roadkiehl wrote:"That's not fair play! You can't do that!" in the public chat. OF COURSE it's not fair play. That's the name of the game! Everyone is trying to gain unfair advantages through shrewd diplomacy! Suck it up and figure out a counter play, or try again in the next game!

I'd had my say and was leaving at that. I did, as you suggested earlier, learn the lesson and it was unlikely to cause me much future trouble - though it did leave an unpleasant taste. The game design is very elegant in all other areas. This part just seemed...either sloppy or adolescent. But I'm prepared to live with flaw. It made the mechanics oddly asymmetric, but what the hey? Right?

But the paragraph quoted above struck me. I want to point out that it isn't necessarily true that "everyone" plays treacherously. I like the ability to have control over the presentation of my honor. If I want to be a jerk, fine. There are plenty of ways to do that. But if I want to be fair, clear or transparent - even for just one game - my opponent shouldn't have an unassailable way to slander me with no recourse but acquiescence or whining. Since it seems like reputation may be a valuable commodity in the long term here, it's just not right that I don't have control of that. It's certainly odd that this one bit of inherent unfairness exists in an otherwise elegantly fair system. If it didn't, your claim that "of course it's unfair" would be silly.

The board should always be neutral. It shouldn't have a button marked Cheat. It doesn't make it any more honorable just because either player can push it.

Ok, I see where you guys are upset. You're saying, "In real life, you can accept or reject gifts"
Um, when did this game become real life? It's set underwater for crying out loud.

I also wasn't saying someone should be given an unfair advantage, I was saying that if someone gains an unfair advantage through shrewd diplomacy (which this person did), they shouldn't be punished for their genius.
Besides, this is not an unstoppable move. The alliance can work it out, the player being funded is getting a substantial bonus to their production/energy, and it can certainly backfire.
You also can't refuse gift subs in this game. If someone gifts you their king, too bad! Now you don't have any shields! But it's a balanced move because you're still getting a bonus from the king. The same is true of funding.

I really don't think this is a flaw, just a clever move. Honestly, it made me laugh I'm glad you shared it.

The move itself, though, is the only instance I've ever seen it happen, I don't think it's a situation that is going to be able to repeat itself very often at all. If you could have convinced your allies you were on the up and up, you get free funding. Surely they could see you attacking your enemy despite the funding?

On a lighter note, it's definitely not the only way people slander each other in the game. Have you seen the Cool Ghosts video diary - http://coolghosts.net/cool-stuff/2015/10/21/subterfuge-diaries-part-1? My favorite part:

"So far, I’ve had messages from matt, saying ‘quinns is suspicious.’
And then I had a message from paul, saying ‘quinns is suspicious’.
And then chrisbratt said ‘quinns looks suspicious’.”

“And then quinns got in touch, and said ‘Do you want to be my ally?’”

“So quinns is suspicious.”

offscape wrote:

roadkiehl wrote:"That's not fair play! You can't do that!" in the public chat. OF COURSE it's not fair play. That's the name of the game! Everyone is trying to gain unfair advantages through shrewd diplomacy! Suck it up and figure out a counter play, or try again in the next game!

I'd had my say and was leaving at that. I did, as you suggested earlier, learn the lesson and it was unlikely to cause me much future trouble - though it did leave an unpleasant taste. The game design is very elegant in all other areas. This part just seemed...either sloppy or adolescent. But I'm prepared to live with flaw. It made the mechanics oddly asymmetric, but what the hey? Right?

But the paragraph quoted above struck me. I want to point out that it isn't necessarily true that "everyone" plays treacherously. I like the ability to have control over the presentation of my honor. If I want to be a jerk, fine. There are plenty of ways to do that. But if I want to be fair, clear or transparent - even for just one game - my opponent shouldn't have an unassailable way to slander me with no recourse but acquiescence or whining. Since it seems like reputation may be a valuable commodity in the long term here, it's just not right that I don't have control of that. It's certainly odd that this one bit of inherent unfairness exists in an otherwise elegantly fair system. If it didn't, your claim that "of course it's unfair" would be silly.

The board should always be neutral. It shouldn't have a button marked Cheat. It doesn't make it any more honorable just because either player can push it.

Yeah, I see that. But you still don't have any less control over your reputation than you would otherwise.
The way I see it, this move is equivalent to your enemy spreading a rumor that you're plotting something. Your ally then weighs that new information against what they know about you, and makes a decision based on that. This isn't a guaranteed "kill all alliances button." If an alliance has strong trust, it'll use the funding against their enemy.

*Edit* I also want to point out that playing honestly is also an "unfair advantage" in the same vein. You're trying to make friends who will help you to achieve your ends.

As a side note, I didn't have a problem with your making this thread or your responses to this thread. It was all the other people whining.

*shrug*
Who said my country is funding your state actors? Insurgent drillers rise up!

Alright then, to put it simply, why shouldn't you be able to reject funding?

tw2000 wrote:Alright then, to put it simply, why shouldn't you be able to reject funding?

Because the only reason you want to be able to reject funding is because you can get beat by someone else using it. It's like complaining that Queens are OP in chess. Yes, it's a powerful move, but it's not unbeatable.

The root of the reason, though, is that I don't believe people should be punished for being brilliant. I've never seen someone else do that, and it was a genius way to solve a sticky situation. But now you're saying, "That's not fair!"
I responded by saying, "No advantage is fair." But you didn't like that, so I'll try another tack.
How is it not fair? You could have done the same, but you didn't. There was ample opportunity for you to outwit your opponent, but he outwitted you. Your opponent started with exactly the same number of drillers, exactly the same diplomatic opportunities, and exactly the same outposts as you. The only inherent advantage he had was his wit, which he used.
Is it now against the rules to be smart? Because if so, I'm going to find another game to play.

roadkiehl wrote:

tw2000 wrote:Alright then, to put it simply, why shouldn't you be able to reject funding?

Because the only reason you want to be able to reject funding is because you can get beat by someone else using it. It's like complaining that Queens are OP in chess. Yes, it's a powerful move, but it's not unbeatable.

The root of the reason, though, is that I don't believe people should be punished for being brilliant. I've never seen someone else do that, and it was a genius way to solve a sticky situation. But now you're saying, "That's not fair!"
I responded by saying, "No advantage is fair." But you didn't like that, so I'll try another tack.
How is it not fair? You could have done the same, but you didn't. There was ample opportunity for you to outwit your opponent, but he outwitted you. Your opponent started with exactly the same number of drillers, exactly the same diplomatic opportunities, and exactly the same outposts as you. The only inherent advantage he had was his wit, which he used.
Is it now against the rules to be smart? Because if so, I'm going to find another game to play.

The person wasn't being brilliant, but he did think of an idea that was. The only reason he succeeded was because the other person couldn't reject the funding. So you call him brilliant because funding can't be rejected? If funding could be rejected, he wouldn't have succeeded. If the game had started out with rejection of funding being an option, then there WOULD be a balance in gameplay. Every action has its risks, and funding needs to be a risk for both players, not just for the person funding.

As for 'doing the same', well you can't, not when you have less neptunium than your enemy. When the Devs created this game, I seriously don't think they intended funding to be used in this way. And if it is against the Dev's intentions, then basically its a 'bug' that needs to be reported and fixed right away. For example, the Devs intended 1 specialist hire per 17 hours. They didn't intend for you to go in and change that, and if it is changed, somehow, would you say it would be unfair?

And more importantly, where is the boundary between fair and unfair? The most logical of these boundaries is to consider what would happen in real life. That's the most used path of logic and most common common sense, and its why we were all discussing real life situations in previous posts. Of course, the Devs can't implement everything in real life (e.g. Why doesn't the current of the ocean change?), but they can implement this without too much trouble. So they should! Otherwise people will be mislead into unconsciously thinking it can. And realising that it can't is hardly to do with anything related to intelligence, its simply luck, and I like to think that subterfuge does not rely on luck. So for the sake of balancing the game, you should be able to reject funding. And not only that, but I would like to be able to reject gifts from other players as well. In real life, why would the sub have to dock at my outpost? "It contains a king, and I'm not letting that come onto my outpost..."

And I'm not whining because this has happened to me, I simply feel sorry for the people that it has happened to. They haven't been able to do anything about it other than attempt to convince their rather-doubtful allies, only to realise they can't and resigning.

This thread stopped being fun...

The person wasn't being brilliant, but he did think of an idea that was.

Um what? I fail to see the distinction. It sounds to me like you're saying Albert Einstein wasn't a genius, he just had lots of genius ideas. Doesn't one follow the other?

The only reason he succeeded was because the other person couldn't reject the funding. So you call him brilliant because funding can't be rejected? If funding could be rejected, he wouldn't have succeeded.

"I would have won if he didn't have more drillers than me!" "I would have won if he didn't have more allies than me!"
Do you see what I'm saying? Probably not, actually, so I'll outline it. Mr. Funding got himself into a position where he could do this fairly (I assume), then used this advantage within the rules. You're suggesting that the rules be changed, though, but I'll get to that later.

If the game had started out with rejection of funding being an option, then there WOULD be a balance in gameplay. Every action has its risks, and funding needs to be a risk for both players, not just for the person funding.

I actually do agree that risks create some balance in gameplay, but part of the strength of Subterfuge is its mathematical predictability.
The idea has been tossed around, though, other places in the forums, that perhaps funding should have a drawback. I'm not opposed to that.

As for 'doing the same', well you can't, not when you have less neptunium than your enemy.

No, you can't. But did he start with more neptunium than you? No he did not. He started the game in exactly the same place as everyone else. Is it unfair to mine faster than everyone else too?
This sounds like you're complaining about him having an advantage again. What's the difference between this and saying,
"He has more pieces than me, so of course I'm in checkmate!"
Well, he has more pieces because you lost more pieces than he did.

When the Devs created this game, I seriously don't think they intended funding to be used in this way.

Ohhhh, I see. I have to play exactly how Ron and Noel would play if I want to play fairly. That makes sense.
Again, I don't want to play a game where all my decisions were made by the devs a year ago. I doubt they intended half their specialists to be used the way they are now.

And if it is against the Dev's intentions, then basically its a 'bug' that needs to be reported and fixed right away.

I'm not even going to bother responding to that.

For example, the Devs intended 1 specialist hire per 17 hours. They didn't intend for you to go in and change that, and if it is changed, somehow, would you say it would be unfair?

Right, but that's what's called "cheating."
Cheating is when you do something that doesn't fall within the rules of the game.
Funding is within the rules of the game.
Mr. Funding didn't cheat. He played with the advantages he saw within the game.

And more importantly, where is the boundary between fair and unfair? The most logical of these boundaries is to consider what would happen in real life. That's the most used path of logic and most common common sense, and its why we were all discussing real life situations in previous posts. Of course, the Devs can't implement everything in real life (e.g. Why doesn't the current of the ocean change?), but they can implement this without too much trouble. So they should! Otherwise people will be mislead into unconsciously thinking it can.

Have you ever heard the saying, "Life isn't fair"?
Part of the beauty of games is that they create an environment in which everything is fair, a trait is unlike the world around us. There's a reason they call it "escapism"
Your entire premise is misguided. I don't know what else to say.

And realising that it can't is hardly to do with anything related to intelligence, its simply luck, and I like to think that subterfuge does not rely on luck. So for the sake of balancing the game, you should be able to reject funding. And not only that, but I would like to be able to reject gifts from other players as well. In real life, why would the sub have to dock at my outpost? "It contains a king, and I'm not letting that come onto my outpost..."

Although this doesn't relate directly to what you're saying, you did give me a very good example with the king.
Keep in mind that gifting someone a king is a risk. Kings may have a large drawback, but they have a *huge* upside.
The funding is very similar. There's the drawback that your allies won't trust you, but keep in mind that funding is a good thing to have in most scenarios. It provides enormous boosts to your production and power.

And I'm not whining because this has happened to me, I simply feel sorry for the people that it has happened to. They haven't been able to do anything about it other than attempt to convince their rather-doubtful allies, only to realise they can't and resigning.

I just don't see the difference between this and any other situation in the game. Spreading lies is also free. Should we ban that? A pir/nav/assassin sub is also a huge advantage. Should we ban that?
Honestly, this sounds to me like you want everyone to get a participation award and for there to be no winners and no losers.
This isn't peewee football, man. People win and people lose. It's not a game otherwise.
I'm done arguing over this. As Bigred so wisely pointed out, this isn't worth fighting over. I've made my points abundantly clear, but it's like arguing with a statue.