[OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

[ December 10, 2003, 00:57: Message edited by: farstryder ]

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

here's a thread for gaming quotes.

after all, its not whether you win or not, its how many OT threads you can start.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

No! It's not whether you win or lose that counts: it's how much pain you inflict along the way.

[ December 10, 2003, 01:35: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

it matter's not wether anybody wins or loses, it only matter's how well you chooses.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

eh, you hit a good topic there... im a big advocate of the "play to play, not to win" and gamemanship. I dont believe that winning is the sole goal of a game, any game. However, its a very welcome outcome http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

It's not whether you win or lose... It's whether you win.

Slick.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

A few bits of wisdom from this site :
If ya ain't cheatin', ya ain't tryin'.
-Unknown

If it's a fair fight, you haven't done your job.
-Unknown

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

in the spirit of the thread, im going to totally disregard the topic of the off-topic thread, and swing onto an off-off-(yet still not on topic)-topic. its probably not very sporting of me.

I generally like to keep things above board. its okay to try hard and innovate, but there is always a good reason to play by the rules and of the gentelmanly rules - at least until you understant what the game is trying to teach you. once you have that down, go ahead and find new ways to win.

Wargames, just like sports or martial arts, are training you to be a more efficient killer of human beings. some on larger scales than others. many people complain that martial arts are coreographed or unrealistic, and that may be the case. but there is a good reason for them being coreographed - they need to be to properly teach a technique. one you know a technique, you can then improvise. now some are showier than others, but i wont get started on that tangent.

This has some very good applications (though not directly) to scenarios in computergames, wargames, or what have you. many people want wargame scenarios to be balanced. equal forces, equal chances of obtaining victory conditions. many people like "points" systems for buying supposedly equal forces with which to face off in a wargame. this pertains to some sort of sense of "fair play," but personally i think its stupid.

as mentioned below, if its a fair fight, you have generally done something wrong. there are not a whole lot of fair fights in warfare, and wither in war or in a brawl, most people are not going to fight unless they think they can win. most people require a fairly good reason for thinking they can win, but even so, are wrong more than 50% of the time. anyhow, back to balanced scenarios.

scanarios and battles in warfare are generally unbalanced things. why should a game go to such pains to make a balanced scenario? play the feking thing lopsided! if you want a fair test of skills, then play it a second time with the sides reversed. simple, effective, accurate test of skills. better chance to learn from your opponent.

play the scenario a few more times, switching sides. eventually, you will learn the best tactics from each other, gamey tactics or not, and will have most possible outcomes pretty well licked. then changed the scenario. maybe you will eventually find weaknesses in the game system that you need to correct, or will switch to a different game system entirely.

eventually, through practice and experimenting with tactics, you will become a good little general, and an efficient killer of human beings, if the occasion should ever arise. Thats how wargames were invented, after all: Need to train those officers!

but the basic points are, that rules and fair play exist for a reason - so that you can learn what they system or scenario or sport or martial art is trying to teach you. when you're good enough, then you should start screwing with it and abusing it.

but im guessing most of the schlocks that think they are good enough to screw with the system and exploiting rules, have simply glazed over the fundamental principals of the game, and could not suceed in a 'fair' challenge if they ever wanted to try.

god knows i cant - thats why i try to play 'fair' - because i know i have not yet mastered everything the system has to teach. danm, aren't i tricky? pulled the post back around to on-off-topic without any warning at all!

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The traditional way of phrasing is:
It's not whether you win or lose... it's whether I win.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Puke :

Fiddling around with the system to find a new way to win is all well and good, as long as your opponent has fair warning (he doesn't have to know what you are going to do, just that you will be trying new, different and possibly game-breaking tactics).

And while I agree that wargames are a training for war, I think you're still standing too close to the forest. The purpose of games is the same as that of fiction : to allow you to make the choices you would have to make in a dangerous situation, without placing yourself in actual danger.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Yep... and the Maxim Machine Gun was created to end wars due to the incredible increase in the ability to kill people, the first one fired a symbolic 666 bullets a minute. And one of the first designers of ballistae in ancient times thought the same... and probably numerous others.

Personally I think people should get the hint. Humans beings are not going to stop hurting and fighting each other. And that is the way it is. Look in nature and try to find a creature that does not engage in violence. Violence is hard coded into nature. With humans it is just much worse because we can think of better ways to hurt each other.

