Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

1. Liven up the game.

1. This may kill the game rather than liven it up. I was in a game where two high rank players quit because an ally supposedly stabbed one of them in the back in a less offensive manner than this. This made the game considerably less attractive.

Quote:

2. Weaken a potentially strong race.

2. Yes, this will definitely weaken the SS race. It will no longer have credibility in the galaxy and lose all potential allies. What fool would ally with a liar? And the fool that is helping you would also be at risk of you betraying him in similar manner. "Never play leap frog with a unicorn."

Quote:

3. Tip the balance of power. The game will definately move more after such an event.

3. The balance can tip both ways. Depending on what the others do against this display of lack of honor.

Quote:

4. May lose you friends in the stars community. But these are the people who take the game way too seriously so shouldn't be worried about.

4. Even though I am not playing, you lost "my" service as ally in all future games just by proposing this tactic. Got you tagged as "undependable" in future games. Most players I have played with take the game seriously enough to object to this sort of behaviour. After all it takes months of serious effort to successfully finish a game.

Quote:

5. Give you satisfaction if sucessful

5. What could possibly give you satisfaction to behave in a socially unacceptable manner as this? Have you never read the galactic code of honor.

Quote:

6. Deal you a crushing defeat if it fails.

6. che sarà sarà ...

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

This reminded of the board game Junta where backstabbing(and cheating ) is standard fare. Fabulous game...
as opposed to Diplomacy where one incident destroyed a 5 month game(It also reorganised 2/3 of Europe).

Personally I think no ally can be trusted completely unless the game rules say so eg Partners in Time

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

I think I agree with freakyboy on this one, backstabbing realistic, and can be fun.
If people won't hold grudges, and would know to trust AND keep a watchful eye on what they're doing, things would be more fun and interesting.

The only reason against backstabbing when it can help you win the game, is the next game, and I don't think it should be.
People shouldn't hold grudges from game to game, one play to achieve victory, and should remember that his ally play to achieve his own victory.

I think a more natural game would be one when every player consider backstabbing every turn, and decide in favor or against it, and it's also a much more interesting game .

But, although all that, people DO hold grudges, and the player community is small. You'll probably play with those people again, and this (Unfortunately) makes backstabbing a very costly idea. I do think it's bad, because the game would be more interesting if people would act as the real race would act when playing, and won't think of their next game too.

Report message to a moderator

Name me any game you have played where someone came up to you and said: "Oh yeah, I want to team up with you again, because you screwed me the last time and caused me to lose."


"Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?"

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 13 December 2002 22:57]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 13 December 2002 23:43]

Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Fri, 13 December 2002 17:21

I am reminded of the board game Junta where backstabbing(and cheating ) is standard fare. Fabulous game...

Any tabletop gamers out there might have encountered a delightfully psychotic little RPG called HOL (short for Human Occupied Landfill). Cheating, lying, and general disorderliness is not only standard fare, but encouraged (and likely the only way to win). It's most fun after you've been awake for 36+ hours and been living on IHOP fare for a good portion of that time.

EDog

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

tech25 wrote on Fri, 13 December 2002 21:34

A lot of players, myself included, will set up alliance pacts or non-aggression treaties with a 5-year or 10-year notification of intent clause. Generally, this means that if at any point you are going to change your relationship with a current ally/non-hostile neutral, you give them fair warning. As long as you abide by this clause, the player who's getting the shaft has no real reason to complain because you've followed the terms as mutually agreed upon. On the other hand, if gives them time to prepare for whatever you may be ready to dish out, so it can't be called a backstab. A notification is a great way to encourage an ally to give you further incentive not to act ("Hey, if I give you 10,000 kT of Boranium, can we still be friends?").

The first time I allied with another player in "Stars!" we worked out a detailed contract covering every obligation and termination details (like lawyers with a prenuptial agreement) in advance via email. It was rather lengthy and took days of correspondence to hammer out the details, as memory serves. What can I say, it worked out fine, and it was in fact even fun, since we did it in roleplaying fashion. Anyways, if that's how you do it, it's all crystal clear to everyone what constitutes honourable behaviour. Stick to the rules and you're a good guy, abandon them and you're not.

Quote:

Although it would likely inconvenience me in a game where someone turned against me, I would never hold it against them if they followed the rules of a treaty. I'd even ally with them in a future game, because this method shows that a player can be trusted to act honorably.

True, but if a treaty ended prematurely in two or more games with the same person, I just MIGHT opt for trying a different ally if one was available, depending on my own needs. Would you? Not a manner of honor in such a case; it's more like preferring a committed marriage over shacking up for a while.

Report message to a moderator

Apelord wrote on Fri, 13 December 2002 19:58

How's the saying go "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on ME?"

I guess that all depends on who is trying to get the point across. For example, if it happens to be U.S. President George W. Bush Jr, the wording might be a bit scrambled but essentially the same in context.

My apology for the joke and all due respect to our president if he happens to be a "Stars!" strategist.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 14 December 2002 12:20]

Report message to a moderator

Quote:

I've said it before on the forum and i'll say it again. Primary goal in stars is to have fun, second is winning

That is your opinion, others disagree. Primary goal in all games is to have fun winning, plan B, have fun losing.

Quote:

If you aren't having fun you generally don't play. But lots of people who never win any games play lots. Therefore you play for fun, but you'd like to win.

Some people play strategy games for the challenge. If they have fun doing this, this is great. It may be it is just an intellectual challenge to them. Some people try even harder to win if they lose all the time, as the challenge becomes greater.

Quote:

If you set out solely to win and this opportunity arises why not grasp it if winning is so important?

Some people prefer to maintain integrity. Backstabbing is not an ethical way to succeed. The greater challenge is to win with integrity.

Quote:

Apelord was right - backstabbing is part and parcel.

Apelord is lord of the apes. Myself, I generally do not listen to apes as they have "evolved" too slowly to keep up with the rest of the species. My Lord says to me, integrity counts for much. And he says he made the apes.
Part and parcel means - an essential or integral component. Backstabbing is not "essential" anymore than "cheating" or "quitting early" is. Backstabbing is a practice that is used by very few players and usually has negative results, as Apelord pointed out in another post.

Quote:

But what IF the alliance you agreed to was the begginning of putting this plan into motion? i.e. Player C is under attack from player B. You offer player C help by performing this action on player B. Player B welcomes the supposed "help" and as such gets screwed because he played right into the hands of player A and C? Is that wrong? Player A and C made the alliance before a and b did.

I would say player A is wrong. As player A made two alliances. In making an alliance with B he should have pointed out to B that he had

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 14 December 2002 14:17]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

UAF commander wrote on Sat, 14 December 2002 10:44

The real world is full of backstabbers, and you still see alliances everywhere

Actually, I don't think it's that common, but that COULD be because I habitually jumped out the window after rolecall in middleschool history classes thinking it was cool to ditch. Name some such historical instances of treachery at the state level, please. As lame as I am in history, I'm thinking I could probably come up with five historical alliances (and probably many more) wherein there is complete trust that each party is on the same side, for every single instance of state treachery that you can provide.

And nobody would suggest that the governmental leader of any such state level treachery should ever be trusted by the victim state leader again. What keeps treachery rare at the state level is the very same thing that keeps it rare in "Stars". The prosecution rests.

Report message to a moderator