Should honor be rewarded in the next game's multiplayer?

[GreekIrish]

I have been multiplayer a lot recently, and I have had some good and some bad experiences. One thing I noticed though, is that there are a lot of people that either play cheap or will stab you in the back. When I first started playing, I got my workers stolen a few times and deleted. I later learned to protect my units, but I think it's a pretty awful thing to do to someone. It's a competition, and everyone's trying to be number one, but that doesn't mean you have to take cheap shots at people.

Another thing I noticed is when taking city states, people will attack a city state, make peace with it, then attack, then make peace, so on and so forth. There are no peace treaties, so it's basically exploiting a game mechanic. I actually had one person make a deal where I gave him 100 gold for Dyes, and then he attacked me two turns later. I was thinking that maybe there should be penalties for this sort of behavior. Whether it be loss in culture or happiness. The best way to stop people from exploiting things is to set up as many cons to doing it as possible.

Now I'm not getting upset and crying over losses, because I usually do very well in multiplayer. It just seems like there should be counter-measures for people who backstab others. Declaring war one turn after a peace treaty is over affecting your happiness, attacking after a declaration of friendships, etc. Sure other players will see it and may take action, but that's a strong might. There should be penalties given by the game too, so players will always think twice about doing something shiesty.

Moderator Action: Moved to MP.

 

[Kwami]

Maybe you shouldn't be so trusting. The game doesn't need built-in penalties for those kinds of things (except the city-state thing, which totally needs fixing). The penalty is when you destroy them for betraying you.

 

[tOObaLLs]

thats nothing... i like to farm city states for XP.. 3 lvl 6 crossbowmen .. can you imagine

 

[Tabarnak]

It sounds like the actual AI

Seriously you must be alert but also vicious enough to obtain some supremacy.

 

[Lose]

its part of a game mechanic, its working as intended

 

[The QC]

I actually had one person make a deal where I gave him 100 gold for Dyes, and then he attacked me two turns later.

This is a stupid flaw in the trading system that is also used in Sp a lot. Luxuries should only be sold for gold per turn.

 

[Tabarnak]

Luxuries should only be sold for gold per turn.

Exactly. Even more true for G&K. Maybe a need to reduce Deity AI strength a bit but thats all.

 

[prince_caspian]

Honestly you shouldn't have given him that 100 gold. I haven't played MP in Civ before but I've plenty of experience in others and the lesson is you should never trust anyone no matter what sort of limiting mechanic there is in the game.

 

[drubell]

The first time someone pulled the worker steal on me he said "50g or I delete the worker."

I said I didn't negotiate with terrorists.

The funny thing was he accidentally deleted his warrior instead of my worker, so I just took it back and he was down a unit

Either way I can rarely play MP because my ping isn't always the best compared to eithers. In a recent game I just ragequit because some of my units got trashed when I was making a surprise attack on someone because he got his moves in while I was still waiting for my turn to start. Really need to have the best ping in war or else you'll get that nonsense going.

 

[GreekIrish]

Honestly you shouldn't have given him that 100 gold. I haven't played MP in Civ before but I've plenty of experience in others and the lesson is you should never trust anyone no matter what sort of limiting mechanic there is in the game.

Why shouldn't I have? It's a real shame when you can't trust people to make a simple 100 gold trade. It seemed like a good deal to me when I made it, and I didn't think people would do something THAT messed up. If people are so untrustworthy that you can't make simple trades, it kinda defeats the purpose of having a trading system to begin with. I think there should be something that hurts people when they do that, not to downright stop them. Because then what usually happens is that they spend the next 50 turns trying to kill me, and the way I play, rarely does someone ever take my cities from the classical era to the information era, but I'm wasting all that production fighting off people, while the rest of the people in the game are sitting back and reaping the benefits from it. Let people be as war like as they want, but it should affect their happiness or their culture at least.

 

[Sonereal]

Now I'm not getting upset and crying over losses, because I usually do very well in multiplayer. It just seems like there should be counter-measures for people who backstab others. Declaring war one turn after a peace treaty is over affecting your happiness, attacking after a declaration of friendships, etc. Sure other players will see it and may take action, but that's a strong might. There should be penalties given by the game too, so players will always think twice about doing something shiesty.

Err, what?

Why should there be a penalty for declaring war after a peace treaty expires? Or after a DoF? You'll just be on two weeks after the patch saying "declaring war one turn after the peace treaty expiration penalties to declaring war on someone else should be penalized".

 

[Yalish]

There doesn't need to be any penalty beyond whatever social impact it has in the game should you happen to kick up a stink about it. Odds are most other players in the game will just scratch their heads at why you sent out unescorted civilians or made a lump sum trade with someone you do not have a past history of cooperation with.

