"No teaming/alliances, where two or more players work together in a rated game to take out another player (which is different from normal and common sense strategy). This could be determined by admins by watching a game or reviewing game results."
It seems to me almost always two weaker opponents work together to take out the strongest.
How can "teaming" really be stopped?
And should it?
Is not "teaming" just an alliance?
Isn't that part of war?
And just for curiosity, is teaming against the rules on the board game?
Even if so I do not ask for it to be changed here, just some clarification of the rule so we can be more sure when to report teaming or not.
It may say that on the Rules page, but in practice what is against the rules is arranged and organised working together. It could be pre-arranged, with players who know each other entering the same game, maybe co-ordinating by means of whisper or an IM. Or it could become arranged during the game, by means of the chatroom. But when players 'work together' by separately playing towards a common goal, without actually arranging it between them, that is not considered teaming. It is very often necessary due to the way the game works. Of course other players and admins may be suspicious so it's necessary not to put a foot wrong if you aren't really teaming.
Teaming is not disallowed AFAIK in the board game. But in the board game there is no system of rating over many games, in which the 2nd placed player gets points. Having that in this online version means there is the potential for cheating by one player of a pair sacrificing first place and still getting points.
"teaming" is a vague ambiguous word by itself. It's also much simpler to have a quick definition then a long drawn out definition as many people probability won't understand or read the long explanation as this game is played by many different languages/countries.
It should be pretty obvious that "teaming" is reserved for people who enter a game and have a prearrangement to help one another whether or not it's spoken or not. For the most part, as long as there is no bias between people playing, teaming will not exist.
What you are referring to is "alliances" ztilla, not teaming. Alliance MUST occur in Risk or the game will be lopsided and over if players don't try to restore the peace. And the common case of this is when 3 players are left. So, inevitably there is an "imbias" because someone MUST be attacked. Aside of that.. it's really boring argueing semantics.
I never team (pre-arranged negotiation)but in the course of a game there is always ganging up on the strong player. it is like the crab's in a basket theory none of us are going to lay down and let one of you other crab's crawl of of the basket. I have been accused of teaming by many a noob who dont understand the concept of the game. I do whatever is in my best interest, so with that said yes i have been in games where everybody in the game only attacked one person the strongest. What really sucks is when that is going on and one of the other weaker players decides 2nd is good enough for him it just screws up everything or the worse is when there is ganging and the person who is being ganged up on isnt the strongest.
Unfortunately, it feels like a lose lose situation upon that scenario Lou. If you win a game where the 2 weaker players don't attack the strong, that win counts for nothing. Additionally, unfortunately it does typically become the case that the strong becomes completely pummeled for trying and always ends up the weakest.
That all being said, hopefully this thread has explained the difference between "allies" vs "teaming.
Reply to this discussion