Backstabbing

[red_dragoon]

I really hope that they do something about it in starcraft 2. You shouldn't be able to change alliance anytime you want! I hate it when your team mate back stabs you all of a sudden. It's a real bad feeling!

[Immortalrulez]

ugh backstabbers u just wont know when they click the check in the options on u huh?

[mc2]

I think backstabbing will remain in the game

Look at single player campaigns, Kerrigan, Arcturua, Duran, etc etc have backstabbed their allies.

It's all part of the game play, in multiplayer too, i think it's up to the individual to manage its diplomatic relations and perhaps offer benefits so that he/she won't get stabbed?

[Fenix]

I have never been backstabbed.

[hellzor]

Can someone explain to me what the legitimate scenario is where one would need to change alliances mid game?
I'm not saying their isn't one....i'm just curious.

[red_dragoon]

Yeah see, hellzor made a good point. There is no legit scenario! Only stupid kids who have nothing better to do than backstab and laugh about it do it. That's why you can't do it in warcraft 3. They should remove the option.

[10-Neon]

Diplomatic play requires the ability to backstab, but I can count on one hand the number of games I've played where actual diplomacy occurred. When the teams are decided beforehand, it is not really diplomacy, so un-allying should be disabled. But if you do that, a player can still backstab by informing your opponent about your bases and units and by force-attacking units even while allied. If the player wants to ruin the game bad enough, they can. Sometimes it is best to just accept that they have decided to become your enemy and kill them.

[Fenix]

I have never been backstabbed.


You must be joking! I have been and I don't know why. I am always friendly...

They should take it out. Some player out there are only out to make trouble and backstab just for fun. it doesn't have anything to do with tactics or strategy or diplomacy!


It's cause I always Lone Wolf it.

;D

[Tank0003]

I have seen many cases of the need of diplomatic changes for example in a game where there are 4 teams of 2 me and another guy have our partners leave at the very beginning so we just joined up and continued as normal i feel a good idea is to make the map creator have the option of if you can change sides or not or maby even a option as the game host and yes i hate backstabbers too

[hellzor]

ahhh good point....and yeah, maybe if only the game creator can change diplomacy settings....but then they'd have the power to turn teams on each other all the time...it's not a totally safe solution.

[PainKiller]

Once upon a time there was a Mighty Protoss Tribe(me) and a strong Zerg brood(my ally) who lived in peace and harmony and fought side by side vs an evil Terran Squad who had mindcontrolled a whole Protoss tribe.(or maybe it was the other way)
The Protoss(me) and the Zerg(my ally) totaly owned the Evil Terran and their Protoss friends and they slaughtered them all!
Suddenly the Protoss base(my main base) was filled with Zerglings and Hydralisks(my allys troops)
The Mighty Protoss tribe(me) was happy when the Zerg(my ally) watched over his base while his troops where doing the last battle to push their enemy back.
Suddenly the Zerg did not want to be friends with the Protoss anymore and unallied him while his troops where away.

This is the sades storry i know :'(

[mc2]

I've only been backstabbed once, this is my story:
I was using Terran and my ally was using Protoss.

We pretty much pwned our enemies until........
he suddenly changed his mind and became my enemy....thankfully he did not attack immediately, so i had time to mass out on tanks, BCs, valkyries and mines.

Ok, despite my layers and layers of heavy defence, his arbiter managed to slip through into my base, then he recalled 7 more arbiters in, then those 7 arbiters recalled a HUGE group of dragoons, reavers, archons into the middle of my resource gatherers. OK my siege tanks and spider mines completely wiped out all his units, but all of my SCVs and my command centre were blowned up too from the splash damages!! so i had no command centre and no SCV and i basically lost.....

[TheDarkTemplar]

I never do allied games with people I don't know because I hate the thought of being backstabbed.

[PainKiller]

I do allied games if I know my ally and using Skype or Teamspeak

[reject_666_6]

I've never been backstabbed, but then again I only play LAN, so if some idiot decides to backstab me he gets a pair of black eyes... ;)

[Remy]

One situation where turning off alliance in-game is valid that I can think of is offensive spider mining. It involves a Terran player lining two rows of spider mines outside of choke, then a Toss player running one or two run speed upgraded zealots through in between the mines with alliance turned off but still keeping shared vision. It's a suicidal strat to guide the spider mines for offensive use.

But all in all, backstabbing sucks and they should just make alliances permanent. Shared unit control over disconnected players is fine by me. It's better than working ur butt off just to get backstabbed.

[mc2]

Yeah they should disable changing alliance. some pricks just wanna come and ruin everything.
Or they could make it so that you can only change alliance if both sides agree to it

[Pix]

What's the point of disabling it? If you disable the player's control over the alliances, then "Ally end" is no longer possible, it also takes the responsibility away from the player, detracting from the game experience.
Plus, if someone really wants to "back stab" you, they can simply do it with the attack button. If they're determined, no amount of diplomatic cotton wool is going to stop them.
Just leave it as it is. Perhaps just add a little notice that comes up when someone changes the diplomatic status, like it does when people change the Network Latency. Anything else is pointless and unnecessary.
~Pix~

[mc2]

True the attack button just destroys the whole purpose.

There are be a rule saying the player needs to send a warning 5mins in advance before changing allies/enemies.

[Pix]

How would that rule be enforced?
~Pix~

[reject_666_6]

By blacking out the alliance button until 5 minutes have passed, like not being able to perform any diplomatic actions more than once every 5 minutes, or something...

[mc2]

when you tick the box "enemy" for a former ally....you and that player will not become enemy for 5mins....during this 5mins u'll still be allies and a warning message will be sent out.....

seriously when an ally sends a massive fleet of carriers over you don't want to them to "change to enemy" all of a sudden..

[Remy]

I never saw the point of "ally end." Everyone plays to win, if you've played the better game you deserve the win. If you realize that you've lost with no way to come back, just be a good sport and GG and surrender. Everything's over quicker and everyone moves on. Besides, there is no point in win/loss record in SC.

And other than for the purpose of rearranging teams in team FFA games due to disconnects right at start, I really see no point and little need for change of alliance mid-game. If you've worked for the win as a team then the whole team deserves the win, instead of you winning by yourself in the end when your team mate(s) worked hard to put all of you in a winning position. If a person plans to backstab in the end and builds toward it, the person will likely succeed. Where as the player(s) giving it all thinking this is the end would likely to always be in a less favorable position. Example, "you rush, I'll tech up, then we can win..." then backstab. It's not fair, it's poor sportsmanship.

And manually attacking an ally while remaining allied is not backstabbing, it's sabbotage. This will happen less likely and less often because people care about win records for some strange reason.

[genocide]

I'm not gunna lie I've backstabbed so many people in my starcraft days, but for me that just add's to the fun lol.

[mc2]

When someone does it to you, you'll realise how not-fun it can be.

[10-Neon]

I've been backstabbed plenty of times. It is more annoying than frustrating. Oftentimes I am able to take them down after they BS, sometimes with the help of a former enemy.

I have also been known to BS myself, but that is usually against total morons, or always against total morons. Being a total moron is one of the qualifications for me BSing someone. I'm usually nice enough to warn them with something like, "I'm tired of your stupidity, I think I'll kill you now."

[Darth Vergessenheit]

Getting backstab sucks I don't know why like one of the members before said I'm always nice I think it's because I'm not that good :[ Or they are bored, or they have nothing else to do. The only time I backstab was when my ally rushed when it was no rush, so yeah. I don't like how Warcraft won't let you change diplomacy because Diplomacy is part of strategy like to go against and stuff. The other thing is I think people should be able to open their own games not like Warcraft 3 because what if you want to vs. your friends and the firewalls prevent you from playing with your, so you have to go randomly at the same time to see if you play with each other.

[xxkylexx]

They could easily implement something like WC3 does. You cannot "un-ally" with a teammate that is set prior to the game starting.

[Remy]

Yes but people are just concern about specific situations.

Such as playing team ffa such as 2v2v2v2, if one player from two of the teams drop right from the start, then it would be better if the two remaining players on those teams ally up so they can at least run 2v2v2 instead of 2v2v1v1.

[Remy]

All in all, I feel pretty much the same as you Red.

If stuff like that happens, it's too bad but oh well. I rather just not mess with alliances at all and just focus on playing the game.

It is a much more f***ed up feeling when you get backstabbed in the end, than having team mate(s) drop. Even if I kill them, I never feel good.

Besides, when team mates disconnect people just leave right away anyway. If it's the first 2 minutes it doesn't even matter, even if it's later most people just leave and move on.

[10-Neon]

If you're playing a good game with friendly players, you may not want to just scratch the game and start over: you'll want to play it out to the end, even given a change in team structure. In some cases, a player on the team that didn't lose an ally would voluntarily stop engaging in battle so that the other players could finish the game with even odds. In a 4v4 scenario, where two players from the same team drop, all players could stay in the game by simply switching someone to the other team.