I also second or third the opinion that you're far too trusting -- you're complaining about someone breaking a deal that you should never have trusted them to make in the first place; it's multiplayer and only one person can win. Some people don't like to sit back and turtle until artillery or bombers. They're out to swallow their nearest opponent quickly, then maybe do something more in the medieval/renn.

The fact that you haven't run into someone who's actually good at this means you've been extremely lucky thus far.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

Why shouldn't I have? It's a real shame when you can't trust people to make a simple 100 gold trade. It seemed like a good deal to me when I made it, and I didn't think people would do something THAT messed up. If people are so untrustworthy that you can't make simple trades, it kinda defeats the purpose of having a trading system to begin with. I think there should be something that hurts people when they do that, not to downright stop them. Because then what usually happens is that they spend the next 50 turns trying to kill me, and the way I play, rarely does someone ever take my cities from the classical era to the information era, but I'm wasting all that production fighting off people, while the rest of the people in the game are sitting back and reaping the benefits from it. Let people be as war like as they want, but it should affect their happiness or their culture at least.

the trade system exists for both game types, single and multi but their uses/value should be distinctly different in both types. if you've played enough single player you'd know that 240g is a rough standard for what a lux is worth. if a human comes to you with only wanting 100g then that "too good to be true" alarm should go off and it should be 99% assumed they are just getting your money for DoW. it is a tactic and only used by people who think they can get away with it. you could laugh at them and counter with 0g to let them you know you arent a "mark" in that game. cynical skepticism is your friend in multiplayer.

 

[Silverfuturist]

Your post summarizes the sentiment of many new players to MP, it is a good topic of discussion. Many players bring in their of ideas of "cheap," but every competitive game has their own culture when it comes to "fair," and "fair" is based upon many hours of seasoned players following the rules. To an outsider... poker players are "cheap" by lying to you (bluffing)... chess players "cheap" by running you out of time (competitions use time controls...) Scrabble players are "cheap" by putting rude words on the board... in every competitive game I have played there is a cry of "cheap" by some new players who have limited experience in the event. As far as the goes - I suspect some players are mad at their own naivety, but don't want to take accountability for their inexperience, so try to blame the culture of the game.

Only 1 player can win. Every civ has advantages that are unique to them. Many of these are military in nature, meaning that you should expect war from them. If somebody is going to have war with you, you should not expect the "kid gloves" treatment.

As far as "exploits" go - many players will agree ahead of time to NOT do the exploit and they are very good at keeping their word - when it is agreed ahead of time. Good sportsmanship is very common in Civ MP, but you have to understand the gaming culture. Civ orgs like NQ and the League have some of the best sportsman I have come across... but you know what... if you offer them a free worker...

 

[Silverfuturist]

One thing I noticed though, is that there are a lot of people that either play cheap"

Continued... interesting topic that I constantly come across in every competitive game I play...

I would consider these "not cheap" actions much jerkier than somebody taking a worker:

1. A jerky Austria steals your city state ally, marries them and then all that influence u built up is lost forever...

2. You pop a great engineer for a wonder, and then you lose the wonder to some jerk... all you get for your engineer is some gold, much less gold than if you even had a great merchant.

3. Another jerk plants a city in a spot just before you do, your settler has to find another city spot that won't be as nice.

4. You desperately need happiness, but by the time you got your lux hooked up to trade, some jerk trades with the player you wanted to get the lux from.

5. There is a sweet barb camp that will get you influence with several city states. Your unit gets there too late to kill the barb camp, some jerk gets all that influence instead of you.

6. Some jerk takes the pantheon you were trying to get.

7. many many more examples!

 

[TheHanzou]

Its not because people play cheap, there is just no incentive to keep peace or diplomatic relations. You cant win Civ5 Multiplayer Games with peace. If you cant expand anymore its time for war.

Its a limitation of Civ5 Gameplay and Design. There are sometimes temporary peace treaties, like exchanging luxories with weaker players that are not next to you in order to close in on the leading player, but other than that you will have to destroy everyone militarily anyway in the long run.

Basically even offering ANY kind of treaty is a sign of weakness, but accepting it is much worse. Why would you ever accept embassy from anyone? If you are technologically ahead it would be dumb to allow spies in your city. If you are technologically behind why would the other player accept an embassy opening him up for spies? Theres just no reason to accept this treaty.

If you have positive hapiness why would you accept luxories? The only reason for the other player to offer you luxories is because HE needs hapiness, so your basically only helping him which in turn weakens you relativly. I would never trade luxories with anyone im in direct competition with, unless its to my advantage, which means its to his disadvantage so offering/accepting it would be dumb for him.

