Deceit in PBEM games - Page 2

akots · 25-03-2005, 20:25

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, 21:33

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, 22:34

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.

Still remembering Randy from GOTM39.

StrictlyRockers · 27-03-2005, 05:26

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, 13:06

Quote:

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, 13:11

Quote:

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, 13:52

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, 15:09

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, 16:58

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, 19:25

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.

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.

25-03-2005, 20:25	#11
akots Nebuchadnezzar II Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Glover Park Posts: 4,459	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. __________________ Cujusvis hominis est errare; nullius, nisi insipientis in errore perseverare Ciceron (Marcus Tullius)

25-03-2005, 21:33	#12
DrAlimentado Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: the cookie jar. Posts: 1,568	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. __________________ <font color=\"red\">sign up for the best game on the forum</font id=\"red\"> <font color=\"green\">My Army</font id=\"green\"> <font color=\"green\">Help my orcs to prosper</font id=\"green\"> MapTweaker Utility beta (copy/paste/resize biq files)

25-03-2005, 22:34	#13
akots Nebuchadnezzar II Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Glover Park Posts: 4,459	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. Still remembering Randy from GOTM39. __________________ Cujusvis hominis est errare; nullius, nisi insipientis in errore perseverare Ciceron (Marcus Tullius)

27-03-2005, 05:26	#14
StrictlyRockers Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Berkeley, CA USA. Posts: 57	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. __________________ When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. -Winston Churchill

27-03-2005, 15:09	#18
col King Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: South Sandwich Islands. Posts: 1,529	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 __________________ I can't be arsed.

27-03-2005, 13:52	#17
Dell19 King Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Grantham. Posts: 1,359	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.

27-03-2005, 16:58	#19
Dell19 King Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Grantham. Posts: 1,359	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.