In Mutliplayer do you think it is cheating...

[Chronos I]

Now this is playing with friends, not with people you don't know, but I made a deal with my friend. He traded me engineering and I promised him that I wouldn't trade it until he built Notre Dame, and I also promise not to build it myself. Now several turns pass and all my neighbors have feudalism and I am falling behind, my friend has it.
Now I demand that he give me feudalism or I AM going to trade engineering. He refuses to do so and tells me that I shouldn't do that blah blah blah, he isn't in a position to make any kind of threats and he isn't making threats just telling me he will be upset. Now on top of this he tells me he hadn't even started building Notre Dame yet, besides the point of me extorting him but at that point I decided that I was definitely going to trade Engineering. Not saying I didn't reneg on the deal, but it was somewhat unfair of him seeing how implied he was already building Notre Dame, not just forcing me to sit on Engineering for as long as he felt like, when I started extorting him I wasn't sure I was going to reneg if he refused to give me feudalism. But I felt it was dishonest of him to imply he was building Notre Dame and then not, keeping me from trading the tech for my advantage. When I found out he hadn't even started building the wonder, and engineering was the only tech I had that my neighbors didn't have for me to trade with, my decision was made. On top of this the trade was in his favor beakers wise. Somewhat besides the point though...
Now certainly a shady thing to do, but do you guys think it is flat out cheating?
He said he thought I was cheating but I just feel like I am role playing, world leaders back out of agreements all the time, wether it is unfair or duplicitous or whatever.

 

[lymond]

I think the Engineering trade was flurbed in the first place and, if anything, was cheating itself. Not sure what kind of rules you play in a "friendly" game. What I'd worry about more with your game is why you are falling behind the others in tech. As for trading techs, I would play without do it in multiplayer.

If you are saying he is "cheating", I disagree with that. However, I feel you can trade Engineering if you want to. As I said, I don't think a deal like that one should have been made in the first place.

 

[AJ11]

What is unclear is this: Did you trade him something for Engineering, or did you beg it off him with the mentioned provisos?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. It's not cheating. All deals in MP are centered on a combo of trust and self interest. You trust yourself and trust people to act in their self interest.

2. Tech trades in multiplayer games are a tremendous joke. Hell, tech trades even in SP are a joke, but much much worse in mp. Trades, along with huts and events should ALWAYS be OFF in a game where humans are COMPETING. No exceptions. You pick those options, it stops being a competitive game instantly.

Unfortunately, most maps make a realistic competition impossible anyway.

 

[OneLeggedRhino]

Sounds like you're having a fight with a friend over a game. If he's just some random dude you know online, I guess that's no big deal. If he's an actual friend, seems like a silly thing to let come between you.

 

[Chronos I]

What is unclear is this: Did you trade him something for Engineering, or did you beg it off him with the mentioned provisos?

Actually the trade was three techs to him with a I believe around a 300 beaker advantage to him. So he definitely got the better end of the deal, either way.

 

[Chronos I]

1. It's not cheating. All deals in MP are centered on a combo of trust and self interest. You trust yourself and trust people to act in their self interest.

2. Tech trades in multiplayer games are a tremendous joke. Hell, tech trades even in SP are a joke, but much much worse in mp. Trades, along with huts and events should ALWAYS be OFF in a game where humans are COMPETING. No exceptions. You pick those options, it stops being a competitive game instantly.

Unfortunately, most maps make a realistic competition impossible anyway.

Why do you say that? Because it is too easy for humans to take advantage of the system? I would think that too but having played many games with my friend I have learned that it is easier to trade with AI, he is seriously sheisty when it comes to any kind of trading.

 

[Chronos I]

Sounds like you're having a fight with a friend over a game. If he's just some random dude you know online, I guess that's no big deal. If he's an actual friend, seems like a silly thing to let come between you.

I feel the same way. I am just playing the game, and if he backstabbed me yeah I would be pissed, but I would be pissed "in-game" if that makes sense.

 

[mgbx4]

Teach him a lesson, burn his capital to the ground

 

[Archon_Wing]

Huh? I don't really understand the problem. Doesn't the foreign advisor tell you what techs they have? He doesn't have to trade stuff because you demand he does. Back up your demands with force.

So he lied about building a wonder? So? If we were playing poker, and said "Call me, I have 2 7 offsuit" that wouldn't be cheating would it?

No.1 rule of Civ: Don't trust anybody. And humans are even worse than AIs.

I certainly hope this isn't an issue, since it's gonna be a huge issue when someone realizes their Cathy has indeed been cheating on them with all their friends.

 

[AJ11]

Actually the trade was three techs to him with a I believe around a 300 beaker advantage to him. So he definitely got the better end of the deal, either way.

Then, you have no obligation to him. He got techs in return. Treat it as no more than a normal tech trade with the AI. He is being unreasonable.

 

[lymond]

Then, you have no obligation to him. He got techs in return. Treat it as no more than a normal tech trade with the AI.

This I agree with, and was kinda the point I was trying to make above

He is being unreasonable.

this on the other hand I don't agree with and, if anything, I think the OP is being unreasonable.


As TMIT and I both said, the use of tech trading in a human game is sketchy. Granted a game among friends and they can do whatever they choose to do or setup rules or guidelines for tech trading - maybe they have....I don't know. In normal online MP is not used that I'm aware of...definitley not when I played.

Again, I think the OP should worry more about improving his game and less about tech negotiations/pacts with human players, even if "friends".

 

[AJ11]

this on the other hand I don't agree with and, if anything, I think the OP is being unreasonable.


As TMIT and I both said, the use of tech trading in a human game is sketchy. Granted a game among friends and they can do whatever they choose to do or setup rules or guidelines for tech trading - maybe they have....I don't know. In normal online MP is not used that I'm aware of...definitley not when I played.

Again, I think the OP should worry more about improving his game and less about tech negotiations/pacts with human players, even if "friends".

My point of view is that anything that the game itself allows cannot be called "cheating". Now, if you were cracking open Worldbuilder on the sly, then yes, that is cheating. Tech trades? No.

Other than that, we are in agreement. The OP needs to up his skill in terms of improving his game.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

It's not cheating. it's just going back on your word, is all. Only you and your friend know what that is worth, whether it will be seen as something for this game, for all games, or for real life, only you guys know.

But it's not cheating.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why do you say that? Because it is too easy for humans to take advantage of the system? I would think that too but having played many games with my friend I have learned that it is easier to trade with AI, he is seriously sheisty when it comes to any kind of trading.

I've played a fair bit of MP. I've read some summaries by some of the more respected players in CFC. The conclusion is iron-clad simple; tech trades in MP are derpy garbage. He's a fun list of idiocy that results from them:

1. Beaker multipliers beyond anything any micro skill or priority can possibly do, ever.
2. Increased reliance on spawn luck: You spawn in such a way that you meet more people early, you wind up in advantageous tech trade positions. If you spawn such that contact is blocked until you're far enough behind, GG you lose. Derp!
3. Kingmaking: Players can and will gift techs to other empires for the sole purpose of slowing others down. This is particularly offensive and jarring when the one giving techs is a civilization that can't possibly win the game.

By the way, ALL players who will, from a losing position, randomly prop up one side using the TT mechanic are parasite idiot trolls and don't belong in MP games. Don't randomly king-make! Learn how to play the game!

I'm not saying that picking sides doesn't make sense occasionally, because it does. But I've seen players king-make out of spite. The only worse filth are cheaters.
4. EXPANSION BALANCE: Okay, this is the single biggest one. Before I convinced my weekend "coop" MP group to get away from the garbage tech trade mechanic, it was a serious issue. Even more so in competitive games. Here's the drill:

- Two or more civs enter a trade alliance
- One civ massively out-expands the others
- Relying on tech trades for the early boost, this massive expanded civ becomes a powerhouse.

The problem here is that equal beakers do not have equal value to all teams, and information to evaluate that is never complete. The end result is invariably that tech trades feed the large civ until it runs away...and suddenly people are scratching their head why they are so far behind.

This caused a lot of grief even in the coop setting! Player A goes for wonder, player B takes that opportunity to settle 3 cities player A could have had. Player A complains. Maybe player A claims (possibly accurately, possibly not) that player B isn't pulling weight in the tech picture. B certainly will eventually, once there's no chance for anyone else to finish with a higher score!

Who is right in this situation? One game, where I was player B, Player A threatened me again. I shut down all tech trades with that player since there were only 3 of us that time, and blew everyone the hell out anyway. 10000's of beakers ahead by end-game, with more cities than the other 2 humans combined. If player A were better, that wouldn't be true though! There would be windows where one could leverage that superior tech!

Not if, in the spirit of an "alliance" (competitive MP) or "coop" (our games vs the AI where high score "wins"), a player is compelled to trade technology.

Therein lies the problem. With some but SURPRISINGLY FEW exceptions, a smaller empire tech trading with a larger one is a de facto vassal state. However, if he DOESN'T make that trade, he just falls behind completely. End result? Everyone with even the tiniest bit of sense should expand like hell and only break to ensure military security.

No regard for maintenance, expansion balance, or anything except "who can I get to whore techs to me based on spawn location" and "SPAM CITIES AND UNITS".

It's an oversimplification, but only slight.

When people have to pay for their expansion themselves, it balances what they can do and, IMO, actually makes the earlygame more dynamic rather than less in MP. You also get less @#$@#%ing and @#$#@%ing about "fair trades" and FAR less kingmaking opportunities. MP shouldn't have vassal states!

It's not cheating. it's just going back on your word, is all.

This is yet another reason I hate this mechanic in MP. Do you REALLY feel that the OP is going back on his word here? In theory, the basis of that agreement is ridiculous; by simply not building ND his "friend" can completely undermine the OP and cost the "alliance" 1000's of beakers, potentially. Does that seem like the behavior of a reasonable ally to you? Why hasn't the guy been building the wonder if he really wants it? Why has it not been started even now?

Whatever they are in real life, the guy "building" ND is acting like no friend in-game. To be honest, if you behaved as the OP's "friend" is behaving here (irrational terms and sloppy play), I'd be sure to find a special way to send your civ to hell, hopefully dogpiling with whoever is is part of our trade partnership after demonstrate how much an ass the ND civ is being. I'd do it without a shred of remorse, and yet somehow people would be outraged that the dishonest person is ME, despite an obvious attempt by the "friend" to undermine my civ in the first place.

This reminds me of when Sulla "backstabbed" imperio in the Apolyton demo game. What a joke! That turn player seemed to conveniently forget how he spy bombed Sulla's strategic resource, or how he declared on him and instigated a dogpile, or how, after signing peace, he reneged on tech trade and war support that were part of the deal! But ohhhhhhhhhhhhh no...when Sulla "broke" the NAP and insta-gibbed that pathetic sucker, the bad guy was Sulla in Imperio's eyes, despite that they had already broken 2 parts of that very same deal.............

Anyway tech trades just make crap like this more prevalent and make MP games harder to design in a balanced fashion...more dependent on spawn luck.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Normally a double post is snafu, but I'm making a 2nd one just to offer specific and basic MP advice to the OP instead of going further into this "cheating" nonsense debate:

Betray him. Trade with someone else and kill this guy. He might not like it, but if he's a halfway decent player he'll learn from it and improve. Unless the amount of time you've sat on engineering is very short (<10-15 turns), his behavior is nonsensical. He's probably saving engineering to broker it and not building ND so that you "can't trade" it. The tech itself is likely worth a hell of a lot more than the wonder. Essentially, he's trying to turn a "don't trade it until I have the wonder" into a "don't trade it until I've traded it for everything meaningful and leave you behind".

Don't be the sucker in this deal. Trade it mercilessly, and if doing so is opportune, kill him with as much help as you can get (otherwise just kill whoever else is opportune).

 

[K.Murx]

I would rather lose a game instead of treating a friend like TMIT suggests.

Not everything is a COMPETITION. Play for fun, and especially don't screw your friend over if he is of the touchy sort. Maybe stop trading with him, and tell him you felt the last trade was not in your favor.

Always trying to win by all means, and humiliating everyone to the best of your ability will eventually lose you far more (e.g., friends to play games with - or, somewhat later in life, crucial support when the [censored] hits the fan).


Btw, someone who rates a "WIN" in a game higher than friends is a pretty sad person.

 

[AJ11]

It's not cheating. it's just going back on your word, is all. Only you and your friend know what that is worth, whether it will be seen as something for this game, for all games, or for real life, only you guys know.

But it's not cheating.

"Going back on your word" in this context is a loaded phrase. If you gave your word not to reveal a murderer before finding out that he is a murderer, would you feel obligated to report the guy or keep your word and let him go on to murder more?

It is less dramatic here, but in essence that is what happened. The OP gave his word to someone who is using it to get away with covertly destroying him. When the OP figured that out, should he declare the pact which was made in bad faith on the part of his "friend" null and void, or continue with it, knowing that it would destroy him?

I know which I would choose.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I would rather lose a game instead of treating a friend like TMIT suggests.

Players that say things like this are my favorite neighbors in all of MP . "Treating a friend like"...like what? You're playing in a game with only one winner, and someone just took a dump on you by using a deal to weaken your position. Rather than responding to this, you suggest passively standing by, "keeping your word", and functionally bending over while someone takes advantage of you?

Unlike the OP's "friend", I'm not suggesting to get angry about it or to take any conduct out of the game. I'm just suggesting he respond in kind and protect his own in-game interests.

Not everything is a COMPETITION.

That word can mean a lot of things, but in a MP game without PA you are very much in a competition. Whether or not there are any stakes on it, only one person or team can walk away with a W. If the crybaby is acting like this, why shouldn't the OP?

Play for fun, and especially don't screw your friend over if he is of the touchy sort.

USUALLY, what makes a game fun is the attempt to complete its victory conditions within the rules. When bad players speak about "playing for fun", what they are really saying is "I don't like playing well or intelligently, and I expect those around me to play by my artificial standards that absolutely were not agreed upon prior to the game". It ALWAYS turns out that weak players are playing "for fun". But whose fun? Theirs. Conveniently, these same scrubby players have no concern and rarely bother giving thought about whether attempting to enforce made-up rules midway through the game is fun for anyone else.

Also, people who get touchy over these things need to grow up. It's a logical conclusion of in-game behavior based on the rules and model. Rather than catering to a mental 8 year old, punish weak play!

Always trying to win by all means

First of all, not a single person suggested "trying to win by all means". That implies all kinds of things, such as lying and cheating. What I DID suggest, however, is to play within the rules of the game. And actually playing it requires an attempt to win!

and humiliating everyone to the best of your ability

Explain how breaking this deal and/or counter-backstabbing the OPs friend is "humiliating" him? Is losing a game of civ now somehow humiliating? I thought you said it was just a game and "for fun" (by the way, a canned argument)?! How could losing a game that's "for fun" possibly be humiliating? Those two arguments contradict each other.

Btw, someone who rates a "WIN" in a game higher than friends is a pretty sad person.

BTW, someone who lets in-game conduct dictate their friendship is an EXTREMELY sad person. These players are pathetic and tend to be bad at the game anyway. The correct solution to somehow who mentally breaks down and throws a hissy fit when someone plays the game with a fair bit of sense is to not play with that person.

If a "friend" can wind up with a damaged relationship over something like this, they are no true friend. Really? Playing a game competently is going to DAMAGE A FRIENDSHIP? Listen to how that sounds! You're trying to make the player rather than the 100% irrational and angry IRL person look like the bad guy, and that is a JOKE.

You're basically telling us that OP should let his friend deliberately screw him for fear of a damaged friendship with an 8 year old mentality. Not gonna fly as an argument, sorry.

 

[AJ11]

Explain how breaking this deal and/or counter-backstabbing the OPs friend is "humiliating" him? Is losing a game of civ now somehow humiliating? I thought you said it was just a game and "for fun" (lul canned argument)?! How could losing a game that's "for fun" possibly be humiliating? Those two arguments contradict each other.

Wait what? Someone suggested that beating someone else in a game is humiliating the one who lost? Dear gods, looking back at the amount of Age of Empires games I have played in my youth against 7 other players at a time, there must be a lot of people out there looking for payback in the form of knives in my back or baseball bats to my knees...!