|
POLL: Backstabbing
Not sure if this sort of poll has been done before, but I REALLY like doing polls...so...
Several (10) questions on "backstabbing": (as always, comments invited) |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
I just took the poll and I realize some of the questions are "yes, but..." sort of questions and I apologize. I guess it's just part of the many reasons people can have when they make a decision to turn around and attack.
So, some questions may be hard to answer. For example, people may agree to be allied some sort of way for a set number of turns. When those turns have ended, I don't consider it "backstabbing" to attack the turn after. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Well... I suppose you should explain more or less exactly what you mean with "backstabbing"...
|
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
"Do you consider it permissable to "backstab" an ally whom you feel wronged you?"
IMHO this one is not actaully backstabbing at all. If the ally 'wronged' you then he is the backstabber. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
When you ally with someone knowing that you will use that alliance to "learn" about their empire and then drop the alliance and attack... Or... Ally with someone just to sneak ships past their minefields or protected warp holes and then drop the alliance when you are past their defenses... Or... Use your alliance to learn about someone's empire and then feed all the ship locations (etc.) to another person to attack you. I think you get the picture. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
Wronged....OK... You are allied and your optics discover a stealth/cloaked ship from one of your alies deep in your territory. Is that being wronged? Should you drop the alliance immediately and begin an attack? Or should you tell him to leave? And should you consider this action hostile? After all, it was in stealth mode? SO, is that wronged? OR... Your ally colonizes planets in "your" space...Is that being wronged? OR... Or, a big fleet enters "your" space. Is it headed to a destination that you can believe doesn't worry you? Did he give advance notice or just show up? OR... Did you agree on gifts of tech and he doesn't fulfill his agreements? So, without trying to list all the "grey" areas, there are many Versions of "wronged". Which makes the question a bit ambiguous...(sorry). |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Very interesting topic. very interesting questions.
I suggest you all become a bit more familiar with Machiavelli. This game is about war, really, (unless someone has defined other game purposes). And good players play to win. It's really difficult to feel like anyone did anything unjustly during a game (a.k.a "backstab"). Almost all examples you illustrared are valid. It is somewhat the player's fault for allowing them to happen. With experience, It's up to you to do your best not to be put in these positions. Believe it or not, there are preventative measures to enforce security for most of the examples you've mentioned. When a player does "backstab," you better believe it is remembered, and even carried over into other games. That player will get a reputation for being "dirty" or maybe "ruthless." You will think twice before exposing yourself to them again. That is human nature, no matter how hard we try to be objective. That is the unwritten rule that ties us together as gamers; we don't want to get a bad rep for being deceptive and sneaky (some would say clever)... yet it is very much part of the game. So we do it with some sort of honor. Bottom line: everyone in the game is your enemy (unless your game has special rules). Get ready for war from turn #1. Alliances are temporary and pragmatic, and policy is worthless without force to back it up. Let it echo throughout known space... |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Very interesting comments. And valid.
Like you said, always remember your ally can (possibly) become your enemy. When feasible, I have a list of requirements I try to approach potential allies with. So they know up front what I expect and what they can expect from me. For example, in the Tourney game, I have a partnersip with a person whom I will never cross, will help to defend, and for whom I owe my current position. That is a bond I swore to him. It will only break if (or when) it comes down to the winner being me or him. I've played with people who fought against me from the beginning. Then, in another game, found myself in a position to work with them. That doesn't bother me. But like you said, if I had been backstabbed, I will always remember that person. And likely NOT make an agreement with him in the current game. Good points, Stone! |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
|
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Well, such things usually happen in RL too. I would be disappointed for a sort of backstabbing that exploits the game weaknesses (or bugs), such as selling ships to one's partner and then declare war on him, while at the same time changing the ships' default strategy to "kamikaze!" or "don't get hurt", but "mundane" betrayal can actually be enjoyable if played "correctly"...
...also because should no one break any treaty the game would go on forever... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [Edit: typo] [ June 05, 2003, 22:16: Message edited by: Lisif Deoral ] |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
The game within a game... Its what makes a game.