Hrmm... that was a nice little OT. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

that's why technology will never come up with the solution - any technology can be used for good or evil. it's the people that are the critical part.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry to nitpick, but think you just described a training tool. if I was to come up with a counter arguement, it would have been something along the lines of "well sure, Napoleon played them to simulate battles, and Chess was originally a game for kings and tacticians, but I play them to have FUN, and so does everyone else on this board. what crawled up your arse and died, puke?"

of course, you're more polite than me.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">yes, but people are only unreliable when you expect too much of them. if you rely on their baser natures, you wont be let down nearly as often. and for your requisite sarcasm about how to find safety from technology and what to do about that pesky progress, i will defer to another source:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">[/qb]

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

most people, P, tend towards good. even those who are evil. why? because very feel evil people think of themselves as evil. they come up with a rationalization and as much as rationalization's reveal a weakness, they also come about because few people want to be evil. there may be more hope for people than you think.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

i didnt say people were evil. i dont even believe in good and bad. i said that people are more reliable when you are counting on them to be more base. everyone has certain fundamental animal instincts, such as greed, lust, selfishness, cowardace, etc.

yes, those are ugly words, but they refer to universal evolutionary qualities. society progresses because of the individual desire to acquire and achieve - those that direct their energies towards the benefit of a group, do so because it is their best bet for gain - and because someone is leading that group and encouraging them to do so on their behalf. people have an evolutionary desire to procreate, people have basic fight / fight / posture / submit instincts that dictate their behavior in stressfull situations, and in pack relationships.

you can count on all these things. people are reliable when you expect animal behavior out of them. people are not so reliable, when you expect chivalry and courage, persistance and extra effort, charity and grace. sure there are individuals that have these qualities, but their ultimate motives can usually be deconstructed down to evolutionary imparatives, as well. and even if not, they are the exception rather than the rule. people as a whole dont act that way. except maybe in Canada.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">why thank you. i was already sure we where the Last hope for civilization. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

however, good and evil don't go along clear lines of instinct and higher traits. the urge to procreate can lead to well-adjusted children. the urge to be persistent can lead one into situations one shouldn't have gotten into. in my opinion, good is when all emotions and thoughts that are good and usefull are in there proper places and balance. evil starts occurring when one or more are stronger or weaker than they should be, or are used when they shouldn't be. evil can be being to cynical towards other people, or even, in my opinion, being so nice your blind to other's faults, which tends to make them worse.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

The war-game was actually invented by H. G. Wells, a pacifist, to quell man's desire for war. I'll get links for this later, maybe.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

I don't think that there is such a thing as "good" or "evil". It's just points of view. Hitler didn't think that slaughting multi millions was a bad thing, he thought he was doing a service to the Arayan race. From his point of vew he was "good". Genghis Khan took his lads for a stroll across Europe for perfectly good reasons in his opinion. The people being raped, looted and killed would have called him evil, he didn't think so, neither did his supporters.

Also, the concepts of "good" and "evil" change with time. Slavery these days is considered a moral outrage (EVIL) by the western media and intelligentisia (not neccesarily the mass of people though). But it was a fine idea to the Aztecs, Inca, most west African kingdoms through the 1900's, Roman Empire, various Chinese dynasties and modern day arab governments. All of whom think it's neccesary. Cannibalism is held to be evil by our western cultures, the cannibal cultures think there is a reason for it though, otherwise they wouldn't do it. For them it's not evil, it's a religious experience and thus "good".

So "Good" and "Evil" appear to be viewpoints with no set values positive or negative except those of the people involved. It appears to become worse with the pasing of time. Individual "W" who, during their life was a loved / respected / disliked / hated person (as everyone else) becomes, over time, an icon for something or other "good" (Washington and truth). Then they get revisited and they change into things to be reviled (Washington and slavery), which again changes to be something else (Washington and his illegitimate children perhaps?).

So, no good, no evil, just viewpoints up close and personal or 1,000 years later in a "standardised" school text book.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

my other opinion is that people who argue that there isn't good or evil need to be hit on the head with a hammer. but that would be evil.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Moral relativism only goes so far...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">im behind you 110%, but i just thought i would offer some edification on canibalism for everyone. it was predominantly found on island cultures in the pacific, prior to the New Zeland natives (forgot what they were called) conquering most of them and baning canibalism.

when you are on a very small scrap of land, with limited resources, and you lack contraceptive technology, you are going to quickly have population problems. New Zeland had enough land and resources to develop an agrarian culture, and keep their population down throug warfare. most other islanders could never develop that far, because they lacked the land and resources to do so.

they had two options to save themselves from overpopulation and the resulting famine: infanticide, or canibalism. it was one of the two, and various island cultures went either way. religious ideas about it cropped up after the fact, in order to maintain it as a sociological institution.

oh yeah, except for the Aztecs. they had plenty of land and resources. those guys were just sick ****s.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

there's another option for population control: self-control.

i'm still a virgin. it wasn't that hard. it just takes a lot of self-control. my opinion is, your self-control should at least match that of your worse vice. perferably, it should be half again as strong. mine matches my anger, but barely when it peaks.

and on a side note, there's the possibility that with our technology, our supply of food can actually rise faster than our population. asteriod farming, among other things.

and P, just because someone beleive's something doesn't make it right or wrong. i see no reason to respect a beleif just because someone beleives it. i do respect the right of other people to choose what they beleive, but if someone chooses to murder random passerby, if i have a gun, i'm going to choose to shoot the murderer. that's called discrimination - used right, a good thing, no matter what the media says.

[ December 11, 2003, 07:39: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Well my opinion on games is this I play to win and often times I am "evil" when I play because I will slaughter thousands or millions or billions in strategy games, I have scored over 11,000 kills with Delta Force Land Warrior (have had it for 6 years) and done it all without the least bit of remorse or hesitation yet I would never seek to kill another person unless they threatened the life of a person I loved or myself and even then I would most likely try and just disable them instead of kill them.

Okay if your first and only impression of me was playing a wargame against me you'd think I was evil and sadistic because I do brutal things to win games such as the wholesale slaughter of entire cities (Civ2) or leaving no survivors from an enemy army (Medieval Total War) or destroying whole planets (SEIV) for the sake of WINNING! (P.S. brutal game tactics I don't actually pull out a crobar and hit my apponent).

In SEIV I blow entire enemy colonies and even homeworlds to peices (mainly because I don't have the full game and can't get troops in time to make it worth it) without remorse killing millions if not billions of the enemy in a single shot. Even though it's a game I've heard people complain that this makes me a brutal person (not directly me but people who play games like that) which is utter BS because in real life I am extremely compassionate and can barely stand to see an animal suffer much less a fellow human being and would probobly do anything I could to prevent another person from being hurt or killed.

Same goes for FPS games I will without a doubt kill a team mate or two to save my own arse....especially if it is a CTF game and they are in my way and keeping me from scoring for the team. But on the other hand I have played "operation shield" for other players who have the flag and will readily let my character die for the greater good of the team. Yeah it pisses people off when I throw a hand grenade to clear out a bunker that has six enemy troops and two friendlies that are pinned down but my whole opinion is you had no hope to begin with and at least I got the bad guys too right and I'd expect them to do the same to me in order to win the game?

I hear people say that by basic nature humans are killers far too often and quite frankly it is a stereotype as most humans can't even stand the site of a corpse in RL (I've seen a few in my short time on earth and almost threw up even though they were in a medical school type environment). I mean humans are not naturally KILLERS we are naturally competitors which leads to a brutal form of game called war. The AVERAGEindividual is not a killer and would never think of killing another human being.

I am a Christian so I have the inharent beleif that God made no evil when he made the universe, however he gave his creation a choice to be evil or good, and sadly many things choose the side of evil and thus MANKIND is neither evil nor good as a species but it comes down to the individual person to choose what they will be.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

i once made a list in my head of all the crimes i'd approximitly be guily of if the games were real. from genocide(strategy games), to petty theft(adventure games).

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That would be based off of a narrow slice of the world that is not representative of people in general.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

I think by and large most people are basically "good" as individuals, and treat other individuals well an with respect. But it is when we get together in Groups that we tend to lose it. Even among petty criminals and stickup men, they often work in at least pairs. The murderer who kills alone is typically the psyochotic individual who has something wrong with him and so doesn't fit the normal human pattern. The human race has a nasty tendancy to sink to the basest level of any particular group. I don't know why, but I think it's because when we start thinking of ourself as part of a group, and others as part of a different group, we start to see them as objects rather then people.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

If you'll allow, I'll stick more to the "winning games" topic, rather than winning and losing in real life, which is somewhat subjective and relative to personal experience and the situation.

