Thread Removed Due to Excessive Flaming

[KLOBBER]

GFY

[lancehoch]

2) Enforced Compliance to Team Alliances:

A similar option could apply to team games, where it would prevent team players from accidentally (or through inexperience) attacking their own team members. I see tons of angry complaints of this nature in feedback also, and this option would solve this problem.

How about those times where it is strategically necessary to take out a teammate's country, either to free your armies so you can attack an opponent or to take the last country in a continent? This would not allow for those attacks to take place. This is a poorly thought out idea and should not be implemented, actually the whole thread should be deleted for how poor an idea it was.

[KLOBBER]

GFY

[richardgarr]

alliances are rarely a fair thing and usually end up in bad endings. as far as truces go, well if you are fool enough to think that an opponent will honor a truce, well that is your mistake. This is a war game, not a peace rally. If I see that an opponent is easily eliminated or that I could put myself in good position to win the game, I will take full advantage of that . The rule is no secret alliance. It says nothing about how one is to honor those alliances. Suck it up cupcake. If you are so weak of a player that you are always going into truces and alliances, you are on the wrong game site!!

[KLOBBER]

GFY

[greenoaks]

another poorly thought out idea from that tool Klobber.

[KLOBBER]

See my post below.

[greenoaks]

if it was well thought out there would be glowing words of praise and pleas to Lack to implement this.

there are none.

once again, Klobber time is tool time.

[KLOBBER]

See my post below:

[lancehoch]

KLOBBER, I believe that I made some constructive criticism as to why this is a terrible idea in my previous post. Why is it then that you have not addressed my comments? Is it because you know that I am right and that this idea will die a horrible death with people noticing that you cannot come up with anything that is even remotely implementable? Or is it because your "superior intellect" cannot fathom my accurate and advanced reasoning that deals with teamwork and strategy?

[greenoaks]

there is not one post to support this from anyone other than you.

what a tool.

[KLOBBER]

GFY

[richardgarr]

There are already enforced alliances and truces...they come in the form of doubles, triples, and quad games. As far as your partner attacking you, that is sometimes a workable strategy, there are many reasons to attack team mates in a game. When it comes to noobs attacking partners or someone just being an ass, well there is always your foes list. So even though it is a common issue of alliances and truces being made then broken, I think the bigger issue is why would you continue to put yourself in that situation. After a few times of getting stabbed in the back, most people learn to avoid these situations. Live and learn, move on and stop being the fool.

[KLOBBER]

GFY

[greenoaks]

If you put everyone in your foes list in order to prevent cheating and backstabbing, then you will never play a game, so your idea is no solution to the problem.

not so, you still manage to find plenty of n00bs to deadbeat in your games.

[KLOBBER]

See my post below baldadonis and greenoak's.

[Thezzaruz]

Very easy vote to cast even though it was the most biased/poorly worded polling question I've seen in a long time (on any forum).

A similar option could apply to team games, where it would prevent team players from accidentally (or through inexperience) attacking their own team members.

This option would still allow you to take out a team member's country when strategically necessary

Sorry klobber but those two are mutually exclusive. Unless you propose some sort of "ask for permission" system (but that would mostly be unworkable due to the 1 hour time limit).

[KLOBBER]

GFY

[KLOBBER]

All polls are biased. Always.

[greenoaks]

crap idea, poorly worded poll. what a tool.

[BaldAdonis]

not so, you still manage to find plenty of n00bs to deadbeat in your games.

Who wants to kill 7 players when you can just wait for 6 to leave and kill the last one?

[greenoaks]

not so, you still manage to find plenty of n00bs to deadbeat in your games.

Who wants to kill 7 players when you can just wait for 6 to leave and kill the last one?

anyone who does beat him gets put on his ignore list which also increases the likelihood of his games getting filled by n00bs who then deadbeat.

[KLOBBER]

See my post below:

[greenoaks]

stop spamming this thread Klobber, you're just being a tool.

[KLOBBER]

See my post, below: