Hall of Shame

[Zeldor]

But still, people that are joining 3:1 war in early game, breaking alliance and backstabbing that way have something wrong with morality.

And yeah, in that game I got first attacked by a player that joined the game just because he lost with me in previous one and wanted revenge. And some time after I got attacked by an ally You can get interesting people in newbie games.

I have no hard feelings, but I think that others should know who they are dealing with. So they can either join a different game or act accordingly.

[Amhazair]

What's wrong about ganging up on people? Sure, it kinda limits the prospects of the poor dude who gets ganged up on, but such is life in a multiplayer environment. (If you don't like that possibility you could just as well play a number of 1-on-1 games, where you mod your later games to start with a stable of researches and more territory.) Either try to have some fun dealing all the damage you can, or go AI and start a new game. (and maybe try to be the one tripleteaming in that one)

And for the record: I have been at the receiving and of an early game triple-team gang-bang, so I do know what it feels like. (and while at some points all I did felt quite futile, I ended up having fun, and managed to destroy several invading armies before finally and inevitably going down. )

From my earlier gaming experience (mostly boardgames) I also came into this gaming expecting betrayal to be a real possibility. An alliance to me was something you enter in because it benefits both parties, but at some point in the game where 'there can only be one' either you or your ally would feel the time was right to end the alliance. Since the community here seems to feel that NAP's are rather inviolate, I stick to them too, but if that weren't the case I'd definitely try to make the moment of 'betrayal' come as a surprise, and to try to deal massive damage with an initial surprise attack. (Of course, in many cases this moment of betrayal would never come, because, well, if you really have a good alliance there would only be a need for betrayal when you are the two of strongest nations in the game when nearing the final decision. And let's face it, how often does that happen in 20-player games? )

In my mind this doesn't (didn't) preclude strong alliances. In fact, I feel it makes for stronger alliances, since it's in your best intrest to make sure your ally really feels you're helping him out - and for your ally to do the same for you - so there's no reason for the sudden backstab. And I've allways felt the extra incertainity, and the need to plan for the unexpected worst possibility, while proceeding towards your main goal added to the fun too. Aniway, as I said, that's apparently not how the community here sees alliances/NAP's, so I go with the flow. But since you're talking about the 'intresting people' you find in newbie games: keep in mind they might be people who come from a gameing community where betrayal is indeed common, and just didn't realise yet how most people here see those things.

This

in that game I got first attacked by a player that joined the game just because he lost with me in previous one and wanted revenge.

on the other hand is just despicable - in my opinion obviously, though most people here will agree.

[Kamamura]

"Why do you hate women so much?"
"I hate everyone and everything, no-one gets special treatment!"

- from Discworld Noir

In a war to rule the world, everything goes <grin>

[Omnirizon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Zeldor]

Amhazair:

Maybe in really late game things like that happen, though they are surely not normal.

Of course he can do the backstabbing. Even in early game. Just instead of helping your ally just attacking him. I see that you approve things like that

That game has quite small community. And there are many games that you play. If you do thing like that once you must be aware that it won't be just forgotten. "I will backstab someone today and easily find allies next time I need them" - things don't work that way You are either ***** [insert what you want here ] that will do absolutely everything to get one more province or you are someone that can be trusted and count in hard times [and vice versa].

[Amhazair]

Zeldor said:
...Just instead of helping your ally just attacking him. I see that you approve things like that

Now where did you get that idea from?

Going back again at my previous experience: The boardgaming community I was talking about is obviously a lot smaller than the one here in Dominions, maybe about a dozen people. Of course making a habit of betraying people, fickleness, unsteadfastness (is that even a word? ) betrayal for little gain, etc. will get you a reputation. Of course people will remember when you come out to help them against difficult odds, and when you suddenly seem completely unable to help out because you're suddenly very, VERY busy examining the probability of the existence of alien life forms in your hankerchief or are otherwise 'pressingly' occupied. (note however that 'not actively helping out your ally seems to be a very common occurence about these parts, more common than I had experienced before, and since this doesn't violate the formulaic '3 turn NAP kthx' that is so common here, noone seems to mind that)

I never meant to imply I took alliances lightly. A good ally/alliance is a wonderful thing.

But if someone pulls a truly game-winning betrayal out of his hat, my only reaction will be admiration (and maybe a little 'damn, why didn't I prepare for that one') and the general reaction of the gamers I knew before comming here would be the same.

[Zeldor]

Amhazair:

Now we understand But if it really some game-winning tactics on turn 24, which involves losing your pretender, then I will be shocked. Betraying your ally in late game so you can win is another thing, though I would never do that.

[Amhazair]

Zeldor said:
But if it really some game-winning tactics on turn 24

Yeah, I was talking in general, I don't feel the need to be drawn into (possibly bitter) arguments of specific cases where I was not involved and know nothing about. And who knows, the turn 24 betrayal might be the beginning of a cunning plan of titanic proportions that will unfold before the unbelieving, but ultimately helpless eyes of all players involved.

Even if it isn't, as you said, this is a newbie game. Who knows what kind of gaming background players have. While I understand if you are somewhat suspicious of him in the future, (and I probably would be too) but I would definitely offer him a chance to convince me of his good intentions in possible future games. (But then again my own mother tells me I'm way too na�ve for this cruel world )