In-Game Etiquette, how far is too far?

[Tyrus]

I play a lot of MP, primarily in the No Quitters group. There are many actions in Civ 5 that, although not breaking any house rules, are so caustic that I simply don't do them for fear of actually earning the lasting hatred of the person I inflict it on. Over the years playing in NQ, I've witnessed far more emotional meltdowns over a game of Civilization than in any other strategy game, save perhaps StarCraft. Maybe it's the extreme time investment required, or the feeling of pride one takes in seeing their Civ grow, or just the many, many ways in which you can get burned in Civ. I've decided to prepare a list, and I now put it to this community.

How would you personally feel about the following actions in a Civ 5 MP game?

#1. You found a religion, and take the belief "Swords into Plowshares" (15% faster growth rate if not at war). Another player, on the other side of the continent, declares war on you, just to remove the bonus and with no intention of invading, his position obviously completely impervious to an attack from you.

#2. You sign a Declaration of Friendship with another player. The other player proposes a deal where he gives you a Luxury and you give him a lump sum of 200 gold. You accept. He immediately pillages your Luxury, ending the deal and keeping your gold.

#3. It is early in the game, and your capital is located on the end of a peninsula. As you are preparing to expand, you find that someone has forward-settled you, purposely locking you into the peninsula, and taking your expansion spot, despite he having very ample room to himself.

#4. You are sending your first settler past the borders of another nation. That player buys the two tiles in front of and behind that settler, pinning it against a mountain or other borders, permanently trapping your settler and warrior.

#5. You are being supplied strategic resources to win a bloody war. At a critical moment (perhaps a siege of the capital), your supplier refuses to renew the deal, simply because he knows you are about to win and he wants to keep your hands full. You lose the resources and your units are annihilated.

#6. You are about to take a capital. Your opponent realizes this, and sells all his buildings, pillages his improvements, and starves his city to hollow out your victory.

#7. You are asked to declare war on your neighbor in exchange for gold. You do this, and after your units are moved, he uses his large navy to quickly take your capital.

#8. You are on the verge of conquering an enemy empire, but he uses his wealth and production to build/buy as many settlers as possible and settle random cities in as many annoying places as he can, such as between your cities.

#9. Someone continuously builds roads just outside your borders, so when your borders expand, you are forced to either send workers to delete them or pay the maintenance costs. (Roads in neutral territory are free to make.)

So what do you think? Legit and okay, annoying but okay, infuriating and not EVER okay? Would you play games with someone who plays like this? Honestly, I don't even worker steal even when I can because (a.) I know how that feels and (b.) I'm probably going to earn the eternal enmity of that player, long after that game is over. Although many of these things do constitute "optimal play" (jailing settlers and DoWing peace-based abilities), they also may inspire much hatred and ruin someone's game. Thoughts?

 

[Sagax]

Politics has always been a cruel and soulless thing.

Those are some really nasty tactics, but if we were building civilizations IRL all those tricks would be justified. We blame AI for being stupid, while making them smarter will probably result in them doing this kind of stuff; and these things definitely make the game more exciting and intense. The only ones that I feel are exploits are #1, #2 and maybe #4 - these things should be mentioned in the house rules. Otherwise, everything not prohibited is permitted - if you think about it, Civ IS a survival game.

It all comes down to the player you are facing. It is frustrating to be on the receiving end, but it also tests one's ability to manage the empire in the truly competitive environment. We can accept Shaka swarming our cities with Impis and act accordingly, so why can't we accept that every civ around you is a predator and make the first move instead?

And remember: no matter what happens, it's better than MOBA games

 

[GKShaman]

The only one I think that is just not being a good player is #1. The whole randomly declare war and do Swords is just annoying and being a bad sport.

All the others are ok. The forward settling and tile purchasing are just strategic moves one can do.

I dont see the problem with 8 and 9 - just destroy the small random cities and delete the roads. The MP player spent a lot of time just doing silly things.

If you dont mind I actually had some questions about MP.

I have never actually played MP however. Just curious how does that work?

Ive played a ton of the game on my own but Ill obviously take snack breaks, play random times etc. etc.

For MP do ppl set a time of day? What if a guy cant make it or has to run to the restroom. Eat? etc.

