In Mutliplayer do you think it is cheating...

[OneLeggedRhino]

You guys are talking about 2 different things here.

Kingmaking, in the proper real-world sense, is when someone can't win himself, but can determine who can win, and uses this to extract significant benefits for himself. For example, in politics, the #3 might get the #2 guy to promise to sign a law when he wins, and only then throw his support behind the guy.

If someone is doing legit kingmaking -- getting a deal that puts him back in the running for #1, or making an alliance to stay in the game and shooting for the #3 spot -- that seems legit.

Douchebaggery is when you have given up at winning, and simply torpedo someone. You're no longer playing to win, you're playing to make them lose. Sure, you're choosing who wins, but you're not trying to accomplish anything for yourself. You're playing lose quickly while bringing somebody down with you, not aiming for the best spot you can possibly get.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^OK kingmaking was the wrong term to use then. Civs should kingmake if its to their benefit to do so. They should not prop up other civs at their own expense, ever. The key point here is whether said player is playing the game/trying to win, or if he is not. The former is legit, the latter simply isn't.

 

[strijder20]

^OK kingmaking was the wrong term to use then. Civs should kingmake if its to their benefit to do so. They should not prop up other civs at their own expense, ever. The key point here is whether said player is playing the game/trying to win, or if he is not. The former is legit, the latter simply isn't.

If player A is about to kill you, and player B is about to attack player A, then it's in your benefit to 'kingmake' player B, and that's not cheating.
If player A and B are on an island contesting, with player A slightly ahead, but not decisively, and you decide to give all your techs and gold to player B because player A 'stole' your Notre Dame ( as in building it first ) , while you are in NO position to win (the continent of player A and B initially had 4 players on it, so they are both twice as big as you are), then I consider that acting on a childish grudge and cheating.

 

[Archon_Wing]

There's a difference between propping up player B to fight A so that B can serve as a buffer zone with the intent of betraying B later instead of just propping B up because hurr I can do it!

It's fairly obvious the 3rd strongest should let the 2 strongest duke it out in a stalemate while they find some way else to get an advantage. Just because you are no.3 doesn't mean you've already lost...

For some reason this talk reminds me of a free for all in Starcraft 2 where I was eventually taken out early but they didn't finish me off for whatever reason. I went afk to do something for 20 minutes, mining the rest of the resource and distance mining. Then I came back to realize hey, I have a ton of money and they were duking it out. Massed a bunch of carriers to win...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ I won that way as zerg a few times back in the day. Burrowed drones when it was obvious my base was compromised, then unburrowed and due to way too much money (I wasn't as good back then) was able to drop like 10 hatch, remacro, and start spamming out hydras not many minutes later. The guy who took me out initially quit on a massed hydra drop .

 

[AJ11]

^OK kingmaking was the wrong term to use then. Civs should kingmake if its to their benefit to do so. They should not prop up other civs at their own expense, ever. The key point here is whether said player is playing the game/trying to win, or if he is not. The former is legit, the latter simply isn't.

That is the point. Read my first post to you re how you don't understand what the word kingmaker means.

 

[Zeiter]

Anyone who has studied the prisoner's dilemma should realize that it matters very much whether we are talking about a standalone game or many iterations of games.

First, let's assume that we are talking about a situation where one can reasonably expect many more future iterations of competition--such as playing repeatedly with your friends.

In this case, self-sabotage in one game can be in one's long-term self-interest.

Let's say your friend invades you and has conquered half of your territory. The fight is hopeless. So you go all scorched earth, which, in Civ4 terms, since you can't destroy your own cities, means gifting as many of your techs and units and gold as possible to another player to punish the player who attacked you.

Even though this is not in your short-term interest in that one game, it is in your long-term interest, assuming you can reasonably expect to play more games against that same opponent, because it will act as a deterrent in future games against getting attacked, if you have a reputation for being psycho/vengeful/TIT-for-TAT in any one particular game. This will improve your chances in future games.

This is why, when computer scientists pitted different programs against each other in iterated games of the Prisoner's Dilemma, the simple vengeful TIT-for-TAT program on average performed the best. (TIT-for-TAT meant simply, cooperate at first, and cooperate if the opponent cooperated, or sell-out the opponent if the other opponent sold you out).

So if you are a bunch of friends expecting to play more games against each other in the future, then I would consider "kingmaking," self-sabotage, or plain vengeful douchebaggery legitimate strategies because these strategies are in your long-term self-interest. They will help you win more games in the long run.

However, the situation is very different if you are playing anonymously against opponents in single matches. In such cases, any vengefulness you demonstrate in one particular random game is not likely to help you out in a future game, so it is never in your interest to do anything other than play to win in that particular game.

In such random, anonymous games, then, I would consider self-sabotaging douchebaggery to be an illegitimate, fun-ruining cop-out...because there's literally no reason for it.

 

[NukeAJS]

That's not cheating in the slightest.

You made a bad deal and you had no muscle to back that deal up. That's bad strategy.

When you make a deal, there should be an implied ultimatum behind breaking any deal.

As an example, having a large fleet of triremes teched early by the Oracle (for instance) is commonly used as an implied threat in MP games.

