Slynky\'s Demise
 

For two days now, I've pondered how much satisfaction/disatisfaction I get from playing this game. Recent events have brought this to the forefront of my thoughts. After all, if it isn't a source of entertainment/fun, why bother, right? When one loses sleep and feels sick to his stomach, it's time to re-evaluate one's commitment to the game.

Mostly, it's due to multi-player games. Games where your success is dependent upon the honesty of your allies. Games where your success is dependent upon the ability of your allies to do their turns correctly...move ships where they promised, gift as agreed to, etc.

And, to give a bit of insight on the kind of guy I am, I don't really like "getting along" with someone knowing later that I'll have to declare war on them to expand or that they will dump me to expand. It's just a hard thing for me to do and I always feel bad about doing it to someone (even though we discussed notification ahead of time) and having it done to me (even though it was discussed ahead of time).

Most recently, it occurs in Anklebiters. It bothered me a lot to "hop" on Tesco. It's taking him out of the game (from what I see). It bothers me that soon, it will have to be Joachim.

The more I play these types of games the more it occurs to me that they don't bring enjoyment.

So, assessing what is fun and what is not, what makes me feel good inside and what doesn't, I'm advertising for a takeover in the Anklebiters game:

My empire is currently 2nd (a STRONG second) and has reliable allies. The economy produces more resources than it can use (hence the nearly 2 million minerals in storage). With a score on 4.7 million, 3rd place is far behind. The empire has over 800 ships (probably the 2nd highest total in the game), several warp openers and closers, and highly trained ships (one fleet is at 25%). Defenses are very good with over 1,000 platforms built on planets. Nearly every planet of the 170 I have is converted to breathable. Warphole prevention facilities are built in nearly every system. There are 2 planet creators as well. RexTorres, a very trustworty ally, is in first place. For his support in the game, I have promised him I would never challenge his 1st place...I would need a pledge of anyone taking over the empire that they would not break that promise. AtomSmasher has also been an ally from nearly the beginning and an honorable player. He should never be attacked (unless there are only 3 players left in the game...sorry, AS...another reason I should never be in these sorts of games). I'll play it till I get an offer from someone...it takes me about an hour and a half to do a turn (but others might be faster at it than me).

Grudge Match of Doom - Two players have dropped out of this game. This renders the game to be NOT the game it started out to be. Even with substitute players. I apologize to Lord Chane for getting him into it as a substitute player for another who just quit playing with no explanation. Now, a second has quit...so I see no need to look for a replacement. I will withdraw from the game. Since it was a Rated game, I will take the Ratings adjustment since it was not a RL reason (the only reason to allow a withdrawel without a Ratings adjustment).

I'll continue to run the Ratings site (as there is still some interest in it). But, it reveals what we all may have known...who the good players are and that it's rare to find people who want to be rated when they find themselves below average. It may die a natural death.

I'll continue my 1 x 1 KOTH games where I am not at the mercy of deceitful players or incompetent allies. Where the only reason for my losses are the (perhaps) result of random map placement or my lack of skill.

This is, as I see it, the best decision I can make that will provide what this game is supposed to provde me with...fun and entertainment...NOT loss of sleep, wondering who I can trust, who I should attack, etc. (I never much liked the Avalon Hill--I think it was them--game of Diplomacy, either, where your success was dependent upon your ability to lie and the honesty of others.) Just not my "cup of tea".

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Dont be so sure on me next.... My empire stats read like yours! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Dagger.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Grenade.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Hammer.gif[/img]

I understand your reasons and respect you for them. I personally wrestle with the problem of knowing that to do well in multi-player games means killing other empires and thus removing another person's enjoyment of the game. Unfortunately it is the only way to survive, just sitting even with good defense set ups doesn't work. It is a shame that the only way to survive is to destroy everyone else. Maybe SEV will fix this with other ways of winning.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Oh, yeah, I know, Joachim, that you're formidable. That's why I mentioned my 800+ ships was probably 2nd best http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif. You're a darn good player!

But you caught on to my meaning. That is the important part. And you feel the same way I do, I think.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Who's to say you're taking away other people's enjoyment? I for one enjoy putting up a losing fight, just to see how long I can survive! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

It is no fun to win every single game you play... You have to lose some. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

That being said... I have never betrayed an ally (not regarding trade "alliance" as an ally...), and I try not to ally with people I suspect might do so to me. It isn't much fun backstabbing people just so I can play a few dozen more turns... There are always more PBW games to join. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Lightning.gif[/img]

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

LOL, Ed...

Yes, I suppose there are people like that out there and I respect them. That's for sure!

But I tend to think about people and their outlook on games the same way I do...I don't like to declare war on people in a "Last man standing" game nor do I like being the person who other people decide to declare war on (in the same kind of game).

