Slynky's Demise

[Slynky]

For two days now, I've pondered how much satisfaction/disatisfaction I get from playing this game. Recent events have brought this to the forefront of my thoughts. After all, if it isn't a source of entertainment/fun, why bother, right? When one loses sleep and feels sick to his stomach, it's time to re-evaluate one's commitment to the game.

Mostly, it's due to multi-player games. Games where your success is dependent upon the honesty of your allies. Games where your success is dependent upon the ability of your allies to do their turns correctly...move ships where they promised, gift as agreed to, etc.

And, to give a bit of insight on the kind of guy I am, I don't really like "getting along" with someone knowing later that I'll have to declare war on them to expand or that they will dump me to expand. It's just a hard thing for me to do and I always feel bad about doing it to someone (even though we discussed notification ahead of time) and having it done to me (even though it was discussed ahead of time).

Most recently, it occurs in Anklebiters. It bothered me a lot to "hop" on Tesco. It's taking him out of the game (from what I see). It bothers me that soon, it will have to be Joachim.

The more I play these types of games the more it occurs to me that they don't bring enjoyment.

So, assessing what is fun and what is not, what makes me feel good inside and what doesn't, I'm advertising for a takeover in the Anklebiters game:

My empire is currently 2nd (a STRONG second) and has reliable allies. The economy produces more resources than it can use (hence the nearly 2 million minerals in storage). With a score on 4.7 million, 3rd place is far behind. The empire has over 800 ships (probably the 2nd highest total in the game), several warp openers and closers, and highly trained ships (one fleet is at 25%). Defenses are very good with over 1,000 platforms built on planets. Nearly every planet of the 170 I have is converted to breathable. Warphole prevention facilities are built in nearly every system. There are 2 planet creators as well. RexTorres, a very trustworty ally, is in first place. For his support in the game, I have promised him I would never challenge his 1st place...I would need a pledge of anyone taking over the empire that they would not break that promise. AtomSmasher has also been an ally from nearly the beginning and an honorable player. He should never be attacked (unless there are only 3 players left in the game...sorry, AS...another reason I should never be in these sorts of games). I'll play it till I get an offer from someone...it takes me about an hour and a half to do a turn (but others might be faster at it than me).

Grudge Match of Doom - Two players have dropped out of this game. This renders the game to be NOT the game it started out to be. Even with substitute players. I apologize to Lord Chane for getting him into it as a substitute player for another who just quit playing with no explanation. Now, a second has quit...so I see no need to look for a replacement. I will withdraw from the game. Since it was a Rated game, I will take the Ratings adjustment since it was not a RL reason (the only reason to allow a withdrawel without a Ratings adjustment).

I'll continue to run the Ratings site (as there is still some interest in it). But, it reveals what we all may have known...who the good players are and that it's rare to find people who want to be rated when they find themselves below average. It may die a natural death.

I'll continue my 1 x 1 KOTH games where I am not at the mercy of deceitful players or incompetent allies. Where the only reason for my losses are the (perhaps) result of random map placement or my lack of skill.

This is, as I see it, the best decision I can make that will provide what this game is supposed to provde me with...fun and entertainment...NOT loss of sleep, wondering who I can trust, who I should attack, etc. (I never much liked the Avalon Hill--I think it was them--game of Diplomacy, either, where your success was dependent upon your ability to lie and the honesty of others.) Just not my "cup of tea".

[Joachim]

Slynky said:

Most recently, it occurs in Anklebiters. It bothered me a lot to "hop" on Tesco. It's taking him out of the game (from what I see). It bothers me that soon, it will have to be Joachim.





Dont be so sure on me next.... My empire stats read like yours! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/Dagger.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/Grenade.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/Hammer.gif

I understand your reasons and respect you for them. I personally wrestle with the problem of knowing that to do well in multi-player games means killing other empires and thus removing another person's enjoyment of the game. Unfortunately it is the only way to survive, just sitting even with good defense set ups doesn't work. It is a shame that the only way to survive is to destroy everyone else. Maybe SEV will fix this with other ways of winning.

[Slynky]

Oh, yeah, I know, Joachim, that you're formidable. That's why I mentioned my 800+ ships was probably 2nd best http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif. You're a darn good player!

But you caught on to my meaning. That is the important part. And you feel the same way I do, I think.

[Ed Kolis]

Who's to say you're taking away other people's enjoyment? I for one enjoy putting up a losing fight, just to see how long I can survive! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Fyron]

It is no fun to win every single game you play... You have to lose some. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

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. /threads/images/Graemlins/Lightning.gif

[Slynky]

Ed Kolis said:
Who's to say you're taking away other people's enjoyment? I for one enjoy putting up a losing fight, just to see how long I can survive! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif



LOL, Ed...

Yes, I suppose there are people like that out there and I respect them. That's for sure!

But I tend to think about people and their outlook on games the same way I do...I don't like to declare war on people in a "Last man standing" game nor do I like being the person who other people decide to declare war on (in the same kind of game).

I've come to the realization that games without defined allies and opponents from the beginning (and those are your enemies and allies for the duration of the game) is not my cup of tea. It makes me feel bad to be screwed over and it makes me feel bad to single out one of my allies and decide to use him for expansion.

I am near the point of quiting forever but know that I love the game. So, I'm trying to stick with it within the parameters that still allow me to not feel bad.

[Slynky]

Imperator Fyron said:
It is no fun to win every single game you play... You have to lose some. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

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. /threads/images/Graemlins/Lightning.gif


Well, Fyron, one of the few things we see a bit eye-to-eye on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

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... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

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... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[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.

[Atrocities]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif I don't know what to say other than do what I do, take some time off and don't play. It helps and it helps a lot.

I would say find a nice /threads/images/Graemlins/Woman4.gif and dedicate the next month to breading a little Slynky. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Timstone]

NO!!! The world couldn't handle another Slynky!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[primitive]

Slynky:
I apologise for my participation in your demise.

Mark the Muckheads way of leaving the Grudgematch really P.. me off and killed all enthusiasm I had for that particular game. I have known for some time now that I would soon leave PBW so I should have been clearer on ending the game with Mark gone, saving you and Lord Chane for the extra stress of finding a replacement. Hope when this blows over I am still considered as you friend (or at least an internet buddy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Primitive

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Roanon said:

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.


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.

[Roanon]

I don't think that is exactly the point, although some truth may be in it especially in this extreme dislike of any sudden change of in-game politics.
I can very well separate in-game diplomacy and outside of the game, and have no problems to change the attitude of my rulers from game to game even when dealing with the same players. I still to not enjoy the diplomatic part. It is just no fun for me - a matter of personal taste. Although I seem to have a higher tolerance level for this than Slynky, and do not take it that serious if someone does the inevitable step to stab in a game where there can only be one. After all, it's only a game, although it still hurts if you see an empire crumble and fall that has costed you a lot of time and effort to build up.

[Slynky]

Roanon seems to feel just about the same way I do.

A long time ago, I was, it seemed, perpetually the DM for Dungeons and Dragons games (just about every weekend). I had a partition where I keeped my notes, maps, books, dice, etc. When I started, I rolled all the dice out in front so the players could see what they showed. But after a while, I started rolling the dice behind the partition and just announcing the results. You see, I hated rolling a 1 or 2 on the percentile dice (for chance to be hit) and then roll for damage and get a whopping roll that killed a character. I hated seeing the look on the player's face to see a character s/he had built up for weeks or months get killed.

Playing a game of SE4 for months (or over a year), like Anklebiters and then "rolling the dice" to pinpoint the next target is like the game of D&D I was talking about. Nor do I like it when 2 or 3 other players in a game decide MY time is up. In both instances, the poor "wilderbeast" singled out of the herd for "eating" by the lions has got to be asking his 4-legged god, "Why me?!"

Throw in allies who are backstabbers and allies who make mistakes... well, you can see how it additionally affects your game and you have a recipe for disatisfaction. Well, at least I do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Slynky]

primitive said:
Slynky:
I apologise for my participation in your demise.

Mark the Muckheads way of leaving the Grudgematch really P.. me off and killed all enthusiasm I had for that particular game. I have known for some time now that I would soon leave PBW so I should have been clearer on ending the game with Mark gone, saving you and Lord Chane for the extra stress of finding a replacement. Hope when this blows over I am still considered as you friend (or at least an internet buddy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Primitive


No problem. I understand, too, and I felt the same way about the game when Mark left. The game was interesting enough that I wanted to see how it played out so that's why I persisted in finding a replacement.

You'll always be the "Big P" around here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. And when you're broke and have to return to the SE4 cave for your entertainment, hehe, you'll be welcome.

Now, go out and rent "The Sting", "The Color of Money", "Maverick", "The Cinncinati Kid", and "Poker". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[deccan]

geoschmo said:
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.



Well, no game Lasts forever. But I'd bet interest will pick up and this board will fill back up with new players again when Aaron Hall gets around to releasing SEV.

[Atrocities]

Backstabbing allies, hum, sounds like the real world. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[tesco samoa]

Geo I did not say i was leaving pbw... just that it was my Last seiv pbw game.

Slynky as for backstabbing and multiplayer games. This is all part of multiplayer games when only one player can win.

Hence why many games have the allied victory or when people feel it is time to end the game.

Take ankle. You have given the game to rex. The combination of you and rex and atom cannot be stopped. I say end the game. YOu 3 can figure out what you want to do with the victory. Judging by the post. Atom would go down next then you would surrender to rex. So lets end that game as the rest of us cannot stop that.

Now I know your at the point where this is causing you to hate the game.

You need to walk away from it for a few weeks.

Your a good player and a good member of the se community who has put alot of effort into this community. Do not let ingame experience ruin this envolvement with the community. I personally would be disappointed if you left or if you stopped doing a pasttime that you enjoyed. There are still aspects of it that you enjoy so take a breather. Your talking about it. Thats good. Go enjoy the long weekend and do not look at se or think about it.

