I'm in a game right now and had been offered a truce by Vuci (Canadian player).

Without warning he attacked me late game when there were only a few players left and he seems to be very proud of it (getting comments like 'U mad bro' and 'lol'.

From the above clearly he is either an edgy teenager or someone to mess with people while playing this game.

Has this happened to you often? For me I've been on this site for about 2 years and it's rare to come across someone like that.

Besides blocking them probably not much that can be done?

Blocking and advertising in the forum like you did. However, it's important you add the corresponding game link, because unfortunately many players claim the like in forum untruthfully.

@CaptainSteve: What is the proper form of attacking you? And is "not" attacking you more game breaking, giving you just a free win?

Edited 7/28/2023 12:08:51

Yep. Please send the link to the game. Also, yes, trolls like these happen a few times

If its a diplo game, he should become a public enemy(every person attacks him until he gets elliminated); if it was an FFA game, then there is nothing called truce there. Best way to have truce is with someone who is not near your teritory and have an understanding to keep a neutral teritory seperating both your borders....

Breaking truce w/o abiding by proper etiquette makes him garbage of course

But quite often that garbage wins, which is why he's gloating - this is a common strat in FFAs, betray your allies before they betray you

I hate it tho, and I apologize on behalf of a fellow Canadian, we don't all abuse alliances/truces

I did this once,...ONCE. Though in my defense, the time between turns was several days and I forgot there was a truce. I apologized but was excoriated anyway.

It was this incident that sparked the idea of an in game notepad mod.

This is called a Blitzkrieg, simular to what Germany did in the second world war.
I must say it is tempting to just attack the ally on its weakest, but this will come back to you as a boomerang in other game which you really don't want. Therefore I prefer to end it first before attacking
Luckily warzone has diplomacy mods prevent this from happening and also announce that you have been attacked as an ally can warn other not to ally that player so that is what you can do.

If it's a FFA or just some random game not labelled as diplomacy, it's absolutely fine. Creating alliances in FFAs is already in gray area, breaking them is just as gray.

If it's a diplomacy game, it's a different story, because these games only make sense when everybode abides the same set of rules. But still, all you can do is block them, reporting won't do anything.

Creating a forum thread to shame a player won't do anything either, so unlike someone earlier in this thread, I advise against doing it. It's just your side of the story and it can't be easily verified.

If it's a FFA or just some random game not labelled as diplomacy, it's absolutely fine. Creating alliances in FFAs is already in gray area, breaking them is just as gray.

This is the problem. Grey.

And b/c it's grey, "it's absolutely fine" is how some people equate it. And "grey" tends to become more "white" when the benefit of doing such grey actions benefits the person questioning the greyness of it all

ie: most players equate "grey" to "white" when they are doing it (they are the backstabber), and to "black" when it's being done to them (they are the backstabber)

Just know that even if you backstab and win the game and justify it to yourself as grey/white/whatever makes you feel okay, you're still going to hell for it

Edited 7/28/2023 21:21:02

You guys are viewing the semantic of words in a particular way and perhaps fail to grasp that your understanding is not universal.

Maybe some others view a "truce" as a "declaration of intent" between rational players instead of a binding contract forcing you to play in an irrational way.

Let's say player A has 100 income, player B has 55 income and player C also has 55 income. It is rational for both player B and C to not attack each other. If now player B does not defend the border with player C at all, player C could go easily break him, however that way player A gets an easy victory. So in order to maximize their own winning chances, both players honor the truce. Formalizing the truce only ensures both players that they have a mutual understanding that it is in both their best interest not to attack each other.

Most players now have the understanding that a truce does not need to last forever however that you need to give the other player a fair warning of let's say 2 turns ahead. However maybe another player views it only as fair if he knows 4 turns ahead. And let's say you do give the other player a 2 turn warning but you have been secretly building huge stacks against him beforehand. Is this then still fair?

Anyhow, what I'm on about is that what you perceive as fair is not an universal truth.

Edited 7/28/2023 23:15:25

i have a list of backstabbers to consoin future games.
backstabbing in ffa is legal but should follow the player in other games as not trustworthy

@Norman, that it is not universal is the point I was making. It's grey (unclear, not inherently good/bad/illegal, but it is definitely legal), and typically manifests itself as black (bad) to those it happens to, and good/fine (white) to those who do it

If you go to the length of defining what "truce" means, then you should follow those terms (e.g. "2 turn warning"). If you have only agreed to "truce" without defining what that means, then each is free to define it themselves (e.g. "lets not attack each other in next 5 turns").

"U mad bro" and "lol" is just unnecessary, I would not want to play with this kid.