This is a tough subject. As a newb, I have already seen uninvolved folks jump in in two camps when they weren't involved in the original fighting.

I was helped by one; my foe attacked me from the get go with everything he had. He left his castle unprotected and got backdoored. Shame on him!

The other, I am in desperate straights against a much larger foe, a third jumps in and stops me from taking a castle my original foe and I were fighting over. Sure it ticked me off for about a second. However, the third is trying to win too, and once the larger foe is done wiht me, the third will get his.

I am being long winded here, but I am with klyph. It is a free for all. NAP's, backdooring someone,diplomacy, ect. are all part of it. Personally, if someone is fighting heavily (not an occasional skirmish) against someone else, I will leave them be...unless it is Lothar!

lol, your definately not a newb now Lothar, you have a nemisis

I read that! It definitely seems logical that two weaker players may team up so they can defeat a stronger opponent, otherwise what chance do they have.

popular opinion seems to be swaying... the winds of change perhaps?

of course zues, have you never watched survivor. They make a pact with so many players, whether they keep it or not, to get so far in the game and then form new alliances so as to get themselves and the people that they think they can beat to be the final ones. This is and always has been how free for alls work. What i have been saying is you can't use the term free for all in the kind of camps that people that don't want, that ridiculous word, in. It is the nature of the beast

What i am saying was that we have been trying DAMN hard last time to stop the alliances thing going on in normal campaign. That is why we have the team war going on now and then. I wouldn't say 2 vs 1 is a gangbang as long as the guy alone agrees with that and it usually happens towards the end where one guy is much more superior than the other two. But to intentionally plan out an attack of 2 vs 1 and in my case, that early in the game(less than 10 turns) is outright ridiculous. We tried to increase the amount of people who actually stay when playing this game throughout and practices like this don't usually motivates them. In fact, when this happened last time(yes, i know i used this two words to the state of annoyance...), the whole map will just stop what they are doing, and just hit on people like this, just to show them its not nice to gangbang.

As you all have said, people have been making NAPs all around like nobody business. So, if we even encourage this, the first thing i start in any campaign, i'll just make an alliance with 2 of the guy beside me and go hunting. Everyone else will just have to do the same or else they will die. So what's the difference between a alliance or team game? Politics is one thing. Bad intention is another.

If you say if i wanted to play 1 vs 1 with no one go through my back door, then don't play campaign and play duel instead, that's ridiculous too. As i said, diplomacy doesn't necessary means you have to gang-up with someone. Go ahead and tell your NAP partner to wipe out to the east and you the west, why not? That's diplomacy. In fact, we can see from some of the team game that we need to be good in diplomatic to win the game sometimes. In other words, gain the trust of the better player so that he is not your enemy. You can even go to the extend of sharing resources or loots. But a 2 vs 1 has nothing to do with your warring skill, which we emphasize on this game.

So, lothar, you won't come through the backdoor since we have a game-long NAP eh? Haha.

disturbed that is why it is pretty clear that most if not all players that have been here for a while or show interest in sticking around for a while agree that we would never do something to stifle the possibility of catching a new players interest. i don't think there is anyone here that would do such a thing to a new player.

in the team war we are about to have there are only two teams, no diplomacy but lots of communication between teams will be required. the clan game we had going on with five different teams there is a huge need for diplomacy but you know before hand that you have 3 other gamelong allies who share the end result of the game which modifies the way you conduct your diplomacy.

If you want to start a game with modified rules post on the forums in general chit chat as coopels did and make it private. If not then you shouldn't expect everyone in a FFA camp started by someone else to play by YOUR rules. That is crazy.

I am not going to play by your rules and i am sure there are others that aren't either.

I will do as i say in my camps, which puts me at a disadvantage often because i plan way too far ahead and have no room for adaptation. I won't break NAPs and i won't say i will or won't do something and then do something totally different. I even usually send people screenshots of the camps i am in to show what i am doing, sometimes things aren't always what they seem though.

I will conduct myself with integrity, respect and honor. As I see them of course. In one of my camps i was silly enough to do what lothar described, leaving my castle open and paid for it dearly. I won't do it again and don't look down on the person that allowed it, they taught me something and used an advantage that they had over me even though they couldn't attack me.

In another camp i played I had naped with both my neighbors and moved to help one neighbor against an enemy, we soon found ourselves facing the entire map. had one of those players not shown up and our other ally not gone inactive the three of us would have taken out five other people. Two of us having one castle and the other(the one that went inactive) having three if i am not mistaken. The six others had at least 10 castles between them and only was able to fend us off because of the unfortunate inactivity. so in essence three players with 5 castles beating 5 players with 8 castles. It is not just about who can conjure up the most allies even if you are truly playing a free for all and not a vet modified "free for all." the other five castles, might have been less were occupied by other players fighting amongst themselves. i doubt the three of us would have taken the whole map by the end of the game, as our inactive partner was only in a nap and probably would have moved on us when he felt it best for himself but i posted this just to show that FFA doesn't have to be one vs one and less people with less resources and a better utilization of their resources and better strategy can overcome more players with a higher economy base.

First, WHY do i have to start a private game if i want people to play by MY rules. As a matter of fact, this is what req wants in the first place. So it's more like his not official rules. At least that's what i remembered. So if you wanna play team-game, why not you start a private game for it instead?