 

[MattZed]

1 - A sneaky trick that I'm fine with because one can't get away with it for too long. If you get city-state allies, he can't get anything from them. Similarly, he can't trade with you and could have potential trade-route plunderers around. If he wants to take that risk by going to war, sure. (you'd perhaps not declare peace easily for that offense)

2 - Isn't it the case that you can't pillage your own resources? I believe you mean something like building a fort on top of an already-made improvement? I'd be slightly annoyed and possibly have a personal vendetta and never be so nice dealing with him again, but like above, if he wants to be a little cheeky, sure.

3 - That's just good, albeit aggressive, play. I'd actually be offended if an opponent passed up an opportunity to do that to me, and I could see myself pulling this one.

4 - A very obscure scenario that involves someone having enough gold for 4 tiles at a time when I have my first settler. Possibly a poor play on his part. I'd probably just declare war right then and there and be happy that my opponent just burned a lot of their warchest.

5 - A good play on his part by keeping his enemies busy with each other. To be fair, since I'd NEED that resource more, the rightful price of those resources should go up anyways. I'd probably just admit being outplayed and pull back. Although really, what one resource could be lost in a way so devastating as to turn the tide of an imminent victory?

6 - It's called total war. To be fair, he can only sell one building at a time, and starvation can only happen so quickly. It would feel like too much of a marginal tactic to really get worked up about, and I can't say I blame him for trying to keep his upper hand. If he's about to die, sure, perhaps a little BG, sure, but if he can hold with some territory, may as well hold the best stuff.

7 - Masterful backstabbing, although probably hard to not see coming. If that worked on me, I simply got outplayed.

8 - It's amazing what kind of a defeat you can come back from. As far as I know it's simply defense-by-being-too-annoying-to-kill. A minor annoyance, but if he's just setting awful cities, just let him rot.

9 - 95% sure roads in neutral territory are NOT free, so if someone's building roads outside my territory, he's just trading his money and worker time so I lose money later. No big deal. I'd probably just declare war and take a free worker, anyways.

All in all, these are pretty obscure scenarios that don't really affect the game, so I wouldn't consider them "bad etiquette" or anything of the like.

 

[Tyrus]

The only one I think that is just not being a good player is #1. The whole randomly declare war and do Swords is just annoying and being a bad sport.

All the others are ok. The forward settling and tile purchasing are just strategic moves one can do.

I dont see the problem with 8 and 9 - just destroy the small random cities and delete the roads. The MP player spent a lot of time just doing silly things.

If you dont mind I actually had some questions about MP.

I have never actually played MP however. Just curious how does that work?

Ive played a ton of the game on my own but Ill obviously take snack breaks, play random times etc. etc.

For MP do ppl set a time of day? What if a guy cant make it or has to run to the restroom. Eat? etc.

Well, for starters, Civ 5 MP is divided into public lobbies and the No Quitters group, which are like night and day. I used to play public games, perhaps over a hundred, but the chances that anyone is EVER going to stay to the end (much less put up with the abuse listed above) is almost nil.

NQ forces you to stay in the game. Games are advertised in Steam chat, a game is formed, and no matter what happens, the game must go on to it's conclusion. Any crash or disconnect and everyone waits for that player to reload. If anyone quits for non-RL emergency reasons, they are kicked from the group. No matter what happens, the game keeps going. Just imagine the auction scene in Mouse Hunt.

The tactics listed above are doubly painful in a non-quitting group because you are forced to stay in the game. In the event it is painfully obvious you are irrelevant to the game, you can be voted out if everyone agrees to it. For bathroom breaks and food, there's usually enough time between turns to go to take a leak or microwave a meal. The game does do on for a straight 6-9 hours though, no stops. It's quite an experience, and often pretty intense and engaging, because people have to ante up their whole day in order to be allowed in a game, so you can imagine it gets emotional sometimes. By the end of the game, you feel like you've been through some strange blend of stringent final exam, physical test of endurance, bonding-with-strangers retreat, and gladiatorial fight to the death.

4 - A very obscure scenario that involves someone having enough gold for 4 tiles at a time when I have my first settler. Possibly a poor play on his part. I'd probably just declare war right then and there and be happy that my opponent just burned a lot of their warchest.

All in all, these are pretty obscure scenarios that don't really affect the game, so I wouldn't consider them "bad etiquette" or anything of the like.

I have personally seen most of these used at some point or another. Although I myself have never jailed a settler, I have used tile-buying to deny scouting from Triremes and Scouts, and jailed a few units not worth going to war over. I have, though, seen a settler slingshotted over a mountain range. The player simply bought a few tiles and squeezed the settler to god knows where. Admittedly I was laughing a bit too hard to think it was anything less than awesome. I don't think the road-spam works, I just double-checked, I've been misinformed. Citadel bombs to steal luxes are relatively common, along with the vanilla worker steal.

Really, I made this thread not to debate specific tactics (these are just from the top of my head) but over this style of play. I have seen epic meltdowns in game chat from what some player has done to this or that other player, usually resulting in a quit and subsequent kick from the group. I often go out of my way to help players that are stepped on, but all too often they are so angry they want nothing more than to end the game then and there. Many diplomacy backstabs are also met with much anger, as well as the ever-present forward settle.

 

[GhostSalsa]

I'm not sure how most of these would be worse that regular war and invasion.

#1 I don't know why you would ever choose Swords into Plowshares on MP

#2 I don't know why you would ever give a human player a lump sum of gold

These are both basic trust issues. As in, you should not trust other human players, that is really basic.

#3 is just a really bad starting position. Even the AI can easily, and without malice, lock you in when you start on a narrow land strip - it's almost the worst kind of start, and it would be generous of a human player to give you a free pass out of it.

#4 try not to squeeze settlers between mountains and other nations? Tradition border growth can block you just as easily as intentional tile buying. DOW in the case of the former if you need to get past.

8 and 9 are some pretty annoying trolls, though more costly for the troll-er than for you (building roads in neutral territory costs maintenance as does the unproductive worker.)

 

[MattZed]

Really, I made this thread not to debate specific tactics (these are just from the top of my head) but over this style of play. I have seen epic meltdowns in game chat from what some player has done to this or that other player, usually resulting in a quit and subsequent kick from the group. I often go out of my way to help players that are stepped on, but all too often they are so angry they want nothing more than to end the game then and there. Many diplomacy backstabs are also met with much anger, as well as the ever-present forward settle.

There certainly is a basic etiquette needed for MP, IE: Don't quit, don't kick to win the game, don't load an autosave on another computer to see what everyone is doing, don't AFK, etc. As for in-game actions, it's pretty much anything goes. You're not playing the game to be the "nation that helped uplift all other nations." You're there to beat everyone else. It's good to make friends to play with later, but there's nothing wrong with aggressive play.

 

[nemesis464]

2 and 8 are the only real d*ckmoves IMO.

 

[Teproc]

I'm not a MP player but hey, I still have an opinion :

1) Not sure about that one. It's kind of a dick move but I think there are enough disadvantages (City-state stuff) for it to be okay I think.

2) That's an exploit in SP, and I don't see why it wouldn't be in MP as well. Not acceptable in my eyes, although I guess I would advise never giving lump gold then.

3) That's fair game.

4) That's fair game.

5) That's also fair. You can see the end of the deal coming and try to prevent this by finding another supply of resources.

6) This one is a little petty, and it would probably annoy me a lot, but I think it's ultimately ok. Scorched Earth tactics are/were a thing IRL.

7) Yeah, that's awesome actually. Those kind of things are what I would expect for multiplayer, some good ole trachery !

8) Em, what ? That's a little weird. Seems if you're at war with him you could easily take his settlers ? I mean it's really just annoying to deal with, but not that crippling.

9) That's a dick move, but it cost the other guy tons of worker turns as well so I think it's ok.

 

[Louis XXIV]

3, 4, 5, and 6 are all legitimate. The others are kind of exploitive, imo.

 

[beetle]

Well, for starters, Civ 5 MP is divided into public lobbies and the No Quitters group, which are like night and day. I used to play public games, perhaps over a hundred, but the chances that anyone is EVER going to stay to the end (much less put up with the abuse listed above) is almost nil.

Thanks for answering the newbie MP questions. I hope to try it sometime. Would I be correct to assume that their forums are not as helpful as this one? Why are you not asking these questions on one of the MP boards?

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Moved to the Multiplayer forum.

 

[Rillithain]

For #7 - that would be a one time trick.... if you ever play that person again you'll know better than to trust him

 

[Conspirator]

Why not have a no quitters game but spread over a few days instead of an intense 9 hour session? Also I assume that 9 hours is on fast speed?

 

[Furret]

#1. You found a religion, and take the belief "Swords into Plowshares" (15% faster growth rate if not at war). Another player, on the other side of the continent, declares war on you, just to remove the bonus and with no intention of invading, his position obviously completely impervious to an attack from you.

I'd give him a good old 'denounce' in the chat and then chastise myself for picking that belief in multiplayer

#2. You sign a Declaration of Friendship with another player. The other player proposes a deal where he gives you a Luxury and you give him a lump sum of 200 gold. You accept. He immediately pillages your Luxury, ending the deal and keeping your gold.

Same as #1, not a smart decision to make in multiplayer

#3. It is early in the game, and your capital is located on the end of a peninsula. As you are preparing to expand, you find that someone has forward-settled you, purposely locking you into the peninsula, and taking your expansion spot, despite he having very ample room to himself.

Pretty standard civ strategy, if I were in the other position I would do the same. I'd also be expecting a relatively swift DOW.

#4. You are sending your first settler past the borders of another nation. That player buys the two tiles in front of and behind that settler, pinning it against a mountain or other borders, permanently trapping your settler and warrior.

You're kinda asking for it if you're moving units like this.

#5. You are being supplied strategic resources to win a bloody war. At a critical moment (perhaps a siege of the capital), your supplier refuses to renew the deal, simply because he knows you are about to win and he wants to keep your hands full. You lose the resources and your units are annihilated.

Standard civ strategy. I would take them out of my ally book for that game but wouldn't hold a grudge past that specific game.

#6. You are about to take a capital. Your opponent realizes this, and sells all his buildings, pillages his improvements, and starves his city to hollow out your victory.

Dick move, but again I wouldn't hold any specific grudge for any length of time

#7. You are asked to declare war on your neighbor in exchange for gold. You do this, and after your units are moved, he uses his large navy to quickly take your capital.

Sucks to be me, I should've been paying more attention. Likely I would take his gold and private chat my 'enemy' saying I wasn't really planning on doing anything.

#8. You are on the verge of conquering an enemy empire, but he uses his wealth and production to build/buy as many settlers as possible and settle random cities in as many annoying places as he can, such as between your cities.

I would be prepared for this type of strategy and not let any settlers out. Even if they do get out, I probably have his capital and most/all of his other useful cities. If it were truly too much of a hassle to completely clean him up, I'd let him keep wasting his time with 2-3 useless snow cities.

#9. Someone continuously builds roads just outside your borders, so when your borders expand, you are forced to either send workers to delete them or pay the maintenance costs. (Roads in neutral territory are free to make.)

DOW, free worker. Humans understand casus belli a lot better than computers do.

I posted in underlines under your questions.

 

[tommynt]

if u pick Swords into Plowshares in a mp game, u r doing it so wrong that i dont know where to start help

maybe start with understanding that other players play to win, instead playing to give u a good time like ais does?

 

[Bulldog Bats]

8 seems the worst to me. There is a time to admit defeat, and go quietly into the night, not be an unecessary burden on the others.

As to 6, if the result of losing the capital means he is about to lose, see above. If he is just trying to preserve a place in the game to continue to fight, nothing but strategy.

With all the others, you now know how much trust you can put in that person from then on.

 

[avl8]

MP is a game of taking risks. And a game of playing versus smart players.
So you have to manage these risks - or you lose.
If you expect people to play like AI, you better play versus AI instead of playing MP.

I play alot of GMR games and I've seen different things that you didnt mentioned in the list.
I can imagine every trick done versus me - and the only person to blame will be myself cause I cant managed such risks properly.

The best answer for every of these tricks is a cool head and proper risk management.
Another answer can be blame game with others - but it leads only to you blaming others not to your progress and self-development.

 

[Silverfuturist]

You found a religion, and take the belief "Swords into Plowshares" (15% faster growth rate if not at war)
In a MP you just threw away a belief. I don't know anybody who picks Swords into Plowshares in MP.