When it comes to playing games, I enage with the attitude that I'm going try and win; giving my opponents hell by leveraging any legal asset at hand.

I find they appreciate me for it, as much as I love someone throwing their best at me.

"I like a man who smiles when he fights" -Winston Churchill

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">while my morales and my actions may be influenced by the people i'm around, there's plenty of times when those people are not around. if nothing else, i'm pretty sure i could find some private time in the bathroom - and clean up after myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'll stick to the topic as well:

I agree with the "King". I'll add another thought, though, since I have a suspicion this thread started as a result of the Mediocrity posting (and because this thread seems civil enough):

I don't believe in doing ANYTHING legal, though, because I prefer to have my reputation follow me from game to game. I don't believe in dropping any kind of treaty the same turn as I attack. I don't believe in, for example, agreeing to 5 turn notice of impending attack when dropping a treaty with someone and then attacking before the 5 turns is up. Why? Winning is not as important as keeping my reputation. What reputation is that? One that follows me from game to game. I want anyone I have a treaty with to know they can trust what I agree to in future games. That's just me. I just want people to know they have a treaty they can depend on and if they know the way I play, then they will know they can trust what I say and I wan't jeopardize that for a siingle win in a single game and put future games at risk. Those who have played with me also know I don't mind taking a "backseat" in an alliance. I did it in the infamous "Challenge" game. I had planned to do it with Lord Chane in Mediocrity (but the attack came and Lord Chane dropped the game keeping the Stellar Manipulation ships we had built for deep attacks). And who knows what roll I'll take in Anklebiters (it's still shaping up) but I want people to know what they can expect from my reputation.

As to other people who disagree...that's up to them. They may make and break treaties as they see fit for that game. All it means to me is that THEIR reputation has followed them to any game I find myself in with them. While I realize (according to a poll I conducted some time back) that some people do things like that from game to game and don't carry the events from one game to another but I find it hard to trust those kinds of people when I find them in a future game. Just me. Perhaps I'm wrong but it's just my personality.

In the end, it's just a game, they are most always fun, and I don't really get angry when someone plays in a way I don't agree with. I just remember them for future games.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What happens is people confuse doing this with being honorable. It's not being honorable, per se, it is more of a metagame behavior aimed at winning you more games.

I do the same thing, mostly. I'll "backstab" someone who irks me, but I won't go back on my word. For me, making a T&R agreement with someone, for example, does not include with it any promise to not attack the same turn it is dropped. However, if I had made a "gentleman's" pact with that person, such as the five-turn warning you mentioned, then I will always wait the five turns, for the reasons you state (reputation).

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is where "roleplay" aspects come into play... some people actually use those empire description fields to good purpose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I am one of those people. I find that roleplaying my empire rather than just treating it as a stale wargame adds whole new levels of fun, especially when others do so as well. If I am playing an "evil" race in a game, I will make that clear, and have no compulsions about backstabbing and all that stuff; it goes right along with an evil race. But in the next game, I might be playing a "good" race, and would not do anything of the sort.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is where "roleplay" aspects come into play... some people actually use those empire description fields to good purpose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I am one of those people. I find that roleplaying my empire rather than just treating it as a stale wargame adds whole new levels of fun, especially when others do so as well. If I am playing an "evil" race in a game, I will make that clear, and have no compulsions about backstabbing and all that stuff; it goes right along with an evil race. But in the next game, I might be playing a "good" race, and would not do anything of the sort. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And I think this is one of the things I was referring to. I remember chatting in the poll thread I referred to about the dimension of roll-playing. I can certainly understand that. For instance, in a "Star Trek" RP game, I can understand that when make a treaty with the Romulans (for instance), it's for convenience and that THAT convenience may disappear at any turn. But, just as I know about these various races from movies (or from the descriptions people fill in on their descriptions), and the fact that a game is billed as a roll-playing game, I can understand and accept people are playing a character and NOT themselves (per se). I trust Lord Chane to a "T" but if I found myself in a roll-playing game with him and he was playing the Ferengi, I'd always be watching my back because I know it wasn't Lord Chane playing the empire but that it was the Ferengi.

I was referring to games not of that genre. Games where I rely on how that real person plays from game to game.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Some people treat every game that way though... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Puke : Interestingly enough, many Brazilian tribes practiced cannibalism, before the Portuguese arrived and Banned it. Which gives rise to one of my pet phrases : "Yes, tradition and cultural roots are a wonderful thing, let's revive the customs of our ancestors and go eat all the foreigners."

Puke again : that's the reason why fiction and games exist (or at least my opinion of it), but of course they have gone on to be much more.

Loser : There were wargames before HG Wells (although he may have invented the commercial wargame), but the irony is still there. As is the fact that Monopoly was invented by a socialist who wanted to portray the evils of capitalism.

Narf : self-control goes so much against all our species survival instincts that it is almost a form of violence against oneself. So-called 'safe sex', on the other hand, does not really solve the problem either because there is a part of us that wants children, not just sex. It's interesting to see what society has come up with to appease the parental instinct in an overcrowded world : pets, consumerism, concentration of the population in cities where living space is scarce and the growing perception that sex is an end in itself. Wait, I remember a book that described a society like that, it was called 'Brave New World'.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which is why I "log" events and remember those kinds of people... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . I just want to remember when I see certain names that I'm really playing with (or against) the Klingons...hehe.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Depending on what state you live in it might be better to just kill them. Check and see if you have a Make My Day law. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Self Control is and illusion. The effect you are actually describing is an effect of peer pressure and so depends heavily on the folk to which you peer. After all, I call it Self Control when I get my inhibitions under control enough to do the sorts of things that rid one of one's virginity. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That would be Batu Khan.

Thanks for the link Erax. You've definitely got me there. It's often said these days that we are moving closer to Brave New World than 1984, but I'm fairly sure both of them were good Self-Preventing Prophecies.

[ December 11, 2003, 12:39: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Yep. In one of the games I am currently playing I am evil and in trouble. I have tons of things to colonize but can't due to diplomatic troubles on the other side with a bunch of other players due to treaty violations on my part mostly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In another I am about to get into trouble because of being the good guy and the need to uphold my treaty obligations even to an empire that it will be a struggle to support against the attackers.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

I play every game to win. Not that I mind losing, I certainly do my share of it, but I play every game, and from the begining to the end of every game to win.

I have no objection to breaking a treaty or even pulling a sneak attack on a current ally. I can't remember once ever making a deal with another player in a game and promising anything other then to do my best to work with him to win. If I have, I probably shouldn't have because I likely would have turned on them if I felt it suited my purposes at the time.

Allies are only good if they are helping me to win. If an ally is strong enough and doing a good job he is helping me win and he will stay my ally. If he is weak, or I find another ally that can help me more to win I will switch allies. Or if my ally becomes too strong, I may switch, if I think it will help me to win.

I always assume every ally is planning on doing the same to me. I expect every turn they may turn on me if I am no longer serving their purposes. So I try to stay strong and suit their purposes. I want them to think always I am stronger than them, but not so much stronger that I am a threat to them. Only strong enough that I am more usefull as an ally then as an enemy.

I don't like sharing too much with my allies, because everything I give him is something he will use against me eventually. I know this because everything they give me I will use agaisnt them eventually.

I want my enemies and my allies weak. I want my allies only strong enough so that together we are stronger then my enemies.

And I don't keep track of who has broken treaties with me in past games. I have enough trouble keeping track of my enemies and allies in the game, I don't need to waste effort keeping track of who was my enemy in a previous game.

I don't mind losing, but I can't not try to win, or I don't enjoy playing. Even in a role play game, I will role play and try to win. Afterall, who can concieve of a race of beings that wishes to be exterminated? It may be possible, but I doubt they would survive to achieve spaceflight. And if they did, I wouldn't want to role play them.

All of this may not make me a very good ally, and probably costs me a few games. But I prefer it this way. I think it makes things more interesting.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Some VERY good points, Geo. But I know (I think) you like multi-player games a lot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . For THAT dimension.

