PDA

View Full Version : Deceit in PBEM games


Matrix
25-03-2005, 17:00
Is it allowed to lie, deceit, betray or troll in PBEM diplomacy? For example, imagine in DDPP I give Kemal an e-mail where I state that ProPain is planning an attack on him. (This is pure hypothetically!)

If not, is it allowed to bend certain quotes, using them to your advantage to get other civs on your side? (Like what I (in this case unintentionally) did in the recent declaration of war in the ISDG, and which is also the reason I start this thread.)

Finally, Aggie has made certain rules for his games and a lot of people have used that as well. But one of the things that I find most peculiar is that breaking a treaty is disallowed. That would mean reputations are non-existant in PBEM's. Besides, in DDPP I almost declared war on Kemal, of which it's not clear whether I actually broke a treaty or not.

What's the limit?

Your thoughts please. :)

Socrates
25-03-2005, 17:12
My thoughts.

I recently heard about what a "peace treaty" at CDZ means, and I find it OK, though I'd like to hear more opinions on that. I saw Aggie include that in his ruleset, and I also included it in mine. So I'd like people to express their opinions, so that I can know if I was inspired when I chose that rule. It's true that reputation would be somewhat black or white that way, but Civ3 is far from being perfect, so you gotta simplify it a little so that it works fine.

As for ISDG, no flame war, we already stated so much in the other thread. To put it short : CDZ did nothing wrong. At least that is my opinion. :)

Kingreno
25-03-2005, 17:18
Hmm. the line is there, but it is hard to describe.

For example, in my Pbems versus Erikk and Beam we agreed a peace treaty till the Industrial age (or even later). Now, if I or one of them sneak attack before the end of the treaty that is not good IMHO. First, due to the type of game civ is, such a sneak attack would mean utter ruin for most victims. If two nations border, Knights (not to mention Cav...) can easily take a vast area. game over.
Second, it would also make treaties between us in the future very difficult.
OTOH, your example of telling Kemal that PP will strike soon is IMHO very much allowed! If you can break up an alliance by mere words, that are not backed by any in-game evidence, that is ok in my book. I think the Psychological factor in Pbem is important!

Bending quotes? No problem there either. If you tell PP Kemal told you he was going to attack PP (still with me?), you are faking a quote already.

quote:That would mean reputations are non-existant in PBEM's

Yes and No. Indeed the attitude here is that we stick by 99.9% of treaties (some even posted in the open thread!). This is especially true for 1on1's, where as said earlier a broken treaty is game over.

Kemal
25-03-2005, 17:27
I don't think you can state any hard rules here.
In principle you can do anything, However, you should always be prepared on how the environment will react to it.

The outcome of "your actions in PBEM-games to other players + the reaction of the environment on those actions" ultimately is exactly what the concept of reputation consists of, or so I believe. :)

Note that for some players, deceit can actually raise your reputation with them, as they might think it would be a wise and just move for a player to betray someone at a certain stage of the game, whereas others players might feel exactly the opposite about it. There is no such thing as a 100% clean rep, I suppose.

Btw, about faking quotes etc, I really think that is very unwise and unwanted, since it is very easy to do, impossible to prove, and can see emotions flare sky-high (see the UN thread) and lead to massive damage to people's feelings. It is nice to win, but is it really that important? I'd even rather see someone cheat, than falsify MSN logs etc, to be honest. That's just a border one should not cross, imo.

Beam
25-03-2005, 18:18
I agree with all responses, specially Kemals. At CDZ we seem to have an unwritten and undiscussed common understanding what "fair" gameplay is and we all know that crossing that line will have repercussions, very severe ones in some cases. A lot comes down to understanding reputation in relation to gameplay, experienced gamers (not neccesarely experienced Civvers) understand that (or should).