Then on tuesday read this thread over and carry on with what parts you enjoy.

[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.

[Alneyan]

I can concur with you Slynky. It always bothers me when I have to consider going to war without somewhat valid reasons, and very few Empires have the luxury to gain supremacy without expanding military (it only happens when you have neighbours not too eager to expand and/or AI players nearby). I know I tend to allow for a way out of the war when I have this luxury (I am thinking of TGE3 mostly; it would be closer to a suicide in most other games), but it is unlikely to benefit me later on.

I find that the pace of most wars is also too hectic to truly allow an Empire to survive a losing war. Five turns is all that is needed to bring the riot runs, ruining the targetted Empire in the process. Perhaps reducing the happiness hit for losing planets would help in giving the attacked player a chance at survival, and/or leaving this player with at least one planet for treaty purposes. But I am digressing.

So I understand you, and will be reducing my number of games in the future for pretty much the same reason (well, no withdrawals after my DSL downfall, but no new games either). And speaking of the Grudgematch, why not remove this game from the Ratings system altogether? I see no reason why you would be more penalised for leaving than I (I have been away for the whole month of August), or for my leaving of TGE3.

[AMF]

I must say that what Slynky wrote is how I often feel – it was like reading something I could have written myself. I have contemplated getting out on occasion, but I think I my enjoyment of the politics of it has saved me from getting out. That is, I almost always play either very cooperative non-zero sum empires, or isolationist ones, and part of my fun derives from when such empires as mine try to deal with zero-sum or expansionistic empires. But, if you don’t like politics, or if you don’t like losing, then this approach will in the end just be annoying as heck. I’ve never won a PBW game – but I have enjoyed the heck out of most of them.

My personal solution to these problems has also been that I try to only play role-playing oriented games or games that are “scenario-like” (Star Trek)…and for those games I am in that are not explicitly role-playing in orientation, I have tried to make them such (TGE3, JJPEAR, Proportions games, etc…). If you find you’re still enamoured of the game, maybe try only games like that.

The one exception to this “rule” of mine is the Race to SEV tourney. But I am playing that in order to get better at the game and test out what I’ve learned. And, ironically enough, I am still playing that in a cooperative mindset. I’ll probably lose that one too!

Part of all this, too, as others have pointed out is that the SE4 universe is always limited. Malthus and Ken Waltz sort of dictate that when all the space is used up, conflict is inevitable. I put no stock in it, really, but SE4 games often reach a point at which the majroity of people find nothing else to do except take over the universe. In some games, at that point, role-playing and politics can become paramount - but it's rare.

In any case, good luck, and I hope you stick with us/SE4.

If you want to get in some role-playing type games, let me know - I'd be glad to participate.

Thanks,

Alarik

[Captain Kwok]

Initiate role-play games with similarily-minded players where the object of the game is to generate new roleplays and not anhilate each other.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[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.

[AMF]

Yeah, I'm not sure that it is just a matter of "being the kind of person that can separate what happens in the game from what is outside of the game..."

I would say it's more fundamental than that. I really, honestly, would feel bad if I backstabbed someone. Just not something I can do, even in a game. I did it once, in another game, ten years ago and I was good at it - and I used to love the game Diplomacy and was great at that - but to this day I feel bad about what I did. I mean, I would play Diplomacy with my best friends and screw them just to win. That seems, well, wrong. And over time, I have gotten to the point where (forgive what may sound melodramatic) the psychic or ethical cost to acting that way tires me out way too much. As Slynky said, why play a game if you feel bummed out/can't sleep/etc...afterwards?

It is related to what I think of as a fundamental aspect of human perception: I think that, deep down, people expect other people to behave as they behave. I expect that people would help me if they saw me by the side of the road with a flat tire. So, when they go driving on by, then I am, first, very confused. Then angry, etc...It's just hard to understand someone else's motivations, becuase we're all different, eh? (to continue with the driving metaphor, I still cannot, for the life of me, get into the mindset of someone who would own a hummer, but nevermind)...when a person betrays me in a game, I sometimes think I have a hard time not taking it personally. Like it's some personal failing of theirs - when in reality, it is an inevitable result of the nature and structure of the game.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if SE5 has unlimited technologies - as advertised - and if it might have MASSIVE universese - like thousands of stars - then the scope might be so vast that this becomes less of a problem. Things tend to fall down in the endgame - when there is nothing left to do, after you built those ten ringworlds, and every single planet is breathable, then you might as well go to war to see who is burliest. But, given a massive universe, that might take so long to get to that it becomes irrelevant. Maybe.

Thanks for listening to my babbling.

And, I did have a question: how the heck can I get my Posts to stop putting – in them? I know it's from the quotation marks I tend to use too often, but how can I still use quotes but get rid of the resulting –?

Thanks for listening to my babbling...

Alarik

Ps: I still highly reccomend Proportions games for people to RP in...

[geoschmo]

Do you play Poker? Do you tell your opponents what cards you have? Do you bet when you have nothing in the hopes that they will fold? It's called a bluff, but it's a lie.

Do you play chess? Do you announce to your opponent that you plans ahead of time? Do you move your Bishop into a position to take one piece when in fact you are trying to take another? It's called a feint, but it's a lie. If your opponent unknowingly makes a move that puts an valuable piece at risk do you point it out to him? If you don't you are being less then honest. Perhaps you can parse this and say you aren't lying, but it's semantics.

If you are having trouble with your concience when you've done nothing wrong, or getting upset at what other players do to you when they've done nothing wrong, it's because as I said, you cannot separate what happens in the game from what is out of the game.

It's a game.

[Alneyan]

There is one major difference between poker (or chess) and SEIV: in chess, you cannot possibly think of roleplaying being a Bishop (or you truly have nothing better to do with your free time). On the other hand, SEIV offers another dimension besides its strategical side, and this is roleplaying, diplomacy, politics, and so on.

So, while in chess the goal of the game is straightforward (or in KOTH, if you want to keep it to SEIV), a game such as Proportions at PBW does not offer an obvious goal. Instead, your Empire is left to choose something to do, and seek to accomplish that.

I would say you may be annoyed by something if it goes against how you play the game yourself. I guess players that play SEIV only for strategical reasons are also bothered (or at least don't give it any thought) by the political side of the game. The same argument could probably be raised about economical development, but since I am not fond of that part of the game, I will leave it to someone who loves Empire building (Ruatha?).

Alarikf, I have been contemplating lowering the efficiency of your whole Empire as you grow bigger and bigger (as in Europa Universalis for example); it would lower the focus on expansion, either through colonisation or through war. Would you think it could lessen that endgame feeling, where there is just nothing more to do except fight it out? It would obviously be an option and not a standard setting, as along with the changes you would like, it would change the whole scope of the game.

If you don't feel like deciphering my whole babbling: in short, I would say it depends on what exactly you expect from the game, or the reason why you play SEIV.

[AMF]

Well, yes, no, and yes.

I mean, I admit, that what I am saying is symptomatic of not being able to totally separate gaming from reality. And, yes, that is a bad thing, I would say.

But it isn't monolithic nor is it universal. For example, as to the former, in SE4, when at war, I regularly "murder" billions of digitized aliens when I glass worlds - something that I would never do in real life, even if I had the ability and the justification. So, there is a point at which my personality/ethics/whatnot do not apply and points in which they do. And I think that they apply when I am dealing with other people and I have a choice. Theoretically, I could draw a utility curve which would plot my reluctance to backstab against the cost of doing so and clearly at some point it would behoove me to backstab if the cost were too great to not do so. But, this is just a game, and so it is highly unlikely the cost will ever reach that point. If, however, we were talking about real life then it might be reached much earlier.

As to the second point, my "game ethics" are not universal - as Alneyan pointed out, when I play Poker (and I do, and I've got a pretty good poker face) there is no space at all for anything other than straight up gaming. the AH game Diplomacy is the same way - the very structure of the game makes it zero-sum and betrayal inevitable - in fact, necessary. SE4 is also, *pretty much* the same way due to the limited space, the bounded tech, and the general Malthusian construct it is based on. However, I *think* my point (and I am no longer entirely sure here) is that Se4 does *not* necessarily have to be that way.

Hence my greater enjoyment of the RPG style SE4 games than the "standard" conquer the universe ones. Really, I beleive that it is true that if one plays with a style that is geared only to the latter, then you'll eventually come to a point where the game really is just a very complex giant spreadsheet with random factors.

That's how it got to be with me before I discovered PBW. I played against the AI to such an extent that I got bored. Now, I enjoyed it for years but after a while I was just playing a giant spreadsheet.

With humans, it doesn't have to be that way. Humans engage in *politics* and role-playing, both of which I find quite enjoyable.

It's always a bLast for me to test my basic political outlook (something akin to neo-liberal institutionalism with hard-core waltzian neo-realism and neo-classical realism thrown together) against other political "styles" - when one mode of political thought meets another mode, what happens? Do they change each other? Will the realist always win out? I think it's fascinating. And then, throw in the role-playing aspects and unpredictability of humans into it, and it gets to be a downright stunning exercise in politics. I love it.

Alarik





geoschmo said:
Do you play Poker? Do you tell your opponents what cards you have? Do you bet when you have nothing in the hopes that they will fold? It's called a bluff, but it's a lie.

Do you play chess? Do you announce to your opponent that you plans ahead of time? Do you move your Bishop into a position to take one piece when in fact you are trying to take another? It's called a feint, but it's a lie. If your opponent unknowingly makes a move that puts an valuable piece at risk do you point it out to him? If you don't you are being less then honest. Perhaps you can parse this and say you aren't lying, but it's semantics.

If you are having trouble with your concience when you've done nothing wrong, or getting upset at what other players do to you when they've done nothing wrong, it's because as I said, you cannot separate what happens in the game from what is out of the game.

It's a game.

[geoschmo]

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/firedevil.gif

[AMF]

You know, this gets to an issue that has always begged for resolution in PBW and PBeM games: player anonymity. WE've all been playing these games for years probably, and we build up an understanding of how certain players play. I make good use of this, I think, in that I "hype" my trustworthiness in the beleif that people will treat my empires differently than they would if I were not me. And, I admit, I trust some players more than others based on similar criteria.

BUT, if we're talking about a simulation game, wherein we all represent the guiding forces of fantasy space empires, then none of that should come into play.

In one series of games I have played for nigh on fifteen years now, we contemplated setting up a dedicated server to allocate email addresses based upon position, rather than a player's ID. It was a historical simulation wherein each player was a medieval empire. So, the email addresses would be "France@..." "Japan@..."

In this way each player could play however they wanted, without fear of out-of-game effects or tarnishing their reps.

Of course such a situation is not really enforceable, since a player could choose to "spill the beans" for tactical advantage.

However, perhaps a deedicated group of SE4 players could make a good go of it. It would require a dedicated set of email addresses and stock empires ("Abbidon@...", "AmonKrie@...") or that players ALWAYS engage in IC Messages, OR only send Messages in-game and IC. Furthermore, the game host might have to be ready to enforce it, but I'm not sure how that would happen unless they were ready to kick out any player that broke the rules.

I would play such a game - and I could backstab without feeling too crappy about it.

It might be tough to pull off, though...thoughts?

Alarik

EDIT: actually, rather than email addresses, if we could set up a website wherein we could send Messages to the other players but their identities and email addresses were hidden, then it would go a long way towards a better system like this. Players could still choose to tell others their email/IDs on their own for tactical advantage, but it gets harder that way, a bit at least...

[Gandalf Parker]

The Dominions crowd have had similar discussions. I worked it into the threads of creating a web-based PbEM games handler site. One way to go would be to create user logins and tie all of their games to them. I would be "Gandalf Parker" and my reputation would follow me from game to game, and would be important to me to maintain.

Another way to go would be to offer anonymous games. Such as actually creating a mail account for each player in each game. Not as big a deal as it sounds if you own the server. That way I could play a game as KissMyAsteroids. If efforts were made to provide enough communication channels then there would be no temptation to break the anonymity

The mechanics, and pros/cons, of different arrangments are usually tied into whether or not you build the site as a webmaster from the top down, or as a system admin from the bottom up.

Anyway, I digress. There are definate advantages to both the known logins, and the unknown ones. It would be nice to have both supported.

[geoschmo]

Anonymous games is one of the fetures on the PBW to do list. As I understood it, it would have been a simple options to be checkemarked by the game owner which would simply not display the player names on the game info page. Probably wouldn't be that complicated even. Admiral intended to, but never got around to coding it in.

[tesco samoa]

why not get a new hotmail account and create a new id on pbw... there you go... no one knows... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Ragnarok]

tesco samoa said:
why not get a new hotmail account and create a new id on pbw... there you go... no one knows... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Because he would need a yahoo account...much better then hotmail... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Alneyan]

Hear the wisdom of Ragnarok! Incidentally, is the US Yahoo mail now on par with the European Yahoo mails? A few months ago, it was much better to have a Yahoo.co.uk mail rather than a Yahoo.com, which doesn't really make much sense.

I currently have 100 mo of storage space, a limit of a few mo for attachments, and the ability to download my mail from Thundermail. I am supposed to get some ads because of this feature, but not a single ad has been sent since I signed up, so. Is the current Yahoo.com offer equivalent to this?

[AMF]

well, no, because part of the risk on anonymity is someone screwing with the system. You don't want to have a system wherein people can play multiple positions, or otherwise get wacky. So you'd want a system that opaquely mapped actual email accounts to a player position, so other players only saw the player position but the site admin could have code that ensured that only one email account per player existed.

Of course, anybody could just go to yahoo and set up two accounts, but at least you're increasing the cost/annoyance to them to do so.

Although, thinking more, anybody caught doing this would likely be seriously blackballed, so I doubt anyone would. And, hey, we all love to play fairly - why decrease the challenge by cheating...




tesco samoa said:
why not get a new hotmail account and create a new id on pbw... there you go... no one knows... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Phoenix-D]

Alneyan said:
Hear the wisdom of Ragnarok! Incidentally, is the US Yahoo mail now on par with the European Yahoo mails? A few months ago, it was much better to have a Yahoo.co.uk mail rather than a Yahoo.com, which doesn't really make much sense.

I currently have 100 mo of storage space, a limit of a few mo for attachments, and the ability to download my mail from Thundermail. I am supposed to get some ads because of this feature, but not a single ad has been sent since I signed up, so. Is the current Yahoo.com offer equivalent to this?



Except for the Last part, yes. And I have a program that takes care of that for me (YahooPOPs)

[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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/firedevil.gif



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.

[geoschmo]

Lord Chane said:
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?


I think I clarified that I don't like playing games where team victory is a valid result. Does that not mean that ultimatly everybody in the game is your opponent? Even if you are temporarily playing as allies?

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
I think I clarified that I don't like playing games where team victory is a valid result. Does that not mean that ultimatly everybody in the game is your opponent? Even if you are temporarily playing as allies?



Yes, you did, and I understood that. I was merely commenting on your questions from an earlier post. As to your questions here, everyone in an SEIV game is my opponent unless I make a treaty with them. Then they're my ally and I don't plot against them, don't try and improve my position at their expense, and never launch Pearl Harbor style attacks when I think I have the upper hand and it's to my advantage to do so. I don't usually play temporarily as allies and in those situations where I do, such as in the 2003 PBW Open Tournament where I allied with both Joachim and Sammurai Programmer, made it absolutely clear up front that the alliance was strictly temporary. 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.

[Lord Chane]

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



You're right. Sorry. I got off on a rant.

[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.

[spoon]

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.


Speaking of poker... for some reason, this quote reminds me of the old poker adage:
"If you look around the table and can't find the sucker, it's you!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Lord Chane]

spoon said:

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.


Speaking of poker... for some reason, this quote reminds me of the old poker adage:
"If you look around the table and can't find the sucker, it's you!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif



You've got me there, Spoon. I am a sucker I guess and it's cost me a few games. But then again I'm not aware of anyone not wanting to ally with me because I can't be trusted. Maybe that's because I'm an easy mark and folks know they can take advantage of me, at least once.

[Grandpa Kim]

Lord Chane said:

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.



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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[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]

tesco samoa said:
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.



Tesco,

Tell me what the litmus test is for determining what portion of a player's in-game behavior is his/her game personna and which part is their true character shining through? If a player is so driven to win that they'd screw over an ally to achieve that, then how can another player know they're just "playing the game" and that they wouldn't behave the same way in real life? The motivation for backstabbing an ally is a desire to win. I've yet to see a single statement saying that the backstab was done to remain "in character". If a player has such a strong desire to win that they'd betray an ally in a game, then why wouldn't they do the same thing in the real world? Does the desire to win end when the game ends? It's tough for me to believe it does, and it wouldn't seem very logical either. In the game a player has little to gain, whereas in the real world there are all sorts of tangible benefits to be derived from screwing over an ally. Promotions, prestige, money, power, sex, etc. On the one hand we have plenty of motivations for backstabbing, while in the other we have the simple desire of winning a game. Yet I should apparently believe that the in-game behavior is all just role playing and that in reality the player's personality bears no resemblance to what I'm seeing. I think that defies human nature and it absolutely defies my experiences. Now, please don't forget that I'm talking strictly about regular SEIV games, not games specifically billed as role-playing. In a role-playing game I expect a player to be in character. Treachery and backstabbing included.

You find it "strange and a little disturbing" that some players don't separate everything that takes place in the game from the real world. In contrast, I find it curious that some players see everything that takes place in the game as merely game behavior. Does nothing of our true personalities, experiences, preferences, etc., show through in our game play? If the answer is "yes, they do", then as I said said in my opening sentence, please tell me what the definitive test is for determining which behavior is "just the game" so I can separate it from the player's real personality showing through.

[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.

[geoschmo]

Lord Chane said:
If a player has such a strong desire to win that they'd betray an ally in a game, then why wouldn't they do the same thing in the real world?

Because doing so in the game is acceptable behavior, and in fact a required part of the game where there can only be one winner. Doing so out of the game may be expected by some, and may in fact happen quite often, but it's not acceptable behavior in a civilized soceity. You play by the rules of the game while you are playing the game. You operate according to the rules of soceity and ethical behavior in real life.


Does the desire to win end when the game ends?

The desire to do well is universal, it's not limited to games. But life is NOT a game. There is not only one "winner" in life. For me to do well in life I don not have to hurt those around me. For me to win the game, those around me must lose.

[Roanon]

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?

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

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?

This is of course different if team victory is possible, there just is no reason to become a sole winner then and attack an ally if he is not directly keeping you from winning. I'm refering to "Last man standing" games, and these include "all others down" when they finally end, and someone has to bring them down for the game to end.

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
Because doing so in the game is acceptable behavior, and in fact a required part of the game where there can only be one winner.




I disagree with the "required part" of your statement. I've won a few games, all without betraying anyone. Slynky's won a few games, and to the best of my knowledge he hasn't betrayed anyone either. I've played in a few games that Asmala was in and have never seen him betray anyone either. So, it seems it is not "required", merely an option. I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear on what I consider betrayal. Using a treaty to bypass an ally's defenses; Pearl Harbor style attacks where as an ally you position fleets over one or more of the ally's worlds and then drop the treaty; agreeing to some action (e.g. trade, gift, etc.) then not following through and blaming it on a game glitch; allowing a third party to attack an ally through your space; talking your ally into attacking a third party or waiting until they've done so and then attacking them; passing information you gained from an ally to a third-party without your ally's permission; and any other actions which take advantage of your alliance to the detriment of your ally. In a "Last man standing" game, such as the tournament game I mentioned in an earlier post, it's inevitable that you'll have to fight your ally if the game comes down to the two of you. That's fine. You can stipulate that at the begining of the alliance. This alliance is for x number of turns, or until a certain goal is met. When it's time to end the alliance you can send a notice to the other player giving them fair and ample warning that the alliance is about to end. And I see it as perfectly valid to terminate an alliance if your ally proves untrustworthy or gets you into a jam. In some games I spell out terms of any alliances I enter into. I'll propose making them for specific amounts of time, renewable if both parties agree. That way the other player knows what the situation is and can plan accordingly.


geoschmo said:
Doing so out of the game may be expected by some, and may in fact happen quite often, but it's not acceptable behavior in a civilized soceity. You play by the rules of the game while you are playing the game. You operate according to the rules of soceity and ethical behavior in real life.




