ERIKK
multiplayer
I can
Image you and me in an alliance and the enemy is on my left side and you in my right side. I have to give you a ROP if I want to make the alliance work...
MP reputation
- Thread starter col
- Start date
I can
Image you and me in an alliance and the enemy is on my left side and you in my right side. I have to give you a ROP if I want to make the alliance work...
If you were the bigger danger, i'd take you out. On the other hand, if we were fighting the strongest player, you could trust me.
Ok - I concede - a ROP would be necessary then.
Ok - I concede - a ROP would be necessary then.
Hey you win some, you lose some !
But more important is you should not sign a treaty if you suspect your opponent is close to winning !
In the case of ERIKK vs anarres for example, they set some good dates for treaties but I suspect you would have sneak attack ERIKK during his anarchy no ? You can always then turn around and say "Hey he was gonna win, i can't let that happen ?"
Who could disprove you once ERIKK is destroyed ?
But more important is you should not sign a treaty if you suspect your opponent is close to winning !
In the case of ERIKK vs anarres for example, they set some good dates for treaties but I suspect you would have sneak attack ERIKK during his anarchy no ? You can always then turn around and say "Hey he was gonna win, i can't let that happen ?"
Who could disprove you once ERIKK is destroyed ?
The winners always did get to write history.
I think I'd certailny sign an agrement if someone was near to winning if I thought they were stupid enough to let me near them.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Since I have been mentioned, I might as well stick my oar in.
I propose that out of the MP community here we will get 3 basic player types:
Type 1: The Backstabbing Bastard (a.k.a. TBB a.k.a. Col
)
This person will expect to treat each game without anyone caring what they have done in the past. In reality, as we are all human, we remember what TBB did last time, and we will not only be wary, but we will severly limit what we give them. GPT deals? Yeah, right
e.g.
'No, please mister Col, don't backstab me now! You seemed so nice 5 minutes ago!'
Type 2: The Even-Handed Player (a.k.a. Man-On-The-Street)
This person will make treaties, and will generally honour them. They understand that when they break a treaty people are more weary the next time, and they are careful about signing up for treaties that may tie them in to something they don't really want that badly.
Most people will fit here quite comfortably and will honour most treaties, only breaking them in exceptional circumstances.
Type 3: The Honourable Player
This person will never break a treaty, unless it is the only way to stop instant annilhilation and make a daring escape, and I would expect this only in 1 in 10 or 20 games.
They are so honourable you would gladly give the GPT deals and ROP agreements, and the prosperity between you and them would grow like a many petaled beautiful flower.
All TBB's would rally againt them, if not for the fact that with only 1 partner they have the strenght of 10 nations...
OK, so I got carried away, but you get my drift. What comes around goes around. So try to make a deal with me Col, and we'll see if you get one
I propose that out of the MP community here we will get 3 basic player types:
Type 1: The Backstabbing Bastard (a.k.a. TBB a.k.a. Col
)This person will expect to treat each game without anyone caring what they have done in the past. In reality, as we are all human, we remember what TBB did last time, and we will not only be wary, but we will severly limit what we give them. GPT deals? Yeah, right
e.g.
'No, please mister Col, don't backstab me now! You seemed so nice 5 minutes ago!'
Type 2: The Even-Handed Player (a.k.a. Man-On-The-Street)
This person will make treaties, and will generally honour them. They understand that when they break a treaty people are more weary the next time, and they are careful about signing up for treaties that may tie them in to something they don't really want that badly.
Most people will fit here quite comfortably and will honour most treaties, only breaking them in exceptional circumstances.
Type 3: The Honourable Player
This person will never break a treaty, unless it is the only way to stop instant annilhilation and make a daring escape, and I would expect this only in 1 in 10 or 20 games.
They are so honourable you would gladly give the GPT deals and ROP agreements, and the prosperity between you and them would grow like a many petaled beautiful flower.
All TBB's would rally againt them, if not for the fact that with only 1 partner they have the strenght of 10 nations...
OK, so I got carried away, but you get my drift. What comes around goes around. So try to make a deal with me Col, and we'll see if you get one
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Just to clarify, I will trust Col until he backstabs me the first time, then I will be weary.
Mmm - actions speak louder than words.
Methinks someone here is protesting just a little too much ......
Methinks someone here is protesting just a little too much ......