Matrix
25-03-2005, 18:34
Great feedback! :)

One issue though:
quote:Originally posted by Kingreno
OTOH, your example of telling Kemal that PP will strike soon is IMHO very much allowed! If you can break up an alliance by mere words, that are not backed by any in-game evidence, that is ok in my book. I think the Psychological factor in Pbem is important!
quote:Originally posted by Kemal
Btw, about faking quotes etc, I really think that is very unwise and unwanted, since it is very easy to do, impossible to prove, and can see emotions flare sky-high (see the UN thread) and lead to massive damage to people's feelings. It is nice to win, but is it really that important? I'd even rather see someone cheat, than falsify MSN logs etc, to be honest. That's just a border one should not cross, imo.
This is about where my problem lies: if you can't manipulate quotes, how can you confince someone of something that is not true?
Perhaps if you agree that any quoting of fellow players is disallowed one would at least not be that suspicious...?

Kingreno
25-03-2005, 20:20
To elaborate a bit further, for starters I too am totaly against manipulating MSN logs! Bending a quote is also subjective. Let's asume I am Erikk in the DDPP. Kemal tells me he is "preparing for war". This basicly means nothing. However now I go to PP and tell him enthausiasticly: "You better watch out! Kemal told me literaly he is 'preparing for war'". This is very much so allowed IMO, but it is also hard to achieve.
How often in a multiplayergame do you see people coming with "quotes" on paper? Not all that often (never?). I hate to think that telling a simple "I think he is going to attack you, he was so evasive on MSN the other day", will be held against me after the game as a LIE. In the end all parties will realise what has happened and yes, the lie will come out. I better also have told some truth or else next game swill be hard for me! So indeed rep caries along.

DrAlimentado
25-03-2005, 20:21
I think that actually, anything goes - excepting keeping to agreed rulesets and 'meta-cheating' (ie. reloading/hacking the save game/pw a la skyfish)

The thing is that in most pbem games treaties stick, and some people play rulesets that explicitly forbid treaty breaking. But unless you do have that agreed explicitly beforehand then it is allowed. By allowed I mean that (AFAIK, and I better be right!!) you would still be awarded the win (if it was adjudicated as a ladder game) - even if you were entirely dishonourable.

The fact that no-one ever seems to break treaties is just because they value their reputation over a win. If people really want cast-iron treaties they have to agree a ruleset that makes every treaty a 'game-breaker', ie. write into the treaty the fact that breaking it would forfeit the game.

all in imnsho, but as far as ladder games go I am right [:p]

DrAlimentado
25-03-2005, 20:23
as far as bending quotes etc... I think that kind of stuff is just about your reputation, and basic netiquette too maybe.

If in a multi-mp game you tell some porkies, well you better be dam good and not get caught!

Kingreno
25-03-2005, 20:52
I think much also has to do with the ladder here at CDZ, or more to say the "lack of" the ladder. I used to play other Online games where everything was for the ladder. Forum activity was 90% solving problems between players!
Perhaps more devious backstabbing is expectable when ranking is concerned...

akots
25-03-2005, 21:25
IMHO in a multi-human game, beaing sneaky and using deceipt if you are weak, does not help except for prolonging survival but by no means will allow to escape inevitable. If you are strong, this is not needed but not if too strong. Then, it is needed again otherwise there is always a danger of being gangbanged. But some of the issues stink indeed.

@DrA: you will get caught after the game. The problem then comes to finishing the game and sometimes too many bs-ing can just kill the game. The three Napoleonic scenario games played at CFC do confirm the observation: one game was firm dead on turn 20 or so due to multiple backstabbing and the other two are still hanging out there mostly due to considerable backstabbing so that people tend to lose interest.

There are certain players you can trust and certain you cannot. This comes from painful experience.

DrAlimentado
25-03-2005, 22:33
well that is what I said, if you are going to tell porkies you had better not get caught...

what I mean is precisely this, that reputation follows you.

not sure what you mean by sneakiness and deceipt don't help though... because decieveing your enemy is the art of diplomacy imho. I think there is a big difference between being sneaky and being dishonourable.

akots
25-03-2005, 23:34
Walking thin ice is risky but some people like the feeling. Well, a few get under the ice once in a while yet there is seldom somebody nearby to rescue.

I do prefer to stand on solid ground myself but like to watch the "thin ice race". Moreover, extremely enjoy watching it especially in close quarters. [lol]

Still remembering Randy from GOTM39.