Some general ideas for accepting deals or not:

-- Most deals should be settled in the trade screen unless the player is thought to be trustworthy.

-- don't make implicit deals with distant civs. Reason being that if they break the deal, you can't punish them and they'll walk away with the benefit of that deal.

-- like real life, "gesture of good faith" can do a lot of good. The gesture should be barely valuable enough to be significant. If they return the favor, this builds trust.

--- concerning the above: don't be dumb. The object is to win. Don't forget that and don't assume they forgot it. Ultimately, this means that even the best of friends will betray you. Therefore, get in front of the pack and betray them at a time most convenient for you!

Basically all of this comes down to the logical reasons why someone would honor or even consider a deal. When it comes to business, you must have something to offer. If you're nothing to offer, DONT TRADE!

 

[Cristoval]

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.

WTH? I can't even my bro or any friends to play any sort of strategy game. You are very lucky.

Also what do you guys think about players who get in MP games not to win, but for the experience?

 

[uat2d]

Also what do you guys think about players who get in MP games not to win, but for the experience?

I'm confused, how can one gain experience if not trying his best to win?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm confused, how can one gain experience if not trying his best to win?

I took that to mean "just to have fun", as it can be implied in such a phrasing, and it's true that you don't gain experience by not trying .

To answer his question, I'll use another one: what is this alleged "experience"? The fact that you're sitting at a computer screen at the same time as someone you like? Watching the graphics move around?

Take this in context of any other game that's been played for many years. What if a player in monopoly never bought anything while another 1-3 did? He'd just go around the board until he got wiped out. That is how a lot of people go through civ, though monopoly might be a bad example given it's virtually all luck, so how about some others...

- In starcraft, your teammate only mines, never produces units, and won't share (he's playing for the experience of playing)

- In minecraft, a player just digs 2x4x2 holes all over the place, never building anything or even bothering anybody else (he's playing for the experience of playing, although some would consider it griefing anyway )

- In chess, your opponent only moves his queen back and forth behind his pawn line until you kill him (he's playing for the experience of playing).

- In mafia, the guy outs himself right away no matter his role (he's playing for the experience of playing).

- In co-op doom, the player runs in circles in the starting area and never attempts to reach the end of the level (he's playing for the experience of playing).

I could go on, but in each case we have people deliberately doing something that is poor gameplay that isn't illegal, but can easily ruin the game for anybody who's actually playing it with the intent on achieving a victory condition. Although extreme examples for illustration, each fits the profile of a player who doesn't attempt to win in civ IV like a glove; the civ player in this case is just a less extreme version of this guy (though I've seen players in "co-op" where the above is no exaggeration, mind you ).

They are minor griefing at best. It's fine if everyone went into the game with the intention of screwing around right from the start. It isn't fine if the game is being construed as actually playing the game within the rules; these types of players have 0 place even in casual games if the games are intended to nevertheless be competitive.

Long story short: If the players are all agreed that everyone is completely ignoring the rules, then "playing for the experience" is acceptable. If it is supposed to be a standard game where everyone pursues a defined victory condition within a set of rules, then "playing for the experience" becomes "ruining other people's experience" and that player shouldn't be in the game...he should find other people who don't want to try.

 

[uat2d]

There's also the guys that play MW2 for the experience of placing Tactical Insertions and respawning as fast as possible in Free-for-All, they even bring mates that kill them ASAP so that they can spawn even faster in the back of the map and continue to practice their placement of TIs.

Ugh...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There's also the guys that play MW2 for the experience of placing Tactical Insertions and respawning as fast as possible in Free-for-All, they even bring mates that kill them ASAP so that they can spawn even faster in the back of the map and continue to practice their placement of TIs.

Ugh...

Boosting for nukes...man those guys are in the same tier of gaming filth as cheaters . Booster hunter is a respectable job, much along the lines of mason leader or doctor .

But yes, boosters were a serious problem in MW2. 3arc did well to ban people for that, however 3arc forgot to use net code from a year later than 1995 so their connectivity is a disgrace, along with their hit detection.

Gears of war suffered from connectivity issues too until gears 3, where it instantly overtook 100% of modern shooters who don't run on servers, and is probably the best shooter out right now.

 

[uat2d]

Tomorrow MW3 will be released, fortunately I know that I won't have to worry any longer about cheaters, boosters, bad hosts, random disconnects, hit detections, OP weapons, spawnkillers and corner campers.

This was the end of COD for me, I regret having bought BOps and I know about IW's improvements from past games (next to none) and community support (too many empty promises in MW2 and COD4 is still flooded with hackers), so yeah, good riddance. I don't have much spare time and the one I have certainly won't be wasted in that crap.

If I had a PC that could handle BF3, I'd probably enjoy it. Since I don't, I browse the web, play Civ4 and no longer rush home after classes.

 

[Zeiter]

I took that to mean "just to have fun", as it can be implied in such a phrasing, and it's true that you don't gain experience by not trying .

To answer his question, I'll use another one: what is this alleged "experience"? The fact that you're sitting at a computer screen at the same time as someone you like? Watching the graphics move around?

Take this in context of any other game that's been played for many years. What if a player in monopoly never bought anything while another 1-3 did? He'd just go around the board until he got wiped out. That is how a lot of people go through civ, though monopoly might be a bad example given it's virtually all luck, so how about some others...

- In starcraft, your teammate only mines, never produces units, and won't share (he's playing for the experience of playing)

- In minecraft, a player just digs 2x4x2 holes all over the place, never building anything or even bothering anybody else (he's playing for the experience of playing, although some would consider it griefing anyway )

- In chess, your opponent only moves his queen back and forth behind his pawn line until you kill him (he's playing for the experience of playing).

- In mafia, the guy outs himself right away no matter his role (he's playing for the experience of playing).

- In co-op doom, the player runs in circles in the starting area and never attempts to reach the end of the level (he's playing for the experience of playing).

I could go on, but in each case we have people deliberately doing something that is poor gameplay that isn't illegal, but can easily ruin the game for anybody who's actually playing it with the intent on achieving a victory condition. Although extreme examples for illustration, each fits the profile of a player who doesn't attempt to win in civ IV like a glove; the civ player in this case is just a less extreme version of this guy (though I've seen players in "co-op" where the above is no exaggeration, mind you ).

They are minor griefing at best. It's fine if everyone went into the game with the intention of screwing around right from the start. It isn't fine if the game is being construed as actually playing the game within the rules; these types of players have 0 place even in casual games if the games are intended to nevertheless be competitive.

Long story short: If the players are all agreed that everyone is completely ignoring the rules, then "playing for the experience" is acceptable. If it is supposed to be a standard game where everyone pursues a defined victory condition within a set of rules, then "playing for the experience" becomes "ruining other people's experience" and that player shouldn't be in the game...he should find other people who don't want to try.

The major difference between all those games that you mentioned and civ is that civ has a sandbox and/or role-playing aspect that, for some people, is the dominant aspect of the game (as much as you, with your uber-competitive personality, don't want to admit).

Granted, though, I agree that it should be made clear between the players at the start of a game if the intention is to play in a sandbox and/or role-playing manner, and if nothing is stated, then it should be assumed that the default type of play among anonymous online players is going to be competitive. (Between friends what you understand as the "default" will depend on what you understand each others' tastes in gaming to be. If you have any suspicions at all about how your friend is going to play, you should just ask, "Are we doing a sort of role-playing co-op, or free-for-all competition between us and all the AIs, or what?")

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The major difference between all those games that you mentioned and civ is that civ has a sandbox and/or role-playing aspect that, for some people, is the dominant aspect of the game (as much as you, with your uber-competitive personality, don't want to admit).

Hey, if people want to sandbox, agree to it beforehand as you say. However, without that the game has clear victory conditions and players in MP should pursue one.

 

[Cristoval]

I took that to mean "just to have fun", as it can be implied in such a phrasing, and it's true that you don't gain experience by not trying .

To answer his question, I'll use another one: what is this alleged "experience"? The fact that you're sitting at a computer screen at the same time as someone you like? Watching the graphics move around?

Take this in context of any other game that's been played for many years. What if a player in monopoly never bought anything while another 1-3 did? He'd just go around the board until he got wiped out. That is how a lot of people go through civ, though monopoly might be a bad example given it's virtually all luck, so how about some others...

- In starcraft, your teammate only mines, never produces units, and won't share (he's playing for the experience of playing)

- In minecraft, a player just digs 2x4x2 holes all over the place, never building anything or even bothering anybody else (he's playing for the experience of playing, although some would consider it griefing anyway )

- In chess, your opponent only moves his queen back and forth behind his pawn line until you kill him (he's playing for the experience of playing).

- In mafia, the guy outs himself right away no matter his role (he's playing for the experience of playing).

- In co-op doom, the player runs in circles in the starting area and never attempts to reach the end of the level (he's playing for the experience of playing).

I could go on, but in each case we have people deliberately doing something that is poor gameplay that isn't illegal, but can easily ruin the game for anybody who's actually playing it with the intent on achieving a victory condition. Although extreme examples for illustration, each fits the profile of a player who doesn't attempt to win in civ IV like a glove; the civ player in this case is just a less extreme version of this guy (though I've seen players in "co-op" where the above is no exaggeration, mind you ).

They are minor griefing at best. It's fine if everyone went into the game with the intention of screwing around right from the start. It isn't fine if the game is being construed as actually playing the game within the rules; these types of players have 0 place even in casual games if the games are intended to nevertheless be competitive.

Long story short: If the players are all agreed that everyone is completely ignoring the rules, then "playing for the experience" is acceptable. If it is supposed to be a standard game where everyone pursues a defined victory condition within a set of rules, then "playing for the experience" becomes "ruining other people's experience" and that player shouldn't be in the game...he should find other people who don't want to try.

I do whatever I can to win. If I can take out an opponent I'll take it, if it helps me or my team. It's just I don't follow one of the paths at times. I sometimes have my own personal goals. Like surviving for a long time(not necessarily winning), becoming a strong power. I guess I do this because I don't see myself winning in the games I play. I should change that though.

 

[NeverSurrender]

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.

Best. Diplo. Policy. Ever.