POLL: Backstabbing

[Slynky]

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 )

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.

[Gryphin]

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.

[CNCRaymond]

Those poll results are alarming at best. Your all a bunch of Back Stabbers! You scare me.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Pax:
Your "clean slate" reference is in direct contradiction of the quote above.

I think you might want to read the Posts a bit more carefully before you go on a rant. There is no contradiction here. I'd elaborate but I feel the effort would be a waste.

[ June 06, 2003, 22:43: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Pax:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidG:
Gee thanks for telling us that for the 100th time. IMO anyone that claims they do not try to win is kidding themselves. You know it is possible to play to win and for fun at the same time.

Here's a trick for you: define "win".

The "win" I look for is a fun game. If I have fun, then I "won" -- even if my race is obliterated.

---

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.

[Katchoo]

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.

[gravey101]

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 :-)