StrictlyRockers
27-03-2005, 06:26
My feeling is that you are limited only by your own scruples and ethics. I plan on participating in numerous games with veteran players over a long period of time. Anyone who has similar aspirations should think twice before engaging in devious Machiavelian schemes to get an advantage. Your reputation follows you. You can't shake it off. Will anyone be eager to enter into an alliance with you if you are known to be an opportunistic backstabber? These are my general thoughts on the subject and not reflections on any particular game. It sounds to me like CFC got what was coming to them, not that they didn't play a fine game, especially recently from what I have heard.

Dell19
27-03-2005, 14:06
quote:Your reputation follows you.

I think this is what makes this system a nice idea. The possibility of threatening to never play someone again if they break a ROP agreement for example is a great way to stop it from happening since its a game breaker. I guess though the rule set wouldn't suit everyone assome people revel in backstabbing as many people as possible. I personnally prefer a situation where if an official agreement is made and the opposition thinks that it will hold then it will not be broken. I guess we both knew in ISDG2 that any treaty that we actually signed was just a waste of time and I wasn't in charge of the gameplan.

grs
27-03-2005, 14:11
quote:I guess we both knew in ISDG2 that any treaty that we actually signed was just a waste of time and I wasn't in charge of the gameplan. Care to explain that? I'd rather say the game was decided by a treaty.

Dell19
27-03-2005, 14:52
I was part of the GCA team... Half the team is made up of quite paranoid people that assumed that CDZ and CGN would ally from the start. Coupled with our bad start and Lucky's confidence in a rush, we were always going to war.

col
27-03-2005, 16:09
Well coming from the perspective of someone who has played various games at a reasonable level for 30 years, I find the perspective of some people limited. Would you play poker and say you're not allowed to bluff because that spoils the game and allows some people to win with weak hands; would you play bridge and say you're not allowed to psyche because beginners cant deal with it; would you play Diplomacy and say that you're not allowed to break a treaty because it makes the game too difficult. Of course not. Its part and parcel of any game between humans. Creating rules that mean that if you betray me, I'll never play with you again and neither will my friends belongs more in the school playground than adult gaming.

I dont believe in hacking the save to improve my position. Faking posts from one player to another used to be an integral part of postal Diplomacy. I see nothing wrong with it. The gullible deserve all they get. Creating rules to replace skill is not the way to go.

If you feel that someone may violate a ROP, then dont sign one. If you do and they tke advantage, then its your fault. You have total control over who you trust and who you dont. Assume everyone is untrustworthy. Intelligent players respond to what is in their interests rather than creating artificial and arbitrary sanctions to punish then for their daring.

We've had this discussion before. if you dont like playing to win against human opponents where alliances should be shifting sands, and the art of the finely timed backstab, applauded, then stick to SimCity.

edit:my opinions on this are reasonably well known ;)

Dell19
27-03-2005, 17:58
So never trust Col completely in a PBEM ;)

It does depend alot on how the scenario has been created and what the goals are. It wouldn't really be the way that RoR was created if Carthage and Rome decided to fake fights against each other and instead ally against Greece and Persia.

In general most of the examples you gave, you are probably playing against the same people again and again and they are integral parts of those games. I'm not sure how much ROP rape has to play in Civ. Other games force units to move out of enemy territory before you can declare war because it is such a severe exploit. I guess though it would be still acceptable in most cases. The different rules on diplomacy are just varients of the game, similar to banning things like leader fishing between allies.

Often trust is built out of necessity. :)

Matrix
27-03-2005, 20:25
I'm 90% with col here. There is still this one issue: faking quotes is too easy and impossible to check. So...quotes instead of someone's own words will have no extra effect on you? Hm...actually makes sense as well. [rolleyes]
quote:Originally posted by StrictlyRockers

It sounds to me like CFC got what was coming to them, (...)
I'm still at a loss to what we did wrong then, but I'm sure CDZ folks will explain it to me and Rik Meleet this summer in Stuttgart. [tongue]

col
27-03-2005, 20:30
One of the rules I used to play to in Dip was that you could fake communication from anyone except the gamesmaster. I have seen players register an email in someone else's name and send them an email to get them to move their pieces in a particular way. Impersonation is regarded as one of those borderline things. It does make permanent alliances - which I think are gamekillers - more difficult, since trust can never be absolute.