I follow the game and the RP and my Races set up. If the race is not a backstabbing race... Then I will not do it. But if it is a race that can do it... or the circumstances in the game force it. Then yes as it is part of RP. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Example
your Partnered with A You have T&R's with B , C , D , E You have a MA with F B , c , d are Partners A is on your right boarder B is on your left boarder C is on your top boarder D is inbetween B and C A and C are at war C is Partnered with B and E E and F have a MA C and B begin attacking D You break treaty and attack b on the same turn... with giving reasons and break treaty with C You are not backstabbing b As you are honouring your Partnership with A who is at war with C who is partnered with B and E Where the interesting stuff happens is between E and F... Which way does that one swing. This is the game within a game. The Political ramifications of treaties and agreements are fun to play in games. And there only for that game. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
There are some actions which are quite deplorable, however; like:
secret pre-arranged alliances before the game Something else I find hard to forgive is purposefully exploiting some weaknesses of the game engine with deception, like agreeing to a tech trade (against humans) for tech you do not actually possess, in return for tech. The game will let you do it... but I won't generally trust that player again. I consider that pretty dirty. But it's acceptable. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Breaking a Partnership or an MA for any reason is stab in the back in my book. That's why I rarely make them and even rarer make one with more than one race. By itself breaking a TR treaty is not backstabing. Everyone knows that quite often they are just temporary.
|
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
I think it may be a good idea to have have a clear idea of what backstabbing is.
1) You have the honest upfront player who intends to keep his agreements and will do whatever he can to keep them even if it means losing the game. 2) You have the honest upfront player who intends to keep his agreements and will do whatever he can to keep them with the proviso that if there is legitimate evidence that a player is betraying him then all deals are off with that player. 3) You have the player who phrases his words in such a way that he knows the other player is likely to misinterpret them to his detriment. For example, Player A and Player B agree not to attack each other until 10 turns have elapsed after giving notice. Player A then parks his ships over a planet owned by B and gives the 10 turn notice. If B breaks the treaty and attacks A, then it is B who has broken the agreement. This type of player often relies upon technicalities rather than the spirit of the agreement. 4) A player misuses what is normally understood to be part of an agreement. For example, a treaty normally assumes that no hostile act will be done against another player who is party to the treaty. Player A mines player B's planets as his ships pass over them. 5) A player outright lies and makes promises he has no intention of keeping. 6) A player cheats. Players 3 to 5 will often try to pass themselves off as player type 1 and 2. They have to if they want to take advantage of them. It should be noted that styles 1 to 5 are a valid and integral part of the game. It a matter of playing style. That being said, it is understandable why disagreements occur. The fewest difficulties will occur between players of style 1 and 2. They want the terms to be clearly defined so that there will be no future misunderstanding. Players 3 to 5 will often accuse players 1 and 2 of being "legalistic" because they ask questions to clarify matters and make sure there is a complete understanding of all the terms of the agreement. Players 3 to 5 do not want the terms clearly understood as it limits their ability to maneuveur. If there is written documentation proving that a player 3 to 5 is clearly in the wrong, it means they may have to fulfill their part of the agreement or risk exposure for the type of player they are. Problems arise when the upfront honest player believes a player who is playing one of the alternate styles. And unless there is adequate documentation proving the agreement, there will be a lot of ducking and weaving by the player of the alternate styles as he doesn't want it to be known that he misrepresents things and lies to achieve his ends. [ June 06, 2003, 06:39: Message edited by: tbontob ] |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Ummm...
Then two turns go by and you release that b is really partnered with G who has TA's with everyone. Oppps. Perhaps this should go in a different thread. I just did a major screw up. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
The definition of backstabbing need not be so complex. If you take actions to convince another player you are allies or friends and then attack him or assist others in attacking him then you just backstabbed him.
|
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
What for the most part makes the game interesting is Role Played races. One can be an evil mischieveous race peddeling filth through out the galaxy, and then turn their strategy around in another game being the Pope.