You sign a Declaration of Friendship with another player. The other player proposes a deal where he gives you a Luxury and you give him a lump sum of 200 gold.
If you are giving another player a lump sum of gold... wait this must be satire!

It is early in the game, and your capital is located on the end of a peninsula.
Those starts are very risky. Immediate units to secure the city spots and settlers needed to not lose the game. Sometimes you are simply lost against good players if things to wrongly.

You are sending your first settler past the borders of another nation.
Stop right there - if you have a settler at the border of another nation, put yourself in their shoes! Do you want another player settling near you? Heck no!!!

You are being supplied strategic resources to win a bloody war. At a critical moment (perhaps a siege of the capital), your supplier refuses to renew the deal, simply because he knows you are about to win and he wants to keep your hands full.
Your supplier has no need to let you win, making you a big threat!

#7. You are asked to declare war on your neighbor in exchange for gold. You do this, and after your units are moved, he uses his large navy to quickly take your capital.
How gullible are you???

You are on the verge of conquering an enemy empire, but he uses his wealth and production to build/buy as many settlers as possible and settle random cities in as many annoying places as he can, such as between your cities.
That sounds annoying, but if he is building and buying settlers he is not making units to kill your units. Those stupid size 1 cities should be easy enough to raze.

 

[Tabarnak]

#1. You found a religion, and take the belief "Swords into Plowshares" (15% faster growth rate if not at war). Another player, on the other side of the continent, declares war on you, just to remove the bonus and with no intention of invading, his position obviously completely impervious to an attack from you.

Pretty normal situation. Just don't take SiP at all. Fortunately, there are many other good beliefs around.

#2. You sign a Declaration of Friendship with another player. The other player proposes a deal where he gives you a Luxury and you give him a lump sum of 200 gold. You accept. He immediately pillages your Luxury, ending the deal and keeping your gold.

Bad play from both players. Never give lump sum. Do gpt trade instead. The other player pillage your ressource? He obviously DoWed you, losing the deal himself as well.

#3. It is early in the game, and your capital is located on the end of a peninsula. As you are preparing to expand, you find that someone has forward-settled you, purposely locking you into the peninsula, and taking your expansion spot, despite he having very ample room to himself.

Peninsula usually =coastal cities. Build a settler at 2 to prevent that at best.

#4. You are sending your first settler past the borders of another nation. That player buys the two tiles in front of and behind that settler, pinning it against a mountain or other borders, permanently trapping your settler and warrior.

Who would settle ''behind'' a player anyway?

#5. You are being supplied strategic resources to win a bloody war. At a critical moment (perhaps a siege of the capital), your supplier refuses to renew the deal, simply because he knows you are about to win and he wants to keep your hands full. You lose the resources and your units are annihilated.

I never borrowed strat ressources...that's one of the reasons.

#6. You are about to take a capital. Your opponent realizes this, and sells all his buildings, pillages his improvements, and starves his city to hollow out your victory.

Unsportmanship play. I think that is prohibited in NQ. Cheap.

#7. You are asked to declare war on your neighbor in exchange for gold. You do this, and after your units are moved, he uses his large navy to quickly take your capital.

You have been fooled!

#8. You are on the verge of conquering an enemy empire, but he uses his wealth and production to build/buy as many settlers as possible and settle random cities in as many annoying places as he can, such as between your cities.

This tactic really exist? If i can call this a ''tactic''. I would never let someone do that. with enough units you can stop everything. You dont' attack with only 5-6 units don't you?

#9. Someone continuously builds roads just outside your borders, so when your borders expand, you are forced to either send workers to delete them or pay the maintenance costs. (Roads in neutral territory are free to make.)

Roads aren't free in neutral territory. Again, counter productive and dodgeable.

So what do you think? Legit and okay, annoying but okay, infuriating and not EVER okay? Would you play games with someone who plays like this? Honestly, I don't even worker steal even when I can because (a.) I know how that feels and (b.) I'm probably going to earn the eternal enmity of that player, long after that game is over. Although many of these things do constitute "optimal play" (jailing settlers and DoWing peace-based abilities), they also may inspire much hatred and ruin someone's game. Thoughts?

Everything is legit excepted #6. Cheap plays should be stated under rules.