
December 12th, 2003, 01:18 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
Quote:
Originally posted by Stone Mill:
If you'll allow, I'll stick more to the "winning games" topic, rather than winning and losing in real life, which is somewhat subjective and relative to personal experience and the situation.
When it comes to playing games, I enage with the attitude that I'm going try and win; giving my opponents hell by leveraging any legal asset at hand.
I find they appreciate me for it, as much as I love someone throwing their best at me.
|
I'll stick to the topic as well:
I agree with the "King". I'll add another thought, though, since I have a suspicion this thread started as a result of the Mediocrity posting (and because this thread seems civil enough):
I don't believe in doing ANYTHING legal, though, because I prefer to have my reputation follow me from game to game. I don't believe in dropping any kind of treaty the same turn as I attack. I don't believe in, for example, agreeing to 5 turn notice of impending attack when dropping a treaty with someone and then attacking before the 5 turns is up. Why? Winning is not as important as keeping my reputation. What reputation is that? One that follows me from game to game. I want anyone I have a treaty with to know they can trust what I agree to in future games. That's just me. I just want people to know they have a treaty they can depend on and if they know the way I play, then they will know they can trust what I say and I wan't jeopardize that for a siingle win in a single game and put future games at risk. Those who have played with me also know I don't mind taking a "backseat" in an alliance. I did it in the infamous "Challenge" game. I had planned to do it with Lord Chane in Mediocrity (but the attack came and Lord Chane dropped the game keeping the Stellar Manipulation ships we had built for deep attacks). And who knows what roll I'll take in Anklebiters (it's still shaping up) but I want people to know what they can expect from my reputation.
As to other people who disagree...that's up to them. They may make and break treaties as they see fit for that game. All it means to me is that THEIR reputation has followed them to any game I find myself in with them. While I realize (according to a poll I conducted some time back) that some people do things like that from game to game and don't carry the events from one game to another but I find it hard to trust those kinds of people when I find them in a future game. Just me. Perhaps I'm wrong but it's just my personality.
In the end, it's just a game, they are most always fun, and I don't really get angry when someone plays in a way I don't agree with. I just remember them for future games.
__________________
ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)
|