I know that, in a purely competitive, "I'm here to win" game, the ability to change alliances can be a problem, but it is great boon to those of us that just play for fun.

[mc2]

The suggestion to disable backstabbing is to prevent some players who go and join teams with a purpose of solely to sabotage others. This is annoying and should be eliminated.

And those people who just backstab for fun and nothing else should go and find something else to do.

[wolfblood]

anyone but me hating players who destroys all your nuke silos, just for the fun out of it.... or saying when u try 2 nuke a base, ''Hey, i had 2units there'' (killing ure ghost when its set the bomb, but not yet dropped it).!

Ih hate it :P

[proswimma]

Anyone get the classic bs of standing in the defeated base of the enemy and your buddy next to you suddenly sticks his two blades into your flesh? Its very saddening to die at the hands of a friend you walked through the gateway with. :(

[[LightMare]]

make it like Warcraft 3!!!!! no alliance changing

[CallDownTheThunder]

i have never been backstabbed...in 1 vs 1 :)

[paragon]

You can still backstab in WarCraft 3. You just force attack their base and/or destroy your base at the beginning of the game. That way, when you leave they cannot use your base because it is gone. So, you have basically backstabbed them because it is much more difficult for them to win.

However, I am sure they will do a similar system as WarCraft 3 where you are matched into a game and the alliances are fixed.

And you could just nuke your ally if you really wanted to backstab them.

[UchihaItachi0129]

One situation where turning off alliance in-game is valid that I can think of is offensive spider mining. It involves a Terran player lining two rows of spider mines outside of choke, then a Toss player running one or two run speed upgraded zealots through in between the mines with alliance turned off but still keeping shared vision. It's a suicidal strat to guide the spider mines for offensive use.

But all in all, backstabbing sucks and they should just make alliances permanent. Shared unit control over disconnected players is fine by me. It's better than working ur butt off just to get backstabbed.


this is exactally why the spider mine needs the attack command so you don't have to unally or you can just not kill the scout and when the scout sees it's "safe" the army comes in and THEN you attack to kill the entire army rather than a zealot/zergling/marine scout

[Eg-EliteGhost]

I believe the original box says

"Your only allies are your Enemies"

if that is changed. Sc2 will no longer be starcraft it will be war craft.

End of discussion

[hillzagold]

what if you want to play FFA?

[Quanta]

But but backstabing is fun... Especially backstabbing someone you know, Mwhahaha. Sure I've been backstabbed but I've also backstubbed other people. Oh and when you and someone you know choose to be on septerate teams to that you can ally later and back stab both the other two guys at once, and then before the game ends backstab the guy you know.

[EonMaster]

you are one mean player, lol.

I've only been backstabed once, but fortunately, our team was winning and we ganged up one him 3 v 1 and destroyed him in less than 2 minutes. However, that didn't stop him from nearly destroying one of my teammates bases before he quit.

Funny thing was, he forgot to unally me and my other ally, so we destroyed him without taking any casualties.

[Shadowdragon]

Me and my mates used to love playing 2 vs 2 games, with three of us laughing as we all destroyed the helpless strangers base. The threats alone made the "game" fun.

Other then that, I don't backstab.

Think Utilitarian, and you'll understand why I play that way.

[Joneagle_X]

There are very few situations in which backstabbing is justified and/or fun:

1) In a 7v1 Comp Stomp. These games are ridiculous anyway, and they're only joined to get quick wins. So why not turn the tables and give them a "quick" loss? Plus, it actually takes quite a bit of skill to take down 6 other players. It often requires a large amount of skill in sabotage, the quick use of cloaked units, and the ability to play enemies off each other.

I was actually in a clan that had set rules for backstabbing in 7v1s. Our initiation rite was destroying 6 unsuspecting opponents in a 7v1 Comp Stomp. If you could succeed, you were in. ;)

2) When a player is hacking. If a player is hacking, it is the responsibility of his allies to immediately backstab him and kill him if possible. It should be a law.

3) When you get backstabbed first. It's perfectly okay to annihilate him at that point. :D

Backstabbing outside of these situations is stupid, childish, and retarded. But always remember, you can't be backstabbed if you're aware and play better than your allies. :D

[motto]

too many have tried backstabbing me and have failed to do so.

[EonMaster]

I have never been backstabbed, but my allies have.

[Gasmaskguy]

-By you. :D

I have been backstabbed once. On WC3 lol.... He phailed, but he consumed a lot of precious time, so the game was lost.

[EonMaster]

No, I don't backstab.

But some people are stupid and only backstab one ally and forget about the others until they are overrun.

[10-Neon]

Add to your list: when it is allowed by the rules set up before the game starts. I've played a few games like this.

[darkone]

i hate backstabbers that use a lot of nukes at the same time so even if you realise that your being stabbed in the back you can't kill all of them before the nukes come down

[EonMaster]

That suxs, your town becomes a nuclear wasteland.

[darkone]

yeah it sucks when you hear 10 or 15 nukes all at once someone is going to be hurting really bad

[EonMaster]

I've seen allies get backstabbed with mass carriers. Not pretty...

[darkone]

no you have to tell your carriers to attack, with a nuke all you have to do is tell it to drop and everything will be hurt regardless of who it is

[EonMaster]

I get it, you can't tell whose is doing it easily because they never unallied from you. Very sneaky!

[darkone]

yep

[EonMaster]

you know, I think i have been backsabbed by this, in a 4v4 match.

This one ally used only ghosts, and whenever we attacked enemy bases, he kept droping nukes on our own troops, costing us lots of damage and minerals.

We won the game anyway, I just though he was some noob who didn't know what the hell he was doing.

[darkone]

he wanted you to think that but he really wasn't he was getting laughs for your pain, lots of more experienced players do this because they like to prey on noobs

[EonMaster]

wasn't causing me much pain, I only had a few units in the fights because my base was nearly destroyed early ingame by a large zerg rush. I did have a handful of tanks and marines, but I watch the battles and moved my units when he targeted them.

It didn't affect us too much because we had already killed 2 enemies when he started to do this, he did waste a lot of nukes by canceling them after they were launched because I moved.

[darkone]

see proof that he wasn't a noob

[EonMaster]

I see your point, the more I type about this, the more I see that my original idea was incorrect. I just wonder why my other allies never said anything about it after losing a ton of units. They just build more and keep on attacking.

Also, the guy kept killing his own ghosts with the nukes as well as our units.

[darkone]

ghosts are cheap

besides if hes nuking his allies i don't think he was worrying about the cost

[DontHate]

that'd be awesome if there was a backstabbing game mode, that was made by blizzard. Pretty much phantom or something like that where there is a hidden backstabber with benefits. Or you know, u should just make it an option, becuase i think backstabbing can be fun. I also like the idea of ur allies being enemies and whatnot :D.

[darkone]

if it was a game mode it wouldn't really be backstabbing cause you would be expecting it

[EonMaster]

Yeah, backstabbing is only backstabbing if the other person doesn't know about it.

However, they could add a mode where alliances are locked, but that would give terran's too much power in that case since he nuke doesn't need a target to launch, and if you launce it at your allies, they can't do anything about it.

[darkone]

aside from killing your ghost if they can find him or the flashing red dot quick enough

[Gasmaskguy]

Since they are allies, they would spot the ghost pretty fast.

[Shadowdragon]

If you want to end backstabbing for good, have a setting that disables all friendly fire, even nukes. It really wouldn't be that hard to do.

[EonMaster]

But how would you be able to nuke an area if there is a large battle and your allies are involved. You wouldn't be able to nuke your enemies because your allies are too close.

[Shadowdragon]

You would, just the nuke wouldn't hurt your allies. You own units, maybe, but not your allies.

[EonMaster]

hmm...that sounds too strange and illogical. Something as big as a nuke and your allies would be immune to it? I'm ok with no nuclear fallout from it, but ot having your allies hurt from it sounds too op for my taste.

[Shadowdragon]

given how often I've seen the nuke used (which is to say twice, for fun), I don't think it would impact gameplay that much.

[Tavisman]

But if the nuke wouldn't hurt your allies, then you could all play Terran, and send ghosts to each others bases. Then should the base be attacked, the allies could nuke your base, effectively destroying your opponents, but doing absolutely nothing to you. I think that would be WAY too OP, and also very stupid and unrealistic.

[Shadowdragon]

If people want to waste time and resources and building a ghost and a nuke to defend other player’s bases, then they should. They'll probably be slaughtered in any game that isn't a fastest money map by the other team, which was smart enough to build an army as opposed to wasting time and resources on getting one nuke in an all or nothing defensive strategy, but it would be their choice.

