FYI: This is how the game works

[☆ Acacia ☆ - for Tiffany <3]

If I step away from your continent so you can cap it, although I have a superior stack, and I stay near your border regardless, it means I'm DEFENDING that SIDE of the border for you, and you don't have to keep on stacking next to me, threatening me for NO REASON at all.

I'm not sure why so many players lately aren't getting this basic concept, so here I've just spelled it out for you again.
And that's why, if you keep on stacking instead of working together with me to take over the REST of the map, I suicide on you because you are the one who threw it, for NOT stacking on the other side of the area.

Is me, giving you the continent, not a clear enough of a sign that I'm trying to be FRIENDLY to you?

=====

Here was the situation:
Frozen borders, Europe only has 2 borders: Iceland and Ukraine.
I have a 50 stack on iceland, while pink has got a 20 and 10 stack on europe.
I move out of Iceland, onto Greenland with my stack, I'm saying "you can have Europe my friend".
He caps Iceland and has 16 stack there, good.
Next round I even move away from Greenland but I keep an extra 16 stack there that matches your 16, just to have an extra thick border. I move the rest of my 28 to the middle of North America. Right next to my 16 on greenland, like a dog on a leash. Barking against anyone who would come near ( rest if North America is unclaimed with some 30 stack at the border of south america)

I got this side covered bro. Now you start stacking on Ukraine and we're good right?

Nope, you decide to start stacking Iceland while you keep Ukraine at a measly 20 while there are 3 enemies around Asia with stacks 30, 40 and 50.
And you decide to start stacking Iceland, keeping Europe exposed because I'm the apparent biggest threat?
How many more tells do you need?

Ok, you clearly don't plan to win the game it seems.

[bobgoggles]

Like I tried to say yesterday, it simply is not worth it to defend for someone else.

That said, the scenario you just described as you trying to defend for them makes no sense.. who are you defending them against? No one. Your job at that point was to take NA and hold your borders against other players. Once you take NA the only person capable of easily threatening them is you.

You left the 16 stack there, as you said, to have an extra thick border. It was not for them, but for you protecting against their stack. That is not how good neighbor play works. Even if you did leave it there for them, the thing you need to understand is some people will never be comfortable unless they have more troops on the border than their neighbor. The better move if you wanted a non confrontational deterrent would have been to put your whole defense stack on the interior so that if they break you you can retaliate and or retake and stack the border. Instead, by leaving 16 on the border you contributed to the start of a pissing contest.

You want to be/have a good neighbor but dont seem to understand how it works. The crux of it is someone has to be the first to pull back troops or not stack a border, regardless of what is on the other side. If you keep matching them and expecting it to stop you are just as guilty as they are of ruining the truce. You have two options in this scenario. Go with the interior stack, or keep matching their stacking on the border.. but heres the thing: one of those options inevitably leads to a confrontation, and the other gives peace a chance, letting your opponent make the first move without costing you a huge stack of troops. If you can accept this fact you will save yourself a lot of trouble.

Every game with multiplayer has a META. Those who refuse to adjust to it stagnate, those who change their play to account for it improve. More often than not opponents will be new to the game and not know much beyond the basic mechanics of the game. You simply cannot expect them to play how you want or expect, so the best thing to do is protect yourself first and let them make mistakes that cost you the least possible. If they break you can suicide, retake, or let it remain broken. Sometimes retaliation works.. But a truly patient player will either retake or let it be, because they understand that a lot of the time if you dont bother confronting this type of player they will turn their their attention elsewhere and make a mistake at someone elses expense.

Sorry to say but the reality here is you are just being stubborn and playing how you want, knowing full well how it will turn out, then complaining when the inevitable happens. I strongly disagree that this is a new thing, people have gotten into this identical confrontation and cost each other the game since the dawn of Risk.

No one has ever won more or gotten better by convincing others to play the way they want. One of the last and most important skills people learn in Risk is empathy, being able to put yourself in your opponents shoes and act accordingly. The hallmark of a great Risk player is not being understood, but understanding others. It has always been, and will always be up to YOU to adjust your play to meet the circumstances.

[Jim]

I think your faith in humanities intelligence is misplaced.

[☆ Acacia ☆ - for Tiffany <3]

Originally posted by bobgoggles:

Sorry to say but the reality here is you are just being stubborn and playing how you want, knowing full well how it will turn out, then complaining when the inevitable happens. I strongly disagree that this is a new thing, people have gotten into this identical confrontation and cost each other the game since the dawn of Risk.

"cost each other the game", exactly, that means they are stubborn, not me xD
I'm trying to bring some sense.

[bobgoggles]

Originally posted by ☆ Acacia ☆ - for Tiffany <3:

Originally posted by bobgoggles:

Sorry to say but the reality here is you are just being stubborn and playing how you want, knowing full well how it will turn out, then complaining when the inevitable happens. I strongly disagree that this is a new thing, people have gotten into this identical confrontation and cost each other the game since the dawn of Risk.

"cost each other the game", exactly, that means they are stubborn, not me xD
I'm trying to bring some sense.

Pot calling the kettle black. Sure they may be stubborn, but being stubborn right back is expecting two wrongs make a right, which it wont. You completely misunderstand the meaning of "cost each other the game".. it directly says that both are at fault, because both are wrong.

Doing the same thing again and again but expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

I tried. When this keeps happening to you dont pretend its someone elses fault or that you werent given perfectly good advice to avoid it. You have chosen to not learn, thats on you.