MP reputation

[col]

I've had a discussion with one or two players on this topic privately but I felt it worthy of a wider circulation. They say that if I betray them in one game then they would never trust me in another game and that my reputation should carry over from one game to the next.

I like to get quite into role. In some games - Greece - for example I will follow route of honour. Scrupulously holding to all agreements. In other games - eg England aka perfidious Albion - I may play as a duplicitous, double crossing bas****d.

Doesnt that add something to the game?

I'm an ex Diplomacy player where back stabbing was the norm - players who hold grudges from previous games were regarded as immature and referred to as armoured ducks.

Its not ME. Its a role. Dont hold grudges over to the next game. The slate is clean each time. Judge each person in each game as a separate entity. If I betray you in this game, kill me in this game - NOT next game.

Isnt that the mature approach?
What do others think?

 

[WildFire]

If I don't have a rescource, say iron, and my best neighbor has two and one right near my border, and i have a better military, i WILL attack without caring about my rep. Just ask the people i play hotseat against

 

[Unregister]

Originally posted by WildFire444
If I don't have a rescource, say iron, and my best neighbor has two and one right near my border, and i have a better military, i WILL attack without caring about my rep

Ditto and i will also attack if the game is getting slow and i want to spice it up, whether i lose the battles or not.

 

[ERIKK]

Backstabbing while having a non agression agreement does hurt your reputation over here. No matter what. People know you are not to be trusted. Thats the way it is I guess.

Why should they trust you in a PBEM when you stabbed them in another PBEM????

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Originally posted by col
I've had a discussion with one or two players on this topic privately but I felt it worthy of a wider circulation. They say that if I betray them in one game then they would never trust me in another game and that my reputation should carry over from one game to the next.

I like to get quite into role. In some games - Greece - for example I will follow route of honour. Scrupulously holding to all agreements. In other games - eg England aka perfidious Albion - I may play as a duplicitous, double crossing bas****d.

Doesnt that add something to the game?

I'm an ex Diplomacy player where back stabbing was the norm - players who hold grudges from previous games were regarded as immature and referred to as armoured ducks.

Its not ME. Its a role. Dont hold grudges over to the next game. The slate is clean each time. Judge each person in each game as a separate entity. If I betray you in this game, kill me in this game - NOT next game.

Isnt that the mature approach?
What do others think?

Are you saying that you are mature enough to start each game trusting everyone? I'd start by at least allowing the trust to be developed for in that game frame, like you say, it may vary based on the role you play.

Agreements are fine but you need to watch the circumstances of the game. If the player you made an agreement with starts behaving erratically or is caught in a vice, you need to stay awake. On the other hand, if a player breaks an agreement 100 games in a row, did it take a 100 games to catch the drift? Being an armored duck or a mark in a game has little to do with maturity, IMO. The level of game play that you seek can only be established over time with heads up approach and if the other player doesn't want to enter an agreement when you do, calling them immature probably does not help. Setting ground rules for fair starting points of negotiation will save time in an organized affair.

 

[Matrix]

I think you should see it more as a character property of oneself. If someone seems to betray others, you can be assured he can do it again.

 

[purvisxiii]

Each game is new start. Grow up, folks.

 

[Tzar Alexander]

Hi there,

hhhhmmm maybe you are right, but t isn't the case. It is like in the real life. Once betrayer always betrayer. I always play that honest player, I feel worse to betray against human players. I could even not play games, where you have to play the evil role (I had to stop playing Warcraft III, when you have to play that Antipaladin and so on ...) I think people had to have evil characteristics that he could play once honest and the other time betrayal, or at least he has to be chaotic.
So he will always be chaotic ... so I will always have an eye on him in "real life" or "playing" ...
So don't give him a chance to betray twice, wipe him out first or he will do it, for sure ... he will !

ALEX

 

[col]

Originally posted by Cartouche Bee


Are you saying that you are mature enough to start each game trusting everyone?
.

Absolutely not.
What I'm trying to say is that trust or non-trust should be based on actions in this game. If breaks an agreement, then punish them in the game where it happened. What happened in one game is not a guide to what might happen in later games.

On the other hand, if a player breaks an agreement 100 games in a row, did it take a 100 games to catch the drift? Being an armored duck or a mark in a game has little to do with maturity, IMO.

The level of game play that you seek can only be established over time with heads up approach and if the other player doesn't want to enter an agreement when you do, calling them immature probably does not help. Setting ground rules for fair starting points of negotiation will save time in an organized affair.

All good comments. The type of player that we used to find hard was the one who resented a well timed stab that led to your victory in one game by refusing to make agreements in another game even though it was clearly in their interests to do so. This is what was termed an immature approach to game playing in general. This can be a common situation in many games.

If someone double crosses me for no reason, then I resent it because my winning chances have been ruined. If someone stabs my at just the moment when I cant retaliate and my troops are elsewhere, then I acknowledge their skill and make a mental note that this is a good player. in the next game, I'd like to be on their side and try to time things better.

The simple truth is that you can trust no-one completely - the object of the game is victory. Saying that if you break an agreement now, I will never agree anything with you again is an insidious form of blackmail. Nations certainly cant operate that way. My enemy now may well be my friend later in the game - and vice versa.

I will trust you to keep an agreement that is in your interests. I would expect you to break an agreement if it is in your interests to do so.

 

[purvisxiii]

col's got the line on real-life gaming there.

All you guys, why not take it a step further and just refuse to play with a player that betrays you once in one game?

 

[Matrix]

Originally posted by purvisxiii
Each game is new start. Grow up, folks.

I think that's a limited way of looking at this issue. When someone tends to betray his allies in a game, it would be naive to think he won't do the same in another game. I'd call that more thoughtful than immature. Furthermore, I still agree with Col. But the way someone treats others in a game is just part of someone's own strategy.

I for once intend to be very honest and reliable. That could become handy in another game; because people can trust me I won't attack them (if I said so). Or not; but this is just an example.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Originally posted by col


All good comments. The type of player that we used to find hard was the one who resented a well timed stab that led to your victory in one game by refusing to make agreements in another game even though it was clearly in their interests to do so. This is what was termed an immature approach to game playing in general. This can be a common situation in many games.

Ahh, well not making agreements that are clearly in your own interest is definately the 'head stuck in the sand approach' or as you say 'armoured duck'.

Based on your elaboration, I do also think that each game needs to be played on it's own merits. If you are playing with 'game' mature opponents then it's no problem and you won't have a problem. But, a twit is probably always a twit and needs to be treated like a twit and twits will never understand cause they are twits.

 

[Ani]

If you play a game and another player realy runs you over on his path to victory, get over it, there is no use in ruining the next games by having a personal vendetta.. Next game is new chanses and dont base the game on getting even.

But if someone realy backstabs you, its hard to be as 'blue eyed' in the next game. Just keep a better watch this time, but dont make it a vendetta.

 

[ERIKK]

I agree and it is stupid to not build up forces because you have an agreement but I for myself will try to keep up my reputation as much as possible because I am in much games present. Anyone who thinks people will live over it is wrong! People will remember, that's human! Maybe they will not declare war on you next time but they can hamper you by not signing another treaty or something else along these lines...

 

[col]

Ok - how about this pledge. I promise to keep all agreements while it is in my interests to do so and I promise that if I get a chance to go for the win, I'll go for it.

 

[ERIKK]

Originally posted by col
Ok - how about this pledge. I promise to keep all agreements while it is in my interests to do so and I promise that if I get a chance to go for the win, I'll go for it.

Sounds pretty healty I guess!

 

[Matrix]

Originally posted by col
Ok - how about this pledge. I promise to keep all agreements while it is in my interests to do so and I promise that if I get a chance to go for the win, I'll go for it.

So your friendship is only skip-deep? I know I'll always have to keep an eye on you when signing a treaty... Which makes the treaty also less valuable...

 

[col]

You mean you would believe someone who said I'll keep this treaty even if it means that I wont win, Matrix. I don't believe you! I wouldnt want to play with players who arent trying to win. Whats the point of this game anyway??

Who was it who said that countries dont have friends or enemies only interests?

 

[Matrix]

That's just at the end. When two countries were fighting side by side though the whole game, they'll indeed eventually have to fight each other (for a conquest victory). My point is more: when during the game you make an alliance, with me, I will be more devoted to it and see you as an in-game friend. While for you it's a purely strategic advantage.

See it as the difference between the alliance Europe and America had during the cold war (an honest one!) and the peace treaty between Russia and Germany in the beginning of the second World War (a strategic one!).

 

[col]

Get real, Matrix. Are you telling me that if you see a chance to take me out while my forces are committed far away, you wont take it. Why not? You should.

It becomes a very much more exciting game if your partnership is going well and you are sweeping the board but you have to time the moment when you go for the win - and watch for your partner doing the same

Equally if you are being attacked by a partnership, you want to be able to split the parnership by suggesting a change of sides and sow the seeds of dissent.

The whole concept of 'balance of paper' is very important. Players need to shift sides if one or two players are getting too strong.
Game long alliances are against the spirit of the game IMO.

Alliances that last more than one game should be banned. I've had Diplomacy games ruined because two players played as one then tossed a coin for who would win.

We are not fighting a 'just ' war. We are trying to WIN!