"Peace?" -- quiz time

Strategy, feedback, or anything SUBTERFUGE-related
Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:51 am

  • seethestar wrote:My logic says the path to greatness through "making lots of friends" is flawed - you can't possibly make friends with everyone and if they also act logically they will eventually see that

    You can make friends with everyone, especially when everyone also thinks they need to make friends with everyone. -- in fact the prevailing philosophy people take on is that they MUST do this, or eventually be destroyed by the gang of friends, probably not in this game, but in future games (that's why you see these very direct threats from queen and 6pay that your time is coming).

    seethestar wrote:their interests are not best served by helping someone else.. I'm a student of Game Theory - and this game (particularly in anon mode) is about as pure an example of that as you can get.
    Key point is that whilst your goals are aligned with mine, it makes absolute sense to work together with someone - once that state of affairs is no longer the case then I will expect you to betray me - and I will then also look to do the same.

    I see your point here, but I think there is a strong counter-argument to this. Human societies are built on notions of cooperation. Darwin, natural selection, etc, has focused us toward this. Betrayals and acts of pure self interest happen, but they are the exception that stand out because of how contrary they are to our perspective of cooperation. You might point at the rich who have no problems taking from the poor, but this lends itself to the "us vs. them" mentality. My group is more important than your group. Those rich people are extremely cooperative with each other, or at least with their own family. If they arnt, again they are the extreme minority.

    The reason concepts of morality, nobility, loyalty, ethics, are valued is not because society can take from people with these traits and then cast them aside. They are valued because it works. If everyone we interact with shares these traits, everyone gains. In terms of Subterfuge- if you trust me to turn my drills away from your border, whilst I trust you to do the same, we BOTH gain. The entire system (both in life and in Subterfuge) breaks down if either side is not loyal to their agreement.

    In life, we have a lifetime to seek people out and punish them, socially or legally. Whats fascinating about Subterfuge is that we only have 8ish days, then we move on to a new society (game). People cling to the idea of future games, long term reputation, etc, in order to enforce our ideals like we do in society- and I think queen and 6pay are right, in standard games you are going to run out a new people to play against, and be forced to play with people who know what you represent. To me, this is boring and removes the subterfuge from Subterfuge.

    This is why I think anonymous mode (if it were working properly and was actually anonymous) is the best way to play the game, because it is actually more challenging to play as the good guy. And because there is so much more incentive to be the bad guy, good guys have an easier time finding them and seeking to destroy them, but only so much time to do it in. And maybe if things look bleak for the good guy, he turns bad to seek a better outcome, or maybe he sticks to his principles. Its an inherently more interesting way to play the game.

    ^this is fun. Joining a room with named friends and figuring out which of your friends are better friends than your other friends... is so boring, and even the people who end up at the top of the friends list will get tired of it.
    User avatar
    kevlargolem
     
    Posts: 266
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:56 am

Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:06 am

  • Exactly why I play the game as I do.

    It's really interesting - I recently played a game with someone who I had betrayed and assassinated a month ago. I suspected they would hold a grudge and would force others to ally against me - but in fact the opposite happened.

    The guy said "well played in that last game - you taught me a valuable lesson and I've learned from it" - we worked together again and this time I had no need to attack him. He placed 4th I placed 1st and we were able to openly discuss the previous game - no grudges held.

    Regarding anonymous mode - for me it is still fairly anonymous. I have played relatively few open public games and the ones I have have not been populated with forum regulars - and so the chances of me meeting someone in one of them who can identify me via the login times remains slim.... ;)
    seethestar
     
    Posts: 37
    Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:06 pm

Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:08 pm

  • I was looking through the leaderboards and noticed seethestar had a record of 12 wins from 13 games.
    In this thread he said he was 12 from 12 - maybe quit after losing #13?

    Anyway, I must say my style is very similar to his.. I'm almost finished my 14th game and have win #11 wrapped up.
    It is a tough game style to maintain because obviously you will make enemies, people that will hold a grudge because you've turned against them. I always try to be friendly to everyone, even though they may be aggressive or insulting towards me, or they've attacked me. At the end of the day it is a game... and also, I've had occasion to turn an attacker away from me & decide to join together because of my attitude.
    That said, I've also had games where I've been in a position so strong that I've put deals on the table like:
    "First player to send me a trustworthy ally medal gets 2nd place" or in a situation where two players were fighting, contacting them both and saying "First one to send me one of these specialists will get my drillers on your side" - both of these worked.

