Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Lord Chane, while I still disagree with some points, I can agree to your list of "betrayals". I consider what you mentioned bad style too, I would not do it, but paranoid as I am I would not rely on my allies to feel the same - unless their past action in the game have given me a more safe feeling.

But you have left a huge grey area. There still is a difference between using an alliance to move fleets in the systems of the soon-to-be enemy, braking an alliance without notice, or declaring every action XXX turns earlier, for example. This attacking without notice is getting even greyer when there have been tensions before, and you see large fleets assembled, and even expect an assault by your ally.

Another problem is the term "ally". In most games, you usually are "allied" via a TR treaty with everyone you are not at war with, just because of the mutual benefits of such a treaty. I do not consider such a mere formality a real alliance, for example.

I also think it takes a bit the tension, and thereby the fun, out of the game if you can rely 100% on everyone else in the game. Political maneuvering is nice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif. But downright lying, and what else you described as "betrayal" is something different. Still, there is not only black or white, I think we agreee which is which, but what about the grey areas, which are the biggest? I do not think there are general, "right" rules of behaviour for any situation in the game. And no one has the right to impose his personal, subjective view of these grey areas on every other player. This is a matter of personal style.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

My biggest weakness in competitive PBW games is that I like to role-play my empire all the time, even in games where role-play is not a declared part of the game! Unfortunately I always tend to play that peaceful push-over race that often neglects the chance to take advantage of expansion opportunities through force. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif[/img]

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Roleplaying is nice, regardless in what type of game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

It is just not a very good choice to roleplay a mackerel when entering in a piranha basin http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

He said, as the Aether lords begged and scraped at his table for whatever scraps he chose to send their way...in the hopes of preserving their existence...(NGC4)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Ok, after reading your list of specfic examples I'd have to say maybe our differences here are more ones of semantics. I don't think I've even flat out lied to someone as in telling them that we have a rock solid treaty for X number of turns and then pulling a sneak attack three turns before it ends. I have occasionally allowed them to feel like we are allies, while being intentionally vague about how long it is to Last. People will very often hear what they want, regardless of what you actually say. My sins would be more of ommision in that case.

I have on occasion enterered into negotiations for a treaty with absolutly no intention of joining an alliance. Just to buy time so that I can attack. Is it bad faith negotiations? Perhaps. But it's negotiations. It wasn't an actual alliance.

I might have a person I am in alliance with, and give "aid and comfort" to their enemy. Not that I would neccesarily tell them what my allies plans were, but I might also "forget" to mention to my ally that there might be a build up of this third parties forces in an undefended sector. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The main thing that is an irritant to me is when you join an alliance with someone and they assume you are joined at the hip. If you don't give them every piece of technology you have they feel like you are not being a good ally. Mainly because I think that style of play is simply boring, but also because I don't want to help them that much. And you always have to attack everyone they are at war with? Even when it's not in my interests? That's no fun.

Your real life examples are most definetly apples to oranges. Honestly I am strugling not to be personally offended at some of your comments here. If you think just because I'd break some of your own personal unwritten rules in an SE4 game that I would be the kind of unethical person that would injure another human being, you really are way off base.

Puposly hurting someone in a sporting event is wrong. It is most definetly against the rules in every organized sport I know of. Any player that would do it, or coach that would encourage it has no business being in teh sport. Whether or not you could do it and get away with it is possible, but doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. That's the point I'm trying to make to you here. I'm not talking about doing stuff in SE4 games that is wrong, but being able to get away with it. I'm talking about doing stuff that is perfectly acceptable, but that you somehow have decided is wrong.

And your guy that left Clevland and went to Salt Lake, I don't know anything about pro basketball, but that's not ethics guy. That's business. Pro sports is millionaire players negotiating with millionaire owners. If you were no longer happy at your job and got a better offer wouldn't you go?

Yes, it's the rule that says "DON'T CHEAT". What you describe is not a strategy or a tactic. It's not a grey area and cannot be justified. It's flat out cheating. You won't be commended for your cleverness, and we won't debate whether or not it's acceptable. You will be Banned for life from playing on PBW and blacklisted from PBEM games. It's not at all the same as espionage and it's way way outside the lines.

As far as competing in real life for a girl, or a job. In that case, yes, someone's going to get the girl or the job and someone isn't. But it doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do anything you want to the other person. You still have to follow the rules of soceity. You do the best to sell yourself, and hope they pick you. But even there it's not a zero-sum game. There are always more jobs, and more girls out there. As you gain life experience and perspective you will learn that.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Good question. I'm glad you asked it. First, perhaps folks would be a bit more judicious about allying if the alliances were taken more seriously. The rule of thumb now seems to be to ally with everyone and then decide who to attack later. I don't see that as very realistic. Is a space faring race really going to make treaties with every race they encounter? No checking into their background, no attempt to find out if they have the same values you do, nothing else taken into consideration, just sign the treaty and throw open the doors to your territory? I think not. The problem is if you don't agree to most of the treaties, then you've just marked yourself for an early exit from the game. Second, I've said a couple of times that I believe it's acceptable to make treaties for fixed amounts of time, or ones that are renewed periodically, or expire when a certain goal is reached. What I don't find acceptable are treaties where your ally is using you, turns on you suddenly without cause (i.e. you did nothing to cause them to drop the alliance), drops the alliance because they can get a better deal elsewhere, and the others that I've already mentioned in other Posts. Part of the problem with treaties/alliances is that they allow folks into your territory unimpeded. Yes, England is our ally, but I expect the U.S. would object strenuously if British forces started scouting the "colonies". And I'm pretty confident that should we Terrans ever get around to colonizing any of the other planets in our solar system that we'd take a pretty dim view of some alien race colonizing Jupiter merely because we'd signed a trade agreement with them. Yet players in SEIV seem to think that a simple trade agreement entitles them to explore their ally's territory, settle planets in systems otherwise entirely owned by an ally without so much as a "by your leave", and engage in other equally unacceptable behaviors. If I'm going to agree to a treaty that provides them with so many advatages, then does it seem so ridiculous to expect my ally to be faithful? If trade treaties are going to be just that and nothing else, then the game needs to be modified so they don't give access to your territory. Then I won't place so much importance on them.

Saying that does not make it so. It is your opinion and I respect that, even if I don't agree with it. And please keep in mind that I'm not saying that every act is a reflection of the player's character. But, since I cannot tell which are and which aren't and no one participating in this thread has offered a viable litmus test, then it leaves me mistrustful of that player. There are those who believe that winning is everything and should be achieved by any means possible. Others, myself included, believe that how you play the game is more important, including your in-game behavior. They are different viewpoints and I'm not trying to convert anyone, get anyone to join my line of thought, or to say that the "win at all costs" crowd are wrong. I disagree with them but it's not up to me to say which is right or wrong. What I can say is that if a player employs the art of the backstab, then they shouldn't be surprised if other players don't want to do business with them in the future and shouldn't be outraged if those players circulate word to warn other players.

Perhaps you can share how to separate the real player from the in-game personna. Or do you Subscribe to the notion that everyone who plays is really a nice person, not a mean streak anywhere, that not a single player is just as motivated to win in real life as they are in the game? If so, then I submit that you must not have met any ladder climbers, politicians, folks who are driven to win and will do anything to do so. And I do separate game from life. I'm simply carrying on a relatively dispationate discussion about my views on this topic. I'm not even midly upset. We're all entitled to our points of view. You have yours and I have mine. I would never kill you for playing to win. I wouldn't even kill you for betraying me in a game. I just wouldn't ever trust you again.

You wouldn't have to wait for me to attack first. In such a situation I'd send you a message and let you know that it was time to drop the alliance and fight it out for final victory. We'd agree to end the alliance in x number of turns and then have at it. All very gentlemanly. I'd want to win because of superior tactics, military skill, ship design, empire design, not because I knifed you before you could knifed me. I just don't see that there's any glory in that sort of victory.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Very good point, I have exactly the same feeling about this. Just leading to different concludions obviously. Exactly this common careless treaty-making is the reason why I do not consider these Space Empires T+R treaties as real treaties. They are a convention, a must, a routine thing, like saying "hi" to someone you encounter. I think it is foolish to rely on eternal peace and safety just because of such a kind of treaty, without any reinforcing contacts and agreements above this.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

This is exactly why I lowered max trade levels from treaties from 20% to 10% in Adamant Mod... It is still better to make T&R with everyone, but it won't kill you not to... Maybe in 20 player games, but in smaller games, it is harder to triple your income from trade alone...