In a role-playing game I agree wholeheartedly. In other games I don't agree. There's ethical and unethical behavior, whether it's in a game or not. Let's see if I can make a couple of analogies to illustrate my point. Is it acceptable for a player to intentionally injur a player on the other team to enable their team to win? I played basketball in high school and started to play in college, a junior college, too. One of the first things the coach discussed was protecting the ball. One of his instructions was that if an opponent was trying to slap the ball out of your hands to try and hit them on the on the point of the finger with the ball in the hopes of injuring the hand and slowing them down or putting them out of the game. Now, there's nothing expressly in the rules about that, at least as far as I know, so I guess it's okay. It might be lumped in under "unsportsmanlike conduct", but it's one of those things that would be almost impossible to prove. But it sure sounds unethical and unsportsmanlike to me. Enough so that I quit playing basketball. I didn't want to win that bad. Apparently the coach did want to win that bad. Carlos Boozer of the Cleveland Cavaliers jumped ship and went to Salt Lake City after having promised Cleveland that he'd stay with the Cavaliers. Is there anything in the rules that says he can't do that? Nope. Is it ethical? Nope.


The desire to do well is universal, it's not limited to games. But life is NOT a game. There is not only one "winner" in life. For me to do well in life I do not have to hurt those around me.



Again I am forced to disagree. A new position comes open and you and a coworker friend are the only two in line for it. There's only one position so one of you will win and the other will lose. You and a friend both have the hots for the same girl. What's the rule, "all's fair in love and war"? Ethics goes beyond rules, whether it's in life or in a game. Let's say I figured a way to read SEIV turn files. Is there a rule that says I can't use my newly discovered skill to win games? Or should I be saluted for my cleverness? After all espionage is a key part of the relationship between real nations and cvivilizations. Everyone has the same opportunity to do what I have done so am I inside or outside the lines here?

[Grandpa Kim]

Looks like definitions have tripped us up once again, Lord Chane. I agree making use of another's skills and assets is acceptable while abuse is unacceptable. On that basis, I concede your point.

All in all I don't think any of us are totally black or totally white. Lord Chane, I think you will agree there are cases where an alliance must be ended. As a game evolves, needs change and often the allied parties cannot agree on how to satisfy these changes. The solution is often a change in treaty status. (Wouldn't it be nice to go from "partnership" to "trade alliance" without starting over?)

By the same token I think Geo would agree that sometimes it is not just a good idea, but absolutely essential to hang on to a treaty. Your ally may be overbearing, threatening and unreliable, but without him you are nothing. Here, you hang on in a perpetual state of fear hoping and planning for a better future.

Okay, I said a lot of nothing there and said it in a wishy-washy manner http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I just want to add, I have no real solution for the orignal problem that Slynky presented. I too, have had my feelings hurt at times plalying SEIV. I have managed to adjust my outlook so that I can get past these crises quickly. It helps immensely that the SEIV crowd is the most gentlemanly (or ladylike) crowd I've ever dealt with. They don't rub it in, they help you get over it.

Slynky, I too advise you take some time off. A couple weeks or a month. When you come back, pick and choose your games carefully.

Y'all come back now y'hear! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Roanon]

Lord Chane, while I still disagree with some points, I can agree to your list of "betrayals". I consider what you mentioned bad style too, I would not do it, but paranoid as I am I would not rely on my allies to feel the same - unless their past action in the game have given me a more safe feeling.

But you have left a huge grey area. There still is a difference between using an alliance to move fleets in the systems of the soon-to-be enemy, braking an alliance without notice, or declaring every action XXX turns earlier, for example. This attacking without notice is getting even greyer when there have been tensions before, and you see large fleets assembled, and even expect an assault by your ally.

Another problem is the term "ally". In most games, you usually are "allied" via a TR treaty with everyone you are not at war with, just because of the mutual benefits of such a treaty. I do not consider such a mere formality a real alliance, for example.

I also think it takes a bit the tension, and thereby the fun, out of the game if you can rely 100% on everyone else in the game. Political maneuvering is nice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif. But downright lying, and what else you described as "betrayal" is something different. Still, there is not only black or white, I think we agreee which is which, but what about the grey areas, which are the biggest? I do not think there are general, "right" rules of behaviour for any situation in the game. And no one has the right to impose his personal, subjective view of these grey areas on every other player. This is a matter of personal style.

[Captain Kwok]

My biggest weakness in competitive PBW games is that I like to role-play my empire all the time, even in games where role-play is not a declared part of the game! Unfortunately I always tend to play that peaceful push-over race that often neglects the chance to take advantage of expansion opportunities through force. /threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif

[Roanon]

Roleplaying is nice, regardless in what type of game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

It is just not a very good choice to roleplay a mackerel when entering in a piranha basin http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[AMF]

He said, as the Aether lords begged and scraped at his table for whatever scraps he chose to send their way...in the hopes of preserving their existence...(NGC4)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Roanon said:
Roleplaying is nice, regardless in what type of game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

It is just not a very good choice to roleplay a mackerel when entering in a piranha basin http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[geoschmo]

Ok, after reading your list of specfic examples I'd have to say maybe our differences here are more ones of semantics. I don't think I've even flat out lied to someone as in telling them that we have a rock solid treaty for X number of turns and then pulling a sneak attack three turns before it ends. I have occasionally allowed them to feel like we are allies, while being intentionally vague about how long it is to Last. People will very often hear what they want, regardless of what you actually say. My sins would be more of ommision in that case.

I have on occasion enterered into negotiations for a treaty with absolutly no intention of joining an alliance. Just to buy time so that I can attack. Is it bad faith negotiations? Perhaps. But it's negotiations. It wasn't an actual alliance.

I might have a person I am in alliance with, and give "aid and comfort" to their enemy. Not that I would neccesarily tell them what my allies plans were, but I might also "forget" to mention to my ally that there might be a build up of this third parties forces in an undefended sector. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The main thing that is an irritant to me is when you join an alliance with someone and they assume you are joined at the hip. If you don't give them every piece of technology you have they feel like you are not being a good ally. Mainly because I think that style of play is simply boring, but also because I don't want to help them that much. And you always have to attack everyone they are at war with? Even when it's not in my interests? That's no fun.

Your real life examples are most definetly apples to oranges. Honestly I am strugling not to be personally offended at some of your comments here. If you think just because I'd break some of your own personal unwritten rules in an SE4 game that I would be the kind of unethical person that would injure another human being, you really are way off base.

Puposly hurting someone in a sporting event is wrong. It is most definetly against the rules in every organized sport I know of. Any player that would do it, or coach that would encourage it has no business being in teh sport. Whether or not you could do it and get away with it is possible, but doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. That's the point I'm trying to make to you here. I'm not talking about doing stuff in SE4 games that is wrong, but being able to get away with it. I'm talking about doing stuff that is perfectly acceptable, but that you somehow have decided is wrong.

And your guy that left Clevland and went to Salt Lake, I don't know anything about pro basketball, but that's not ethics guy. That's business. Pro sports is millionaire players negotiating with millionaire owners. If you were no longer happy at your job and got a better offer wouldn't you go?


Let's say I figured a way to read SEIV turn files. Is there a rule that says I can't use my newly discovered skill to win games?


Yes, it's the rule that says "DON'T CHEAT". What you describe is not a strategy or a tactic. It's not a grey area and cannot be justified. It's flat out cheating. You won't be commended for your cleverness, and we won't debate whether or not it's acceptable. You will be Banned for life from playing on PBW and blacklisted from PBEM games. It's not at all the same as espionage and it's way way outside the lines.

As far as competing in real life for a girl, or a job. In that case, yes, someone's going to get the girl or the job and someone isn't. But it doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do anything you want to the other person. You still have to follow the rules of soceity. You do the best to sell yourself, and hope they pick you. But even there it's not a zero-sum game. There are always more jobs, and more girls out there. As you gain life experience and perspective you will learn that.

[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.

[Roanon]

Lord Chane said:
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?



Very good point, I have exactly the same feeling about this. Just leading to different concludions obviously. Exactly this common careless treaty-making is the reason why I do not consider these Space Empires T+R treaties as real treaties. They are a convention, a must, a routine thing, like saying "hi" to someone you encounter. I think it is foolish to rely on eternal peace and safety just because of such a kind of treaty, without any reinforcing contacts and agreements above this.

[Fyron]

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.

This is exactly why I lowered max trade levels from treaties from 20% to 10% in Adamant Mod... It is still better to make T&R with everyone, but it won't kill you not to... Maybe in 20 player games, but in smaller games, it is harder to triple your income from trade alone...

Also, remote mining income does not get added to trade treaty production. With the increased power of remote mining in Adamant, you can easily get away without many treaties... Also, it makes income from treaties have even less of a doubling/tripling effect, due to part of your income not participating in trade treaties.

[Slynky]

Well, I had a good time at Dragon*Con (and was even able to forget "the game" and recent events/discussions for, I'd say, 98% of the time).

But here I am, catching up on the Boards, and getting the same "dreary" feeling again. Noticed by my wife, she said, "Baby, don't get upset again and quit just about the only game you've played for over 3 years.".

Yes, I DO enjoy the game. Only MOO (and MOO2) has ever "kept" me for so long.

I'm sorry I started a controversy. I intended this thread as a commentary as to my reactions of late and withdrawels from games (as well as my explanation for never playing multi-player games again).

I've read, with interest, all the comments made since I left for Dragon*Con. I'll admit, before my comments, that I am prejudiced toward Lord Chane's comments not only because he's my best friend but because he's lived his life just exactly as he has commented in his Posts. There were times when he was my supervisor and ANYTHING that I did that merited noting, he made absolutely sure that everyone important knew I was the one who did it. And he has done the same for other staff NOT as close as we are. That's just the way he is and the reason why I'd work for him anywhere, anytime. And play a game of SE4 with him anywhere, anytime as a partner...whether we started the game as designated partners (or met in a game and decided to make a treaty).

I trust Geo quite a bit, too. As he alluded to in Posts, he is very explicit about his treaties and how long they Last. If he says "We will be in a treaty till turn 30", I know he might attack on turn 31. If he says "I won't attack you without 3 turns notice", I believe him.

Now, during a treaty with Lord Chane or Geo, let's talk about "secondary" pieces of trust. WIll Lord Chane tell another person (not treatied with me) I'm building up an attack fleet? Nope. No doubt at all. Will Geo? Not sure. But, Geo never discussed those parameters and I understand his game to be of such that he considers that honoring his treaty. No need to go into whether that is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out what I think to be a difference in both their points of view. I would also submit that I would expect most every player to prefer the kind of treaty Lord Chane would offer.

I also think it's a waste of time to debate who is right or wrong (and I think Lord Chane stated that). More directly to the point, and as an additional explanation of why I quit the "Tourney", I think it's natural for people to not want to play as an ally to a person they cannot trust.

I also think that people who will use any method possible to win a game are more likely to do the same in life. Said another way, a person you can trust in a game where a mere win is bragging rights is also a person you are probably better posting your faith in in real life. (not saying they wouldn't backstab you but that it's less likely)

Adding to my list of thoughts--I'll try to explain it without insulting anyone--I believe that people who cheating, backstabbing, spinning white lies, and bending the truth (etc.), are the kind of people who will never understand those people who don't share those kinds of beliefs/tactics. Said in another way, people who believe the (questionable) tactics I listed above will never understand the viewpoint of those who don't share those approaches. They can debate till their fingers have grown tired of typing...and still not agree. And that's fine. I think all anyone needs to understand is that the "honest" (to encompass a concept in a single word) players will learn who are like them and who are not. And given no new players to PBW, games will (generally) polarize to the point that those of one ilk will gravitate toward games comprised those of similar feelings. Which means there will be games of people who know they can trust the other players and games of people who will always look over their back. And, that's fine, too. It will also result in people like me who will never play another game of multiplayer. Call me a baby. Call me a sore loser. Call me anything you want. But I'm in the game for entertainment. EVERY game I have ever won has been done so within the limits of what I feel to be honorable. Though I am not the most succesful player around, I feel good that I didn't find some way to screw over someone that I had a treaty with in a game in order to put another notch on my win column.

So, in a world of "cutthroats" and "doormats", I may not be at the top of the pyramid of game-playing or making as much money as I could if I had screwed coworkers over. But I get much more sleep.

I remember someone who posted a message over a month about about "Nice guys finishing Last". It was a good thread and some people believed that nice people DO finish Last. Working in reverse (life to games direction), I also believe those to be people who feel same way in games. (my way of trying to prove what Lord Chane was saying...that people who think it's OK to lie in a game are more likely to believe it's OK to lie in RL...and vice-versa).

I believe what I have written. I also believe those who "live by a different" code will believe I just don't understand. That is also the reason why I'll not waste any more time trying to "convert" those who differ in opinon. I have better things to do with my like than "typing at a wall". And the reason why this is my Last post.

[spoon]

I love that this post ends with your sig:

ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
I have occasionally allowed them to feel like we are allies, while being intentionally vague about how long it is to Last.




A bit of a grey area. I wouldn't have a problem with that so long as there was some sort of notice given when the alliance is being terminated. Something more than a fleet showing up over one of my planets and a note saying that the alliance is over.


geoschmo said:
People will very often hear what they want, regardless of what you actually say. My sins would be more of ommision in that case.




A player certainly can't be held responsible for what someone else chooses to believe.


geoschmo said:
I have on occasion enterered into negotiations for a treaty with absolutly no intention of joining an alliance. Just to buy time so that I can attack. Is it bad faith negotiations? Perhaps. But it's negotiations. It wasn't an actual alliance.




That is most definitely part of the game.


geoschmo said:
I might have a person I am in alliance with, and give "aid and comfort" to their enemy. Not that I would neccesarily tell them what my allies plans were, but I might also "forget" to mention to my ally that there might be a build up of this third parties forces in an undefended sector. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif




Another gray area. But I'd tend to say that's acceptable depending on the terms of the treaty. For example, you and I have a treaty in TGE and I wouldn't expect you to warn me if someone was going to attack me.


geoschmo said:The main thing that is an irritant to me is when you join an alliance with someone and they assume you are joined at the hip. If you don't give them every piece of technology you have they feel like you are not being a good ally. Mainly because I think that style of play is simply boring, but also because I don't want to help them that much. And you always have to attack everyone they are at war with? Even when it's not in my interests? That's no fun.




I agree completely, unless the alliance specifically calls for that sort of thing. I prefer to use alliances to secure my borders so I can use the forces that would otherwise have to defend them to attack someone I'm not allied to elsewhere.


geoschmo said:
Your real life examples are most definetly apples to oranges. Honestly I am strugling not to be personally offended at some of your comments here. If you think just because I'd break some of your own personal unwritten rules in an SE4 game that I would be the kind of unethical person that would injure another human being, you really are way off base.




I'll start by saying I'm sorry if I've offended you. I've tried to write everything I've said to take issue with the opinion you expressed and not you personally. There's a difference between the thought and the person who expressed it. I've made no personal attacks, accused you of nothing, and stuck to disagreeing with the opinion and not the author. I can't help the fact that you happened to have expressed the opinion I disagree with. You expressed dismay "... 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." By this I assume that you are bothered that more people don't adhere to "your own personal unwritten rules in an SE4 game". I'm merely expressing my dismay that the style of play you described is appealing. Am I not as entitled to my opinion as you to yours? I haven't said you are an unethical person, nor have I said that you'd injure another human being. I don't know you but I've no reason to believe that you are or that you would. What I have said is that some of our personality shows through in the way we play, probably even when we are role playing. I've also said that folks who truly believe in winning at all costs in a game probably don't end it there. It's just not in their personality. I've also mentioned several times that games specifically marked as role-playing are exempt from those thoughts. There have been several counter Posts suggesting that I learn to separate what occurs in the game from real life. Perhaps you can help me with this one. How do I pick out those players who are just role playing from those players who really are prepared to win at any cost, whether it's in the game or real life? Surely in your years of playing and running the SEIV site you must have met a few real jerks. Do I take it on faith? Do I ask the person and then believe their response without question? You see what I mean? Have you ever met people who in real life will say or do anything to get what they want? Slander a co-worker, let a project fail to make themselves look better, take credit for someone else's work, lied to a girl so they could get her, etc., etc., etc. Do you think that sort of person might also be the kind of person who'd screw an ally over in SEIV? Are you one of those kinds of people? Certainly not. Is everyone who espouses a win at all costs attitude a nice guy? Certainly not. The key is once I've been betrayed by an someone I trusted, in this case an ally, how can I ever trust them again? And unless someone can share the means of determining who is role playing and who is just letting their personality show through, I can't tell what kind of person I'm truly dealing with.


geoschmo said:
Puposly hurting someone in a sporting event is wrong.




I agree. But it goes on all the time and it goes on in the name of "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".


geoschmo said:
It is most definetly against the rules in every organized sport I know of.




There are a lot of grey areas in sports rules. And even where something is clearly against the rules it's oftimes difficult to say whether it was intentional or an accident. If I have the basketball and an opponent is trying to slap it away from me while I'm moving it around, who's to say whether the broken finger they just got was on purpose or just an accident? Do you watch football? Ever see a late hit on the QB that puts him out of action for a bit? Was it intentional or an accident?


geoschmo said:
Any player that would do it, or coach that would encourage it has no business being in teh sport. Whether or not you could do it and get away with it is possible, but doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.




I agree. So why do players do it and why would a coach tolerate it or tell them to do it? Because right or wrong, it's part of the game. The same as steroids, illegal performance enhancers, practicing early, recruiting violations, covering up sexual misconduct, having someone else take tests for an athlete, and so on. It's all become part of the game. And why? To win! And I'm sure that many of those coaches and athletes who indulge in these behaviors are otherwise nice guys and gals. They behave one way in a game and completely different outside of the game.


geoschmo said:That's the point I'm trying to make to you here. I'm not talking about doing stuff in SE4 games that is wrong, but being able to get away with it. I'm talking about doing stuff that is perfectly acceptable, but that you somehow have decided is wrong.




I understand that we aren't talking about cheating or a clear rules violation. But I think there is a difference between being acceptable and being the right thing to do. That's my opinion, no one has to agree with me, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I just don't see it the same way.


geoschmo said:
And your guy that left Clevland and went to Salt Lake, I don't know anything about pro basketball, but that's not ethics guy. That's business. Pro sports is millionaire players negotiating with millionaire owners.




Sorry, I can't agree. It is ethics. If you tell someone you are going to do something, then you should do it. I don't care if it hurts. I don't care if you got a better offer. You gave your word. Now, if there's an extinuating circumstance that prevents you from following through, then that's a different issue. Ann Landers said it quite nicely in her Ten Commandments of Getting Along with People, "Make promises sparingly, and keep them faithfully, no matter what it costs." The one thing we all have that we can truly call our own is our integrity. It is just flat wrong to tell someone, even a millionaire owner, that you're going to stay and then leave. Boozer used them in every negative sense of the word. Not knowing whether you were familiar with this incident I didn't go into a lot of detail in my initial post. So, let me fill in some of that detail and see if you still think it isn't an ethical issue. The player was in an option year. Cleveland could pick up the option or let the player become a free agent. They could have picked up the option and paid him something like 6-7 million for the year. He'd had a really good year though. So, the Cleveland owner and coach talked to him and told him that they wanted to reward him with a new contract worth something like $48 million over I think three or four years. To do that though they'd have to let the option pass and allow him to become a free agent. Would he be willing to do that? Absolutely, he said. Besides, he and his wife loved Cleveland, loved the fans, and really wanted to stay there. So, the Cavs let the option lapse, making him a free agent. He immediately signed an offer sheet from Salt Lake for $68 million. Now, I can't know what happened behind the scenes, but that surely looks to me like he stuck a knife in Cleveland's back. I'd say he had it all plotted out ahead of time. To me the whole thing has ethics written all over it.


geoschmo said:
If you were no longer happy at your job and got a better offer wouldn't you go?




Yep. But I wouldn't lie to do it. And I especially wouldn't do it on the heels of my employer going out of their way for me. The millionaire owner in this case could have just exercised the option and locked him in for another year at the lower salary. It was a cheap shot on the player's part and he must have felt so too. He refused all interviews on the subject afterwards. I'd expect if he felt he'd done the right thing he'd have been more than happy to get up and defend what he'd done. As a side note, his leaving hurt the team, hurt the fans, hurt the owner, hurt the coach, and likely marked him as a mercenary who puts his agenda ahead of everything else. Oh, and by all reports the fans loved him. He was a nice guy who readily signed autographs, chatted with fans at courtside, and so on. I mention that as an example of how difficult it can be to pick out the nice guys from those who put their personal agenda in front of all other considerations. Oh, and should anyone answer that it's acceptable when there's that much money involved then I submit the following joke:

A man sees a beautiful woman in a bar. He walks up to her and strikes up a conversation. After chatting a bit he asks her if she'd be willing to sleep with him for a million dollars. "Sure!", she says. "How about for five dollars?", the man asks. The woman is outraged! "Of course not!", she replies, "What sort of girl do you think I am?" Smiling, the man answers, "We've already determined that. Now we're just haggling over the price."


geoschmo said:
Yes, it's the rule that says "DON'T CHEAT". What you describe is not a strategy or a tactic. It's not a grey area and cannot be justified. It's flat out cheating. You won't be commended for your cleverness, and we won't debate whether or not it's acceptable. You will be Banned for life from playing on PBW and blacklisted from PBEM games. It's not at all the same as espionage and it's way way outside the lines.




I agree. Have you seen the movie "A Few Good Men"? If so, remember the scene where Kevin Bacon's character has just finished his examination of a coporal where he's been asking the corporal to show him where in the SOP for GITMO it talks about Code Reds? The corporal says that Code Reds aren't in the SOP. In his cross Tom Cruise asks him where in the SOP is the section on how to find the mess hall. The coporal says that isn't in the SOP either. Cruise asks him if he hasn't eaten at all since arriving at the base. No, the corporal says, he just followed the other guys and found the mess hall. The point is that not everything is an official rule. So, just play the Devil's advocate, can you point me to where in the SEIV or PBW rules it specifically says that what I described is illegal and forbidden? My point is that not everything that's wrong is a rule, written down for all to see. Sometimes things are just accepted as wrong.


geoschmo said:
As far as competing in real life for a girl, or a job. In that case, yes, someone's going to get the girl or the job and someone isn't. But it doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do anything you want to the other person. You still have to follow the rules of soceity. You do the best to sell yourself, and hope they pick you. But even there it's not a zero-sum game. There are always more jobs, and more girls out there.




I only offered those thoughts to refute these statements:


geoschmo said:For me to do well in life I don not have to hurt those around me. For me to win the game, those around me must lose.




Sometimes winning in life means others have to lose too.


geoschmo said:As you gain life experience and perspective you will learn that.



http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Either you're older than I think you are or I'm not as young as you apparently think I am. I'm 47, Geo. My perspective is based on my experiences over those years. I know I still have a lot of learning to do though, and I don't mean that sarcastically. I work on that every day.

As you said, I suspect we really aren't that far apart on what behaviors we do and don't find acceptable in the game. More a matter of definitions and semantics I think. I don't think you and I have been in that many games together. You've never done anything I found objectionable and I've never heard anything negative about you. In fact, I was surprised when I read your post, the one that got me writing these Posts, because from what I know about you it seemed out of character. I've never met you and only know you from the limited dealings we've had in SEIV and here on the forum. That aside, you strike me as a nice guy. I don't have any problem with you and the bad traits and examples I've used in this thread were to describe win at all cost personalities, not you. Despite your post, I don't think that you are truly a win at all costs player. I can't express my opinion though without making reference to your post. Please remember though that it's the issue I'm attacking, not you as a person.

[Lord Chane]

Roanon said:
But you have left a huge grey area. There still is a difference between using an alliance to move fleets in the systems of the soon-to-be enemy, braking an alliance without notice, or declaring every action XXX turns earlier, for example. This attacking without notice is getting even greyer when there have been tensions before, and you see large fleets assembled, and even expect an assault by your ally.




Moving fleets up sounds fine to me. If you know an alliance is about to end, then I've no problem with getting ready. If there have been tensions between you and an ally, or you see large fleets assembling and your ally can't offer a plausible explanation, then you certainly have every right to defend yourself, including a preemtive strike. An ally who you've had problems with who is taking belligerent actions isn't an ally and doesn't deserve to be treated as one. I have just such a problem in a game I'm playing. A player I have a treaty with is piling up ships in a system that I own exclusively. No explanation why. I'm not threatening them, although I too have a fleet there that they might pervceive as a threat. Or perhaps they're concerned about other players drifting in and colonizing their territory. But it makes me nervous and if I can't get a proper explanation, then I guess I'll have to take action. I see that as totally justified. Now, I could use their ships being in my space as sufficient provocation and just attack. But I don't think that's the proper way to handle things.


Roanon said:
Another problem is the term "ally". In most games, you usually are "allied" via a TR treaty with everyone you are not at war with, just because of the mutual benefits of such a treaty. I do not consider such a mere formality a real alliance, for example.




In that a TR treaty gives your treaty partner access to your space, I have to consider it a real treaty. I wish that everything below MA did't work that way or that the game employed a "borders" concept which treaty partners below MA would recognize.


Roanon said:
I also think it takes a bit the tension, and thereby the fun, out of the game if you can rely 100% on everyone else in the game. Political maneuvering is nice http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif. But downright lying, and what else you described as "betrayal" is something different. Still, there is not only black or white, I think we agreee which is which, but what about the grey areas, which are the biggest? I do not think there are general, "right" rules of behaviour for any situation in the game. And no one has the right to impose his personal, subjective view of these grey areas on every other player. This is a matter of personal style.



I don't think being an honest player has to decrease the fun. In one game you and I might be allies, while in another we might be deadly enemies. One of us might string the other along on the issue of signing a treaty, as Geo described in one of his Posts. We might only agree to a treaty for a limited amount of time. And there could be more games specifcally billed as being role-playing games where I've already said that anything is fair game. In such a game I might even stab you in the back but you'd know it was because I was playing my part and not because I have a win at all costs approach to playing. Finally, yes it is a matter of personal style. I'm not telling anyone how to play, not setting any rules about what can and cannot be done, not even passing judgment on someone who chooses to play the backstabbing style of game. All I'm saying is that I don't agree with that style and that any player who employs it shouldn't be surprised if I refuse to have anything to do with them in a future game. It's their choice to play that way, it is mine to never trust them again.

[tesco samoa]

Lord Chance. What I mean about determining the difference between in game and out of game.

Example. Looking at what I post at shrapnel and using ingame to proove to other players that I cannot be trusted and should be taken out. Getting threating emails because of ingame stuff , Getting slandered because of ingame stuff.

To me it is a clean slate with every player every game. I read an empires descriptions. If they state they are a filthy backstabbing race... I heed the warning. Early in the game. If it is a peaceful race.... and they do not play it or there is no rp from that race... I watch out...

Some players i like to play with due to their rping... some because I know I will have good fights with. That is a fortunate side product of getting to know players. But I still clean the slate with them.

But unfortantly not everyone plays to win. I know I do not play to win. I play for enjoyment. Which is created due to ingame experiences. Trechery , Alliances, Backstabbing, Role Playing, Harsh decissions, political victories and defeats. They are all what makes a game. The final outcome is some one has to mop the map. But getting it dirty is where the fun is at. I find if you play a game not caring if you win or lose really allows you to enjoy the game as a game.

I do not understand this idea that if a player plays one way then they must be like this in real life. People act differently with each social society that they are a member of.

Take Geo as an example playing a game of SEIV on PBW , posting on shrapnel and (making up the rest ) going to work and then coming home to his family and then going out to play a game of ball.

You have many social socities that Geo is a member of here. What Geo choses to do in the one game of SEIV such as playing a game to win via game routes to win is 100% socially acceptable within a seiv game between the players who are playing the game. In the other socities that Geo is involved in these activites are unacceptable or not goals that one strives to achieve in those social socities. ( typing bad as usual ) Perhaps the closest thing would be his ball game. But that may just be a league of lob ball that he has decided to join for exercise and as a way to keep in touch with old friends. Then the goal would be to be competitive and enjoy an evening out that is healthy. Winning is a bonus and is only important for a few games during the playoffs. Guess what I am trying to say here is that in a game of SEIV Geo can be a SOB and this does not mean that in every other aspect of his life he must be a SOB. We are lucky that Geo is what he is in the PBW world and in the shrapnel world. He is opinionated. He is of a strong character who will post what his opinions are and will back them up. He will reach out and attempt to help people when he feels he can or if he feels there is a chance to make someone enjoy their day. Geo also devotes quite a bit of his time to the community and does this knowing that it can affect the other aspects of his life. This is the geo that i know ( as well as the in game one ) As for the other parts of his life. I do not know them. Nor do I need to know them unless we end up neighbours or work together. Then I would get to know those aspects as well in our relationship. But I am quite happy with shrapnel , PBW and gaming. And I am very glad that I have had the oppertuntity to get to know Geo in those parts of his world. Likewise I am sure he is happy to know me in those aspects of my life.

I also know that I do not take one game of seiv and paint a picture of geo outside of the game. Due to the fact that it is a game. And nothing more. And one game at that. If you happen to see a pattern... You have the option to go on that in the next game and miss out on some aspects of that game's story because it is the way you play. Again I do not play that way. And treat each game differently depending on the race I play.

The Last few games I have played the Nostro... Who seem to like politics far more than fighting and will do anything to keep the peace in the galaxy.

I also play a race called the Augmentation who hate everyone but ingame story has caused the race to work with one of its enemies to defeat an even more powerful enemy. ( it occured while we were at war. A more powerful enemy came in and attacked... ) This relationship has streched to fighitng another powerful group of allied races... Due to the crazyiness of our partners young and inexperienced leader. but the augmentation know that the relationship could end depending on who is in charge ( 4 governments in 210 turns )

I aslo play a race called SRM-10 who would sell your empires planets for a few destroyers if they got the chance. They would then attempt to tie you down with years of paperwork to pay for the transaction.

They are all different and I am glad that the people who play in games with me give me a chance every game to develop the empire and to develop the story that unfolds for that game.

For it would not be fun to enter a game and go. Hmm.... Lets hope I end up beside the following players because they play like this everygame so I can work to get rid of that player who I do not like from six games ago.

It is late and I was paged for work while on vacation.

Geo... Sorry for using you as an example. And if I offened please forgive.

Slynky I am sad and disappointed to see you leave. It was good knowing you here and at pbw. I will miss reading your Posts.

Roanon.... you do not like having to agree with me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[geoschmo]

No problem Tesco. You have actually done a better job of describing what I was trying to say myself.

Lord Chane, I know you didn't say that specifically I was a bad person. What you were doing was making a broad generalization. You were saying if a person would do A then therefore they would also do B. Since I admit freely that I do A, by your logic you must think I am capable of doing B.

You don't owe me an appology. You didn't say I would do B. I was being overly sensitive. Sorry about that.

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
Lord Chane, I know you didn't say that specifically I was a bad person. What you were doing was making a broad generalization. You were saying if a person would do A then therefore they would also do B. Since I admit freely that I do A, by your logic you must think I am capable of doing B.

You don't owe me an appology. You didn't say I would do B. I was being overly sensitive. Sorry about that.



I'm not making a generalization so much as I am connecting one set of observed behavior to a set of expected behavior. In my experience those who truly espouse the win at all costs philosophy are also likely, but not certain, to want to win at all costs in the real world. Of course not all people who would win at all costs in a game would also do so in the real world. But how can I tell one from the other? Let me couch it another way, and this is just an example to make a point not an attempt to connect anyone to what I'm describing. Let's say you and I are walking down the street and we see a skinhead in a Nazi uniform. Are you saying that based on your knowledge of Nazi, neo-Nazi, behavior that you wouldn't develop a certain set of expectations about the guy? You'd feel perfectly comfortable walking up to him, talking to him, having some sort of meaningful interaction with him? I suspect you wouldn't. I know I wouldn't. Of course it's entirely possible that he's on his way to a costume party. Or he could be an actor heading to a set. Maybe even a teacher heading to school (yes, I had a humanities teacher in high school who came to school once or twice a year in a Nazi uniform, playing the part of a die hard Nazi to give his classes first hand knowledge of what it'd be like to be a Nazi - all this with the blessing of the school district). But from a distance and without any additional information it's pretty much impossible to tell. Some players who would stab an ally in a game of SEIV are just role playing. Others would likely stab a friend or collegue in the back in real life as readily as they would an ally in SEIV. I think odds are that a person who plays that way in a game is more likely, although not assured, to behave the same way in real life.

I believe it's an established fact that the anonymity the internet provides encourages people to speak more freely. Simply put, people feel freer to speak their mind in email and in forums when they don't have to confront the person they are talking to, the recipient may not be able to identify them at all, and there is a vastly reduced chance of incuring consequences for what they say or the way they say it. If we can accept that as valid, then I submit that a person who speaks very carefully on the internet is also more likely to speak very carefully in person. It would then seem to follow that a person who speaks with total disregard in person would be vastly more likely to "let it all hang out" on the internet. So doesn't it seem reasonable that a person who would behave badly in real life is more likely to do so in a game, where there are fewer ramifications for their actions?

[geoschmo]

Lord Chane said:
Let me couch it another way, and this is just an example to make a point not an attempt to connect anyone to what I'm describing. Let's say you and I are walking down the street and we see a skinhead in a Nazi uniform. Are you saying that based on your knowledge of Nazi, neo-Nazi, behavior that you wouldn't develop a certain set of expectations about the guy? You'd feel perfectly comfortable walking up to him, talking to him, having some sort of meaningful interaction with him? I suspect you wouldn't. I know I wouldn't.



What! Now you are calling me a Nazi?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

No, of course if I encountered someone dressed like this in a public place I would have concerns. And it would be for good reason. People often dress in such a way to demonstrate their affinity for that particular set of beliefs. Not everyone that dresses that way believes that way, and I wouldn't support tossing people in jail based on the way they dress, but it would give me a preconceived notion about the person.

But again, your example is flawed. We are talking about a game, while you are giving real-world analogies. If I was playing a strategy set in WWII era earth, and an opponent chose to play as a Nazi country, I would not take this as an indication that they were sypathetic to those political beliefs.

[Lord Chane]

tesco samoa said:
Example. Looking at what I post at shrapnel and using ingame to proove to other players that I cannot be trusted and should be taken out. Getting threating emails because of ingame stuff , Getting slandered because of ingame stuff.




I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you betrayed me in a non role-playing game, then I might post something on the forum pointing out that you had betrayed me. I think it's only fair to warn others if a player elects to play that way. I did that after I was badly betrayed in the Mediocrity game. I would never send anyone a threatening email. In fact I posted what I did concerning the Mediocrity incident because I didn't want to send the other player anything that could be construed as negative or threatening to their personal email address. I know I wouldn't want to receive something like that, so I stuck to posting on the forum, a public place where they should feel less threatenend. And I didn't slander the other player. He used a treaty to launch a Pearl Harbor style attack on me. To compound my aggravation he was infinitely stronger than I was yet felt compelled to resort to this tactic to launch his attack. The analogy I'll use is that my empire was roughly like a medieval knight on horse back while his was like the latest M1 tank. There was no way for me to win, but he felt the need to sneak around and shoot me from behind just in case. Seems just a tad cowardly to me. So, I posted a forum message congratulating him on his spectactular victory. His answer was that he plays to win. Did I slander the other player? Only if the truth is slander. Of course the other player wasn't happy with my post. In my opinion that was because he didn't like having other players know that he employs that tactic. After all, it's much more difficult to stab an ally if you can't sneak up on them.


tesco samoa said:
To me it is a clean slate with every player every game.




Then you are a better man than I. I don't know how you can trust a player who has betrayed you in the past. If you and played several games and in each game I used and discarded you, you'd still be willing to ally with me in the next game? Sorry, I'm not that trusting.


tesco samoa said:
I read an empires descriptions. If they state they are a filthy backstabbing race... I heed the warning. Early in the game. If it is a peaceful race.... and they do not play it or there is no rp from that race... I watch out...




Well, many players don't write anything or use the stock write-up. I'm not clear on how I can tell if the racial description is what the player actually intends to use of if that too might be a deception.


tesco samoa said:
Some players i like to play with due to their rping... some because I know I will have good fights with. That is a fortunate side product of getting to know players. But I still clean the slate with them.




Same here, but I can't do the clean slate thing. From my perspective that's ignoring experiences and taking their behavior on faith. I'm not much on faith. I'm real big on empirical evidence.


tesco samoa said:
But unfortantly not everyone plays to win. I know I do not play to win.




I always play to win. There are just limits on what I'll do to achieve that goal. My behavior is more important to me than winning.


tesco samoa said:
I play for enjoyment. Which is created due to ingame experiences. Trechery , Alliances, Backstabbing, Role Playing, Harsh decissions, political victories and defeats. They are all what makes a game. The final outcome is some one has to mop the map. But getting it dirty is where the fun is at. I find if you play a game not caring if you win or lose really allows you to enjoy the game as a game.




Obviously, I can't agree completely. I don't think there's any glory in winning by betrayal. It's like a sucker punch, or shooting someone in the back. You risk virtually nothing and therefore gain virtually nothing.


tesco samoa said:
I do not understand this idea that if a player plays one way then they must be like this in real life. People act differently with each social society that they are a member of.




As Slynky said, if you don't have the same perspective then it's unlikely that I can explain it in a way that'll convey my position. I've tried using several different analogies, examples, logical connections, etc. To Subscribe to the idea that there's no correlation between a player's in game behavior and their out of game behavior, I'd have to believe that every player is able to completely divorce themselves from every experience, every bit of input, every bit of social conditioning, every feeling and emotion that they've had in real life. I'd have to believe that they can essentially create a completely new and entirely different personality every time they step into the game. Sorry, I can't do that and I can't fathom how anyone can. If you bring even one bit, no matter how small, of your true personality into the game, then you have just validated my position. The question then becomes how do otehr players separate your real personality traits from your in-game personality?

