Slynky's Demise

[Lord Chane]

Roanon said:
Lord Chane, how would a game of Space Empires ever end if your black/white morals of "once ally - forever ally" would be applied by everyone?

Good question. I'm glad you asked it. First, perhaps folks would be a bit more judicious about allying if the alliances were taken more seriously. The rule of thumb now seems to be to ally with everyone and then decide who to attack later. I don't see that as very realistic. Is a space faring race really going to make treaties with every race they encounter? No checking into their background, no attempt to find out if they have the same values you do, nothing else taken into consideration, just sign the treaty and throw open the doors to your territory? I think not. The problem is if you don't agree to most of the treaties, then you've just marked yourself for an early exit from the game. Second, I've said a couple of times that I believe it's acceptable to make treaties for fixed amounts of time, or ones that are renewed periodically, or expire when a certain goal is reached. What I don't find acceptable are treaties where your ally is using you, turns on you suddenly without cause (i.e. you did nothing to cause them to drop the alliance), drops the alliance because they can get a better deal elsewhere, and the others that I've already mentioned in other Posts. Part of the problem with treaties/alliances is that they allow folks into your territory unimpeded. Yes, England is our ally, but I expect the U.S. would object strenuously if British forces started scouting the "colonies". And I'm pretty confident that should we Terrans ever get around to colonizing any of the other planets in our solar system that we'd take a pretty dim view of some alien race colonizing Jupiter merely because we'd signed a trade agreement with them. Yet players in SEIV seem to think that a simple trade agreement entitles them to explore their ally's territory, settle planets in systems otherwise entirely owned by an ally without so much as a "by your leave", and engage in other equally unacceptable behaviors. If I'm going to agree to a treaty that provides them with so many advatages, then does it seem so ridiculous to expect my ally to be faithful? If trade treaties are going to be just that and nothing else, then the game needs to be modified so they don't give access to your territory. Then I won't place so much importance on them.

Roanon said:
Even if you do not seem to be able to separate it, it is a game and not reality.

Saying that does not make it so. It is your opinion and I respect that, even if I don't agree with it. And please keep in mind that I'm not saying that every act is a reflection of the player's character. But, since I cannot tell which are and which aren't and no one participating in this thread has offered a viable litmus test, then it leaves me mistrustful of that player. There are those who believe that winning is everything and should be achieved by any means possible. Others, myself included, believe that how you play the game is more important, including your in-game behavior. They are different viewpoints and I'm not trying to convert anyone, get anyone to join my line of thought, or to say that the "win at all costs" crowd are wrong. I disagree with them but it's not up to me to say which is right or wrong. What I can say is that if a player employs the art of the backstab, then they shouldn't be surprised if other players don't want to do business with them in the future and shouldn't be outraged if those players circulate word to warn other players.

Roanon said:
I do not like having to agree to Tesco, but I too think it is important to separate game and life. And yes, kill me for it, I am playing games to win, even if I also have fun if I do not win in the end. That's the nature of a game.

Perhaps you can share how to separate the real player from the in-game personna. Or do you Subscribe to the notion that everyone who plays is really a nice person, not a mean streak anywhere, that not a single player is just as motivated to win in real life as they are in the game? If so, then I submit that you must not have met any ladder climbers, politicians, folks who are driven to win and will do anything to do so. And I do separate game from life. I'm simply carrying on a relatively dispationate discussion about my views on this topic. I'm not even midly upset. We're all entitled to our points of view. You have yours and I have mine. I would never kill you for playing to win. I wouldn't even kill you for betraying me in a game. I just wouldn't ever trust you again.

Roanon said:
I would never directly lie and deceive, but if it becomes obvious that the game is nearing a point where it is you or me, I will choose me and even attack first instead of waiting for your attack - or waiting for the game to end by the natural death of all players, as you seem to prefer?

You wouldn't have to wait for me to attack first. In such a situation I'd send you a message and let you know that it was time to drop the alliance and fight it out for final victory. We'd agree to end the alliance in x number of turns and then have at it. All very gentlemanly. I'd want to win because of superior tactics, military skill, ship design, empire design, not because I knifed you before you could knifed me. I just don't see that there's any glory in that sort of victory.