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
Yeah Col, and you just suggested to Mel that you could get people to think I had it in for you 
Lets not make reputations here before we get a chance to do anything in the game (that was at me too)
So, I take it back. I will lobotomize myself and forget all those mean things you have said
Lets not make reputations here before we get a chance to do anything in the game
(that was at me too)So, I take it back. I will lobotomize myself and forget all those mean things you have said
Originally posted by anarres
Yeah Col, and you just suggested to Mel that you could get people to think I had it in for you
Lets not make reputations here before we get a chance to do anything in the game
So, I take it back. I will lobotomize myself and forget all those mean things you have said
hehe - reputations smeputations. Its what you do that counts.
Does this mean you DONT have it in for me??
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
No I don't have it in for you, and you are right. We should and will be judged on our actions.
And we better stop the threadjacking soon, even though it is On Topic...
And we better stop the threadjacking soon, even though it is On Topic...
I play bridge with a player who has a reputation for being really devious. The strange thing is he isnt - most of the time he doesnt know what he's doing and people assign their own interpretations to his play.
Another has the reputation of playing it dead straight. But when he pulls a stroke everyone is fooled. He insists it was just a lucky accident.
Reputations are just another tactic to be used.
Another has the reputation of playing it dead straight. But when he pulls a stroke everyone is fooled. He insists it was just a lucky accident.
Reputations are just another tactic to be used.
Col I understand your reasoning very well! But it's not the way I want to play a game. In fact I think reputation will last over more games!
If people like you say are obligatory to break a treaty to win, than that does mean that reputation doesn't matter. Because you expect anyone to sign and break a treaty as a pure tactic. Honour doesn't exist for the same reason. I would find that a bloody shame! And there's only one way to make sure reputation does exist and that's by letting people keep their reputation!
I'd find it a bloody shame if the diplomacy in Civ3 is just the same as in Diplomacy. It's truely a different game! Sid Meier put in the peaceful victory types for a reason!
Skyfish, socialists can't govern! They've ruined our country far too long...
If people like you say are obligatory to break a treaty to win, than that does mean that reputation doesn't matter. Because you expect anyone to sign and break a treaty as a pure tactic. Honour doesn't exist for the same reason. I would find that a bloody shame! And there's only one way to make sure reputation does exist and that's by letting people keep their reputation!
I'd find it a bloody shame if the diplomacy in Civ3 is just the same as in Diplomacy.
It's truely a different game! Sid Meier put in the peaceful victory types for a reason!Skyfish, socialists can't govern!
They've ruined our country far too long...
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
To everyone who has commented: as much as I like the debate, can we please keep politics away from this thread!Originally posted by Matrix
Skyfish, socialists can't govern!
(Come online and we can all argue if you want
)
Eklektikos
Eponymous
Personally, when I finally get MP to work I don't believe that I would find this much of an issue. Unless the game being played had some kind extra conditions agreed between all the players beforehand (such as pre-arranged cooperative alliances, or use of the game for roleplay rather than competition), I would always watch my opponents like a hawk simply because - as Col has pointed out - they are opponents whom I must beat in order to win the game. While I would carry over my awareness of a players capabilities & proclivities from previous games, I would not go out of my way to punish someone for finessing me in one of those games. They might find themselves a bit closer to the top of my list of players to take down in future, but that would be more due to the fact that it is in my best interests to kneecap players whom I know to be a significant threat, than to any desire for revenge.
Exactly.
Matrix prefers to keep his pure unsullied reputation. Let him. He may well find this a successful tactic and I may well find myself being targetted out of fear.
Your reputation will count. It is not worthless.
I cant understand however Matrix's argument that your reputation is worth more than the game you are playing; that honour is somehow worth it for its own sake; that there is something noble about honourable defeat.
Remind me again. If we're not playing to win, why are we playing?
Matrix prefers to keep his pure unsullied reputation. Let him. He may well find this a successful tactic and I may well find myself being targetted out of fear.
Your reputation will count. It is not worthless.
I cant understand however Matrix's argument that your reputation is worth more than the game you are playing; that honour is somehow worth it for its own sake; that there is something noble about honourable defeat.
Remind me again. If we're not playing to win, why are we playing?
Kemal
Tough Bureaucrat
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2001
- Messages
- 555
But if you're playing a lost game (and I mean totally lost), breaking the treaty taints your reputation without you gaining anything for it. However, if you keep your reputation clean you can profit from this in a next game because you won't be known as a double-crosser.
So it's not (but can be) about something noble, but about weighing your options in a given situation whether breaking the treaty is worth the possible gains, just like in other situations in the game. And in cases it may well be that preserving your rep is worth more than the current game you're playing.
Ok - to quote a football manager - even when you're dead you dont have to lie down and allow yourself to be buried. Mmmm. Well you get the idea. I will fight until the last city is taken from me with everything I have.
There comes a point in those games when maybe things arent going too well and you have to make your bid for glory or accept defeat. If you must break a treaty to do it then that is what you must do.
I would sooner play with and trust someone who goes for it than someone who thinks about maintaining their reputation for the next game and wont do the necessary. What reputation will they have - stooge? pushover?
Why should breaking a treaty in a desperation situation do anything negative to my reputation among fellow players? In my circles, it would add to it. Not trying to win is a major sin in any game or sport. We've all had wins in different sports against opponents who didnt try or wouldnt compete and where was the satisfaction in that. Players who care more about their averages and reputations than the team result dont stay in my teams very long.
There comes a point in those games when maybe things arent going too well and you have to make your bid for glory or accept defeat. If you must break a treaty to do it then that is what you must do.
I would sooner play with and trust someone who goes for it than someone who thinks about maintaining their reputation for the next game and wont do the necessary. What reputation will they have - stooge? pushover?
Why should breaking a treaty in a desperation situation do anything negative to my reputation among fellow players? In my circles, it would add to it. Not trying to win is a major sin in any game or sport. We've all had wins in different sports against opponents who didnt try or wouldnt compete and where was the satisfaction in that. Players who care more about their averages and reputations than the team result dont stay in my teams very long.
Kemal
Tough Bureaucrat
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2001
- Messages
- 555
That may be, but as I stated I was talking about a lost game (and not necessarily with more than two human players).
I wouldn't be very happy with (a) player(s) who I have thoroughly outplayed and has/have no chance of stopping me winning (be it by spaceship or culture ) using rop-rape or another major breach of trust to just be able to raze/capture as much as possible even though it no longer influenced the outcome of the game. I had already stated that breaking a treaty to deny someone the victory is a logic step to take, if denying the victory is still possible, thus your claim about not trying to win doesn't apply to this situation.
Now in sports, if Man. Utd. have a 4-0 lead in the 90th minute, will the opponent still make scything tackles on Beckham just to win the ball and make it 4-1? I don't think so. When it's over it's over and you swallow your defeat with grace, and save your strength for the next encounter.
I wouldn't be very happy with (a) player(s) who I have thoroughly outplayed and has/have no chance of stopping me winning (be it by spaceship or culture ) using rop-rape or another major breach of trust to just be able to raze/capture as much as possible even though it no longer influenced the outcome of the game. I had already stated that breaking a treaty to deny someone the victory is a logic step to take, if denying the victory is still possible, thus your claim about not trying to win doesn't apply to this situation.
Now in sports, if Man. Utd. have a 4-0 lead in the 90th minute, will the opponent still make scything tackles on Beckham just to win the ball and make it 4-1? I don't think so. When it's over it's over and you swallow your defeat with grace, and save your strength for the next encounter.
Ok - lets try another analogy - chess. There is a point when you know you're losing but try a few swindles. Maybe your oponent will fall for one of them and you're back in the game.
There is a point though where defeat is inevitable - say within the next couple of moves and you resign and shake hands.
[There is a school of thought in chess that says resigning is depriving your opponent of some of the satisfaction of winning and some players wont do it for that reason. Others regard it as an insult if you dont resign. I resign]
I'm not talking about the end but about the earlier turning point. Dont meekly accept defeat but try to do anything that might change the outcome. If I'm about to win and my opponent tries to Rop rape me, well good for them and more fool me if I allow it. Let them take a couple of my cities if they can.
When I play footie, it makes no difference if I'm 5-0 down in the last minute, I want to score. I expect no less of all players. To do less is to sell the fans and the game short. ManU won a famous game when they were 0-1 down in the last minute 2-1. Refusal to meekly accept defeat is one of the hallmarks of champions. Of course, one is gracious in defeat after the game and acknowledges the victor.
I am a competitor first, last and always.
There is a point though where defeat is inevitable - say within the next couple of moves and you resign and shake hands.
[There is a school of thought in chess that says resigning is depriving your opponent of some of the satisfaction of winning and some players wont do it for that reason. Others regard it as an insult if you dont resign. I resign]
I'm not talking about the end but about the earlier turning point. Dont meekly accept defeat but try to do anything that might change the outcome. If I'm about to win and my opponent tries to Rop rape me, well good for them and more fool me if I allow it. Let them take a couple of my cities if they can.
When I play footie, it makes no difference if I'm 5-0 down in the last minute, I want to score. I expect no less of all players. To do less is to sell the fans and the game short. ManU won a famous game when they were 0-1 down in the last minute 2-1. Refusal to meekly accept defeat is one of the hallmarks of champions. Of course, one is gracious in defeat after the game and acknowledges the victor.
I am a competitor first, last and always.
