks =/

As mentioned before I don't think it is against the rules but very frowned upon. Perhaps we should make it punishable somehow? Because it is very dirty.

Escrito por Chess, 12.09.2013 at 14:24

Only play games with max.50 Turns.

Perfect Defence is in games where you get "ally fagged" extremely effective.
If you do good you will probably gain around 4k SP.

and then be like:

Hold on a sec, isn't PD ineffective on multiple fronts?

Not neccesarily, with many situations it depends on the players. With PD you get cheap quality infantry you can spam on both fronts, your infantry should be able to break their attacks and economy over time if you do it right. Once you break their attack expand alittle until reinforments, then spam more infantry on the front and repeat.

Ive used perfect defense three times in the past and lost all 3 games, mainly because i wasnt using it right, and its so different a style of play than my favourite strat blitzkrieg. however the next upgrade on my to-buy list is faster infantry, then cheaper, once ive faster i intend to learn pd.

Same here, inf nerf seems to just discourage low ranks not to use the starter strat PD which is meant to be easy use but in reality hard for effective use. No new rank plays PD, I know I didn't no matter how bad RA was. It's a strat for more experienced players, not newbs. There is no diversity of starting strats, the only realistic option is RA. But without a nerf PD is OP in hands of high ranks.

Escrito por Chess, 12.09.2013 at 14:24

Only play games with max.50 Turns.

Perfect Defence is in games where you get "ally fagged" extremely effective.
If you do good you will probably gain around 4k SP.

and then be like:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I agree, something should be done to assholes who like to change to 1 min turns if their enemy is too big and/or if one teammate gets killed by the bigger enemy and changes the join limit to let them come back in. It sucks I know, happened to me plenty of times.

Escrito por Skittzophrenic, 01.10.2013 at 10:14

I agree, something should be done to assholes who like to change to 1 min turns if their enemy is too big and/or if one teammate gets killed by the bigger enemy and changes the join limit to let them come back in. It sucks I know, happened to me plenty of times.

I think we've done all we could. A while back we introduced a complex system which accounted for all individual alliances to calculate who needs to agree for the changes to go forward. For example, 10 people allied against 1 cannot change settings until that 1 person agrees as well. Same goes for more complex situations. If that still doesn't work... well, suggest something?

Escrito por Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 10:25

Escrito por Skittzophrenic, 01.10.2013 at 10:14

I agree, something should be done to assholes who like to change to 1 min turns if their enemy is too big and/or if one teammate gets killed by the bigger enemy and changes the join limit to let them come back in. It sucks I know, happened to me plenty of times.

I think we've done all we could. A while back we introduced a complex system which accounted for all individual alliances to calculate who needs to agree for the changes to go forward. For example, 10 people allied against 1 cannot change settings until that 1 person agrees as well. Same goes for more complex situations. If that still doesn't work... well, suggest something?

Ability to not allow any changes to the game, the rules at the start are the rules you agreed with. Also they may not be allied together. I have been in a game before that I was over half the map but then the un-allied players changed the time, they later allied but not when they changed it. They can just ally after changing the time. Also there could be loads of seperate alliences but they all point towards one person, you. This really needs to be fixed somehow.

Currently at least half of my casual games are me vs rest.

Escrito por Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 10:25

Escrito por Skittzophrenic, 01.10.2013 at 10:14

I agree, something should be done to assholes who like to change to 1 min turns if their enemy is too big and/or if one teammate gets killed by the bigger enemy and changes the join limit to let them come back in. It sucks I know, happened to me plenty of times.

I think we've done all we could. A while back we introduced a complex system which accounted for all individual alliances to calculate who needs to agree for the changes to go forward. For example, 10 people allied against 1 cannot change settings until that 1 person agrees as well. Same goes for more complex situations. If that still doesn't work... well, suggest something?

it doesnt work because there is a bug in the code

Escrito por Lemonade, 01.10.2013 at 15:27

it doesnt work because there is a bug in the code

What bug?

Escrito por Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 15:44

Escrito por Lemonade, 01.10.2013 at 15:27

it doesnt work because there is a bug in the code

What bug?

4 or more "allyfags" can outvote a single person who hasnt a ally/peace (in a normal(without teams) game)

Escrito por Lemonade, 01.10.2013 at 16:33

Escrito por Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 15:44

Escrito por Lemonade, 01.10.2013 at 15:27

it doesnt work because there is a bug in the code

What bug?

4 or more "allyfags" can outvote a single person who hasnt a ally/peace (in a normal(without teams) game)

If all of them are allied to each other, it shouldn't be possible. If any two of them don't have an alliance and all four of them agree to the change, it's accepted.

Escrito por Ivan, 02.10.2013 at 02:09

Escrito por Lemonade, 01.10.2013 at 16:33

Escrito por Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 15:44

Escrito por Lemonade, 01.10.2013 at 15:27

it doesnt work because there is a bug in the code

What bug?

4 or more "allyfags" can outvote a single person who hasnt a ally/peace (in a normal(without teams) game)

If all of them are allied to each other, it shouldn't be possible. If any two of them don't have an alliance and all four of them agree to the change, it's accepted.

What if 4 ally against 1. 1 person from the 4 ends alliance with everyone, accepts the change and allies back?

Escrito por Meester, 02.10.2013 at 02:49

What if 4 ally against 1. 1 person from the 4 ends alliance with everyone, accepts the change and allies back?

Can anything at all be done to prevent this?

Escrito por Ivan, 02.10.2013 at 03:54

Escrito por Meester, 02.10.2013 at 02:49

What if 4 ally against 1. 1 person from the 4 ends alliance with everyone, accepts the change and allies back?

Can anything at all be done to prevent this?

As I said. A game option to not allow any changes.

Escrito por Ivan, 02.10.2013 at 02:09

Escrito por Lemonade, 01.10.2013 at 16:33

Escrito por Ivan, 01.10.2013 at 15:44

Escrito por Lemonade, 01.10.2013 at 15:27

it doesnt work because there is a bug in the code

What bug?

4 or more "allyfags" can outvote a single person who hasnt a ally/peace (in a normal(without teams) game)

If all of them are allied to each other, it shouldn't be possible. If any two of them don't have an alliance and all four of them agree to the change, it's accepted.

thats the reason why i told "its a bug". 4 people (all allied each other) can outvote a single person.