If this were the case then player "B" who was fighting with "A" originally, might ask players "D and E" to help him with player "A and B" as he is now fighting a 2 V 1 and will try to turn it into a 2 V 3 (his way).
Do you see my point as to how it can escalate?
Then the next minute we have a mud slinging match in the forums....controversy is a good thing so maybe its a good idea lol
Cheers Angie

Last Edited : Saturday, 23 January 2010 - 01:38

according to some ppl it would be considered gangbanging once it becomes 2 on 1...

which becomes a problem for some folks...i myself plan out a route/attack... but can't always stick to the plan... if the person you plan to attack becomes engaged in battle against another player(sometimes purposely)...you can't attack them...if you do... you are a gangbanger! thats a hidden rule here...
i feel it puts a damper on personal strategies...before you know it, you may find yourself wandering around aimlessly, looking for someone thats not fighting!

I suppose the trick is to pick your opponent early and secure "your war".
Cheers Angie

may as well battle!

in my example there could have been some sort of proclamation in the forums that A and B agree to share troops for means of defense, etc.

obviuosly anyone in this sort of agreement would forfeit the right to not be multi-attacked. since they would always me multi-ing themselves

i agree that controversy is a good thing

what zues said.

on the serious note, i've encounter those situation before where i attacked someone(A), and this guy said he is "going" to fight someone else(B). Me being a person who plan early and will usually get a nap on the other side of the border, have no choice but to continue. So i messaged that guy(B) which he(A) is "going" to attack, and ask him if he minds letting me fight A since i started the fight already anyway. Mind i said going, that can mean that A wasn't even anywhere near B, or probably A is just thinking about it while still in his castle - not necessary lining up against B already which most of the time i will back off. But in this case, when i attacked A, A went and attack B straight after since B has some scouts wandering around his territory. So i told B to back off and let me fight. Apparently, A decides to fight B instead of me(probably because of my ranking history), so obviously i'm not gonna let this go as i started the fight way before B and to back it off when i'm half way through? No way. But being a nice me , i offered them a choice to fight a three-way-war. They accepted but its more like me fighting two of them which i don't really care.

I think i went way out of topic....but anyway zues, alliance is not that accepted in normal campaigns, mainly the reason why a team-game is being created. Imagine this happened at the end of a game where there's only 3 of you left. Would you be happy if you are the only one left? Being able to repel that guy but unable to attack him leaving you sooner or later losing the fight. Food for thoughts.

ive had that exact thing happen to me at the end of camps before

i was the top player and B and C allied to take me out and then vote to end. no biggee. theres always more blood shed tomorrow

i havent played a team camp yet, as i am most of the time a cranky hermit. is there any choice in who you ally with? or is it predetrmined?

I believe its completely random Zues. It would be cool if you could choose your team. Like maybe elect team captains and then pick your team. Of course like Mog said you could create temporary clans to do this and just have a clan game. I'm finding that the team games can be alot of fun and you don't have to worry about gangbanging.

I believe the main reason ganging up is not really accepted here is that the game is already small as it is. Having a game with like 10 players, and when you got ganged up, it's not easy to get someone to help you unlike some other games where there's thousands of players in a game. And because of the low amount of players in waronline, you tend to team-up with the same players over and over again. And when a bond is made, a clan is made, that's the end of this game when it is dominated by a single group of people. Imagine every game you play, coop, laur, princess and etc team up against you and all the newbies. Not that fun anymore isn't it. But perhaps i'm just thinking too far. Haha

Well its fun if Coop, laur or princess is on your team.

to be honest i was just stirring the pot

but i dont see why an individual cant create a camp and then post in the forums that camp whatever is going to be played with the following rules(or lack of)...

then players who like the idea can join while those who do not can go elsewhere

Password your game and get an agreement from the other players before it starts.

Only members can make a game with a password.

To get a free day's membership click the link on the "Who's Online" page that reads "Vote For WarOnline.Net @ TWG : Get a cool reward. Can only vote once per day."

lol! your like an infomorcial Mog

the man with all the answers! what you're suggesting has been done many times zues, many of them hosted by mog!

It is even easier now as mog suggested with the pw, that way you won't get any slip-ins that didn't catch the caption on the game.

It would be good to see a game set up where naps and aliances could be broken at the drop of a hat.
A watch your back camp.
If we could get 20 players I would be in, but I would like to see a 50+ rank to join so there wont be half the map inactive.

Yeah, I'm well up for a proper free-for-all, but only once one of my current camps finish because I want to keep a slot free for a clan game.

Ok Why dont we list the rules for a ffa camp , and set them in stone....


I suggest

1,NO NAPS.
2,ONE ON ONE ONLY, (no gang banging,if a player is fighting you wait your turn or find another fight)
3,law to be made on entering other lands,
4,law to be made on taking of mines,

any others ?

Last Edited : Saturday, 23 January 2010 - 12:19

Harlod, surely the idea of a free for all is total anarchy, no rules except:

1) There are no rules.
2) If somone breaks what you consider to be a rule, see rule 1 and don't whinge.
3) Anyone whingeing is immediately attacked by all their neighbours.

I would have to agree with Hambone. War is hell and there are no rules. However, if you play ruthlessly, you have to expect to killed ruthlessly. The more you play with honor, the more likely someone is going to fight beside you, or enter a NAP with you. I try not to double team a player intentionally, but if someone is getting too close without buying me a drink first, they might get rejected with prejudice.

Really my point is even a FFA needs rules , it wont work for this game

Last Edited : Sunday, 24 January 2010 - 15:33