MP reputation

[col]

Just to refresh things, the point that I was making is that what happens in one game should not influence your attitude to me in the next. If I play honourably this game, then I expect to be treated as such . If I break a treaty, then I expect to be treated as a treaty breaker in this game.

BUT if I havent broken any treaties in this games, although I did in my last, why should I be treated as a treaty breaker? This game is this game. That game was that game. It was appropriate to break a deal then. It isnt now.

Reputations should NOT carry over. Every game is a fresh deal and I may want to play each game differently.

 

[troytheface]

Although you may WANT this to be the case, it will not occur.
You seem to lack a basic understanding of what is is to be human.

 

[Reagan]

I think people understand your point, col, but troy's got the right (albeit "in your [troythe]face") counterpoint. You want to start with a clean slate from game-to-game, but you want others to ignore the fact that you have said you'll do whatever is in your best interests each game. By making that clear to the world, you have dropped yourself below the "trustworthy" threshhold of most of your opponents. The simple fact is, Y-O-U are the opponent for the other players in the games in which you participate. As such, people are going to trust or distrust Y-O-U, col, not the pseudo-person you may represent in an individual game. For better or worse, you've stated your position so all of your opponents (potential or otherwise) know what type of game you'll play. You shouldn't be shocked if that position influences how others deal with you during future games.

 

[col]

Its strange isnt it, that in some games this untrustworthy reputation doesnt seem to be a problem at all - Diplomacy for example. I have congratulated my opponent on a well timed stab that took me out at precisely the moment when I couldnt retaliate. That is the hallmark of a good player. Yes we were allied at the time.

"Next time I'll be a bit warier", sure. But to refuse to ally at all in the future is immaturely bearing a grudge and self-defeating.

"Next time, I'll be be ready" is fine. Respect yes.

"I'm never going to trade with you again" is not.

Making threats that carry over from one game to the next is also not Ok. "If you attack me in this game, I'll attack you in the other game we are both in."

In Civ it is a problem. I disagree that its about human nature. Perhaps its more to do with the type of people who play Civ - or perhaps the nature of the game itself.

In Chess, no-one asks for treaties on one side of the board. "Please dont attack me for 20 turns would be absurd." yet this is exactly what players want to do in Civ. Do you resent it and refuse to play with someone who sets a trap that you fall into.

What is it about Civ that produces this attitude. It doesnt happen in other games to the same extent. Why do Civ players want everything to be so controlled?

 

[troytheface]

Chess? That is a completely different game.
Civ is about "controlling" (u manage , ie control, everything , ur cities, ur diplomacy etc.) However, i think I understand now, because i think you are projecting (taking ur attributes you don't want to admit to and then project them onto others)- ur main complaint is against the actions of others-in this case holding a grudge. You want to control -but unrealistically- u want to control how people behave.

 

[ERIKK]

Have you read the first 40 to 60 posts in this thread? Col has had a fierce discussion about this with Matrix, anarres and me before in which he describes how he sees this.

In his opinion "every game is a new game with no hard feelings about other games" Even if you decieved them. While most of think that people will not be able to be objective towards you in game #1 when you have just decieved them in game #2.

 

[col]

I have moved on a little. The discussion is in a different area now Erikk.

How do you feel if an opponent says

"If you break an agreement in this game, then I'll attack you in the other game we're playing"

Many of us ARE playing each other simultaneously in several games. Shouldnt each game be a separate entity. What I do in this game should not affect what I do in the other game. If I play dirty here then beat me up. If I play honest in the other game, then treat me as such.

I dont think its right to join events across games.

"I'll trade you mapreading in this game for currency in the other game"

"If you help me here, I'll help you in the other game"

You can have three cities in this game if I can have three cities in the other game.

How is this different from - if you betray me in this game, I wont trade with you in that game?



I think that this is unacceptable.

 

[Matrix]

The only thing you can use for next games is the behavior of the others, which you can call reputation, but that's a word game. Also, be prepared: don't let someone fool you by being friendly in the first game and mean in the second.

I don't think one should be allowed to trade over multiple games. It is my opinion that people may not (even) trade until they've met.

 

[Nagorak]

Originally posted by Tzar Alexander
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.

We all have evil characteristics, get over it. If you think you're all sugar and spice, then you're just full of it.

Besides, CivIII isn't about good or bad, it's all about tactics. The only agreement that will be kept is one that's mutually beneficial and backed up by force. Just because you happen to have a MPP pact, if you move all your troops to the other side of your territory, you're just asking to get raped. Playing the nice guy, isn't going to win the game. At best it will come down to you and your partner at the end, at worst he'll wipe you off the map while your back is turned.