[Tavisman]

A nuke doesn't cost that much money. Just build a Ghost, a nuclear silo, arm it, place the Ghost in your allies base and there you go, you have the ultimate defense. You don't even have to research any upgrades for the Ghost, since it's protected within your allies base. You must also think of the realism and fun factors, since I wouldn't find it very funny if you could just include a few Ghosts in your allies army, and then nuke your allies and your enemies melee units, still only dealing damage to the latter.

[EonMaster]

yes, a nuke that doesn't hurt your allies is op. The nuke is for taking out strategic targets, not for ultimate defence style play. There just isn't any real way they could win if the nuke just kills their army and not the other person's army as well. Thier army size wouldn't matter since the nuke would kill them all instantly.

[DarkTemplol]

I think they should do something about being Backstabbed. I mean, it doesn't really make sense to leave an option to betray your teammate, especially in ranked games. if it's something unranked, then fine leave the option in, but for a something that has meaning, make it so that the teams need to stick together.

[Wlck742]

I normally don't have a problem with backstabbing since I'm usually prepared for it and I've done it a few times. But yeah, they should have locked teams in ladder and other ranked games so people don't cheat their way up.

[ijffdrie]

i always do it

[DarkTemplol]

Well, you're pretty mean :P

[StarCraft144000]

Well like 2 times before it happened to my team they called us noobs because we like beating the crap out of computer but we usally beat the $*&% out of them for doing it

[longlivefenix]

i think that there should be two styles (probably more like channels and i couldn't think of a better word) of sc
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
a. | b. |
generic: with locked teams | cutthroat |
no backstabbing | unlocked teams for backstabbing/diplomacy |
for people who dont feel like worrying about it | would allow plain allied victory also (without bsbing) |

[Wlck742]

They should just make ranked games locked teams with no backstabbing and let the player decide for nonranked games.

[StarCraft144000]

Good idea but for no bacstabbing dont allow to break off the ally stat and DONT ALLOW THEM TO ATTACK ALLIES so bascally they cant attack anything but the computer/player

[longlivefenix]

thats what i meant wlck

[Wlck742]

DONT ALLOW THEM TO ATTACK ALLIES so bascally they cant attack anything but the computer/player


But it wouldn't have any affect on abilities or splash damage, and it's OP to make your allies invulnerable to those.

[longlivefenix]

i think he means you can go
stalker > press a on keyboard (attack) > ally

[Wlck742]

I knew that, I meant that not letting you press the attack button and target an ally wouldn't make sense because it shouldn't have any affect on splash damage or abilities. Like if you're not allowed to directly attack your allies you could attack them indirectly by nuking them or psi storming them which still does a lot of damage, and making the ally invincible against splash damage or abilities from your units would be OP.

[Eg-EliteGhost]

I Found my original Starcraft Box. On this box in 2 places it says and ill quote " YOUR ONLY ALLIES ARE ENEMIES. " This quote is found in 2 places on the box, In the center of the Front Fold out in big text, and also found in the Center of the back of the box. This quote seems to be the theme of GALACTIC DOMANATION. To change this by not allowing us to backstab would be to change what starcraft is.

[IeatZERGs]

In multiplayer, After an allied team wins, The allies should kill each other to death! until one player remains! And if the winner is zerg, i will barbeque them with my flamethrowas!

[Gasmaskguy]

The allies should kill each other to death!


lol ^_^ You might want to rephrase that.

[IeatZERGs]

Damn, My english is crap. Cant help it.

[Gasmaskguy]

Your english is fine, It was just a little funny... :P

[Joneagle_X]

@ EliteGhost , I like your comforter. :D

I don't think this is really a discussable problem... Either you're strong enough to withstand allies changing sides or you're not. The only reason to discuss this would be if you leave yourself vulnerable to such attacks.

[Wlck742]

Sometimes the only way you can win is by spending all the resources you have on the enemy and not spending it on defenses against an attack from your allies you don't even know is coming.

[Joneagle_X]

Yes but if your ally is clearly not attacking and looks to be building up, it's pretty obvious.

There's no such thing as an unexpected backstab. There's just ones you aren't looking at. :D

[Eg-EliteGhost]

I hate my comfortor you want it? my mom got me that ugly color when i was at college.

Anyway Starcraft 2 will be WAY more newb friendly so backstabbing wont be as easy anyway as it was in original.

P.S. (NOOBS) a good way not to get backstabbed team up with somone you know .. that WONT bs you.. duh! Or you be the one BSING its fun try it.

[Quanta]

@Jon I'm afraid there is such a thing as an unexpected backstab. There is one type of backstab that I do not like and it is one that cannot be countered. If an ally switches to an enemy team in the middle of a joint attack or joint defense you are screwed. The tell tale signs of the ally massing troops in his base and sending them your way isn't present. They send their forces with yours to make an attack and once they reach the enemy base switch just as your army meets the enemy's. The same thing can happen while defending.

The reason I don't like that type of backstab is that there is almost no risk of failure and it really is just too unfair. 3 v 1 or 4 v 2 or 5 v 3 is just not right. Now if the backstabbers make the game 3 v 5, three backstabbers versus 5 others, that's a good game. But that's besides the point.

There can be backstabs that you cannot prepare against just because the odds created are to overwhelming.

[Wlck742]

You should try switching sides as soon as the guy backstabs you and see how long you can keep it up. Anyone got the balls to try this?

[Frosty]

i know that feeling all to well i was once back stabed by my own clan member

[EonMaster]

wow, your own member? Did he get banned for that?

[Eg-EliteGhost]

Honestly the variations of the game make the game fun and intresting without alliance changes every now and then it makes the game fun Expect the Unexpected its realistic and it really is fun in starcraft win or lose who cares just play for fun

[EonMaster]

However, all games are more fun when you're winning ;D

Having the unexpected always makes a game more interesting, but no one likes to be backstabbed. It adds risk into the game, but can cause some distrust to form in people when playing with strangers.

[Rex]

Actually allowing alliance changes are better because they can BS you without changing it like on WC III in Footies destroy you man structures manually and it'll be harder to take their units out since there are many of them, so I say having the alliance change is a good idea so noobs need to be prepared. I'm not saying this just because I BS for fun because you can attack back easily without manually clicking and it just makes it easier, plus you should be prepared for a BS no matter what... unless you got nothing...

[Psionicz]

Never remove it. It can be fun when playing with friends, while your're talking, someone will trash talk your skills so you nuke em, major lulz if you ask me.

One time my ally was massing like 100+ lurkers (still in egg form) I smelt a conspiricy so i nuked the whole mass while it was being processed, you can only imagine what 100+ lurker eggs sound like when being nuked and the blood shed was amazing. :D

[jamaylott]

I think backstabbing will remain in the game

Look at single player campaigns, Kerrigan, Arcturua, Duran, etc etc have backstabbed their allies.

It's all part of the game play, in multiplayer too, i think it's up to the individual to manage its diplomatic relations and perhaps offer benefits so that he/she won't get stabbed?


honestly, i couldn't agree more!

sure, getting stabbed sucks ASS, especially if you score the win, and then all of a sudden your ally decides to build 10 nuke silos while you destroy what is left of the enemy.

and lets face it, if you ally is a major hubris ass, then it almost feels good inside to kill him when hes been mouthing you off all game, telling you that you suck, rather than coaching you on how to get better.


>>>>>

Here's what i suggest, If you are bi-linearly allied with someone at the begining of the game (meaning you are both allied to each other), then if you are, at any point, destroyed by your once ally, OR DESTROY SOMEONE WHO AT ANYPOINT IN THE GAME WAS YOUR ALLY, it will show up on your record, like this.



W - L - T - BS wins, losses, ties, backstabs. this way other players will know, and could choose to boot the Bs'er out of the room.


one thing to add, if two players remove their allies, and BOTH type something into the message box, like "end game," then the BS counter will be lifted, so that the two players may destroy each other in an organized fasion.

anyways, just a thought... power up :P :P :P

granted, there is the occasion

[Wlck742]

Hmm, I like the W - L - T - BS option, but it shouldn't count when you were destroyed by a backstabber. Also if you destroy someone who attempted to backstab you, since you could have been playing fair and it was the other player who changed alliances. I think each player should have a statistic that shows how many times they changed alliances in a game and over their entire career. That would be a much more accurate statistic of the player's BSness.

[Rex]

Dude...... THATS GENIUS! :good: :good: :good:

[Premonition]

well actually just a few days ago, me and my friend were playing a 3v3 game, and this opponent who particularly 'done' my partner in joined the new game we made except this time he would be our ally.

we were cool about it, a game is a game and we lost the first one but he had to actually talk trash after the game started so we humbly agreed 'AIGHT DIS MAFAKA GON GET WUTS COMIN TO HIM NAHMEAN?' and in the most critical moment of the game, we raped his ass.

the end.

[EonMaster]

LOL good one. SC osn't a place for bad mouthers anyway. Most would agree that a person talking trash should be eliminated as soon as possible, even if it is an ally.

[longlivefenix]

i wish i could host games >.>
o well

i think that another thing that would work would be that you just play team melee because it is basicly two people playing as one person with. (BTW zealots and medics crush all)

[Rex]

Theres this low life in SC Brood war US West, We won a fight against a computer and I will planned to BS then this guy decided to mass and every1 thought he was a backstabber his name was Yearzero[nin] (I think I got it right) he was killing everyone then he dropped he started to swear and say we were Haxors! Day by day He annoyed me and made fun of y record and all he was playing was 7v1 -.-" he had like 186 out of 40 and he kept saying I used steroids, so One day I got pissed and I well got some1 to steal his CD-Key and get it banned (I don't know how) He did not go on battle.net for a long time I don't know what happened or anything and thats it.

THE END!!!

[10-Neon]

Rex: There are hundreds, if not thousands of people like that on battle.net and pretty much every online game everywhere. They do that to get a rise out of you and looks like this one succeeded. In the future, don't worry about it when people are idiots, because they're idiots and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Rex]

Thanks for the Advice now your power level has raised to an odd Number Thanks :powerup:

[Rambling]

Backstabbing was actually encouraged by blizzard, along with gloating and a few other suprising things, U can read for urself, its either in the manual or strat guide, but its there! Therefore I believe B-stabbing will remian, I for 1 have no problem with this, u back stab me.... U have just tickled the grizzly bear sir.

[EonMaster]

I hated it when ppl backstabbed in impossible maps on UMS. Many, many good games have been ruined by one guy thinking its fun to ruin it for everyone else by psi storming our units at the map's starting point.

Sucks waiting 5 minutes to start a game only to have one person screw it up.

[Illidan]

i guess stalker is the best backstabber.

[Aside)-]

In starcraft II there will likely be two different game modes, separate of ladder -- one which will allow unallying, and one that will not -- just like in starcraft.

[Tralfagar]

I personally prefer FFA's; takes care of all the diplomacy by throwing it out the window.

However, in team games, the only change I would ask is that when a player unally's you, you auto-unally them and get a little text warning.

[Juggernaught131]

you have to keep backstabbing in the game, as sometime, people make temporary alliances and want to have a decisive victor in the end. I have backstabbed only once, and i warned the person beforee i did it. that was because i wished to have a person in first place in the end, so i think that it should be availiable, but the backstabbed should be warned.

[Psionicz]

Lol lets think up the best backstabbing units.

I'll forget the obvious ones like the Ghost and nuke. Ahahahaha good times.

Banelings will be the most feared backstabber IMO, you'd think he is gonna help you them BOOM they level your base.

Also you don't want a Protoss to backstab you cuz an Immortal can **** up your tanks and you couldn't do nothing. Not to mention them controlling the air with Phoenix.

[BloodHawk]

I haven't played Bnet vigorously in years but I thought alliances were permanent in the top vs bottom game style.

If not, then do that.

I think open diplomacy is a fun element that never took off in SC. There could even be a ranking system in place where you garner more points if you win by yourself rather than with a teammate. Just like in real life, don't trust mother ****ers you don't know with your life. Or abuse their trust. Games would feel more like battles than matches.
Just keep this as a separate game type: "The Art of War".

People back stabbing in what is meant to be a team game is not cool. People doing it in a setting where all are well aware of the possibilities is fun.

[lurkers_lurk]

i believe they said somewhere(couldnt find source sorry) that they are making it so that when someone unallied you, the game auto-unallied them as well and gives you a sign of what happened.

[CyberPitz]

I've backstabbed more than it's happened to me. :3

[Zeratul88]

of course you can backstab its part of the fun, but i will give that it would be nice to be able to change settings.

[BirdofPrey]

Ill be sure to drop a few pylons in your base.

Backstab = screw you

[10-Neon]

People already read construction in a friendly base as a hostile move. If you build Photon Cannons, they start getting nervous, and may backstab you simply for doing it. In SC2, everyone will know that a single Pylon will be a threat- I don't see people taking moves like that as friendly.

[BirdofPrey]

Seeing construction by an ally in your base as a hostile move really fosters teamwork doesn't it? {/sarcasm}

I don't play SC online very much but in many other games I usually build a barracks or two in allied bases so I can make pincer attacks. They usually don't complain when there's a few extra troops in their base when the enemy comes knocking. Having someone take that as a hostile act is kinda bad.

I'm generally against the ability to backstab for two reasons
1. How can you effectively play as a team if you don't fully trust that person not to screw you or worse if you are planning to screw them.
2. What does it say about you if you are going to abandon your teammates because you are losing. If you are playing a team game then play as a team. If you can;t do that play FFA.

Whats sad is that from what I've seen most people who play online nowadays have egos so big they don't even know what teamwork is.
If you play as a team and coordinate your forces you can quickly crush an enemy and yet most people just attack different targets seperateley. it's quite sad

[CyberPitz]

Hell, all I do is play 2v2's, because I can't win 1v1's as i suck horribly. Most cases, as it's silly to trust somebody on the other end of a computer screen with anything more than bread, I play with people I know personally.

Whenever I'm feeling saucy, I'll play a 2v2 with someone I don't know, bu t it always degrades into a, "WHY THE HELL DID YOU DO *so and so*!?? YOU A STUPID NEWB DIE DUMMY!"

I do my best to stay away from people I don't know...it's just a big "I'm an asshole."

[Major Willy]

I refuse to play on B.Net anymore actually until SC2 comes out.

And probably later just play with people I know in real life or you folks here at the forums.

Also, Reaper backstabbing will be a *****.

[Psionicz]

BoP, when Sc2 comes out we must 2v2, I wanna backstab you.

[BirdofPrey]

**** that.
I only play with people I can trust.
Happy to have you on the other team. That way I can take advantage of you sabotaging your own team

[Major Willy]

BoP go with me.

I'm the guy that yells the f word out loud and scares everyone in the building when I get backstabbed in Starcraft.

My sister thought I hurt myself. Good times.

[Tralfagar]

Isn't there a non-UMS setting for locked teams? Otherwise, I'd advise taking a page from AoE II, and go with a "Locked Teams" check box while creating the game.

Thus you'd have four different families of games:
FFA (my personal favorite when it comes to diplomacy), including Ladder
UMS
Locked Teams Melee
Regular Melee

[Redlazer]

To be completely honest, Backstabbing should stay in the game. I often killed my allies if it seemed like I pulled all the weight of the game. It's really beat being stuck with a useless ally, and many times I found that killing them and using thier resources and location was more of an asset than they were.

Starcraft II will have a matching system more like Warcraft III, where you probably can't choose your ally, truely random matchmaking. Arranged teams will be in thier own brackets. I rather kill my ally than deal with him getting in my way or taking up space and resources.

Most of all, it makes you feel like such a badass when you crush your opponents than willingly trash your own ally :D

[Sensei]

Team games in SC2 will mostly be played in ladder, just like WC3, so its "win together or lose together" which will make backstabbing extremely rare since both players remain in the game until BOTH palyers' buildings are completely destroyed.

"Locked Team" custom games don't really save anybody from backstabbing since as been mentioned lots of times, a-clicking your allies' units/buildings/workers/etc still works.

And yes, finally, FFA diplomacy and backstabbing there is pretty much the only kosher place for diplomacy. Otherwise, griefing your allies is pretty disgusting.

[JacobBlair1]

Welcome to knowing how it feels to be a general maybe they are promised victory its a way of life so get over it

[BloodHawk]

@ Willy- lol, that reminds me of my favorite personal D2 story.
I was playing as a necro in hell mode act 4. The room the comp was in was pretty much ajacent to our kitchen and family room. I had the speakers up louder than I realized.
At the same time, my brother in law was in the driveway working underneath his car.
My necro died and as always the "AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!" death wave file played.
I said "****"
Quickly followed by running from another room to the front door. It was my sister. She heard a scream and thought something (like the car coming down onto him) had happened to my bro-in-law her husband.
Overhearing this I bit my lip to silence the laughter forcing its way from my belly.


On topic. In any real militaristic conflict you need your allies respect and approval is key. If not the may turn on you due to different viewpoints or because they consider you a threat in the long term or because you are no longer of use and they wish to take your slice of the cake too.

I'd like to see that in SC2. As I said before this should be a different match type and even ladder. 2v2 wins yield some points. Kill off your ally and complete the 2v2 will yield your regular victory points plus those he would have gained if you hadn't stabbed him in the back.
Just let people know what they are getting into.
Someone back stabbing on lost temple just for lulz ruins the fun for the 3 other players. One gets ****ed by his ally and is taken out. The other wanted a serious match against 2 opponents of equal skill now just watch some retarded **** and double team the backstabber in a almost "going through the motions" manner.