Maybe I played in too many games where 2 or 3 players allied for a whole game, crushed everyone else, then agreed a shared draw between them, I'm all for 'the balance of power' concept where alliances shift against the strongest player at any given moment.

DrAlimentado
27-03-2005, 22:12
quote:Originally posted by Dell19

So never trust Col completely in a PBEM ;)



I would say never trust anyone completely in a PBEM.

Multiply that by some large factor when playing many-human games. With more than 2 players both the opportunity and strategic benefit to be had from double-dealing is much greater, hence the much larger chance of it occuring.
I think this is a natural and not unwelcome thing. Fixed and unbreakable treaties means fixed alliances and boring games.

When I say 'your reputation follows you' it dosen't mean that therefore you can never break a treaty, it just means you will have to deal with that baggage the next time you are negotiating a treaty... there is a big difference!


I do agree that Col's signature on a treaty is less meaningful than most others though ;)

col
28-03-2005, 00:17
I will follow a treaty as long as it remains in my interests to do so. I allied very successfully with Erikk in Dip2 and Bas in Dip1 - and even with Meli in a 2v2v2v2 civ pbem (abandoned). I regard anyone who can be guaranteed to follow a treaty when it not in their interests to do so as a bit of a stooge and somewhat foolish: handy to have around - but why play that way?

In Diplo, situations change. Alliances are fluid. Today's enemy may be tomorrow's friend and today's friend may be tomorrow's enemy. One cannot win without allies, one cannot win without stabbing them. What makes Civ fundamentally different?

I used to play a lot of chess which is a completely open information 2 player game - to quite a high level - but ultimately found it soulless and unsatisfying. I much prefer bridge these days which is a 2 v 2 game with concealed information, bluff and counterbluff yet a game of high skill. To mislead in both bidding and play is part of the game, yet there is a rigid code of ethics. One cannot mislead by hesitation or emphasis of play or voice. That is regarded as cheating. More satisfying are the subtle misdirections of card play that fool good players but not weak ones.

Trust your opponent? I should think not?

ProPain
28-03-2005, 03:37
I think it is allowed to lie and betray in a PBEM to a certain extend. Manipulating saves falls out of those categories however, I'd say that's cheating. Impersonation, dunno about that, never thought about it. Could allow for some interesting strategies though.

In the end agreements will only survive as long as all parties feel they're benefiting from them, so I think you should pay attention once that balance is disturbed. After all, everybody plays to win, not to honour an agreement and lose.

Socrates
28-03-2005, 03:51
I'm against impersonating someone else. This falls into the ridiculous area IMHO ; I'm already paranoiac enough on the Internet, no need to play on that ground just to have fun. Someone using such a trick (changing pseudo, speak on someone else's MSN, etc...) will be sure to not play with me anymore. Too bad, but that's how I see it. There are other occasions to play schizo and have fun, but I don't want to hear from it in gaming.

As for backstabbing and not honoring treaties, I can start with a simple remark : if my opponent and I agreed on a ruleset that doesn't allow NOT honouring a peace treaty, then I expect him to honour the treaty until its end (or if I agree as well, lol). Break it and you break a rule, and the game ends. Simple. With a win or a loss, I don't care, but the game ends and that is what is the most painful. If you want to be allowed to backstab, then don't play a game that prevents it !!! [eek]

Matrix
28-03-2005, 17:46
Meaning you shouldn't have such a rule set. [tongue]

Socrates
28-03-2005, 18:02
quote:Originally posted by Matrix

Meaning you shouldn't have such a rule set. [tongue]

Meaning I have one if I want, and people follow it if they want. Everyone is welcome to give arguments against such a rule. FYI Aggie put the same one in his own ruleset (didn't comment on the consequences for not following it though).

grs
28-03-2005, 20:35
I think there is a big difference between civ and some other games mentioned. In diplomacy deceit and backstabbing is the way the game is meant. All deals are made *outside* of the game and are broken there. In civ, you make ingame deals, for example gpt deals with opponents. Breaking these does pose a problem to me, because the game itself is unable to deal properly with that.

The same goes for deals that are made before the game is started; e.g. no attack till xxx. Breaking these is not like breaking a simple ingame deal, but breaking the rules and would be consideres cheating like editing a save or replaying to change the outcome.

There is no reason for outgame anger, if a player breaks such a deal, but you know you can't trust such a player ingame anymore. Maybe it is still a SG habbit I have, but I tend to honor my reputation in civ games.

StrictlyRockers
29-03-2005, 10:03
Diplomacy is an integral part of Civ, especially in in MP games. As I said before, if you resort to underhanded tricks like gratuitous back-stabbing or, heaven forbid, online impersonations, you will suffer a from loss if reputation and risk having people not trust you in future games, which makes all future games potentially more difficult for you. You may even find that people won't want to play games with you if you make some egregiously heinous act. I'm with kryszcztov, I have never considered doing something this devious, and I probably wouldn't play with someone who did. It should be against the rules I suppose.

quote:
quote:Originally posted by StrictlyRockers

It sounds to me like CFC got what was coming to them, (...)
I'm still at a loss to what we did wrong then, but I'm sure CDZ folks will explain it to me and Rik Meleet this summer in Stuttgart. [tongue]


I don't really have a lot to go on when I say this. It just seems that CFC was sort of acting like the big dog in a very close game and throwing it's weight around a bit, maybe. I don't have much to go on from just reading the forums and chatting with people. There is always a tendancy to want to take on and take down the top team. Arguably, that was CFC.

The climactic results of Game 2 are sending some ripples through Game 1 I think. Paranoia runs deep.

grs
29-03-2005, 10:33
quote:There is always a tendancy to want to take on and take down the top team. Arguably, that was CFC. I guess that was the only thing none of us considered them :D

Aggie
29-03-2005, 10:40
quote:Originally posted by kryszcztov

As for backstabbing and not honoring treaties, I can start with a simple remark : if my opponent and I agreed on a ruleset that doesn't allow NOT honouring a peace treaty, then I expect him to honour the treaty until its end (or if I agree as well, lol). Break it and you break a rule, and the game ends. Simple. With a win or a loss, I don't care, but the game ends and that is what is the most painful.


This has been my point of view throughout my PBEM carreer, although not this black and white. It's more like this: when a human - human treaty would be broken I would end the game because all fun has gone for me (note, I say for me!). Luckily this never occured. And I played a LOT of games. All my opponents honored their treaties.

Civ for me is about a test in skill. Civ has a tremendous amount of in-game option to fight your opponent, peaceful and in war times. That for me is what the game is about. I don't like to play tricks.

punkbass
29-03-2005, 16:14
Yes, I don't like to do devious things either. I wouldn't outlaw them, ad I don't stop playing if someone does them, but I don't practise them either. In my experience, which is only casual PBEM, people seem to get pretty annoyed just from a perfectly legal, non-ROP-rape, DoW. In a RoR game I'm stll playing as MAcedon, around turn 40 I had concluded my affairs in Persia I turned around attacked Rome, and I guess he was unprepared. I had no units in his territory, not contracts of any kind. HE seemed somewhat upset, and we're now at turn 80 or so and he's arrived in my territory on several occasions since while we were at peace, forcing me to declare war after a turn or two of his incursion.

Matrix
29-03-2005, 18:26
Reading Aggie's post, I conclude it's simply a matter of preference. The best thing is to agree on the rules before you start a PBEM. The problem is what to do in PBEM's already going on...

I advise Aggie and col not to play against each other. ;)

anarres
29-03-2005, 18:49
quote:Originally posted by Matrix

I advise Aggie and col not to play against each other. ;)
Ha, can you imagine the spoiler threads? I'd be in one telling Aggie to attack col first and in the other telling col that Aggie is far too nice to stab. [lol]