I've come to the realization that games without defined allies and opponents from the beginning (and those are your enemies and allies for the duration of the game) is not my cup of tea. It makes me feel bad to be screwed over and it makes me feel bad to single out one of my allies and decide to use him for expansion.

I am near the point of quiting forever but know that I love the game. So, I'm trying to stick with it within the parameters that still allow me to not feel bad.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Well, Fyron, one of the few things we see a bit eye-to-eye on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

You hit the nail on the head in a way. I've played KOTH games where it is a runaway victory for me. Most recently, with Hustler. I don't like them at all! I even suggested at one point that I was way ahead of him (as a delicate suggestion we shouldn't continue the game). But he seemed positive and wanted to continue. Till he met my ships, lost breathers, lost a colony tech, and decided my ships "had tech he hadn't dreamed of" (his words, not mine). I don't enjoy those games. And there have been more than one of those, that's for sure!

I like a nice even game that you hold your breath on when you unzip the turn (staring at the combat file!). I've had many of those games, too... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

But I won't put myself in a game of multi-player any more because of the reasons I mentioned above.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Hey Slynky... how about the cooperative humans-vs-AI games, like the Mail Order Monsters ones? Would you be interested in something like that? I just really don't want you to leave the community entirely, which I kinda fear you'd do if you stopped playing multiplayer... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Sounds like you enjoy the challenge and don't enjoy the backstabbing. Just summing up for my next point: Start a game with pre-defined allies and the rule that if one side has, say, 25-50% more score than the other, they automatically win. No backstabbing, no one-sided battles.

Just suggesting; if you decide not to play at all, that's your choice.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I can understand you, Slynky. Although I have less problems with declaring war on someone I "just" have a trade alliance with. When it is standard to have a trade alliance with everyone and the game is Last man standing, everyone should know that these kind of alliances are very temporary. I too like Ruatha's NGC series - partnership with only 1 other, and a partnership of 2 can win. This way, you can choose one trusted ally and, at least in my style of play, stick to it without backstabbing.

But I can understand that it becomes boring at the start of these games if trades are allowed. Considering the importance of colonization tech and alien breathers, you MUST trade or suffer defeat, and I hate this diplomacy-like game approach too. I also liked the KOTH due to the lack of that game aspect, but it has a too narrow focus eliminating too many game choices. It starts with setup where little choices are left if you don't want to be handicapped from start. And after you have learned the optimum strategy the game is more dominated by luck and starting placement than by skill.

I know it is not enforcable by setup, just by trusting the players not to break houserules, but wouldn't it be fun to play a game where you can't trade at all and breaking of treaties has to be announced one turn ahead? Would you have fun to play such a type of game, Slynky?

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Make it 400% of the score of the second, we had this in NGC3, and it still will not be fully decided. Depends on the number of players. Plus, it can be frustrating if there is a winning empire in one end of the galaxy and your fleets has not even reached its borders when victory and game end is declared.
What I do not like with pre-defined alliances is that you are depending on the skill - or lack thereof - of your allies. I prefer to choose partners in game depending on their success and skill, or not to ally at all.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif I don't know what to say other than do what I do, take some time off and don't play. It helps and it helps a lot.

I would say find a nice [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Woman4.gif[/img] and dedicate the next month to breading a little Slynky. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

NO!!! The world couldn't handle another Slynky!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Slynky:
I apologise for my participation in your demise.

Mark the Muckheads way of leaving the Grudgematch really P.. me off and killed all enthusiasm I had for that particular game. I have known for some time now that I would soon leave PBW so I should have been clearer on ending the game with Mark gone, saving you and Lord Chane for the extra stress of finding a replacement. Hope when this blows over I am still considered as you friend (or at least an internet buddy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Primitive

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

The cumulative score of all the players on one side.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Well, at first I was a little disturbed. This was turning into the week when everyone quit playing SE4. But it's good to hear you are going to stick around and continue playing 1x1 games.

To enjoy multiplayer diplomacy, you really have to be the kind of person that can separate what happens in the game from what is outside of the game. Not everyone can do that, but that's ok.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I don't think that is exactly the point, although some truth may be in it especially in this extreme dislike of any sudden change of in-game politics.
I can very well separate in-game diplomacy and outside of the game, and have no problems to change the attitude of my rulers from game to game even when dealing with the same players. I still to not enjoy the diplomatic part. It is just no fun for me - a matter of personal taste. Although I seem to have a higher tolerance level for this than Slynky, and do not take it that serious if someone does the inevitable step to stab in a game where there can only be one. After all, it's only a game, although it still hurts if you see an empire crumble and fall that has costed you a lot of time and effort to build up.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Roanon seems to feel just about the same way I do.

A long time ago, I was, it seemed, perpetually the DM for Dungeons and Dragons games (just about every weekend). I had a partition where I keeped my notes, maps, books, dice, etc. When I started, I rolled all the dice out in front so the players could see what they showed. But after a while, I started rolling the dice behind the partition and just announcing the results. You see, I hated rolling a 1 or 2 on the percentile dice (for chance to be hit) and then roll for damage and get a whopping roll that killed a character. I hated seeing the look on the player's face to see a character s/he had built up for weeks or months get killed.

Playing a game of SE4 for months (or over a year), like Anklebiters and then "rolling the dice" to pinpoint the next target is like the game of D&D I was talking about. Nor do I like it when 2 or 3 other players in a game decide MY time is up. In both instances, the poor "wilderbeast" singled out of the herd for "eating" by the lions has got to be asking his 4-legged god, "Why me?!"

Throw in allies who are backstabbers and allies who make mistakes... well, you can see how it additionally affects your game and you have a recipe for disatisfaction. Well, at least I do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

No problem. I understand, too, and I felt the same way about the game when Mark left. The game was interesting enough that I wanted to see how it played out so that's why I persisted in finding a replacement.

You'll always be the "Big P" around here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. And when you're broke and have to return to the SE4 cave for your entertainment, hehe, you'll be welcome.

Now, go out and rent "The Sting", "The Color of Money", "Maverick", "The Cinncinati Kid", and "Poker". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Well, no game Lasts forever. But I'd bet interest will pick up and this board will fill back up with new players again when Aaron Hall gets around to releasing SEV.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Backstabbing allies, hum, sounds like the real world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Geo I did not say i was leaving pbw... just that it was my Last seiv pbw game.

Slynky as for backstabbing and multiplayer games. This is all part of multiplayer games when only one player can win.

Hence why many games have the allied victory or when people feel it is time to end the game.

Take ankle. You have given the game to rex. The combination of you and rex and atom cannot be stopped. I say end the game. YOu 3 can figure out what you want to do with the victory. Judging by the post. Atom would go down next then you would surrender to rex. So lets end that game as the rest of us cannot stop that.

Now I know your at the point where this is causing you to hate the game.

You need to walk away from it for a few weeks.

Your a good player and a good member of the se community who has put alot of effort into this community. Do not let ingame experience ruin this envolvement with the community. I personally would be disappointed if you left or if you stopped doing a pasttime that you enjoyed. There are still aspects of it that you enjoy so take a breather. Your talking about it. Thats good. Go enjoy the long weekend and do not look at se or think about it.

Then on tuesday read this thread over and carry on with what parts you enjoy.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I for one enjoy playing multiplayer, although lately I haven't had time. Slynky, I just though you would like to know that when such events as you describe happen, I expect them and have fun with them as part of the game. SE4 is, after all, a 4X game and sooner or later, empires will start knocking each other off. I do enjoy getting my butt kicked as much as any other part of the game. I learn new tactics and gameplay this way. In no way would I think lesser of someone for turning on my empire unless there was a specific arrangement agreed to ahead of time and not followed.

I'm not talking about bailing out, which I sincerely appologize for doing in Anklebiters - it was necessary for RL reasons - that game was my idea in the first place and I still feel bad about it, both because I really wanted to see how it turned out, and also because I broke a commitment to finish the game. I should have stuck to my original post on the subject where I said that I didn't have time to play that one. Geo eventually convinced me to join, which I wasn't unhappy about at the time, but it was a poor decision on my part.

In closing, I'd say don't give up totally. By reading your various Posts (yes, I follow the KOTH and Ratings games even though I don't play in those games), it is clear you really like this game. By its nature, 4X, there usually is just 1 winner. And I am happy no matter how I finish because, for me, it is the experience of the game that I enjoy. I'd go so far as to say to you that you are suffering from an attack of concience where you shouldn't because most mature players wouldn't be upset at you personally for playing the game the way it was intended.

*gets off of soap box*

Slick.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I can concur with you Slynky. It always bothers me when I have to consider going to war without somewhat valid reasons, and very few Empires have the luxury to gain supremacy without expanding military (it only happens when you have neighbours not too eager to expand and/or AI players nearby). I know I tend to allow for a way out of the war when I have this luxury (I am thinking of TGE3 mostly; it would be closer to a suicide in most other games), but it is unlikely to benefit me later on.

I find that the pace of most wars is also too hectic to truly allow an Empire to survive a losing war. Five turns is all that is needed to bring the riot runs, ruining the targetted Empire in the process. Perhaps reducing the happiness hit for losing planets would help in giving the attacked player a chance at survival, and/or leaving this player with at least one planet for treaty purposes. But I am digressing.

So I understand you, and will be reducing my number of games in the future for pretty much the same reason (well, no withdrawals after my DSL downfall, but no new games either). And speaking of the Grudgematch, why not remove this game from the Ratings system altogether? I see no reason why you would be more penalised for leaving than I (I have been away for the whole month of August), or for my leaving of TGE3.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I must say that what Slynky wrote is how I often feel – it was like reading something I could have written myself. I have contemplated getting out on occasion, but I think I my enjoyment of the politics of it has saved me from getting out. That is, I almost always play either very cooperative non-zero sum empires, or isolationist ones, and part of my fun derives from when such empires as mine try to deal with zero-sum or expansionistic empires. But, if you don’t like politics, or if you don’t like losing, then this approach will in the end just be annoying as heck. I’ve never won a PBW game – but I have enjoyed the heck out of most of them.

My personal solution to these problems has also been that I try to only play role-playing oriented games or games that are “scenario-like” (Star Trek)…and for those games I am in that are not explicitly role-playing in orientation, I have tried to make them such (TGE3, JJPEAR, Proportions games, etc…). If you find you’re still enamoured of the game, maybe try only games like that.

The one exception to this “rule” of mine is the Race to SEV tourney. But I am playing that in order to get better at the game and test out what I’ve learned. And, ironically enough, I am still playing that in a cooperative mindset. I’ll probably lose that one too!

Part of all this, too, as others have pointed out is that the SE4 universe is always limited. Malthus and Ken Waltz sort of dictate that when all the space is used up, conflict is inevitable. I put no stock in it, really, but SE4 games often reach a point at which the majroity of people find nothing else to do except take over the universe. In some games, at that point, role-playing and politics can become paramount - but it's rare.

In any case, good luck, and I hope you stick with us/SE4.

If you want to get in some role-playing type games, let me know - I'd be glad to participate.

Thanks,

Alarik

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Initiate role-play games with similarily-minded players where the object of the game is to generate new roleplays and not anhilate each other.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

It could be you are just getting burned out. Maybe you need a break. Drop me a line, maybe we can work something out.
gryph AT windingstream.com
YIM: gryphin_rampant

The Gryphin
PS: I have some other news.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Yeah, I'm not sure that it is just a matter of "being the kind of person that can separate what happens in the game from what is outside of the game..."

I would say it's more fundamental than that. I really, honestly, would feel bad if I backstabbed someone. Just not something I can do, even in a game. I did it once, in another game, ten years ago and I was good at it - and I used to love the game Diplomacy and was great at that - but to this day I feel bad about what I did. I mean, I would play Diplomacy with my best friends and screw them just to win. That seems, well, wrong. And over time, I have gotten to the point where (forgive what may sound melodramatic) the psychic or ethical cost to acting that way tires me out way too much. As Slynky said, why play a game if you feel bummed out/can't sleep/etc...afterwards?

It is related to what I think of as a fundamental aspect of human perception: I think that, deep down, people expect other people to behave as they behave. I expect that people would help me if they saw me by the side of the road with a flat tire. So, when they go driving on by, then I am, first, very confused. Then angry, etc...It's just hard to understand someone else's motivations, becuase we're all different, eh? (to continue with the driving metaphor, I still cannot, for the life of me, get into the mindset of someone who would own a hummer, but nevermind)...when a person betrays me in a game, I sometimes think I have a hard time not taking it personally. Like it's some personal failing of theirs - when in reality, it is an inevitable result of the nature and structure of the game.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if SE5 has unlimited technologies - as advertised - and if it might have MASSIVE universese - like thousands of stars - then the scope might be so vast that this becomes less of a problem. Things tend to fall down in the endgame - when there is nothing left to do, after you built those ten ringworlds, and every single planet is breathable, then you might as well go to war to see who is burliest. But, given a massive universe, that might take so long to get to that it becomes irrelevant. Maybe.

Thanks for listening to my babbling.

And, I did have a question: how the heck can I get my Posts to stop putting – in them? I know it's from the quotation marks I tend to use too often, but how can I still use quotes but get rid of the resulting –?

Thanks for listening to my babbling...

Alarik

Ps: I still highly reccomend Proportions games for people to RP in...

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Do you play Poker? Do you tell your opponents what cards you have? Do you bet when you have nothing in the hopes that they will fold? It's called a bluff, but it's a lie.

Do you play chess? Do you announce to your opponent that you plans ahead of time? Do you move your Bishop into a position to take one piece when in fact you are trying to take another? It's called a feint, but it's a lie. If your opponent unknowingly makes a move that puts an valuable piece at risk do you point it out to him? If you don't you are being less then honest. Perhaps you can parse this and say you aren't lying, but it's semantics.

If you are having trouble with your concience when you've done nothing wrong, or getting upset at what other players do to you when they've done nothing wrong, it's because as I said, you cannot separate what happens in the game from what is out of the game.

It's a game.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

There is one major difference between poker (or chess) and SEIV: in chess, you cannot possibly think of roleplaying being a Bishop (or you truly have nothing better to do with your free time). On the other hand, SEIV offers another dimension besides its strategical side, and this is roleplaying, diplomacy, politics, and so on.

So, while in chess the goal of the game is straightforward (or in KOTH, if you want to keep it to SEIV), a game such as Proportions at PBW does not offer an obvious goal. Instead, your Empire is left to choose something to do, and seek to accomplish that.

I would say you may be annoyed by something if it goes against how you play the game yourself. I guess players that play SEIV only for strategical reasons are also bothered (or at least don't give it any thought) by the political side of the game. The same argument could probably be raised about economical development, but since I am not fond of that part of the game, I will leave it to someone who loves Empire building (Ruatha?).

Alarikf, I have been contemplating lowering the efficiency of your whole Empire as you grow bigger and bigger (as in Europa Universalis for example); it would lower the focus on expansion, either through colonisation or through war. Would you think it could lessen that endgame feeling, where there is just nothing more to do except fight it out? It would obviously be an option and not a standard setting, as along with the changes you would like, it would change the whole scope of the game.

If you don't feel like deciphering my whole babbling: in short, I would say it depends on what exactly you expect from the game, or the reason why you play SEIV.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Well, yes, no, and yes.

I mean, I admit, that what I am saying is symptomatic of not being able to totally separate gaming from reality. And, yes, that is a bad thing, I would say.

But it isn't monolithic nor is it universal. For example, as to the former, in SE4, when at war, I regularly "murder" billions of digitized aliens when I glass worlds - something that I would never do in real life, even if I had the ability and the justification. So, there is a point at which my personality/ethics/whatnot do not apply and points in which they do. And I think that they apply when I am dealing with other people and I have a choice. Theoretically, I could draw a utility curve which would plot my reluctance to backstab against the cost of doing so and clearly at some point it would behoove me to backstab if the cost were too great to not do so. But, this is just a game, and so it is highly unlikely the cost will ever reach that point. If, however, we were talking about real life then it might be reached much earlier.

As to the second point, my "game ethics" are not universal - as Alneyan pointed out, when I play Poker (and I do, and I've got a pretty good poker face) there is no space at all for anything other than straight up gaming. the AH game Diplomacy is the same way - the very structure of the game makes it zero-sum and betrayal inevitable - in fact, necessary. SE4 is also, *pretty much* the same way due to the limited space, the bounded tech, and the general Malthusian construct it is based on. However, I *think* my point (and I am no longer entirely sure here) is that Se4 does *not* necessarily have to be that way.

Hence my greater enjoyment of the RPG style SE4 games than the "standard" conquer the universe ones. Really, I beleive that it is true that if one plays with a style that is geared only to the latter, then you'll eventually come to a point where the game really is just a very complex giant spreadsheet with random factors.

That's how it got to be with me before I discovered PBW. I played against the AI to such an extent that I got bored. Now, I enjoyed it for years but after a while I was just playing a giant spreadsheet.

With humans, it doesn't have to be that way. Humans engage in *politics* and role-playing, both of which I find quite enjoyable.

It's always a bLast for me to test my basic political outlook (something akin to neo-liberal institutionalism with hard-core waltzian neo-realism and neo-classical realism thrown together) against other political "styles" - when one mode of political thought meets another mode, what happens? Do they change each other? Will the realist always win out? I think it's fascinating. And then, throw in the role-playing aspects and unpredictability of humans into it, and it gets to be a downright stunning exercise in politics. I love it.

Alarik

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I totally agree that the politics and player to player interaction are what makes this game great. Without it SE4 would have been an interesting game, for about a month. About the time I spent playing SE3. But for me deceiving, and being decieved are a crucial part of that interaction.

I don't like team victory games of SE4. So by definition that means any allies I make along the way are going to end up being enemies before it's over. Even while working together to beat our common enemies I am always plotting the eventual demise of my allies. And I assume that my allies are doing the same for me. I try to be a good ally, as long as it suits my purposes. I work hard to make our "team" strong, but on the other hand I don't want my teammates stronger then me. I want them to be strong enough to help me, strong enough so that I don't seem a great threat to them, but not so strong they feel they don't need me any longer.

The question is which of us will reach the point of being ready to cast off the alliance first. Too late and your ally gets the drop on you. Too early and the distraction caused by the new war make sit impossible to completly dispatch the common enemy. And your ally turned enemy could turn and make allies with the former common enemy.

It's a great way to play. Unfortunatly I have found that few people get the same satisfaction from this style of play that I do. So I find that people don't want to be allies with me to begin with because of what they have heard abotu me form other players, or comments I've made in the forum. Or they take it personally when I turn on them, making what should be just a game issue into something that affects our friendship.

So at times I've had to modify my style of play, keeping alliances beyond the point at which they are actually useful to me in the game. Because I don't want to "hurt their feelings". That to me is as distateful as decieving allies is to some of you.

In real life I am a nice guy. I guess all the pressure of being nice and following the accepted norms of society manifest themselves subliminally in the way I play this game. Turns me into a bit of a jerk. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image.../firedevil.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

You know, this gets to an issue that has always begged for resolution in PBW and PBeM games: player anonymity. WE've all been playing these games for years probably, and we build up an understanding of how certain players play. I make good use of this, I think, in that I "hype" my trustworthiness in the beleif that people will treat my empires differently than they would if I were not me. And, I admit, I trust some players more than others based on similar criteria.

BUT, if we're talking about a simulation game, wherein we all represent the guiding forces of fantasy space empires, then none of that should come into play.

In one series of games I have played for nigh on fifteen years now, we contemplated setting up a dedicated server to allocate email addresses based upon position, rather than a player's ID. It was a historical simulation wherein each player was a medieval empire. So, the email addresses would be "France@..." "Japan@..."

In this way each player could play however they wanted, without fear of out-of-game effects or tarnishing their reps.

Of course such a situation is not really enforceable, since a player could choose to "spill the beans" for tactical advantage.

However, perhaps a deedicated group of SE4 players could make a good go of it. It would require a dedicated set of email addresses and stock empires ("Abbidon@...", "AmonKrie@...") or that players ALWAYS engage in IC Messages, OR only send Messages in-game and IC. Furthermore, the game host might have to be ready to enforce it, but I'm not sure how that would happen unless they were ready to kick out any player that broke the rules.

I would play such a game - and I could backstab without feeling too crappy about it.

It might be tough to pull off, though...thoughts?

Alarik

EDIT: actually, rather than email addresses, if we could set up a website wherein we could send Messages to the other players but their identities and email addresses were hidden, then it would go a long way towards a better system like this. Players could still choose to tell others their email/IDs on their own for tactical advantage, but it gets harder that way, a bit at least...

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

The Dominions crowd have had similar discussions. I worked it into the threads of creating a web-based PbEM games handler site. One way to go would be to create user logins and tie all of their games to them. I would be "Gandalf Parker" and my reputation would follow me from game to game, and would be important to me to maintain.

Another way to go would be to offer anonymous games. Such as actually creating a mail account for each player in each game. Not as big a deal as it sounds if you own the server. That way I could play a game as KissMyAsteroids. If efforts were made to provide enough communication channels then there would be no temptation to break the anonymity

The mechanics, and pros/cons, of different arrangments are usually tied into whether or not you build the site as a webmaster from the top down, or as a system admin from the bottom up.

Anyway, I digress. There are definate advantages to both the known logins, and the unknown ones. It would be nice to have both supported.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Anonymous games is one of the fetures on the PBW to do list. As I understood it, it would have been a simple options to be checkemarked by the game owner which would simply not display the player names on the game info page. Probably wouldn't be that complicated even. Admiral intended to, but never got around to coding it in.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

why not get a new hotmail account and create a new id on pbw... there you go... no one knows... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Because he would need a yahoo account...much better then hotmail... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Hear the wisdom of Ragnarok! Incidentally, is the US Yahoo mail now on par with the European Yahoo mails? A few months ago, it was much better to have a Yahoo.co.uk mail rather than a Yahoo.com, which doesn't really make much sense.

I currently have 100 mo of storage space, a limit of a few mo for attachments, and the ability to download my mail from Thundermail. I am supposed to get some ads because of this feature, but not a single ad has been sent since I signed up, so. Is the current Yahoo.com offer equivalent to this?

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

well, no, because part of the risk on anonymity is someone screwing with the system. You don't want to have a system wherein people can play multiple positions, or otherwise get wacky. So you'd want a system that opaquely mapped actual email accounts to a player position, so other players only saw the player position but the site admin could have code that ensured that only one email account per player existed.

Of course, anybody could just go to yahoo and set up two accounts, but at least you're increasing the cost/annoyance to them to do so.

Although, thinking more, anybody caught doing this would likely be seriously blackballed, so I doubt anyone would. And, hey, we all love to play fairly - why decrease the challenge by cheating...

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Except for the Last part, yes. And I have a program that takes care of that for me (YahooPOPs)

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I don't participate in the forum very much but this is one of those times when I just can't resist. While I respect Geo and his opinion, I don't agree with it. I'm one of the players he refers to who would not ally with him if I knew that he viewed alliances as transient and was planning my demise and trying to get the upper-hand the entire time. I do take things like that personally. In fact another player and I exchanged a few angry Messages here on the forum after he stabbed me in the back in the Proportions game. Apparently some folks are driven to win in ways I can't comprehend. It makes me wonder what they're like at work. Would they screw over a coworker to improve their standing in the office? Would they get themselves assigned to a project team with the intent of sabotaging another team member? Would they pretend to be your friend all the while trying to get your wife in bed? No, of course not. Because that's reality and this is just a game. Then I guess it'd be okay if the coach of one team sent a scrub into the game with orders to break the other team's star player's leg. After all, it's just a game and he wants his team to win. And hey, if I can sucker punch the other guy while the ref isn't looking, then that's okay too. I need to win. Playing a board game with a friend? Get him to look away and move a piece or change a die roll. After all, winning is what it's all about. Yes, yes, I know I'm going overboard. The things I've mentioned here are all cheats, and betraying an ally in SEIV isn't prohibited by the rules. It's a completely legal move. That's certainly true, but I view it as a cheap way to win. Basically, the back stabbing player has un unfair advantage. They know that they're going to betray the other player, they know when to betray them, and basically there's little the betrayed player can do. Now, if it's a role-playing game, then I agree that stabbing an ally is a legitimate tactic. In a B5 game who would expect the Shadows to behave honorably? And who would trust the Romulans in a Star Trek game? But most SEIV games aren't billed as role-playing, so I take a player's behavior to be a reflection of that person's personality. How can I ever trust a player once that player has betrayed me in a game? Every future interaction with them, in or out of the game, will leave me wondering whether I'm being duped, used, merely a means to an end. How do I separate the player from the game character? How can I tell that the player was just indulging in game deception and isn't like that in real life? Let's say an ally and I agree to gift each other something and the gift from him doesn't come through. I contact the other player and they swear that they issued the order and say that the game must have screwed up knowing full well that they never issued the order at all. So now it isn't just a matter of game deception, the player is actively lying to me. Now, I'm in another game with that same player and he wants to do a deal. By what means can I tell that this time he's going to play me straight and not stick a knife in my back? I like knowing that my allies are trustworthy, not trying to line things up to give themselves an advantage and screw me over. And once screwed over I will never trust that player again. So, is stabbing an ally in the back a part of the game? Absolutely. Is it a fair tactic? I guess that depends on each player's feelings on the subject. I say no, other's say yes. But some of us take issue with having that done to us, so don't be surprised or shocked if in a future game we refuse to do business with you. Maybe some of us take the issue too seriously. If so, then I'm certainly one of those players who does. We may be allies in some games and enemies in others, but if we're allies in a game, then you've nothing to fear from me. As to the questions drawing a parallel between behavior in SEIV and Poker or Chess, they're apples and oranges. In Poker I hope that everyone at the table knows that they're my opponent. They know up front not to trust me so I'm not lying to them if I bluff. I haven't promissed them anything, we haven't entered into any sort of agreement, so I can't possibly take advantage of them like a player can in SEIV when they screw over an ally. In Chess the other player knows I'm the enemy. How can I possibly deceive them? It's not like I can tell them it's okay to leave their king uncovered and then pull a Pearl Harbor style attack and win the game. Nor can I make a treaty to slip past their pawns and then drop said treaty and launch a surprise attack.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Im definetly restricted by knowledge of personae. I dont play MP very often because I just wont play the same as I do against AI. For me to play to the max of my diplomatic or warfare abilities I have to be using some sort of alias.

In MP games I prefer to ally and be the best possible ally I can be. My actions are blameless since I am only honoring my alliances.

In games where no one asks me to ally its created a strategy for me which I call floodgate-vengeance. I will build slowly not attacking any player, then just keep building up. The first one to attack me gets absolutely everything thrown at them to the Last man. I might not win, but whoever hit me first wont either. Not very strategic I know but its a paladin death.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Ahh, hit the return key, that is too massive to read..

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Well, first of all, I'm sorry to see you suffering due to SEIV. If it truely is causing you pain, making you lose sleep, then it really isn't worth it. Quit, or at least take some time off. I do honestly hope you'll be back in the future, because we need more honest, decent and quality players in PBW.

There has been much said about backstabbing, and whether or not it reflects upon the personality of the player outside of the game. I think it does not. If I am in a position where I must attack an ally, or die, I will attack the ally. Its simply survival, and does not reflect upon my personality. I'm usually a nice guy. Okay, so you may say that if it were a matter of life or death to me in real life, would I kill a friend of mine. To that I say definitly no. That is the difference between a GAME and REAL LIFE. In a game where the object is to win, you can expect everyone else to be wanting to win. After all, no one likes to lose. However, no one wants to be backstabbed either. For as much as we all know its just a game, it hurts when we are stabbed in the back. Its happened to me many a time, but I do not take it personally, or as a reflection upon the personality of the person who stabbed me in the back. Its just a game.

Personally, I will make allies, and if need be, I will break my alliance with them. However, I always try to remember to break the treaty a few turns in advance of my attack, to give the other player a chance, and to even up the playing field a little bit. It makes it less of a stab in the back if you warn the other player, and give him time to prepare. I sincerely hope that when I play the game, people don't take it personally when I attack them. I have nothing against them, but its just a game! You can't let it take over your life, and worry about it. Because at the end of the day, it has very little bearing on your real life, and does not really affect your personality. It is relatively speaking, unimportant.

With all the said, I'll tell you that I do play to win. But I have a good time playing in multiplayer games when I'm not winning, or even losing. Take for instance the NGC4 game. I'm in something like 9th or 10th place, out of a remaining 15 empires. There are many people larger than me, but there's also some empires who are a fair bit smaller than me. However, I will not attack those smaller empires, or attack anyone without at the very least giving them some warning. Also, I play to survive, not to conquer the galaxy. Again in the NGC4 game, I'm small, but I'm happy. I don't really bug anyone else, I stay out of the major wars, I am content to leave everyone else alone as long as they leave me alone. Does this make me easy prey? Probably. Do I care? No. Its just a game.

So to sum it all up, if you are worrying too much about the game, don't play. Also, don't take it personally when someone backstabs you, as it usually isn't a reflection upon their personality. And for the Last point, backstabbing is a part of the game, and if you have to do it, then go ahead and do it. It may not be pleasant, but its as much a part of the game, as breathing is a part of life. Do what makes you happy, and even if you lose, like I do most of the time, as long as you are happy, you have succeeded and the game has served its purpose; as a method to acheive enjoyment, and satisfaction, not lost sleep and agony.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

In response to Lord Chane. First, my game philosophy is more like Geoschmo's but I have full respect for L C's views.

To all players in my PBW games: You are all my enemies! Any alliance is an alliance of convenience! Like chess or poker, they are all my adversaries, all shows of friendliness are purely temporary.

On the flip side, I fully expect my allies to do unto me as I would do unto them. I enter every game thinking they all have it in for me... and they do! Or at least they should.

At work, we are on the same team! In SEIV we are all opponents.

In case that wasn't crystal clear, at work we are a team striving toward the same goal, in play we are opponents striving for opposing goals.

You can't. Even if he has never betrayed you, you can't!

Of course! Kinda like real life, isn't it. I have no doubt my boss is using me.



Actually the predicability of familiar players is one reason I prefer playing with unfamiliar ones: I don't know what he's going to do, when he's going to do it or how well he's going to do it. Much more interesting.

I reiterate, SEIV, poker, chess are all one when deciding who my enemies are.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

I think I clarified that I don't like playing games where team victory is a valid result. Does that not mean that ultimatly everybody in the game is your opponent? Even if you are temporarily playing as allies?

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Yes, you did, and I understood that. I was merely commenting on your questions from an earlier post. As to your questions here, everyone in an SEIV game is my opponent unless I make a treaty with them. Then they're my ally and I don't plot against them, don't try and improve my position at their expense, and never launch Pearl Harbor style attacks when I think I have the upper hand and it's to my advantage to do so. I don't usually play temporarily as allies and in those situations where I do, such as in the 2003 PBW Open Tournament where I allied with both Joachim and Sammurai Programmer, made it absolutely clear up front that the alliance was strictly temporary. While the alliance was in place I did nothing to further my position at the expense of those two allies, who I'm pleased to say treated me the same in reverse.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

You're right. Sorry. I got off on a rant.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

If at work "we are on the same team", then why would your boss be using you? From my perspective, someone who is using you isn't on your team. They're on their own team. A team has a common goal. If I'm using someone on a team, then I'm attempting to gain an advantage to advance my goals, not the team's goals. Sometimes a team member has to subordinate their goals for the good of the team. Sure, they'd like to be the star player, get the accolades, win the individual awards, but they forego that for the good of the team. Team members who advance their own goals first don't seem like team players to me. So I submit that if your boss is using you, then you and he/she aren't really on the same team. But that's just my opinion.

Re: Slynky\'s Demise
 

Speaking of poker... for some reason, this quote reminds me of the old poker adage:
"If you look around the table and can't find the sucker, it's you!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif