Diplomacy

[Nagot Gick Fel]

To me, there are 3 kinds of players in Dominions:

The Faithful: they stick to their word, and won't never break an agreement, even if it means putting themselves in jeopardy. I know such players exist, but I always assume they don't .

The Defectors: these don't hesitate to break treaties or swindle their trade partners at the first opportunity, if they see an immediate benefit when doing so - even if the said benefit is negligible. These players don't annoy me much - their behavior may net them a small advantage in 1 or 2 games, but in the end they work against themselves. I hate to carry my own perception of a player's personality from one game to another, anyway you can't expect from someone to trust a guy who was 'reliably unreliable' in the past 5 games.

The Wise: these usually stick to their word, and can be relied on when trading. However they won't hesitate to backstab you when they think that'll give them a substantial advantage - typically shifting the balance of power enough so they increase their own chances to win manyfold. I think that in Dominions, nothing comes closest to an oeuvre d'art than a skillfully planned and carried out backstab. So I tend to respect this sort of players immensely. Even if I'm at the receiving end of their treachery .

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
[QB] To me, there are 3 kinds of players in Dominions:

[/QB

Sounds like the game theory sheep, wolves and "do unto others ers". But actually it is sheep, wolves and "wolves in sheeps clothing".

People who renege on deals gain momentary advantage but in the long term repeated good or even marginal, trading will beat a few swindles.

Pickles

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
People that know me from Dom1 will know I can get quite hysterical on this topic.

Damn! Could it be that Zapmeister is actually Steve A.?

[Edit: Seems so. ]

[ June 30, 2004, 13:24: Message edited by: Nagot Gick Fel ]

[Gandalf Parker]

The complaint amoung the Dom1 gamers was that reputations went from game to game. Even before this thread, if a game started and the logins represented in this conversation were the players, I would already have had an idea to what level I could trust my borders to treatys that were made.

If a game were played totally anonymously then it would play very differently. Hmmm well actually, I guess it wouldnt for those who play cut-thoat anyway. But it would for the loyalists. Or maybe this falls back on those who play the game spread-sheet strategy vs those who play it with abit of RPG.

In any case, I know that I personally would appreciate some totally anonymous games where I could play as Murgatroid instead of Gandalf Parker. I WOULD use the chance to play very differently.

[ June 30, 2004, 14:02: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Pirateiam]

I find Zapmiester's position on diplomacy quite amuzing. I will not go into details since it will ruin a game we are playing but he seems quite adept at diplomacy. I think he does not even know he is doing it which is really amuzing.
Even if your end strategy is to be the Last man standing (as it should) Helping attack other nations, border agreements, and trying to entice nations to attack other nations IS diplomacy at the highest level!

The one point I do agree with is that I hope social Groups do not effect gameplay. Where players team up all the time with players they know.

[ June 30, 2004, 14:15: Message edited by: Pirateiam ]

[wolfkinsov]

I wrote this post because of what several people have pointed out here. If you play a game like Diplomacy or DOM II by its implied objective, that is one winner, then the game plays out fun for everyone, and no hard feelings in the end. (Having trouble thinking of the right way to express that, you would have to have played Diplomacy to understand) But when people consistently make teams and just don’t tell you the game gets old fast. I am all for team games and would happily play a DOM II Team game but I would know it in the beginning.

That is where I have a problem with people who say they keep all agreements always. I would much rather play in a game where everyone is trying to win and keep the big boy down.

Oh and Zapmiester, does diplomacy and so do I, and how I act in one game is completely different from how I will act in the other. I keep 95% of my agreements that are not with the big boy. He should always be watching his back. But I don’t form teams and the leader should expect to be attached by everyone until he is not the leader anymore.

The problem with Dominions, Diplomacy or playing sports for fun is that on the one hand extremely competitive people can be unplaasant to interact with, while on the other deliberately uncompetitive behaviour tends to subvert the whole purpose of the game. Both tend to increase the frustration and reduce the fun for the rest of us.

Sand-boxers may disagree, but it's not like we're talking about simDomII here; the central assumption of the game is one of conflict.

I don't think alliance "victories" are necessarily wrong. Often alliance are result of in-game events and built up around developing relationships. Maintaining an alliance amongst competitive players takes effort and skill, and there's nothing wrong in rewarding that by allowing joint "victories". I can see however that if alliances seem more-or-less pre-ordained by pre-game relationships, or if a large number of players in a game just weren't interested in competing with each other, that I too would get frustrated.

I used to see a lot of joint victories in Diplomacy when I played, and never objected to them because the games were always competitive, even though technically those results went against the intention of the game design. On the other hand, sand-boxers wouldn't be playing Diplomacy in the first place.