#Why is collaboration bad and against online rules when you allow alliances in the first place?

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

wary gulch
#

Can you clarify if this is a joke post or serious?

wary gulch
#
  1. When you ally with a stranger in game, you have no idea whether the stranger will keep the alliance, because you’ll never see that stranger again.

In fact you could fill books with the messages here from players betrayed by their ally.

  1. If you collaborate with your alt account, or irl friend, you can easily cheat by externally communicating, and choosing to feed each other wins.

  2. Other players don’t want to play with cheaters, and don’t consent to playing with cheaters.

  3. There are messages in the community almost every day, from players who’ve had their games ruined by cheaters like you.

  4. When you cheat, by collaborating with your friends and alt accounts, against players who don’t consent to being cheated on, you’re ruining their games, and ruining Risk for them.

  5. It’s a very selfish perspective to cheat, and ruin the game for everyone else, just because you enjoy cheating.

#

The fair play rules are clear, and ranked is already a solo mode.

If you want to play team vs team games, then you’re welcome to do so with friends in private casual, or join Risk servers for 2v2 or 3v3, where team games are organized in private casual mode.

#

You think it’s fair for 4 players to be using vc in a ranked game where the other 2 players have no idea, and think it’s a 6 player free-for-all?

wary gulch
#

The problem is, you’re not seeing the difference between alliance and cheating, because you want to make cope excuses for cheating.

When a player joins a public game, they are consenting to the settings of that game, including alliances.

However a player joining a free-for-all game, is not consenting to you and your friend, breaking fair-play rules, and cheating, by teaming up against unsuspecting players, using external communication, and ruining their free-for-all game?

How can you not see the moral boundary between a consentual action within the rules, vs an unconsentual action that’s breaking the rules?

#

Unless you didn’t understand my above explanation, you clearly don’t care about the consent of opponents, or fair play violation, of cheating by colloborating with friends against unsuspecting FFA victims.

Extending this logic, would you also permit hacking?

  1. You don’t think it’s immoral to break fair-play rules, in a way that your opponents didn’t consent to when joining your game

  2. Players already deploy troops in Risk

Would you say that because players already add troops, it’s not wrong to hack and add some more troops?