Slynky's Demise

[geoschmo]

Lord Chane said:
If a player has such a strong desire to win that they'd betray an ally in a game, then why wouldn't they do the same thing in the real world?

Because doing so in the game is acceptable behavior, and in fact a required part of the game where there can only be one winner. Doing so out of the game may be expected by some, and may in fact happen quite often, but it's not acceptable behavior in a civilized soceity. You play by the rules of the game while you are playing the game. You operate according to the rules of soceity and ethical behavior in real life.

Does the desire to win end when the game ends?

The desire to do well is universal, it's not limited to games. But life is NOT a game. There is not only one "winner" in life. For me to do well in life I don not have to hurt those around me. For me to win the game, those around me must lose.

[Roanon]

Lord Chane, how would a game of Space Empires ever end if your black/white morals of "once ally - forever ally" would be applied by everyone?

Even if you do not seem to be able to separate it, it is a game and not reality. I do not like having to agree to Tesco, but I too think it is important to separate game and life. And yes, kill me for it, I am playing games to win, even if I also have fun if I do not win in the end. That's the nature of a game.

I would never directly lie and deceive, but if it becomes obvious that the game is nearing a point where it is you or me, I will choose me and even attack first instead of waiting for your attack - or waiting for the game to end by the natural death of all players, as you seem to prefer?

This is of course different if team victory is possible, there just is no reason to become a sole winner then and attack an ally if he is not directly keeping you from winning. I'm refering to "Last man standing" games, and these include "all others down" when they finally end, and someone has to bring them down for the game to end.

[Grandpa Kim]

Looks like definitions have tripped us up once again, Lord Chane. I agree making use of another's skills and assets is acceptable while abuse is unacceptable. On that basis, I concede your point.

All in all I don't think any of us are totally black or totally white. Lord Chane, I think you will agree there are cases where an alliance must be ended. As a game evolves, needs change and often the allied parties cannot agree on how to satisfy these changes. The solution is often a change in treaty status. (Wouldn't it be nice to go from "partnership" to "trade alliance" without starting over?)

By the same token I think Geo would agree that sometimes it is not just a good idea, but absolutely essential to hang on to a treaty. Your ally may be overbearing, threatening and unreliable, but without him you are nothing. Here, you hang on in a perpetual state of fear hoping and planning for a better future.

Okay, I said a lot of nothing there and said it in a wishy-washy manner

I just want to add, I have no real solution for the orignal problem that Slynky presented. I too, have had my feelings hurt at times plalying SEIV. I have managed to adjust my outlook so that I can get past these crises quickly. It helps immensely that the SEIV crowd is the most gentlemanly (or ladylike) crowd I've ever dealt with. They don't rub it in, they help you get over it.

Slynky, I too advise you take some time off. A couple weeks or a month. When you come back, pick and choose your games carefully.

Y'all come back now y'hear!

[Captain Kwok]

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

[Roanon]

Roleplaying is nice, regardless in what type of game.

It is just not a very good choice to roleplay a mackerel when entering in a piranha basin

[AMF]

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

Roanon said:
Roleplaying is nice, regardless in what type of game.

It is just not a very good choice to roleplay a mackerel when entering in a piranha basin

[Lord Chane]

Roanon said:
Lord Chane, how would a game of Space Empires ever end if your black/white morals of "once ally - forever ally" would be applied by everyone?

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

Roanon said:
Even if you do not seem to be able to separate it, it is a game and not reality.

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

Roanon said:
I do not like having to agree to Tesco, but I too think it is important to separate game and life. And yes, kill me for it, I am playing games to win, even if I also have fun if I do not win in the end. That's the nature of a game.

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

Roanon said:
I would never directly lie and deceive, but if it becomes obvious that the game is nearing a point where it is you or me, I will choose me and even attack first instead of waiting for your attack - or waiting for the game to end by the natural death of all players, as you seem to prefer?

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

[Roanon]

Lord Chane said:
The rule of thumb now seems to be to ally with everyone and then decide who to attack later. I don't see that as very realistic. Is a space faring race really going to make treaties with every race they encounter?

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

[Fyron]

First, perhaps folks would be a bit more judicious about allying if the alliances were taken more seriously. The rule of thumb now seems to be to ally with everyone and then decide who to attack later. I don't see that as very realistic. Is a space faring race really going to make treaties with every race they encounter? No checking into their background, no attempt to find out if they have the same values you do, nothing else taken into consideration, just sign the treaty and throw open the doors to your territory? I think not. The problem is if you don't agree to most of the treaties, then you've just marked yourself for an early exit from the game.

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

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

[Slynky]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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