If you are offered a peace treaty it usually means the other side is afraid of your military. Either way it would be dumb to give someone you are at war with 10 turns for free in which he can prepare his defenses and build units.

And declaration of friendship are completely meaningless. They dont even do anything. If anything i would accept it only to give the other player a false sense of security and then backstep him. Thats probably exactly what happened to you. Asking for this treaty for me is just another sign of weak player.

the only meaningful treaty is research, because it actually does something AND gives an incentive to both sides to keep peace. But since noone actually wants peace for the aforementioned reasons these treaties are very rare, and more often than not a sign of collusion in FFA Games (Team-Play, tag-teaming etc).

diplomacy is completely pointless.

And not protectiong a worker is a mistake that should not go unpunished. Not protecting your worker/settler is a risk, but if its not taken advantage of you save a lot of ressources by not building units early. Its no cheap play to steal workers if theyre not protected. I always punish these mistakes. Not doing so is a mistake as well, it will hurt you in the long run while a false sense of 'honor' doesnt benefit you in any way in Civ5.

 

[Silverfuturist]

"The only reason for the other player to offer you luxories is because HE needs hapiness"

So you don't like CS quests or getting "we love the king day?"

"If you are offered a peace treaty it usually means the other side is afraid of your military."

Ever have 2 players at war discover a 3rd player is a bigger threat to them, and they make peace to prevent the 3rd player from running away with the game?

"And declaration of friendship are completely meaningless. They dont even do anything."
Research agreements require doing this. This doesn't include Sweden and their friend who both get 10% more great people for doing this

"these treaties are very rare"

Very common in NQ games, even with top-tier players such as Universal Soldier.

"and more often than not a sign of collusion in FFA Games"

collusion?

 

[N0QUITTERSULTAN]

Trading with humans in real life and civ is awful In real life i trade with people i trust and i do the same in civ starting to penalize players that break a treaty sounds like much work...

In NQ i have experiensed treaty that other players broke Next NQ-game i played with them i attack! Remember treaty breakers and penalize them next game,. Its the only way


http://steamcommunity.com/groups/NO_QUITTERS

http://forum.noquitters.org/index.php

 

[tommynt]

I have been multiplayer a lot recently, and I have had some good and some bad experiences. One thing I noticed though, is that there are a lot of people that either play cheap or will stab you in the back. When I first started playing, I got my workers stolen a few times and deleted. I later learned to protect my units, but I think it's a pretty awful thing to do to someone. It's a competition, and everyone's trying to be number one, but that doesn't mean you have to take cheap shots at people.

how funny, even Ai is breaking deals regularly.
What are you expecting when playing multiplayer?
A bunch of people who try to play so bad so you possibly can win in end?

honestly part of a fun game, its playing to win, if people dont play to win its no fun beating them

 

[The QC]

Sorry if I'm bumping a somewhat dying thread, but I have some thoughts on the topic and I didn't have much time to write them last time.

I feel that diplomacy could play a more important and more interesting role in multiplayer and in single player too and that it wouldn't have been difficult to do in terms of implementation effort. I'm somewhat puzzled by it - the only explanation that I see is that the developers intentionally built diplomatic deals in a way that avoids any of the players making any kind of commitment.

Some examples:

- The example above: luxuries going for lump sums of gold, instead of gold per turn. This simply removes the option to trade in multiplayer, which is a pity (or is it possible to do gold per turns?). Also, in single player it makes the selling of luxuries very exploitable.

- Peace Treaties lasting only 10 turns. This is again an option that is there for a player to exploit against AIs and not something that could be truly useable in a versus game. Peace treaties would normally be for a weaker player that wants to pay off an enemy to stop attacking. But this would only be worth it if it lasts long enough to allow the weaker guy to catch up and set up some defenses. Otherwise, it's just money down the drain.

- There are no Non Aggression Pacts. I think this option could be a way to safeguard lump sum deals (e.g. "I give you 100 gold for 30 turns of spices, but you also throw in a Non-Aggression Pact for 30 turns, to guarantee it"). It could also be a tool for a warmongering civ and a peaceful one to interact ("pay me 100 gold for a non-aggression pact... or else..."). Right now, some AIs outright ask you for stuff, but do not offer anything. The Non Aggression Pact would achieve this in a more elegant way and would offer something tangible to the bullied party. Generally, the Non Aggression Pact would be a control for backstabbing and would give periods of predictability inside the flow of a match.

As I said, I don't think that any of these would be difficult to implement. But the developers chose to have most of the diplomatic interactions to be based on the honor of the player, which is, in my opinion, not a good idea at all.