Slynky's Demise

[Fyron]

It is no fun to win every single game you play... You have to lose some.

That being said... I have never betrayed an ally (not regarding trade "alliance" as an ally...), and I try not to ally with people I suspect might do so to me. It isn't much fun backstabbing people just so I can play a few dozen more turns... There are always more PBW games to join. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Lightning.gif[/img]

[Slynky]

Imperator Fyron said:
It is no fun to win every single game you play... You have to lose some.

That being said... I have never betrayed an ally (not regarding trade "alliance" as an ally...), and I try not to ally with people I suspect might do so to me. It isn't much fun backstabbing people just so I can play a few dozen more turns... There are always more PBW games to join. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Lightning.gif[/img]

Well, Fyron, one of the few things we see a bit eye-to-eye on .

You hit the nail on the head in a way. I've played KOTH games where it is a runaway victory for me. Most recently, with Hustler. I don't like them at all! I even suggested at one point that I was way ahead of him (as a delicate suggestion we shouldn't continue the game). But he seemed positive and wanted to continue. Till he met my ships, lost breathers, lost a colony tech, and decided my ships "had tech he hadn't dreamed of" (his words, not mine). I don't enjoy those games. And there have been more than one of those, that's for sure!

I like a nice even game that you hold your breath on when you unzip the turn (staring at the combat file!). I've had many of those games, too... .

But I won't put myself in a game of multi-player any more because of the reasons I mentioned above.

[Ed Kolis]

Hey Slynky... how about the cooperative humans-vs-AI games, like the Mail Order Monsters ones? Would you be interested in something like that? I just really don't want you to leave the community entirely, which I kinda fear you'd do if you stopped playing multiplayer...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Sounds like you enjoy the challenge and don't enjoy the backstabbing. Just summing up for my next point: Start a game with pre-defined allies and the rule that if one side has, say, 25-50% more score than the other, they automatically win. No backstabbing, no one-sided battles.

Just suggesting; if you decide not to play at all, that's your choice.

[Roanon]

I can understand you, Slynky. Although I have less problems with declaring war on someone I "just" have a trade alliance with. When it is standard to have a trade alliance with everyone and the game is Last man standing, everyone should know that these kind of alliances are very temporary. I too like Ruatha's NGC series - partnership with only 1 other, and a partnership of 2 can win. This way, you can choose one trusted ally and, at least in my style of play, stick to it without backstabbing.

But I can understand that it becomes boring at the start of these games if trades are allowed. Considering the importance of colonization tech and alien breathers, you MUST trade or suffer defeat, and I hate this diplomacy-like game approach too. I also liked the KOTH due to the lack of that game aspect, but it has a too narrow focus eliminating too many game choices. It starts with setup where little choices are left if you don't want to be handicapped from start. And after you have learned the optimum strategy the game is more dominated by luck and starting placement than by skill.

I know it is not enforcable by setup, just by trusting the players not to break houserules, but wouldn't it be fun to play a game where you can't trade at all and breaking of treaties has to be announced one turn ahead? Would you have fun to play such a type of game, Slynky?

[Roanon]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Sounds like you enjoy the challenge and don't enjoy the backstabbing. Just summing up for my next point: Start a game with pre-defined allies and the rule that if one side has, say, 25-50% more score than the other, they automatically win. No backstabbing, no one-sided battles.

Just suggesting; if you decide not to play at all, that's your choice.

Make it 400% of the score of the second, we had this in NGC3, and it still will not be fully decided. Depends on the number of players. Plus, it can be frustrating if there is a winning empire in one end of the galaxy and your fleets has not even reached its borders when victory and game end is declared.
What I do not like with pre-defined alliances is that you are depending on the skill - or lack thereof - of your allies. I prefer to choose partners in game depending on their success and skill, or not to ally at all.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Roanon said:

Make it 400% of the score of the second, we had this in NGC3, and it still will not be fully decided. Depends on the number of players. Plus, it can be frustrating if there is a winning empire in one end of the galaxy and your fleets has not even reached its borders when victory and game end is declared.
What I do not like with pre-defined alliances is that you are depending on the skill - or lack thereof - of your allies. I prefer to choose partners in game depending on their success and skill, or not to ally at all.

The cumulative score of all the players on one side.

[geoschmo]

Well, at first I was a little disturbed. This was turning into the week when everyone quit playing SE4. But it's good to hear you are going to stick around and continue playing 1x1 games.

To enjoy multiplayer diplomacy, you really have to be the kind of person that can separate what happens in the game from what is outside of the game. Not everyone can do that, but that's ok.

[Slick]

I for one enjoy playing multiplayer, although lately I haven't had time. Slynky, I just though you would like to know that when such events as you describe happen, I expect them and have fun with them as part of the game. SE4 is, after all, a 4X game and sooner or later, empires will start knocking each other off. I do enjoy getting my butt kicked as much as any other part of the game. I learn new tactics and gameplay this way. In no way would I think lesser of someone for turning on my empire unless there was a specific arrangement agreed to ahead of time and not followed.

I'm not talking about bailing out, which I sincerely appologize for doing in Anklebiters - it was necessary for RL reasons - that game was my idea in the first place and I still feel bad about it, both because I really wanted to see how it turned out, and also because I broke a commitment to finish the game. I should have stuck to my original post on the subject where I said that I didn't have time to play that one. Geo eventually convinced me to join, which I wasn't unhappy about at the time, but it was a poor decision on my part.

In closing, I'd say don't give up totally. By reading your various Posts (yes, I follow the KOTH and Ratings games even though I don't play in those games), it is clear you really like this game. By its nature, 4X, there usually is just 1 winner. And I am happy no matter how I finish because, for me, it is the experience of the game that I enjoy. I'd go so far as to say to you that you are suffering from an attack of concience where you shouldn't because most mature players wouldn't be upset at you personally for playing the game the way it was intended.

*gets off of soap box*

Slick.

[Gryphin]

It could be you are just getting burned out. Maybe you need a break. Drop me a line, maybe we can work something out.
gryph AT windingstream.com
YIM: gryphin_rampant

The Gryphin
PS: I have some other news.