I would add (or disagree with) some points (humbly):

If I were your ally and I were weaker than you AND the game was a "one victor" game, I think you'd be better off sharing your tech with me and letting me do my best to help you to a final victory. You see, when I'm in a game where it's Last man standing and I can see that I am the weakest in the alliance, my goal is to help the others win. And, I think, they have a better chance of winning WITH my "pathetic" help than having to spend "energy" and time taking me out just to get my planets or colonies. After all, if I have the same tech, I can build the same ships as you and help defend warp points that you attack through, or spend time on producing minerals (etc.) and gifting them to you, or getting that opener you can't spend the EB time on while you are on the offensive. In fact there are MANY things a weak ally can do to help. In my opinion, though weak, I'm more useful as a weak ally than the time it takes to remove me. I could be wrong (and naive) as I rarely spend time thinking about "removing" a weak ally.

Though I may be in an alliance where I have no chance of of being the Last man standing, I gain my extra game satisfaction by helping my alliance as best as I can to "their" victory. In games like that, I would hope and expect my allies to understand this and understand it's better in the long run to "keep" me than spend the time to "throw" me away.

I do the same for any ally I have a partnership with. And I like knowing (hoping) that any partner I have knows this about me and trusts me implicitely.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Heh. When I roleplay I don't think about it in terms of winning or losing but in meeting the goals of the race. If I can reach and maintain those goals then I consider myself to have won.

One race may lend itself very well to conquest and eliminating everyone else. Another may be for peace across the galaxy.

It makes for some interesting goals and greatly different gameplay game to game. If I stuck to the same basic stuff each game I would rapidly get bored. So I have to change things around for myself in each game.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Slynky, I don't think anything you said contradicts what I said, except maybe the Last sentance. Noone should trust me implicitly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif They can trust me, but always keep an eye on me. That's what I am doing to them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

In your example about the waeker ally, you would still be helping me to win, so I would likely keep you around. The only difference is being the weaker empire myself I would always be keeping an eye out for an opportunity. Since my objective is to win, and I can't win if I am knocked out of the game I will continue being the best ally I can be for you. In the hopes that at some point our common enemy will be weakend or destroyed and I can then turn on you and end up winning. This point may come at some time before you think the common enemy has been defeated. It will be the point at which I think the best opportunity exsists for me to turn the tables.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well said! Only difference again (LOL) is this: In the course of "our" alliance sweeping over the enemy, I usually recognize who has done the most in that effort and I decide who in "our" alliance has helped our alliance earn the impending victory. And I won't go against them.

It DOES come with problems, though, and that is this: Let's say the alliance that has vanquished (mostly) all the other enemies on the map consists of 4 players...as the strongest member of the alliance, a person has to worry about the other 3 deciding it is NOW a game between the remaing 4 and the "lessor" 3 may decide to "even" things out by ganging up on the stongest member. Therefore, what you have said makes much sense. And I agree with you. As for my part, I wouldn't join in but I know (and expect, since it is a Last man standing affair) others to consider that approach. I would always stand with the person being "ganged up" upon.

But of all the various discussions about gaminess, I don't consider what I have listed in that Category. When alliance victory is at hand, it's only natural for one to be concerned about who among the winning alliance will be the Last man standing.

Hope that makes sense... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Note to Self :- Remember to become Geo's enemy in the next game, and not his ally, so I won't have to watch my back. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ December 12, 2003, 03:14: Message edited by: Baron Grazic ]

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL...not sure I'd do that...hehe. Geo can, more than most, in my opinion, be quite the wild card. I'd rather look at that idea from game to game instead.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">LOL...not sure I'd do that...hehe. Geo can, more than most, in my opinion, be quite the wild card. I'd rather look at that idea from game to game instead. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Geo and yourself Slynky are two players, who I've never come across in any game, but I'm looking forward to the day. It might come sooner, if I get the nerve to challenge either one of you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Every game I play it is to Win.
I have nothing against back-stabbing someone, but I prefer to find those 1 or 2 allies who will assist me to take the gold. I prefer the 'Gentlemanly' game, and that is why I usually play Koth or Alliance Win games.
Mind you, the 1 active Roll-Playing game I'm in, I'm the insane EEEvil EEEmpire, in 1st place, bossing around every other Empire, bending/breaking every agreement, have conflicts on all borders, abusing the AI empires in every way I know and am pretty much doing what-ever I feel like and loving it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif