In Mutliplayer do you think it is cheating...

[karadoc]

TheMeInTeam. Let me tell you a little story.
I play MP civ with my girlfriend most weekends. We don't play on the same team, but we help each other and don't go to war with each other. Sometimes I'd like to play a bit more competitively against her, but the problem is that if we started playing "to win" rather than playing "for fun" we'd go to war and then one of us would be out of the game and the other would just be in an ordinary single player game instead of a companionable multiplayer game. And that wouldn't be much fun for either of us.

So, surely you must understand the difference between playing for fun and playing to win.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TheMeInTeam. Let me tell you a little story.
I play MP civ with my girlfriend most weekends. We don't play on the same team, but we help each other and don't go to war with each other. Sometimes I'd like to play a bit more competitively against her, but the problem is that if we started playing "to win" rather than playing "for fun" we'd go to war and then one of us would be out of the game and the other would just be in an ordinary single player game instead of a companionable multiplayer game. And that wouldn't be much fun for either of us.

So, surely you must understand the difference between playing for fun and playing to win.

I understand it very clearly, and there is no difference...the difference comes from the kind of game one chooses to play.

What you and your girlfriend are doing is changing the rules and/or goal of the game itself. Your goal is a "companionable" game, probably an outcome where both (likely both through PA) of you survive. You set ground rules that 2 players (you and her) are going to cooperate pre-game, and you act on those rules. The AI players would justifiably outraged, but nobody cares about them . Even if these rules are implicit (though I suspect a no-war rule is explicit here ), they exist.

I suspect the real barrier to you playing competitively against her is actually a skill gap. Otherwise, any "competitive" game could just be called/started over if one side is clearly winning, or if the other concedes. However, I know from experience that overly 1-sided games aren't exactly thrilling.

Now, that situation is very different from a competitive game within the standard game rules. I didn't read anything about OP going for some co-op, any in-game girlfriend interactions (always eggshells in gaming, that is), or agreeing to special rules at the start of the game. I wouldn't advocate that you and your girlfriend betray each other...what good would that do towards your goal? However, I expect your girlfriend does not do actions in these games that objectively and probably deliberately undermine the progress of your empire.

The "diplomatic discussions" are different here too. However, if you agreed to a scenario where you'd wind up fighting a war in-game, I doubt your *in-game* civ would much appreciate if your girlfriend reneged on deals or took actions to undermine your empire. From a gameplay standpoint, those actions are to be met in kind. That kind of stuff doesn't happen in a companion play environment, which doesn't sound a thing like the OP issue anyway.

 

[karadoc]

Fair enough. I guess we just have different views about what the "game" is. Apparently in your view, the agreement about not killing each other is part of the rules of the game. In my view, that's just part of the way we play the game, but not part of the rules. I think either viewpoint is valid.

(by the way, we don't play 100% cooperatively. We do sometimes deliberately try to hurt each other's empire; but not in ways that could result in one of us being eliminated.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ That nevertheless sounds like an agreed-upon rule within the competition that does happen. IE "you can try to get ahead but we can't kill each other off". When you guys start undermining each other, how eager is the side getting undermined to play nice, help the other out, and trade fairly ? That same reality applies to OP.

By the way if you go that route I highly recommend espionage trolling. Spread culture (along with unfortunately sounding phrases using the word "spread"), poison water + destroy all health buildings (this will invariably starve a city, possibly to pop 1 if you stay on it, pretty big deal if you do it to a smaller but otherwise tech strong empire), force civic swap, etc .

And privateers RULE in a game like that .

 

[Ben E Gas]

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.

I agree. Not cheating. Just don't be mad at your friend next game, when he doesn't trust you.

 

[Skallagrimson]

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...!

It's generally agreed upon between friends in an MP civ game whether they are going to play against each other or team up against the AI. If there is the "team" agreement it will feel like a betrayal of sorts if that team member backstabs, although in strict game mechanics it's fair. Just be sure to re-sterilize your toothbrush or any other items of yours that friend might have access to, as paybacks just might be hell, lol.

But then, when 2 or more humans team up against the AI without the PA option it can be as game-breaking as TMIT described. One MP game I had with 2 friends online got to be ridiculously easy for me even though the 2 other friends were Settler-level players. We just agreed on different tech paths and once one of us got Alphabet we all 3 got to be several levels beyond even the Fin AIs. Even Mansa was a stick-dragging caveman next to our infantries. I got bored, even with the laughable rescue missions when some backward AI would DoW one of the friends with, say, 10 knights, and he couldn't give a way to generate enough Infantry quick enough to stop 'em. "Whip, what's a whip?" *sigh*

 

[Dman4civ]

True true beni...

Betray me once, shame on you.
Betray me twice, shame on ME.

 

[Dman4civ]

kDoc, i hope the two of you som how or another made agreement, no matter what happens in game, neither you will hold it to other in real life.

I'd hate to hear about a crazy relational breakup becuase of results of a game. That would not be koo.
Crazy? What, I get into this game... I can't imagine if i played a friend. I'm sure people out there get emotional over this game!

 

[Skallagrimson]

I know a couple who broke up over a dispute over loot distribution in World of Warcraft. That's hardcore.

 

[Danelius90]

I know a couple who broke up over a dispute over loot distribution in World of Warcraft. That's hardcore.

Woah man...

First thing that came to my mind here was the game RISK. I think in the manual it actually says that you may choose whether or not to allow a "gentleman's agreement" where 2 players may have an unofficial alliance - but it actually says to make sure you can trust them! And if you backstab don't be surprised if that player doesn't trust you in the next game!
Betrayal is a dirty tactic but has paid off (and shouldn't have long term consequences in life if in a game situation)
Not that this IS exactly betrayal

 

[pob]

Yep, gentlemen's agreements were even included in the Risk computer game.

Actually, playing Risk is the only time where I've been annoyed by how other people play a game. In 3 player Risk, the two weakest players should always team up against the strongest player unless one can wipe out the other and be in a realistic position of winning the game against the strongest player. It really annoys me when people go against this (even if I am the strongest player, as then it just makes the game far too easy).

 

[uat2d]

I know a couple who broke up over a dispute over loot distribution in World of Warcraft. That's hardcore.

If they break up over that, then they would certainly break up no matter what, WoW or not!

Perhaps the most interesting thing here is how can someone hold a relationship while playing that game!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yep, gentlemen's agreements were even included in the Risk computer game.

Actually, playing Risk is the only time where I've been annoyed by how other people play a game. In 3 player Risk, the two weakest players should always team up against the strongest player unless one can wipe out the other and be in a realistic position of winning the game against the strongest player. It really annoys me when people go against this (even if I am the strongest player, as then it just makes the game far too easy).

People make this mistake in a lot more games than risk.

Example: Mafia (starcraft II custom map as a front end).

Town has 4 guys left, mafia 3. If there is still a lot of uncertainty as to the identity of at least 1 mafia, town is often hesitant to lynch and winds up not lynching anybody because they're afraid of lynching town.

That move is actually stupider than what you describe in risk; in risk players backstab another weak play in the raw hope of getting an advantage they can hold. In mafia, doing the above is an INSTANT LOSS, and represents a town that is not even trying to win! That town can't figure that out...or worse ignores someone who points it out is a travesty and (insert things that don't belong on this forum and aren't nice). Maybe some risk players are that bad too, but at least they don't pick a GUARANTEED LOSS as frequently. I think.

By the way, I feel the same way about players who opt to king-make a runaway civ. Players who can be shown to not make an effort to win or improve their position in a competitive game should probably be banned from future games outright (I'm not talking about friendly lan stuff or some such, but games like on game spy or if there's ever a built-in ranking in the civ franchise taken seriously).

 

[uat2d]

By the way, I feel the same way about players who opt to king-make a runaway civ. Players who can be shown to not make an effort to win or improve their position in a competitive game should probably be banned from future games outright (I'm not talking about friendly lan stuff or some such, but games like on game spy or if there's ever a built-in ranking in the civ franchise taken seriously).

Damn, you mad bro.

Why are you so upset? That should make things even easier for you, considering how you're so competitive.

95% of the times I play COD or BF, I do so with my try-hard pants on. That doesn't mean that the other 5% of the times I don't just run around having fun and not even trying to help my team to win. Sometimes it's just funnier to run around using nothing but C4 or by following teammates around and jumping in front of them till they rage.

Why the "ban all that don't play to win" talk, even though it would be impossible to enforce?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why the "ban all that don't play to win" talk, even though it would be impossible to enforce?

You misunderstand. I don't want to ban cherry-tappers, I want to ban people who do things like:

- Deliberately help the other side win
- Cheat outright (obviously)
- Join into games and just stand there, probably doing something else while accruing match bonuses (I do understand people need bathroom breaks etc, but seeing this for 5+ minutes in more than one match? Get those clowns off ranked matches!)
- At the cost of any hope of their own victory, prop up another player just to spite a 3rd player

I don't want to ban people for using inferior in-game options and still playing the game, I want to ban people who join into games and then not play them.

 

[Archon_Wing]

There is indeed a difference between simply being bad, and playing deliberately to sabotage a game. The later is quite annoying in any game involving more than 2 players.

This "king-making" sounds pretty foul to me and would ruin the fun of any game. In a competitive game, it should be outright banned.

 

[uat2d]

It's a turn based game, the whole multiplayer needs to be rethinked.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's a turn based game, the whole multiplayer needs to be rethinked.

Simultaneous turns are the least of the problems, especially if you have house rules against double moving (although even if you don't, skillful players can prevent damage from that, it does requires skills not normally associated with civ).

MP is already painfully slow.

 

[Skallagrimson]

If they break up over that, then they would certainly break up no matter what, WoW or not!

Perhaps the most interesting thing here is how can someone hold a relationship while playing that game!

They're both WoW geeks, and they got back together a few days after the fight. They get vicious when in a raid though, I hear the shouting through the walls, as I calmly and serenely conquer the world in Civ lol.

 

[thecaesar]

I think I agree with TMIT. When I play MP games with my brother, I tend to just leave him alone. However, if he starts meddling in my affairs, or amassing an enourmous religious following, I will take steps to take him down a few notches, or if it continues, capitulate him so he can't meddle as much. Usually soon after he capitulates, however, he "gets bored" of the game and either quits or starts a new game. This really annoys me, as it is basically a one-player game then and I am forced to comply if I want to continue playing with him.

These types of people ae no fun to play with, nor are people who falsely accuse you of cheating or teaming them when you start winning (which my brother also does). The people who play the game to screw specific people or to play kingmaker or any other annoying thing should all play a game with each other, realize how annoying all the stuff they do is, and then get their act together and play like an adult, and if they lose, well, then they should just remember how it feels so when they get better at it and win, they don't get a big head and increase their annoying-ness more. What those people need to get through their heads is that when they throw a "hissy fit", no one is going to say, "oh, I'm sorry, I am totally in the WRONG, I should not have been TRYING to win like that, here, it's YOUR place to win." No, everyone will think they are completely immature, even if they don't voice that opinion. The people that do this, IMO, are either totally self-centered or lost in VR.

And for those of you asking why I even play with my brother, I can't use the internet with Civ, so it's him or my 8 year old sister.