In response to Clarke's comments ( and correct me if I'm wrong Vexer ).
Past games won't be included in the score ( lucky you !).
The reason for this is very simple: yes you can make your case to an admin or moderator if you think you don't deserve to be "tagged" for something others claim you did ( like suiciding ).
If the moderators and admin's had to potentially check all players last 100 games they'd need to quit their dayjobs.
Besides the chat-ban there is no other intended effect of this system other than to make it easy for players to know what they are getting when they enter a game with a certain player.
The fact that you instantly proclaim that you'll behave more would suggest that the new system works because that is the only thing we wanted to accomplish in the 1st place.
Namely that players follow the rules and behave with a minimum of civility.
As for the bogus reporting of players because they don't like you, if you make a claim you still need to be able to show that you have a claim.
But why would 2 players that dislike you make a bogus report?
They still would have to defend their claim and if you cry wolf to many times you will get a reputation with the admin's and moderators that will make you future claims less believable.
That seems like a lose-lose to me.
Besides there are far easier ways to get even with a player they dislike.
And the chances of players teaming up to "teach you a lesson" rise dramatically if you repeat-offend.
There is no rule that says you can't single out a certain player to attack.
Sometimes I'll select a player to attack on the basis of his or her strategic strength, sometimes on the basis of their untrustworthy behavior and sometimes because they annoy me.
When you've decide to go for a certain armybonus, how do you decide wich territory you'll attack 1st?
There are many considerations and past behavior is 1 of them.
I'd rather tolerate a player next to me that I know makes good strategic decisions and isn't afraid to use some armies for the " greater good" when 1 player is getting too dominant rather than a player who will probably default when the going gets though or who suicides if you put 1 foot wrong.
When choosing wich player to attack I allways take in consideration not only the potential strategic rewards of that attack but also the potential the effect of my attack on that players potential for expansion/aggression.
You will find that if you act like an **sh*le players in general will be more inclined to remove you from areas near to them.
This serves 2 purposes, you can't weaken them and 2nd they force you to relocate next to their other competitors thereby given them the neighbour from hell.
I often use this technique, I call it "putting your mother in law on the train".
You are rid of the nagging and headache and someone else gets to enjoy here charming company and awful cooking.
There are few moves more rewarding in a game then forcing an bad player to relocate just before he or she's about to turn in their cards and forcing them to put them next to your main rival.
If you are lucky they'll kill each other and save you the trouble of wasting your own armies.
A predictably "bad player" can be used as Troyan horse and can be more deadly effective than any normal attack.
As for True-detective's comments regarding fog of war, well unfortunately there is very little you can do about teaming in a fog game.
But teaming is also rather ineffective in a fog game because of the fog, it's hard to team up when in a fog game when there are a lot of players because you seldom can see the effects of your attacks (weakening 1 player might cause another player to get way too strong very fast because the player you weakened has no armies left to stop the other player from expanding).
Teaming in a fog game is most effective when there are 6 player or less (and it gets more effective if there are less players) so if you are fearfull of teaming avoid fog games with less than 6 players.
A tab for reporting players that don't speak/write English is a bridge to far for me, there are quite few decent and very dangerous players that don't speak/write English.
Sure it's annoying sometimes but then it pays to remember that the most spoken language in the world is Mandarin followed by Spanish and English.
So when you are screaming at your screen because that player from China doesn't reply to your truce-proposal take a deep breath and relax.
I'll get of my soapbox now.
In response to Clarke's comments ( and correct me if I'm wrong Vexer ).
Past games won't be included in the score ( lucky you !).
The reason for this is very simple: yes you can make your case to an admin or moderator if you think you don't deserve to be "tagged" for something others claim you did ( like suiciding ).
If the moderators and admin's had to potentially check all players last 100 games they'd need to quit their dayjobs.
Besides the chat-ban there is no other intended effect of this system other than to make it easy for players to know what they are getting when they enter a game with a certain player.
The fact that you instantly proclaim that you'll behave more would suggest that the new system works because that is the only thing we wanted to accomplish in the 1st place.
Namely that players follow the rules and behave with a minimum of civility.
As for the bogus reporting of players because they don't like you, if you make a claim you still need to be able to show that you have a claim.
But why would 2 players that dislike you make a bogus report?
They still would have to defend their claim and if you cry wolf to many times you will get a reputation with the admin's and moderators that will make you future claims less believable.
That seems like a lose-lose to me.
Besides there are far easier ways to get even with a player they dislike.
And the chances of players teaming up to "teach you a lesson" rise dramatically if you repeat-offend.
There is no rule that says you can't single out a certain player to attack.
Sometimes I'll select a player to attack on the basis of his or her strategic strength, sometimes on the basis of their untrustworthy behavior and sometimes because they annoy me.
When you've decide to go for a certain armybonus, how do you decide wich territory you'll attack 1st?
There are many considerations and past behavior is 1 of them.
I'd rather tolerate a player next to me that I know makes good strategic decisions and isn't afraid to use some armies for the " greater good" when 1 player is getting too dominant rather than a player who will probably default when the going gets though or who suicides if you put 1 foot wrong.
When choosing wich player to attack I allways take in consideration not only the potential strategic rewards of that attack but also the potential the effect of my attack on that players potential for expansion/aggression.
You will find that if you act like an **sh*le players in general will be more inclined to remove you from areas near to them.
This serves 2 purposes, you can't weaken them and 2nd they force you to relocate next to their other competitors thereby given them the neighbour from hell.
I often use this technique, I call it "putting your mother in law on the train".
You are rid of the nagging and headache and someone else gets to enjoy here charming company and awful cooking.
There are few moves more rewarding in a game then forcing an bad player to relocate just before he or she's about to turn in their cards and forcing them to put them next to your main rival.
If you are lucky they'll kill each other and save you the trouble of wasting your own armies.
A predictably "bad player" can be used as Troyan horse and can be more deadly effective than any normal attack.
As for True-detective's comments regarding fog of war, well unfortunately there is very little you can do about teaming in a fog game.
But teaming is also rather ineffective in a fog game because of the fog, it's hard to team up when in a fog game when there are a lot of players because you seldom can see the effects of your attacks (weakening 1 player might cause another player to get way too strong very fast because the player you weakened has no armies left to stop the other player from expanding).
Teaming in a fog game is most effective when there are 6 player or less (and it gets more effective if there are less players) so if you are fearfull of teaming avoid fog games with less than 6 players.
A tab for reporting players that don't speak/write English is a bridge to far for me, there are quite few decent and very dangerous players that don't speak/write English.
Sure it's annoying sometimes but then it pays to remember that the most spoken language in the world is Mandarin followed by Spanish and English.
So when you are screaming at your screen because that player from China doesn't reply to your truce-proposal take a deep breath and relax.
I'll get of my soapbox now.