And since you said what happened to you, have you even thought at the first place why the whole map go against three of you? True, you can win, nobody says anything about not being able to win an unbalanced war when you are at the disadvantage. I did it before a few times in the past. But what i am saying is that, is it healthy? Is it even honorable in the first place when the opposition didn't even agree to that. Hence, we are saying that it's DISCOURAGED here. If it's illegal, those whoever who did it would have got deleted.

it didn't start with them gangbanging anyone, it started with me helping my ally defend himself on one front so that he could concentrate on another player that he had provoked, if i remember correctly. If that is how re

I almost think having all these alliances and naps could be great! I mean, if I were to go into every game with Neb and Mog for example and be allied or even have naps with both of them; I'm pretty sure we'd never lose. Since the game is all about winning that would definitely be my best bet in order to win so why not do it right?

Right or wrong in anyone's eyes, my thoughts are pretty simple. How would those other players have any fun if they knew that in any game Neb, Mog and myself would team up and just simply destroy them? That's taking the alliance idea a little far i know, but if that's how it goes for some people than pretty soon it would become a reality for everyone just to stay alive in a game.

If this idea of anything goes in camps then why wouldn't i do what i've said above? It makes the most sense in terms of destroying everyone else, but if i simply make this game about winning than i've usually lost what is fun about it. I've been reading all about that 5-way team game in the clan forum and noticed that after all the diplomacy and backbitting that has occured a lot people just stopped caring to even play in it anymore. I know that when i realize i'm only playing to win i will leave for months at a time and if i come back it's because i want to have fun again and not simply to win a game.

To be completely honest i usually make one nap in a camp at most and from there i go out and destroy. I've never, ever made an alliance in a game and usually end the game by battling it out with the person i've made a nap with in the beginning since we're usually the last couple of people left. I've had fun doing team games in the past, but they were team games and not regular everyday camps. There's a time and a place for everything, but let's not confuse the right place for each time.

no coopels that isn't farfetched at all. If you, mog and neb were to team up in your camps the end result would be very simple, no one would play a camp in which the three of you joined unless they felt they got the people they needed together to take you down. from my experience, i haven't been in many camps where all of the same people are in.

I have one simple rule:
If you think that you are going to team up against me,expect to be hunted in other games until you repent even if it causes my elimination.
I will make your experience here not pleasant
A few have tried to team up on me and all have failed
"You all know who you are and can speak up if you dare to"
Cheers Angie

Yang is at war with someone else, but he's also attacking my goldmine;
So I can't let that slide.

When I restarted in the PG game tho, I had to take the facilities near my castle from him So he can claim that as his just cause I guess;

but I'm going to do as I must do, just BE cause that's the way I am now.

rex

Rex, i'm not talking about that useless PG game. It doesn't bother me if everyone attack me in that game. Haha.
But it would be fun to defend against you and Neb. Heh! Fight Fight!

We're fighting, Yang? Interesting...who's winning? I saw you coming my way, but you must have turned around or something, cuz I don't see you anymore.

And you're right...this Proving Grounds game is just something to shlep around in while wasting time. Attack me all you like.

Haha, we will be fighting. Not yet. It seems that your army's visible range is quite short eh. I am still there.

As a newb, I can certainly say that if I saw a couple of experienced folks head my way intent on taking me out in a planned fashion, early in a game, that would likely deter me from playing.

But I have seen experienced players run around in a early in a camp, claiming resources not in the vicinity of their controlled castles, then cry foul if I try to take them because they are now at war with someone else. Is that fair?!?

We all know that he who controls the spice, controls the universe!

That's one example Jambur of the incongruity of some of the moaners and I do sympathize with a newb for not knowing how to handle the dilemma;

but however, I am also guilty of scavenging all the piles and unclaimed resource buildings I can grab, although I wouldn't get bent if the rightful owner grabbed it back while I was at war with another.

For those who might get bent though, a good answer would be that you are just taking a resource building to cover all the piles of yours he took or reclaiming a building that you believe is rightfully yours.

Of course in an FFA game everything is up for grabs though, but the ground rules laid down by some folks I believe are part of their game of S&Ts to confuse, befuddle, bewilder, confound, demoralize and anger their opponents into playing badly while they commit all manners of transgressions for which you haven't taken the trouble to design a rule and they know it.

One example was when a player while I was at war with his clanmate on my right insisted on crossing my territory to attack Sage ...
best I could do was insist he stay on the borderline.

The point is that he was taking advantage to do something that was distracting me from my war with his clanmate not to mention making Sage think I might be in cahoots with him.

Psychological warfare accounts for a lot of their high ranking scores imho.
They make me not even want to play in the same game with them So they do score a lot of points against newbs that way if enough experienced players feel like I do.

rex

Taking out a resource building of an opponent in the modern game does affect score, but just as leaving your castle undefended is an invite to attack, so is leaving resources undefended. Just because someone has already taken it I do not consider it GB'n to take it away from them. You are not directly affecting the other players troops or castle or any battle they are in.

Psy war is a part of the game. Threats and bluster are part of it. Hopefully no one takes(or gives) them personally. Deals can be made between anyone at any time (Ill let you cross my land, etc.) and not be considered GB'n. Imho.

Well Zues,
that's just an example of where I beg to differ and an example of where some players have laid out self-made ground rules of right and wrong in this game, but do things that other players may also find objectionable.

If you are given permission by the owner to cross his territory, that's fine imho;
but if he objects and you do so anyway, in my humble opinion he can consider it an act of war as it could be considered in reality.

Troops don't cross borders of non-allied countries unless they are prepared for the consequences.

rex