If one plays the game in the same style in every game, another player can learn their strategy and in a sense that is a form of "knowing thy enemy" intelligence/espionage which could be in that grey area of backstabbing. Now in games where it is established that role playing is welcome, I don't think that this should reflect on the actual player no matter what he/she/it does, short of cheating. It's a game and it is a simulation of diplomacy and war. And if anyone can say that their is honesty and fuzzy stuffed bears in real diplomacy and war, I would love to hear it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
In a typical free-for-all game, I expect to be backstabbed frequently. I tend to have several "layers" of trust, pushing as many as possible toward the outside. If a player backstabs without reason to break their word, I will note it and be more wary of allying with them in other games, but I will not take it out on them in another game.
In a roleplaying game, I expect that people will live up to their race's reputation--hopefully they've filled in their race history, etc., and are fairly discernible up front. Backstabbing is expected when it fits in with the race, or when circumstances have pushed an alliance apart. I don't expect that the same player will RP the same way in another game, and don't take it out on them in other games. I think the big problem is when players aren't satisfied to take knowledge of other players with them to the next game, and carry grudges instead. If someone breaks an alliance, you'll know better next time. Until then, it is only a game, after all. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
First off, let me respond to this post by Slynky.
Quote:
It also depends on who else is in that system; if it's a border system, shared between me and neighbor A (with whom I am at peace), then Neighbor B (with whom I am allied) might want to keep a surreptitious eye on A (with whom he has almost no contact). Quote:
Quote:
If I wasn't allowed to do that, and a fleet suddenly shows up, then I make (additional) preparations for defense, and SHADOW the fleet ... but unless the fleet's intentions become crystal clear, I won't strike pre-emptively. Well, not normally. Some of the races I play are absolute psychopaths, and they'll attack just for the FUN of it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Quote:
In that case, immediate expulsion form your space of all unapproved assets, termination of any T&R or other higher treaties, and so on. War, however, might be an over-reaction, depending on the scale of the theft (you should never GIFT a huge amount of tech to someone you cannot trust 110%, anyway; that's what TRADES are for -- outside of a team environment, anyway). ... Now, with that said, my answers were: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, I try never to make treaties that don't have a built-in "warn and terminate" opt-out clause, to the effect of "this agreement can be terminated with X turns advanced notice, during which all parties will remvoe their ships from non-joint space and pursue no hostilities against the other." [ June 06, 2003, 05:35: Message edited by: Pax ] |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
Quote:
If you can't seperate player from character, then IMO, you have no business playing anything more advanced than checkers, except against an AI. Quote:
But the actions of a RACE, do not speak to the actions of that PLAYER. And actions in one game do not speak to actions in another, unless that player is so singularly unimaginative as to only be able to create one race, in terms of behavior (if that many). |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
i consider all treaties severable with a reasonable advance warning.
and any hostile action, which means action which will probably result in damage to me or my allies, which doesn't include reasonable survalience, ie, not survalience of core systems, is grounds for war. however, there's no sense in overeacting till i find out wether it was an accident or not. mines in my space, spreading rumors or making a treaty and not honering it means war. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
As far as holding a grudge from game to game I think everyone tries not to do that. But really, if player A wins your trust and then uses sneaky tactics to stab you in the back in game 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc are you seriously going to trust him in the next game? Quote:
And suggesting that a player who has contributed as much as Stone Mill has "no business" playing the game is just downright insulting. [ June 06, 2003, 12:21: Message edited by: DavidG ] |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
First let me say clearly that my policy is to enter every game with a clean slate, to win, and to have fun. I also strive to play with a great deal of character. But- Ah-ha! I've think got you to prove my point, Pax! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif My entire point is that as objective as you try to be, you are still human. Deny it if you please, but you will remember that player who has "backstabbed" you, and on a subconscious or conscious level, you will be cautioned about leaving yourself vulnerable to them again. You don't seem to be able to separate your emotions from this message board. You refusing to play me is based on a general impression... were you as close to being objective as you claim, that should not matter. They player list assigned to a game should be of no consequence. What you are talking about is striving toward an ideal: that every game can be played purely without prior history, prejudice, or learning. Some players may come close to this ideal, but we all have a nature to deal with. Humans are complex animals. You have no control over this, nor can PBW enforce it. Players have a right to see who is assigned to a game, and decide to play in the game based on things like: 1. experience level of the players 2. how long it takes them it to upload turns (slow or fast) 3. whether that player is a risk to bail out suddenly 4. whether that player has cheated or perhaps is suspect 5. whether that player is obviously carrying a vendetta against you (do you just turn the other cheek and ignore someone who is always gunning for you because you are "roleplaying"?) Prior knowledge is part of learning... Scouting out oponents can be crucial (at least in KOTH). For instance, Played a game against a good Talisman player, and waited for him to unload his strategy and kick butt. You lost... but next time you are going to do something about it... that is certainly carrying over into the next game, isn't it? It has nothing to do with roleplaying and race details. If you don't adjust, this game will be quite boring, as that player's tactics will incinerate you time after time.) When you've been around PBW for a while, you get an understanding of who the good players are, and who to be on-guard for during a game. That's just plain natural and intelligent. I've been in KOTH and PBW games since inception, an I love nothing more that my opponent doing their VERY BEST against me; playing to win... to take me out. It it obvious by my Posts that I love nothing more than to share tactics and strategy to make players better. Becuase when the challenge is stepped up, the game is more fun. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif Plain and simple. When you play checkers, do you play to win, or just move the pieces around in random directions? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif If we ever have a convention, I'd buy every opponent I've ever had a beer and shake his hand. That includes you Pax. That is separating player from character. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My general strategies develop and grow from game to game, but that's an entirely different level, and isn't what we're discussing here. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But that looking-and-preparing would be based on information within the game ... not on the player, and his or her past games on PBW. It's the religious race that matters, not the player himself. Quote:
I am the opposite; I can ENJOY losing a game, as long as getting there was an interesting and entertaining process. Quote:
4X games have PLENTY of such room. In them, I RP ... and I play them largely to RP the race-as-a-whole. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
The "win" I look for is a fun game. If I have fun, then I "won" -- even if my race is obliterated. If, on the other hand, I play a perfect game, somehow wiping everyone out even with all of them united against me and at a severe economic disadvantage, but I did not have much fun in the process ... then I lost. I cut my "more advanced than chutes and ladders" gaming teeth on RPGs; the defining principle that makes a true RPG different from all other games is, you don't play to "win", the way most people understand it. You play to accomplish goals, none of which require you to be in conflict with the other players. All of which you choose for yourself. And the fun happens not solely in achieving those goals, but in the striving to do so. The fun happens even if you fail to accomplish any of them ... and that's the entire point of the game. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Well, I'm sorry to hear you still feel that way.
Esentially, we have differing opinions on human nature. You insist that you enter the game with a clean slate. I submit that it is not entirely possible. You are human, after all. Most of this will be subconscious. You probably don't have esp, so I don't understand how you can possibly enforce your expectations on other players, or know whether the players in your game will live up to your standard. You are setting yourself up for a lot of difficulty. Creating a hot button for someone to push. On the other hand, I acknowledge that I don't have a major beef with it, as I can't control others. But I will be on guard about it. I admit I'm just human after all. Clean slate is my policy, but I won't be naive and expose myself to the same mistakes against a same player twice. My guess is that you won't either, but you really can't visualize it as you are posting. I do admit that while writing this, my thoughts are somewhat influenced by KOTH, and I am generalizing across PBW games. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Hmmm, quite the lively discussion!
One thing seems to be apparent. That people believe it's more acceptable to "backstab" in a RP situation. I can understand that, you're "fulfilling" a race's expected actions. Though not getting involved in any RP SE games, I would suppose all players in such a game would know ahead of time (by race descriptions or something) the nature of the race they may be dealing with. So, you might have an inclination of just how much someone/some race had to be "watched". On the other hand, in SE games with no RP, I think most of us are referring to making treaties (and such) with the first players we encounter. The treaties and agreements aren't RP aspects, they're tools to win the game. And, as was said previously, if a player has made agreements and then somehow taken advantage of you in an underhanded way, I think everyone "takes that to the next game" to some extent. For you, Pax, I suspect you remember previous "backstabs" but perhaps that's as far as it goes with you. Others, I suspect, me included, also remember those who have "backstabbed" us (or possibly others). For my part, I don't make treaties with that person again. It doesn't mean I hold a grudge and will immediately attack. It just means I believe the person is less trustworthy than some other players I may encounter and I don't want to place myself in jeopardy again. Others may try again (or not). Still others may decide the person needs to be attacked. (and certainly in a multi-player game, where an empire MUST find someone to expand against, those who have done "backstabs" are usually near the top of the "hit" list http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) Winning? Different definitions? Perhaps. To add a bit of levity, I'll throw in an analagy using something my sister told me once about sex (and size). She told me when a guy had a big "one", THAT was good. When a guy knew how to "work" it, THAT was good. But when a guy had a big "one" AND knew how to "work" it, it didn't get any better than that! So, to Pax, I'd say, "When you roleplay and have a really interesting game with all the interaction and such that you hoped for AND win the game, it doesn't get any better than that!" That's my way of saying I think there are various levels of winning. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
I don't think I could personaly handle broken treaties without previously agreed upon steps such as:
Remove all ships from each others systems X number of turns before ending the treaty etc.. I guess it is a good thing I only play against hand picked people. Some how I knew I could trust Slynky. Something about his behavior in the forum. Can't place my finger on it. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Those poll results are alarming at best. Your all a bunch of Back Stabbers! You scare me.
|
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
[ June 06, 2003, 22:43: Message edited by: DavidG ] |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
The "win" I look for is a fun game. If I have fun, then I "won" -- even if my race is obliterated. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No you lost. You may have had fun but you lost. It's going to be pretty hard to have a relevant discussion if you are going to make up your own definitions for words. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Don't trust anyone.
That's how I walk into every game. It's also the best way to not get disappointed in whatever transpires during the game. Afterall, if you expect the worst, the only thing people can do is impress you. Granted, if you're in a long standing partnership with someone and they unexpectedly cut relations and attack you, you'll feel some measure of hurt. That's natural. Most people here though aren't out to hurt other players purposely. Most cases of backstabbing can be seen comming too (eg ship movement) so backstabbing can also be seen as a consequence of not paying attention to the activites around you. Afterall, if you see your neighboor building up a large fleet near your border with no particular reason behind it, then you better blow the dust off your defenses just in case. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Not sure I have ever really backstabbed a trusting and trusted ally, alhtough I guess I might. I have jumped all over unsuspecting neighbours early in the game, and have upset people by doing this. I have been backstabbed, attacked, you name it, but never take it personally - it's just a game. We do seem to have 2 different camps, those who play purely to win, and those who view it as a role playing experience. I definitely started in the play-to-win camp, but after having won my share of games, these days I am more likely to try to create an interesting situaion politically than to go all out for the win. Strict role playing doesnt really interest me but can understand the attraction. I'm sure I carry over some feelings from game to game, but I try to start each game as cleanly as I can, but without a doubt, certain players tendencies do influence one's future behavior. The only people I don't care to replay are those who take events in the game too personally, those who drop out of games, those who cheat, and those who jump at the chance to label as cheats anyone who doesnt agree with their vision of how the game should be played. Even the most vicious of backstabs would not stop me playing with a player again. In fact, I might adnire him all the more for it :-)
|
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
|
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
|
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
I make decisions -- reactions, responses, etc -- relative to the other players, based PURELY, solely, and exclusively on the character and personality of the Role I have assigned to that race. My emotional responses barely (if at all) enter into the equation. I take the role, and the situation; I put them together, and examine how the two would interact. From those, I select the course of action that (a) best exemplifies the chosen role, and (b) best serves that race's interests. In that order of priority, mind. I don't just play RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons, I also "GM" (stands for "game master" -- think "referee, movie director, mediator, rules guru, casting director, and everything else off-camera"). Now, in some games, I've GMed villains whose actions woudl make me literally sick to my stomache to contemplate actually being done -- by anyone. I've had to, as a result, learn to divorce my sense of "Self" from my sense of "role"; IOW, to keep role and self apart. Quote:
Nor, of course, can I know the characetr of a player save by observing them. However, just as I seperate MY self and my role, I don't let what players do in the role of their in-game persona influence what I think of the player. The two are different, completely so. ... I suspect you've never played face-to-face, non-computer RPGs, or at least, haven't done MUCH of that. This isn't something that's easy to explain to someone who doesn't "get it" at the first pass, but after a quarter-century of D&D ... it's instinctive to me; I don't even have to THINK about it anymore. Quote:
If the role I have selected for a race has a weakness, and I encounter someone who I, the player, know will take advantage of that weakness if and when he detects it ... I will do nothing differently. The Role controls what is or isn't done; I don't change that Role simply because I could "win" better by doing so. The race, the Role, has to learn itself, sometimes. Example: I, the player, may easily see that a player is being duplicitous in his dealings with me. However, the Role might be a naive, overly-trusting one ... so, I the player don't alter the Role to suddenly see through deceptions it was not supposed to see through. Whatrever I might know or see, the Role doesn't neccessarily know or see through. In the terminology of D&D: it's a matter of refusing to succumb to metagame thinking. IC information and OOC information are not always identical; in fact, RARELY are they even passingly similar. I myself could, with some time and effort, construct working firearms of various types and purposes, propellant included, if dropped into a medieval setting. But that doesn't mean every peasant's-son-turned-warrior-hero FROM such a setting, whom I happen to be playing as a characetr, knows how to do so. That is the defining difference between in-character (read: in-game) and out-of-character (read: out-of-game) knowledge being kept seperate. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
I don't play like that, and don't generaly enjoy playing with people who DO. To me, someone wins if they get out of a game, exactly what they WANTED to get out of it. I don't have to be declared the victor by the game code, to enjoy myself. And enjoying myself is my ONLY goal. So, if I have a good time playing, I win ... no matter the final scores. That may not be winning for you, but that's the beauty of the way I see it: everyone chooses their own goals, their own "victory conditions" ... and it's entirely possible for everyone to "win" in terms of achieving their goals. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you not own a dictionary? Are you unaware of the victory conditions option in the game? If you play a game of chess and lose your king you have lost the game. You may have had fun doing it but you lost. If you are playing a game of Se4 on Last man standing rules then yes the object is to make everyone else lose. This does NOT mean you are trying to make the game no fun for them. Why are you trying to turn a desire to win into something evil and nasty? It is the object of the game in most SE4 games I have played. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Win = Have Fun
Win = Two Hav Phun (My Preferance) Win = Concour the quadrant Win = Enjoy concouring the quadrant We can all look it up in the dictionary. Here we define it for ourselves. At that point there is nothing to discus. I guess when all is said and done it comes down to: If your ally broke a treaty Would you feel it was wrong or just part of the game? Will you ever trust them again in another game Will you try to get even in another game About the best I feel you can do is agree in advance how to cancel treatys. If the other player will not agree, (in which case you can't trust them), or if they break the agrement you pretty much have your answer. Since I have not been and don't think I will be in this situation Is This all idealistic spectulation? or An Unbiased suggesiton? I susspect many will think I have over simplyfied. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Win = Have Fun