Take Geo as an example playing a game of SEIV on PBW , posting on shrapnel and (making up the rest ) going to work and then coming home to his family and then going out to play a game of ball.


tesco samoa said:Guess what I am trying to say here is that in a game of SEIV Geo can be a SOB and this does not mean that in every other aspect of his life he must be a SOB.




You are absolutely correct. Just because a player is an SOB in a game of SEIV doesn't mean that in other aspects of their life they must be an SOB. And I haven't said that they must be either. What I said is that I believe they are more likely to be an SOB in real life too. If I understand your position correctly, you see no correlation between in-game and out-of-game behaviors. I do see a correlation. I make that statement based on personal experiences, not on whim, or speculation. In some players the correlation is much stronger than in others. If you can accept that, then what's needed is a way to tell from a distance, without knowing the player concerned, how to tell how much of the in-game personality correlates with the player's real personality. Can you tell me how to do that?


tesco samoa said:
We are lucky that Geo is what he is in the PBW world and in the shrapnel world.




Yes, we are. But this isn't about Geo. It's about the position that Geo articulated. I've tried to make that clear. I'm attacking what he said, not the man himself. We can agree to disagree. Slynky and I are best friends, but we don't always agree and have had some interesting and empassioned discussions on issues we didn't see eye to eye on. But I don't take it personally when he thinks that my position doesn't make sense and I don't believe he is offended when I disagree with him. I can disagree with a person's position without finding the person disagreeable. Then again I can agree with a person's position while finding the person totally contemtable. Hitler was a terrible person, but not everything he did was terrible.


tesco samoa said:
For it would not be fun to enter a game and go. Hmm.... Lets hope I end up beside the following players because they play like this everygame so I can work to get rid of that player who I do not like from six games ago.




I'm not advocating carrying a grudge from game to game and playing to annihilate a player who wronged me a half-dozen games ago. In a non-RP game though, if a player things I'm going to treaty up with or trust them after they've betrayed me in another non-RP game, then they're being naive. If I can bring about their demise, then I'd be happy to do so, but not at the cost of my game.


tesco samoa said:
It is late and I was paged for work while on vacation.




Hopefully they didn't keep you at work too long.

[Fyron]

Well, many players don't write anything or use the stock write-up. I'm not clear on how I can tell if the racial description is what the player actually intends to use of if that too might be a deception.

The sort of player that takes the time to write a customized race description is the sort of player that roleplays their empire... Most people that write such a description will try their hardest to act that way in-game...


To Subscribe to the idea that there's no correlation between a player's in game behavior and their out of game behavior, I'd have to believe that every player is able to completely divorce themselves from every experience, every bit of input, every bit of social conditioning, every feeling and emotion that they've had in real life. I'd have to believe that they can essentially create a completely new and entirely different personality every time they step into the game. Sorry, I can't do that and I can't fathom how anyone can. If you bring even one bit, no matter how small, of your true personality into the game, then you have just validated my position.

Ah, but many people can... it is what roleplaying is all about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Their life experiences and all that might subconsciously determine the types of characters they chose to roleplay, but the roles they choose to play don't define everything about them.

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
No, of course if I encountered someone dressed like this in a public place I would have concerns. And it would be for good reason. People often dress in such a way to demonstrate their affinity for that particular set of beliefs. Not everyone that dresses that way believes that way, and I wouldn't support tossing people in jail based on the way they dress, but it would give me a preconceived notion about the person.




The preconceived notion is all I was going for.


geoschmo said:
But again, your example is flawed. We are talking about a game, while you are giving real-world analogies.




As I said to Tesco in my Last post to him, you apparently see a clear separation between the player and the position they play in the game, even in non-RP games. I don't and no one has offered any objective evidence that there is such a separation. I submit to you that it is pretty much impossible not to carry over some of our personalities into the game. If you agree that players carry over even one small attribute from their real personality into the game, then you invalidate the clear separation hypothesis. It's then a matter of determining how much of the player's real personality leaks over into their in-game personna. And I disagree about my examples being flawed. My point was that people have preconceived notions and that they have them in games as well as out.


geoschmo said:
If I was playing a strategy set in WWII era earth, and an opponent chose to play as a Nazi country, I would not take this as an indication that they were sypathetic to those political beliefs.



No, neither would I. Any more than I would think that an actor who plays Hitler is a Nazi sympathizer or that one who plays Jesus is a godly or devoutly religious man. It's a role. I've already said that I've no problem with what someone does in a role-playing game. They should play their role. I played a Nazgul position in a Lord of the Rings play-by-mail game once and I tried to stay in character. Would anyone trust one of the Dark Lord's servants? But unless the other game players had never read, seen, or heard of LOTR before, then they knew what to expect. Is every game of SEIV an RP game? In my opinion no and that notion is supported by the fact that some games announce themselves as being RP and others don't. If they were all RP, then there's be no reason to announce some games as RP. So for me there's a clear difference between someone playing a role and just being a player in a game.

[geoschmo]

Lord Chane said:
As I said to Tesco in my Last post to him, you apparently see a clear separation between the player and the position they play in the game, even in non-RP games. I don't and no one has offered any objective evidence that there is such a separation.


I do agree there is a point at which behavior of players in a game is reflective of their character, or lack of it out of the game. And in that regard your examples do have some merit. There is a line that a person can cross while playing a game which will cause me to question them as a person. Where we disagree I suppose is exactly where that line is drawn.

I would like to keep it simple and just say that for me the line is cheating. Of course that would require everyone to have the same definition of what is cheating, and then we start our debate all over again. I guess maybe that's the point you've been trying to make all along. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Lord Chane]

Imperator Fyron said:
The sort of player that takes the time to write a customized race description is the sort of player that roleplays their empire... Most people that write such a description will try their hardest to act that way in-game...




A good point and one I may seem to have overlooked. I rarely pay attention to those descriptions for a couple of reasons. One, I'd have to pay more attention to what the stock descriptions say in order to know if the description I'm looking at is custom or not. Two, they seem more like fluff to me than actually useful information. But I see I could be wrong on that. Again the problem though would be to tell who has created their race and intends to play in accordance with their description and who is using the description to decieve those who pay attention to it.


Imperator Fyron said:
Ah, but many people can... it is what roleplaying is all about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Their life experiences and all that might subconsciously determine the types of characters they chose to roleplay, but the roles they choose to play don't define everything about them.



You're right, the roles they choose to play doesn't define everything about them, and I never indicated I think it does. The role they choose to play may in fact say nothing about them. Or perhaps it does say something about them. That's hard to tell and impossible for me to know when I meet them in a game. Really though if their life experiences, even one of them, influences their in-game behavior, then that validates my hypothesis that it's virtually impossible to preclude that from happening. It's then a matter of trying to determine how much of their real personality they exhibit in the game. But I'm only making this argument in reference to non-RP games. In RP games I've no problem with what any player does, because I know up front that everyone is role playing.

[Lord Chane]

geoschmo said:
I do agree there is a point at which behavior of players in a game is reflective of their character, or lack of it out of the game. And in that regard your examples do have some merit. There is a line that a person can cross while playing a game which will cause me to question them as a person. Where we disagree I suppose is exactly where that line is drawn.




http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Exactly! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif


geoschmo said:
I would like to keep it simple and just say that for me the line is cheating. Of course that would require everyone to have the same definition of what is cheating, and then we start our debate all over again. I guess maybe that's the point you've been trying to make all along. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Well, one of the points. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Fyron]

A good point and one I may seem to have overlooked. I rarely pay attention to those descriptions for a couple of reasons. One, I'd have to pay more attention to what the stock descriptions say in order to know if the description I'm looking at is custom or not. Two, they seem more like fluff to me than actually useful information. But I see I could be wrong on that. Again the problem though would be to tell who has created their race and intends to play in accordance with their description and who is using the description to decieve those who pay attention to it.


So you mean, I take the time to write something like *this race description* (http://www.spaceempires.net/files/temp/zhentara.html) so that you can know all about how nasty the Zhentara are, and you don't even bother reading it? I am hurt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Injured.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

In my experience, the vast majority of people that take the time to write a race description play by it...


But I'm only making this argument in reference to non-RP games. In RP games I've no problem with what any player does, because I know up front that everyone is role playing.

For many, every game _is_ a RP game... It is fairly easy to pick these people out of the crowd. This game becomes really boring if all you do is build an empire and attack people...

[AMF]

Imperator Fyron said:
So you mean, I take the time to write something like *this race description* (http://www.spaceempires.net/files/temp/zhentara.html) so that you can know all about how nasty the Zhentara are, and you don't even bother reading it? I am hurt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Injured.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif




Oh, don't you worry...some of us HAVE read it...and it greatly affects how we deal with you in certain games....ahem....If you know what I mean...

Alarik

[Fyron]

There is also the much more peaceful Kazharii Imperium (http://www.spaceempires.net/files/temp/kazharii.html), which really isn't an imperium, I just like the name. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Lord Chane]

Imperator Fyron said:
So you mean, I take the time to write something like *this race description* (http://www.spaceempires.net/files/temp/zhentara.html) so that you can know all about how nasty the Zhentara are, and you don't even bother reading it? I am hurt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Injured.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif




I see the error of my ways and have corrected that mistake. Please forgive my ignorance, I promise I'll read all race descriptions in the future. Nicely written, by the way.


Imperator Fyron said:For many, every game _is_ a RP game... It is fairly easy to pick these people out of the crowd. This game becomes really boring if all you do is build an empire and attack people...



Ok, I'll try and be more sensitive to that in the future. I can pick out some of those people easily enough. They're the ones who send elaborate Messages. With others I can't tell.

[Captain Kwok]

Imperator Fyron said:
There is also the much more peaceful Kazharii Imperium, which really isn't an imperium, I just like the name.



You should make it the Kazharii Emporium and sell useless junk there like "Spaceempires.net - Number one in All of Space Empires for a Reason" t-shirts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif