Slynky's Demise

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
I totally agree that the politics and player to player interaction are what makes this game great. Without it SE4 would have been an interesting game, for about a month. About the time I spent playing SE3. But for me deceiving, and being decieved are a crucial part of that interaction.

I don't like team victory games of SE4. So by definition that means any allies I make along the way are going to end up being enemies before it's over. Even while working together to beat our common enemies I am always plotting the eventual demise of my allies. And I assume that my allies are doing the same for me. I try to be a good ally, as long as it suits my purposes. I work hard to make our "team" strong, but on the other hand I don't want my teammates stronger then me. I want them to be strong enough to help me, strong enough so that I don't seem a great threat to them, but not so strong they feel they don't need me any longer.

The question is which of us will reach the point of being ready to cast off the alliance first. Too late and your ally gets the drop on you. Too early and the distraction caused by the new war make sit impossible to completly dispatch the common enemy. And your ally turned enemy could turn and make allies with the former common enemy.

It's a great way to play. Unfortunatly I have found that few people get the same satisfaction from this style of play that I do. So I find that people don't want to be allies with me to begin with because of what they have heard abotu me form other players, or comments I've made in the forum. Or they take it personally when I turn on them, making what should be just a game issue into something that affects our friendship.

So at times I've had to modify my style of play, keeping alliances beyond the point at which they are actually useful to me in the game. Because I don't want to "hurt their feelings". That to me is as distateful as decieving allies is to some of you.

In real life I am a nice guy. I guess all the pressure of being nice and following the accepted norms of society manifest themselves subliminally in the way I play this game. Turns me into a bit of a jerk.

I don't participate in the forum very much but this is one of those times when I just can't resist. While I respect Geo and his opinion, I don't agree with it. I'm one of the players he refers to who would not ally with him if I knew that he viewed alliances as transient and was planning my demise and trying to get the upper-hand the entire time. I do take things like that personally. In fact another player and I exchanged a few angry Messages here on the forum after he stabbed me in the back in the Proportions game. Apparently some folks are driven to win in ways I can't comprehend. It makes me wonder what they're like at work. Would they screw over a coworker to improve their standing in the office? Would they get themselves assigned to a project team with the intent of sabotaging another team member? Would they pretend to be your friend all the while trying to get your wife in bed? No, of course not. Because that's reality and this is just a game. Then I guess it'd be okay if the coach of one team sent a scrub into the game with orders to break the other team's star player's leg. After all, it's just a game and he wants his team to win. And hey, if I can sucker punch the other guy while the ref isn't looking, then that's okay too. I need to win. Playing a board game with a friend? Get him to look away and move a piece or change a die roll. After all, winning is what it's all about. Yes, yes, I know I'm going overboard. The things I've mentioned here are all cheats, and betraying an ally in SEIV isn't prohibited by the rules. It's a completely legal move. That's certainly true, but I view it as a cheap way to win. Basically, the back stabbing player has un unfair advantage. They know that they're going to betray the other player, they know when to betray them, and basically there's little the betrayed player can do. Now, if it's a role-playing game, then I agree that stabbing an ally is a legitimate tactic. In a B5 game who would expect the Shadows to behave honorably? And who would trust the Romulans in a Star Trek game? But most SEIV games aren't billed as role-playing, so I take a player's behavior to be a reflection of that person's personality. How can I ever trust a player once that player has betrayed me in a game? Every future interaction with them, in or out of the game, will leave me wondering whether I'm being duped, used, merely a means to an end. How do I separate the player from the game character? How can I tell that the player was just indulging in game deception and isn't like that in real life? Let's say an ally and I agree to gift each other something and the gift from him doesn't come through. I contact the other player and they swear that they issued the order and say that the game must have screwed up knowing full well that they never issued the order at all. So now it isn't just a matter of game deception, the player is actively lying to me. Now, I'm in another game with that same player and he wants to do a deal. By what means can I tell that this time he's going to play me straight and not stick a knife in my back? I like knowing that my allies are trustworthy, not trying to line things up to give themselves an advantage and screw me over. And once screwed over I will never trust that player again. So, is stabbing an ally in the back a part of the game? Absolutely. Is it a fair tactic? I guess that depends on each player's feelings on the subject. I say no, other's say yes. But some of us take issue with having that done to us, so don't be surprised or shocked if in a future game we refuse to do business with you. Maybe some of us take the issue too seriously. If so, then I'm certainly one of those players who does. We may be allies in some games and enemies in others, but if we're allies in a game, then you've nothing to fear from me. As to the questions drawing a parallel between behavior in SEIV and Poker or Chess, they're apples and oranges. In Poker I hope that everyone at the table knows that they're my opponent. They know up front not to trust me so I'm not lying to them if I bluff. I haven't promissed them anything, we haven't entered into any sort of agreement, so I can't possibly take advantage of them like a player can in SEIV when they screw over an ally. In Chess the other player knows I'm the enemy. How can I possibly deceive them? It's not like I can tell them it's okay to leave their king uncovered and then pull a Pearl Harbor style attack and win the game. Nor can I make a treaty to slip past their pawns and then drop said treaty and launch a surprise attack.

[Gandalf Parker]

Im definetly restricted by knowledge of personae. I dont play MP very often because I just wont play the same as I do against AI. For me to play to the max of my diplomatic or warfare abilities I have to be using some sort of alias.

In MP games I prefer to ally and be the best possible ally I can be. My actions are blameless since I am only honoring my alliances.

In games where no one asks me to ally its created a strategy for me which I call floodgate-vengeance. I will build slowly not attacking any player, then just keep building up. The first one to attack me gets absolutely everything thrown at them to the Last man. I might not win, but whoever hit me first wont either. Not very strategic I know but its a paladin death.

[Ruatha]

Lord Chane said:
I don't participate in the forum very much but this is one of those times when I just can't resist. While I respect Geo and his opinion, I don't agree with it. I'm one of the players he refers to who would not ally with him if I knew that he viewed alliances as transient and was planning my demise and trying to get the upper-hand the entire time. I do take things like that personally. In fact another player and I exchanged a few angry Messages here on the forum after he stabbed me in the back in the Proportions game. Apparently some folks are driven to win in ways I can't comprehend. It makes me wonder what they're like at work. Would they screw over a coworker to improve their standing in the office? Would they get themselves assigned to a project team with the intent of sabotaging another team member? Would they pretend to be your friend all the while trying to get your wife in bed? No, of course not. Because that's reality and this is just a game. Then I guess it'd be okay if the coach of one team sent a scrub into the game with orders to break the other team's star player's leg. After all, it's just a game and he wants his team to win. And hey, if I can sucker punch the other guy while the ref isn't looking, then that's okay too. I need to win. Playing a board game with a friend? Get him to look away and move a piece or change a die roll. After all, winning is what it's all about. Yes, yes, I know I'm going overboard. The things I've mentioned here are all cheats, and betraying an ally in SEIV isn't prohibited by the rules. It's a completely legal move. That's certainly true, but I view it as a cheap way to win. Basically, the back stabbing player has un unfair advantage. They know that they're going to betray the other player, they know when to betray them, and basically there's little the betrayed player can do. Now, if it's a role-playing game, then I agree that stabbing an ally is a legitimate tactic. In a B5 game who would expect the Shadows to behave honorably? And who would trust the Romulans in a Star Trek game? But most SEIV games aren't billed as role-playing, so I take a player's behavior to be a reflection of that person's personality. How can I ever trust a player once that player has betrayed me in a game? Every future interaction with them, in or out of the game, will leave me wondering whether I'm being duped, used, merely a means to an end. How do I separate the player from the game character? How can I tell that the player was just indulging in game deception and isn't like that in real life? Let's say an ally and I agree to gift each other something and the gift from him doesn't come through. I contact the other player and they swear that they issued the order and say that the game must have screwed up knowing full well that they never issued the order at all. So now it isn't just a matter of game deception, the player is actively lying to me. Now, I'm in another game with that same player and he wants to do a deal. By what means can I tell that this time he's going to play me straight and not stick a knife in my back? I like knowing that my allies are trustworthy, not trying to line things up to give themselves an advantage and screw me over. And once screwed over I will never trust that player again. So, is stabbing an ally in the back a part of the game? Absolutely. Is it a fair tactic? I guess that depends on each player's feelings on the subject. I say no, other's say yes. But some of us take issue with having that done to us, so don't be surprised or shocked if in a future game we refuse to do business with you. Maybe some of us take the issue too seriously. If so, then I'm certainly one of those players who does. We may be allies in some games and enemies in others, but if we're allies in a game, then you've nothing to fear from me. As to the questions drawing a parallel between behavior in SEIV and Poker or Chess, they're apples and oranges. In Poker I hope that everyone at the table knows that they're my opponent. They know up front not to trust me so I'm not lying to them if I bluff. I haven't promissed them anything, we haven't entered into any sort of agreement, so I can't possibly take advantage of them like a player can in SEIV when they screw over an ally. In Chess the other player knows I'm the enemy. How can I possibly deceive them? It's not like I can tell them it's okay to leave their king uncovered and then pull a Pearl Harbor style attack and win the game. Nor can I make a treaty to slip past their pawns and then drop said treaty and launch a surprise attack.

Ahh, hit the return key, that is too massive to read..

[Renegade 13]

Well, first of all, I'm sorry to see you suffering due to SEIV. If it truely is causing you pain, making you lose sleep, then it really isn't worth it. Quit, or at least take some time off. I do honestly hope you'll be back in the future, because we need more honest, decent and quality players in PBW.

There has been much said about backstabbing, and whether or not it reflects upon the personality of the player outside of the game. I think it does not. If I am in a position where I must attack an ally, or die, I will attack the ally. Its simply survival, and does not reflect upon my personality. I'm usually a nice guy. Okay, so you may say that if it were a matter of life or death to me in real life, would I kill a friend of mine. To that I say definitly no. That is the difference between a GAME and REAL LIFE. In a game where the object is to win, you can expect everyone else to be wanting to win. After all, no one likes to lose. However, no one wants to be backstabbed either. For as much as we all know its just a game, it hurts when we are stabbed in the back. Its happened to me many a time, but I do not take it personally, or as a reflection upon the personality of the person who stabbed me in the back. Its just a game.

Personally, I will make allies, and if need be, I will break my alliance with them. However, I always try to remember to break the treaty a few turns in advance of my attack, to give the other player a chance, and to even up the playing field a little bit. It makes it less of a stab in the back if you warn the other player, and give him time to prepare. I sincerely hope that when I play the game, people don't take it personally when I attack them. I have nothing against them, but its just a game! You can't let it take over your life, and worry about it. Because at the end of the day, it has very little bearing on your real life, and does not really affect your personality. It is relatively speaking, unimportant.

With all the said, I'll tell you that I do play to win. But I have a good time playing in multiplayer games when I'm not winning, or even losing. Take for instance the NGC4 game. I'm in something like 9th or 10th place, out of a remaining 15 empires. There are many people larger than me, but there's also some empires who are a fair bit smaller than me. However, I will not attack those smaller empires, or attack anyone without at the very least giving them some warning. Also, I play to survive, not to conquer the galaxy. Again in the NGC4 game, I'm small, but I'm happy. I don't really bug anyone else, I stay out of the major wars, I am content to leave everyone else alone as long as they leave me alone. Does this make me easy prey? Probably. Do I care? No. Its just a game.

So to sum it all up, if you are worrying too much about the game, don't play. Also, don't take it personally when someone backstabs you, as it usually isn't a reflection upon their personality. And for the Last point, backstabbing is a part of the game, and if you have to do it, then go ahead and do it. It may not be pleasant, but its as much a part of the game, as breathing is a part of life. Do what makes you happy, and even if you lose, like I do most of the time, as long as you are happy, you have succeeded and the game has served its purpose; as a method to acheive enjoyment, and satisfaction, not lost sleep and agony.

[Grandpa Kim]

In response to Lord Chane. First, my game philosophy is more like Geoschmo's but I have full respect for L C's views.

...would not ally with him if I knew that he viewed alliances as transient and was planning my demise...

To all players in my PBW games: You are all my enemies! Any alliance is an alliance of convenience! Like chess or poker, they are all my adversaries, all shows of friendliness are purely temporary.

On the flip side, I fully expect my allies to do unto me as I would do unto them. I enter every game thinking they all have it in for me... and they do! Or at least they should.

It makes me wonder what they're like at work.

At work, we are on the same team! In SEIV we are all opponents.

In case that wasn't crystal clear, at work we are a team striving toward the same goal, in play we are opponents striving for opposing goals.

How can I ever trust a player once that player has betrayed me in a game?

You can't. Even if he has never betrayed you, you can't!

Every future interaction with them, in or out of the game, will leave me wondering whether I'm being duped, used, merely a means to an end.

Of course! Kinda like real life, isn't it. I have no doubt my boss is using me.

By what means can I tell that this time he's going to play me straight and not stick a knife in my back?

Actually the predicability of familiar players is one reason I prefer playing with unfamiliar ones: I don't know what he's going to do, when he's going to do it or how well he's going to do it. Much more interesting.

I reiterate, SEIV, poker, chess are all one when deciding who my enemies are.

[Lord Chane]

Grandpa Kim said:
At work, we are on the same team!

In case that wasn't crystal clear, at work we are a team striving toward the same goal ...

Of course! Kinda like real life, isn't it. I have no doubt my boss is using me.

If at work "we are on the same team", then why would your boss be using you? From my perspective, someone who is using you isn't on your team. They're on their own team. A team has a common goal. If I'm using someone on a team, then I'm attempting to gain an advantage to advance my goals, not the team's goals. Sometimes a team member has to subordinate their goals for the good of the team. Sure, they'd like to be the star player, get the accolades, win the individual awards, but they forego that for the good of the team. Team members who advance their own goals first don't seem like team players to me. So I submit that if your boss is using you, then you and he/she aren't really on the same team. But that's just my opinion.

[Grandpa Kim]

Lord Chane said:

If at work "we are on the same team", then why would your boss be using you? From my perspective, someone who is using you isn't on your team. They're on their own team. A team has a common goal. If I'm using someone on a team, then I'm attempting to gain an advantage to advance my goals, not the team's goals. Sometimes a team member has to subordinate their goals for the good of the team. Sure, they'd like to be the star player, get the accolades, win the individual awards, but they forego that for the good of the team. Team members who advance their own goals first don't seem like team players to me. So I submit that if your boss is using you, then you and he/she aren't really on the same team. But that's just my opinion.

A valid point. I can only say that team play and using or being used are not mutually exclusive. My boss uses my talents to further his company, I use his company to further my reputation and earn more and more money. When one or the other is not making a sufficient gain, the relationship will end. In the meantime the more effiently we can build a quality product remains our mutual goal. You can relate this almost directly to the way I play SEIV.

While the alliance was in place I did nothing to further my position at the expense of those two allies, who I'm pleased to say treated me the same in reverse.

This is exactly the way I play alliances. Small transgressions lead to friction. Depending how I'm roleplaying the game, this may lead to immediate war or a long period of building distrust leading to eventual war or anything in between. Often the transgression is corrected, but that seed of doubt has been planted and remains throughout the game.

For myself, I don't recall ever using a pearl harbor attack. You will always get a warning. For instance,

"For our empire's security, we require you to vacate the Freduk system by 2409.4 to make room for our new colonies and military bases."

Not much reading between the lines required there.

[AMF]

This back and forth gets to what my point was, albeit I obviously didn;t make it clearly.

I come at this game from the perspective of a student of political science. Let me use an analogy from international relations to get at why these two views (Geoschmo & Chane's) are not actually contradictory from a game-play POV.

There are a wide variety of different theories that explain how nations interact with each other in an anarchic environment (ie: an environment without an overarhcing authority to enforce laws and order). These theories range from the various realisms to things like various institutionalist, constructivist, and other approaches.

Goeschmo is espousing an essentially realist POV: it's a harsh world out there and you do what you have to do to survive. Chane seems to be espousing more of a institutionalist/neo-liberal view wherein cooperation can lead to greater benefit to all parties.

So, in the exact same way that nations act different in reality, so do our Empires in SE4. And (this is the key here) the real challenge comes when one "mode of behaviour" has to deal with another: a nation/space empire that works for cooperation and non-zero sum outcomes MUST always be cognizant and prepared for that nation/space empire that does not. Until just recently, the US has been at the forefront of a instutionalist power, in which it played a key role in creating, supporting, and legitimizing the postwar system of alliances and interlocking economies - and this was a non-zero sum effort. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean that they could afford to ignore those nations that act in a zero-sum manner (north korea, etc...).

And that is why players with very different approaches can still interact in the same game, and it makes it even more interesting when they do.

I generally play the same type of empire, one that practices a neo-liberal non-zero sum approach. But, my empires, alas, almost always live in a universe where there are aggressive empires that thrive on conflict and practice realpolitik. The greatest pleasure is the politics involved in dealing with these empires. So, when Geo and Chane are in the same game, they really are practicing two different value systems that must interact in a anarchic (hobbesian) universe - the trick is doing that in ways that remain within their approaches. It's a study in philosophical interaction.

Off my rant.

Alarik

[tesco samoa]

hi away on vacation still at a computer near a lake ... not mine...

but anyways... I like the story along the way.

Playing both styles of players. WHat i do not like is players who forget what is the game and what is not. That to me is rather strange and a little disturbing.

[Lord Chane]

Grandpa Kim said:
I can only say that team play and using or being used are not mutually exclusive.

Sorry, I can't agree. In this context "used" means to take advantage of, abuse, victimize, exploit. Teams don't behave that way toward team members or they won't long be team members. Yes, teams use the member's skills but if it's truly a team, then the member's know what their role is up front.

Grandpa Kim said:
My boss uses my talents to further his company, I use his company to further my reputation and earn more and more money.

Yes, your boss uses your talents and skills to further the business of the company and in return the company pays you. That isn't used in the context I'm talking about. In that context you'd be used if your employer was severely underpaying you, or if your boss takes credit for the work you do, or if they somehow mistreated you because they knew you were in the country illegaly and couldn't do anything about it for fear of being deported. If your employer is mistreating, abusing, or victimizing you, then I doubt very much that you feel like your part of a team. Otherwise, I suspect you are part of a team and what you're describing are the different roles held by you and your employer.

Grandpa Kim said:
For myself, I don't recall ever using a pearl harbor attack. You will always get a warning.

The same here. I'm not advocating that no one should ever drop an alliance and go to war with a former ally, although I think there should be more justification for doing it than "so I can win". Just that if that becomes necessary, then the former ally should be given fair and adequate warning. And also that no hostile, subversive, or detrimental actions should be taken against an ally while you are allied with them.