Lose = Have Fun Therefore: Win = Lose http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I apologize if it seems like I'm going on a rant here but I don't understand why some people seem to want to vilianize a desire to win. Most games have rules that define who the winner is. You won't see the Maple Leafs losing the 7th game of the Stanley Cup 10-1 and then have the ref say 'oh wait they had more fun so they win' In SE4 the rules often say the Last empire alive wins. So I try to make this my empire. Is that really a bad thing? Personaly I think everyone trys to win in SE4 even if they won't admit it to themselves. I've played the Prirates in a P&N game which is pretty tough to win at (and I didn't) but I still tried to win. Yes I had fun but I did not win the game. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Has anyone here ever played Avalon Hill's Diplomacy? Now there is a game that truly rewards backstabbing (it's almost impossible to win without backstabbing at least one player in the game). It used to be my favorite game, but I don't play it anymore because too many of my friends took it personally when they got backstabbed, and it started to carry over into real life. In comparison, I find the group of players on PBW quite honorable and forthright. Yes, backstabs do happen, but in my experience Partnerships really mean something in SE4. I find that very refreshing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
- yes for sure (but if he does it another dozen times then probably not) - the first time no, the second time probably not, the third time.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I think it is like Stone Mill said. You try to start with a clean slate but if you are up against a player who has betrayed you a dozen times before are you really going to trust him again? You may take actions in game that your role played trusting empire would but you as a player would no doubt have those previous betrayals in the back of your mind. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
|
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
But, if I enjoyed the game, and learned something from my loss ... then I have, indeed, won. Quote:
Quote:
I'm not turning the desire to achieve objective victory into a bad, villainous thing. Why, on the other hand, are you insisting only objective victories count as "winning", when subjective victory should count every bit as much? Quote:
Win = have fun. Lose = not have fun. Therefor, Win = Not Lose. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But to me, I win from turn 0, so long as I enjoy pursuing that static, external goal, within the confines of the persona I have selected for my race. Now, as for your quip, above, about owning a dictionary: Quote:
I, on the other hand, adhere mostly but not exclusively to the second. I consider myself to have won, if I arrive (as early as possible) in a state of enjoyment with the game. The fun part is, if I enjoy 100 turns of the game, I could see it as having won that game 100 times. So; why must you insist that my vision of "winning" is any less valid than yours? Over-competitiveness, perhaps? [ June 07, 2003, 07:29: Message edited by: Pax ] |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
Of course, one can - and most of us surely will - get other gains, or "wins" from a game. Otherwise we all would consider lost games as a waste of time, and at least I still remember games (not SE) that I had *lots* of fun even though I lost. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In that case, we just would have to play the first 20 turns of any given game and then look who has got the most profitable treaty partner. I do prefer a game where strategy and tactics is the main challenge, not diplomacy and treaty-making. Making treaties too reliable makes them too effective and dominating the game. For similar reasons, I will not play games where tech trading is allowed. If you have different preferences I can understand and tolerate it, but please do not try to spread them over all PBW. If you want, make a special treaty game with special rules so that I can avoid it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif but please don't say we have "established a style of play" and try to force it onto others. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Quote:
I will take a different tack here and say that it is generally a bad move to backstab in Diplomacy and I won most of my Diplomacy games without backstabbing. Yes there are situations where it is a good move, but in general it is a bad move for many reasons involving psychology and more importantly "momentum" which I could go into depth about, but this is not the place to do so. But this raises the question: "Is it a good idea to backstab in SEIV?" If we define winning in the normal way (to meet the victory conditions of the game), then will backstabbing (in general) help one achieve this goal or make it harder to reach this goal? Some thoughts: 1) A backstab that allows the backstabbing player to meet the victory conditions of the game in one turn by definition helps them to achieve the goals of the game. But if you were in such a position you were probably going to win anyways so no need to soil ones reputation on PBW by backstabbing. So here it seems you should probably not backstab. And incidentally, tbontob missed a Category of player a while back by failing to include the player who will keep all of their agreements until it becomes crystal clear that keeping the agreement is the difference between winning and loosing (or perhaps that was player type 2? I wasn't entirely clear). 2) A backstab which gains some tactical short term advantage over an enemy but which does not contribute to any long term strategic goal. Such as moving ones fleet through the heavily defended warp point while having a TR treaty and then declaring war. (note I have yet to really experience a SEIV backstab so my comments are probably of little or no use!) IMO this is an extremely poor move. You will gain a reputation as a treaty breaker (in game and out of game too for whatever that is worth) which will make further negotiations with others in the game more difficult. And second of all the short term gains you are likely to make are easily offset by the coming counterattack and loosing the benefit of a peaceful front (remember that this is the backstab that is only tactically good, not strategically). 3) The backstab which is tactically beneficial (if it's not tactically beneficial why the beep are you doing it in the first place?) and has the added benefit of being strategically beneficial (i.e. it was directed at someone you needed to attack anyways). IMO this should never come up when playing with good opponents. It is their job to make sure that it is never in their allies interest to backstab them or to want to hurt them. Much more beneficial to work together to confront your common enemies. If at any time it becomes obvious that you must play in such a way that it then becomes in your allies best interest to attack you then as a good player you had better prepare for that attack. And backstabbing someone who is prepared for the backstab is by definition case #2 (you may gain a small short term tactical advantage, but if they were prepared then you will likely find the going tough and the strategic gains you hoped for likely will not be there). So in my opinion most of the cases when backstabbing becomes an opportunity are actually poor to medium level moves. There still remains the case when your ally is not a good player (or is unable to be a good player in this particular game due to lack of resources or poor technology or something) and let's themselves get way out of position attacking your common foe and makes it so that by attacking them you are extremely likely to win the game. I suppose that will help you win the game but like I said earlier it shouldn't come up that often. Just my two cents. I haven't really played enough SEIV to think this through enough and am in large part applying my Diplomacy experience to this game. Perhaps a bad thing to do. Any other opinions? |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
The question should be asked, when is a backstab, really a backstab. In several games I've moved large fleets through my ally's space without notice. Of course he felt I was gonna backstab him and asked me about it, I said I was just moving a fleet around an enemy for an attack because that what I was doing.
He didn't accept that answer and attacked my fleet. On one level, he felt I backstabbed him. On another, I felt he backstabbed me. Backstabbing boils down to trust of each other. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
Wow! And I just play the game to stay alive http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
I've been playing a lot of P&N games where "classical" victory can be very very difficult, if not impossible. Also playing a B5 game, where the two Ancient Races are so much more powerful, that victory cannot be defined as one race predominating/conquering the universe. Instead players will have to be satisfied with one "side" forcing the other into submission. I guess I either choose these types of games because i) I'm an egotistical optimist who thinks he can overcome any challenge (do the impossible, acheive the classical victory where it isn't possible), or ii) I'm not in it for the classical "win". I'll submit that when I play chess, I'm in it for the win, but something like P&N... I'm just happy to successfully board a freighter and demonstrate to the occupants the correct usage of the airlock system http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif What's Imperator Fyrons signature? "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how much pain you cause along the way". It's just so satisfying to recieve a message from the Uber-Race's diplomat, begging on bended knee "gee willickers, can I please have my colonyship back now Mr. Pirate" Now, back to my Ego, Ergo and why I love my mother http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Edit: Oh, and if I'm in first or second place, I see no reason why I shouldn't have many long knives protruding from my back! [ June 07, 2003, 18:38: Message edited by: jimbob ] |
Re: POLL: Backstabbing
@Teal:
well said. I totally agree. If you can't backstab in a critical way that moves you up several positions in the game, then it's not worth it - this is not a real backstab but just a breach of trust and treaty. These small stabs are remembered and usually give a negative image. On the other hand, a "real", artfully executed backstab, turning the victim within a few turns from a strong empire into a crippled unorganized mass of armies/countries (Dippy) or fleets/planets (SE) or whatever, is a joy to see - even from the receiving end http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . These too are remembered but at least from my point of view and my experiences do not necessarily give a negative image to the player, rather the opposite. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.