Deceit in PBEM games

[col]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 !!!

[Matrix]

Meaning you shouldn't have such a rule set.

[Socrates]

quote:Originally posted by Matrix

Meaning you shouldn't have such a rule set.

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]

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]

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:

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.

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]

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