Also, remote mining income does not get added to trade treaty production. With the increased power of remote mining in Adamant, you can easily get away without many treaties... Also, it makes income from treaties have even less of a doubling/tripling effect, due to part of your income not participating in trade treaties.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Well, I had a good time at Dragon*Con (and was even able to forget "the game" and recent events/discussions for, I'd say, 98% of the time).

But here I am, catching up on the Boards, and getting the same "dreary" feeling again. Noticed by my wife, she said, "Baby, don't get upset again and quit just about the only game you've played for over 3 years.".

Yes, I DO enjoy the game. Only MOO (and MOO2) has ever "kept" me for so long.

I'm sorry I started a controversy. I intended this thread as a commentary as to my reactions of late and withdrawels from games (as well as my explanation for never playing multi-player games again).

I've read, with interest, all the comments made since I left for Dragon*Con. I'll admit, before my comments, that I am prejudiced toward Lord Chane's comments not only because he's my best friend but because he's lived his life just exactly as he has commented in his Posts. There were times when he was my supervisor and ANYTHING that I did that merited noting, he made absolutely sure that everyone important knew I was the one who did it. And he has done the same for other staff NOT as close as we are. That's just the way he is and the reason why I'd work for him anywhere, anytime. And play a game of SE4 with him anywhere, anytime as a partner...whether we started the game as designated partners (or met in a game and decided to make a treaty).

I trust Geo quite a bit, too. As he alluded to in Posts, he is very explicit about his treaties and how long they Last. If he says "We will be in a treaty till turn 30", I know he might attack on turn 31. If he says "I won't attack you without 3 turns notice", I believe him.

Now, during a treaty with Lord Chane or Geo, let's talk about "secondary" pieces of trust. WIll Lord Chane tell another person (not treatied with me) I'm building up an attack fleet? Nope. No doubt at all. Will Geo? Not sure. But, Geo never discussed those parameters and I understand his game to be of such that he considers that honoring his treaty. No need to go into whether that is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out what I think to be a difference in both their points of view. I would also submit that I would expect most every player to prefer the kind of treaty Lord Chane would offer.

I also think it's a waste of time to debate who is right or wrong (and I think Lord Chane stated that). More directly to the point, and as an additional explanation of why I quit the "Tourney", I think it's natural for people to not want to play as an ally to a person they cannot trust.

I also think that people who will use any method possible to win a game are more likely to do the same in life. Said another way, a person you can trust in a game where a mere win is bragging rights is also a person you are probably better posting your faith in in real life. (not saying they wouldn't backstab you but that it's less likely)

Adding to my list of thoughts--I'll try to explain it without insulting anyone--I believe that people who cheating, backstabbing, spinning white lies, and bending the truth (etc.), are the kind of people who will never understand those people who don't share those kinds of beliefs/tactics. Said in another way, people who believe the (questionable) tactics I listed above will never understand the viewpoint of those who don't share those approaches. They can debate till their fingers have grown tired of typing...and still not agree. And that's fine. I think all anyone needs to understand is that the "honest" (to encompass a concept in a single word) players will learn who are like them and who are not. And given no new players to PBW, games will (generally) polarize to the point that those of one ilk will gravitate toward games comprised those of similar feelings. Which means there will be games of people who know they can trust the other players and games of people who will always look over their back. And, that's fine, too. It will also result in people like me who will never play another game of multiplayer. Call me a baby. Call me a sore loser. Call me anything you want. But I'm in the game for entertainment. EVERY game I have ever won has been done so within the limits of what I feel to be honorable. Though I am not the most succesful player around, I feel good that I didn't find some way to screw over someone that I had a treaty with in a game in order to put another notch on my win column.

So, in a world of "cutthroats" and "doormats", I may not be at the top of the pyramid of game-playing or making as much money as I could if I had screwed coworkers over. But I get much more sleep.

I remember someone who posted a message over a month about about "Nice guys finishing Last". It was a good thread and some people believed that nice people DO finish Last. Working in reverse (life to games direction), I also believe those to be people who feel same way in games. (my way of trying to prove what Lord Chane was saying...that people who think it's OK to lie in a game are more likely to believe it's OK to lie in RL...and vice-versa).

I believe what I have written. I also believe those who "live by a different" code will believe I just don't understand. That is also the reason why I'll not waste any more time trying to "convert" those who differ in opinon. I have better things to do with my like than "typing at a wall". And the reason why this is my Last post.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I love that this post ends with your sig:

ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif