MP reputation

[Matrix]

Col, I think playing Civ3 is more than just winning.

And what you're describing as "reputation" is not "reputation" but someone's "character". And I know now that you'll be the most unreliable player I'll encounter.

Now I got it: my goal of the game will (probably) be a peaceful victory.

That's also because in normal Civ3 games I tend to be a very peaceful player (at my level, where I'm as strong as other players), with the only exception that I try to knock early opponents before anyone else will know about it. And I hope (and expect) to encounter other people in one of the PBEM's who happen to be a warmonger and will try to get a domination or conquest victory. And so there are a few types of competition:
1. Will the peaceful nations survive the warmongers?
2. Can the warmongers keep up in culture and development?
3. The race of culture or space ship launch.
4. The ultimate battle between warmongers. (I wouldn't suggest that if there are other nations who are peaceful. )

If I appear to be that peaceful as I claim to be I will never break a treaty, at all costs! Because that will damage my reputation, and I don't like that.

And it might happen that a warmonger prevails and shouts "I won!!", but than I say: "At least I never betrayed anyone."

[sigh] This is a tough discussion Col, but necessary. Try to understand my/our point of view. You played Diplomacy too much. Not only in that game there's only a conquest victory, but - I say again - in that game there is no such thing as reputation; only character. While here there is. Like the AI - they have that tendency for a reason - I'll be more hostile towards untrustworthy players.

 

[Kevinicus]

And I hope you don't break any treaties in the future (deathmatch pbem hint )

 

[col]

I do understand your point of view, Matrix. I think it is clear that your reasons to play Civ are not the same as mine. Forgive me if I try to explore your position - and correct me if I'm wrong.

You like to build a civilisation and get large cities which thrive. Yur civ is a living thing. Winning the game is secondary to the process. You probably enjoy SimCity. You dont mind losing if your honourable reputation stays intact.

I've never enjoyed SimCity. There was little point to me. I play games because they satisfy my competitive instincts in a socially acceptable way. I am a nice guy off the board but a fierce competitor on it.

I am no less reliable than anyone else. I can also be manipulated easily. Offer me a chance to win and I'll leap at it. I am rash and over press frequently. I can play many different styles but my ultimate goal is the same - winning whether by paceship, culture or war. I can play peacefully if that route offers me the best chance. Convince me that my best chance of winning is to join with you and you have a loyal ally.

Perhaps gaming philosophy is a better term than character to describe our differences.

 

[Matrix]

Now we understand each other! Indeed I liked and played SimCity (original and 2000) a lot! I also like to make my Civilization as florishing as possible.

And we'll see how much we'll be able to trust each other.

Kevinicus, the Deathmatch game is different. There's only one type of victory there: conquest. I can only prepare for war. There, diplomacy is also important, but then in Diplomacy style. The way Col keeps defending here.

 

[Skyfish]

Moderator Action: Skyfish, please stay on topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[philippe]

Hehe i just played one game and i already Rop raped everyone in the game lol.
They all hate me now i think...

 

[col]

I dont think you'll ever be able to pull that one off again, Philippe.
Of course, if you hadnt told anyone, you could have done it in future to anyone not in that game.

 

[philippe]

Well they was all at war against me at one point before the ROp raping (i had rubber oil and horses and they didnt)
So they deserved it.
How they dare to attack me with puny musketeers and artillery while was buzy with tanks?

 

[philippe]

Besides i said: "accept or die" so they all accepted it.
Naturrally 1 didnt so i had to set a example

 

[troytheface]

laughable assertion that one should "treat each game new"
Knowing ur opponents is part of the tactical issue. If i am backstabbed then i would never trust that person again, out of common sense, not "immaturity". Good try for a backstabber tho,
to accuse someone who remembers and learns with a name that many who play (youngish and maybe of that age where immaturity is actually a concern) would respond to.
The main problem with backstabbing is that people DO remember, so you get one shot at it, against a newbie or a fool.
I played a game the 1st night and was backstabbed by a unmentioned player and have since heard that player moan in chat "why aren't u attacking" and getting all spazzy. Because i remember and more importantly i learned. Revenge is a uniquely human trait, part of us, and one would be a fool not to recognize this.
On the other hand, a good rep with players can make for solid allies , and the backstabber is left to whining "yeah but u ganged up on me "or other excuses ,when the real issue is...you should have worked on ur diplomacy.

 

[GeniX]

While the game is designed with some form of victory in mind, remember that there are also other places. Players should fight to attain as high a position as possible. So I think that players who fight to the end are okay. But, by fight I mean trying to outplay exisiting players on the board.

Should a player try to screw me on his way out, thats not good sportsmanship. If he were really playing to attain as high a goal as possible, he would seek peace with his oppressors to outlast the other small players - or employ similar technique that would pull him out of his predicament.

Having said that, the game provides a variety of agreements and relationships that allow players to combine their strengths in various forms (even simply trading resources, to ROP agreements).

While I havent played Civ3 MP yet, I would expect any player to treat whichever level of agreement we make in-game within the spirit of the agreement.

Abuse of the agreements will quickly see my opinion of a player drop. Players more often than not carry over their play characteristics between games. Any ally who agrees to a ROP to backstab within a short space of time down into war (which is far below a ROP in agreements) would not be sharing my expectations of a ROP.

