Implicit agreements not to attack?

Other talk that doesn't fit elsewhere.
This is for General Discussion, not General chat.
Post Reply
PkK

Implicit agreements not to attack?

Post by PkK »

I just played in multiplayer for the third time. It was a rather large map, four players, I was in the lower left corner.

I wondered why the other players didn't attack me apart from a few tanks once and two VTOLs another time. I just assumed there were fighting among each other. I noticed the player in the upper left corner built massive amounts of defense structures around his base (mostly mini rocket towers and some kind of mortar pits). The player in the lower right seemed to build lots of hardpoints. I researched VTOLs and howitzers, attacked the player in the upper left corner taking out many defense structures before he built enough anti-air emplacements to kep my VTOLs away. I then built some howitzers on a hill outside the range of his mortars, and did the same to the player in the lower right corner. I added some defense structures to these hills and kept the VTOLs nearby, so when the players attacked the hills to take out the artilllery I was able to hold the hills. I then built sensor towers nearer to their bases, so that the howitzers could continue to attack them. When the bases were half destroyed both players left.

Now I wonder if they assumed that there was some implicit agreement not to attack before some point in time. Neither during game creatin nor during the game did anyone write a message indicating something like that though. Are such agreements common? If yes are they communicated somehow implicitly, in a way a newbie wouldn't notice?

Philipp
User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Implicit agreements not to attack?

Post by Zarel »

PkK wrote:I just played in multiplayer for the third time. It was a rather large map, four players, I was in the lower left corner.

I wondered why the other players didn't attack me apart from a few tanks once and two VTOLs another time. I just assumed there were fighting among each other. I noticed the player in the upper left corner built massive amounts of defense structures around his base (mostly mini rocket towers and some kind of mortar pits). The player in the lower right seemed to build lots of hardpoints. I researched VTOLs and howitzers, attacked the player in the upper left corner taking out many defense structures before he built enough anti-air emplacements to kep my VTOLs away. I then built some howitzers on a hill outside the range of his mortars, and did the same to the player in the lower right corner. I added some defense structures to these hills and kept the VTOLs nearby, so when the players attacked the hills to take out the artilllery I was able to hold the hills. I then built sensor towers nearer to their bases, so that the howitzers could continue to attack them. When the bases were half destroyed both players left.

Now I wonder if they assumed that there was some implicit agreement not to attack before some point in time. Neither during game creatin nor during the game did anyone write a message indicating something like that though. Are such agreements common? If yes are they communicated somehow implicitly, in a way a newbie wouldn't notice?
In 1.10, most games were BT 10min, no mob arty, no ht/hover/VTOL on TeamWar. This meant:
- Build time (time in which no one should attack) = 10 minutes
- No mobile artillery
- No half-tracks, hovers, or VTOLs
- A map called TeamWar

It wasn't very fun, since people just sent heavy cannon python tracks at each other.

Anyway, in 2.1, unless they explicitly said those restrictions (and no one does, since they're rather silly), you're free to do whatever you want. I've never seen such an agreement in 2.1, so they're not very common at all, and they would be communicated by the game name or in chat.

It sounds like you just had a better idea of how to handle VTOLs and artillery than they did, and they left once it became obvious they'd be unable to win. They were probably turtling - a strategy involving building up defense and technology without bothering to attack anyone much.

By the way, you could've done it better. If you have VTOLs, you kill, in order:
1. Trucks building anti-air
2. Factories
3. Anti-air
4. Other trucks
5. Cyborg factories

If you catch them off-guard, you can generally do this in 2 to 4 attack runs of HPV or pulse laser. After this, you can kill everything else off at your leisure (In other words, move on to the next target).
Kamaze
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1017
Joined: 30 Jul 2006, 15:23

Re: Implicit agreements not to attack?

Post by Kamaze »

1. Read: Which Topics belong to "Project Feedback"?
2. Understand 1.
3. ????
4. Profit!

The alternative would be, that Kamaze starts to dislike you. And trust me, you don't want that Kamaze dislikes you.
We all have the same heaven, but not the same horizon.
doom3r
Regular
Regular
Posts: 502
Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 15:04

Re: Implicit agreements not to attack?

Post by doom3r »

Hey, /b/! xD
Post Reply