I expect that ROP would be terminated, stepping back to an intermediate state before war. A very long ROP (lasting a good number of turns) could dissolve straight into war - the other player would have certainly 'outstayed his welcome', and the ROP should have been terminated when the need for an ally's military support around my territory ceased to be nessecary.

Should a friendly ally make an ROP to help me fend off an attacker, or defeat an enemy only to attack me as soon as his troops are in my territory, then he is not trustworthy at any level of peace. That act would carry through to subsequent games.

I wouldnt give him another ROP, and would be very hesitant to enter any kind of agreement with him. To wipe the slate clean before each game is to ignore the characteristics players do carry between games. It would make me fall for the same tactic each game by the same player - not too smart on my behalf.

Generally Civ3 appears to provide a good means of dealing with all sorts of players. Abuse of agreements means one should be more thoughtful before making them with certain players. This could be limited to one game, or span across games.

If there are means of poor play where one can screw another person up, and in the process forfeit any hope of them attaining a better position, then perhaps you should note the player and not play with them.

After all, each player wants to enjoy his game.

The only issue here, IMO, is that people arent in agreement with what they want from the game. Those who play to win will always dissapoint those for whom other aspects of the game are their aim.


Yeah. time for me to go to lunch. Perhaps with more thought I will eat my words who knows

 

[WildFire]

Yes, reputation matters.

Yeah right

I just declared war on a guy in the NH1 game because he had a settler ungaurded and I took the oppurtunity to try and stifle his growth. If I see an opputunity, I'll take it. I even told him in the thread to move him or I kill.

 

[anarres]

@WildFire:

Unless you had a treaty with them, you have done nothing wrong.

War is war after all, and your foe is going to die. The question is whether you kill your foe with honour, or stab them in the back...

In my first head-to-head with ERIKK, he saw a lone settler of mine after less than 20 turns, and I paid a lot of money for him to leave me alone. If he had taken the money and killed me anyway it would have been dishonorable, but demanding money from me was fine, as would have been refusing to negotiate and just killing my settler.

IMO, reputation is very important. ERIKK and myself have been playing with honour, and we still manage to kill each other's units when we need to. You don't have to be untrustworthy, but if you are no human will trade with you, or offer ROP's, even in other games.

 

[Matrix]

Originally posted by anarres
If he had taken the money and killed me anyway it would have been dishonorable...

If he had done that he would've lost all the trust he ever could have gained. Not only can he do this only once, but no one will ever do him a favour. At least I wouldn't.

 

[Reagan]

Originally posted by Matrix

If he had done that he would've lost all the trust he ever could have gained. Not only can he do this only once, but no one will ever do him a favour. At least I wouldn't.

I just stumbled across this thread and find the discussion very interesting and relevant. I'm interested in playing a PBEM game, but the one I started has gone down in flames. I'm going to keep plugging away, though, and if I ever do get into a game that develops, Matrix just described the way I'd view a dastardly opponent.

 

[troytheface]

I think this thread is very relevant to multi player game play.
Here is something that fell into the Col style.....i saw Persia stretching like a twisted snake towards me, no allies available
as everyone was teamed up or at war. So i struck at a lone worker trying to link the final city in this persian city chain to my north. And then attacked without warning cutting off iron and taking those new weakly defended cities. I refused diplomacy
(while at the same time kinda feeling bad) and my opponent eventually just left. I could see no sense in letting him live-as he would undoubtabley use his last resources to get revenge.
I did not have a peace treaty but then again i gave no warning.
Now here is a case where i suspect that i will see this player again and he will want my destruction.
I will be ready

 

[Lesch]

To me this whole question is really very simple. My goal in each game is to win, and I act based on the assumption that every opponent I face is doing the same. Each decision I make must help me to achieve that goal, and circumstances change constantly. The fact that it was in my best interests to be peaceful with my neighbor 5 turns ago is not relevant to whether it's in my best interests now. If this means a treaty must be broken, so be it. I need to factor in and accept the consequences of my actions. Since my competitors are thinking the same way, I try to ensure that I understand their options and protect myself accordingly. If they're boxed in and need to expand, I'll defend myself to the point that I'm not an attractive target.

With this philosophy, you can never really trust an opponent to do anything but act in his own best interests. It doesn't mean you can't be friendly, just don't assume that the friendship overrides the greater goal of winning the game. Having your plans interrupted or getting attacked at the most inopportune moment is what separates this game from something like SimCity. It's a very necessary part of the game, and not something to get angry about. When you EXPECT that your opponents will do everything in their power to win, you've really got nothing to be upset about when it happens. Protect yourself against it as best you can, and give them credit if they can still beat you.

 

[troytheface]

one problem with not trusting anyone is that u have to build up twice the army.

 

[widdowmaker]

Col. Your my kind of guy/girl. Cold hearted going for the win and wil screw over everyhting an everyone to get the win. Jsu tlike me. Sure i wil sign that peace treathy. Then 2 turns later when you delare war on a jugger noguht with my "Suposed" help i wil turn on you joint he jugg take your land and kill the jug myself! with nukes! i lvoe nuke! yayay!

 

[SenGruber]

Originally posted by col


I couldnt disagree more. Its not about being 'low'. Honour demands that you try to win at all times. and defend yourself at all times If you dont want to be hit, then dont get into the ring.

Honour has absolutely nothing to do with winning. To equate the two is folly. As for the second sentiment, it can be used either way. If you can't stand being remembered as a person who breaks treaties, then don't get in that ring.