    Most of the time I don't directly backstab allies (although it has happened on occasion), but I have often helped who my allies are fighting to make things easier for me to rise to the top. Providing valuable intel or strategic advice mostly (eg. "See that incoming sub, if you use your next hire to get X and then do this, you'll easily beat them").

    The only person I can recall playing against twice was topkilla, I generally try to avoid the same players - I like having new relationships to work on. Of course at some point I'll run across a forum regular and just have to see how it plays out. My current game is with Radioactivity & they have just too nice of a demeanour and forum rep that I couldn't possibly turn against them. I'm now fighting to ensure they get 2nd which I think I have locked in.

    What's surprising is, I've only played 1 or 2 anonymous games... and not for quite a while. So most players can see my record right from the start.. yet I haven't had people team up straight away to kill me. I find that very interesting.
    colonelblair
     
    Posts: 47
    Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:24 pm

Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:17 pm

  • Haha love you too good buddy.
    Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds...
    User avatar
    radioactivity
     
    Posts: 831
    Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 3:26 am

Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:52 pm

  • colonelblair wrote:I was looking through the leaderboards and noticed seethestar had a record of 12 wins from 13 games.
    In this thread he said he was 12 from 12 - maybe quit after losing #13?

    Anyway, I must say my style is very similar to his.. I'm almost finished my 14th game and have win #11 wrapped up.
    It is a tough game style to maintain because obviously you will make enemies, people that will hold a grudge because you've turned against them. I always try to be friendly to everyone, even though they may be aggressive or insulting towards me, or they've attacked me. At the end of the day it is a game... and also, I've had occasion to turn an attacker away from me & decide to join together because of my attitude.
    That said, I've also had games where I've been in a position so strong that I've put deals on the table like:
    "First player to send me a trustworthy ally medal gets 2nd place" or in a situation where two players were fighting, contacting them both and saying "First one to send me one of these specialists will get my drillers on your side" - both of these worked.

    Most of the time I don't directly backstab allies (although it has happened on occasion), but I have often helped who my allies are fighting to make things easier for me to rise to the top. Providing valuable intel or strategic advice mostly (eg. "See that incoming sub, if you use your next hire to get X and then do this, you'll easily beat them").

    The only person I can recall playing against twice was topkilla, I generally try to avoid the same players - I like having new relationships to work on. Of course at some point I'll run across a forum regular and just have to see how it plays out. My current game is with Radioactivity & they have just too nice of a demeanour and forum rep that I couldn't possibly turn against them. I'm now fighting to ensure they get 2nd which I think I have locked in.

    What's surprising is, I've only played 1 or 2 anonymous games... and not for quite a while. So most players can see my record right from the start.. yet I haven't had people team up straight away to kill me. I find that very interesting.

    We played once too... Not a surprise that was one of the games that you didn't win ;)
    Edit: I just realized you put that game up as a record in the other thread.. LOL!
    Imagine how stupid the average person is. Then realize that half of the people are even stupider than that.
    -George Carlin
    User avatar
    niverio
     
    Posts: 1364
    Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:51 am

Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:53 pm

  • That game I played as best as I could. Everyone around you was super passive to the point that I had to resort to going completely over another player in order to try and slow you down, yet still even with me initiating a pretty significant incursion (150 drillers, helmsman, thief, engineer) against you noone really joined in. I can't say whether it had anything to do with your diplomacy as obviously I couldn't see what you discussed with other players, but I felt it was more the passiveness of your surrounding players...i mean I just looked back at the start and you had 18 outposts within about the first day, only two of which had any presence from other players, and both of them were easily taken).
    I can't imagine I could've got a much better outcome than what I did in that game.
    It was still a really fun game though - even though I'm playing to win I'm not begrudging of those who beat me.
    I did feel a little robbed in one game (maybe my 3rd or 4th game) when one player got an early admiral and another player gifted him another one not long after and he was completely dominating the game. I pulled off a complete hail mary move which amazingly took them out, but they gifted everything to an ally who had done practically nothing all game. They picked up all the specs & mines & a heap of the outposts & I had no time to respond before time ran out. https://youtu.be/HdrqhXebX_g (youtube recap of game)
    It's all part of the game though. It's great that everyone has their own play styles. Makes the diplomacy & strategic side of it all the more interesting.
    colonelblair
     
    Posts: 47
    Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:24 pm

Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:29 pm

  • I hate gifts in my opinion if you lose ever gift you given makes you lose another 10 to 50 rating. Gave all your stuff away. -1000 points.
    rlin81
     
    Posts: 440
    Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:49 pm

Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:36 am

  • Yeah having to deal with the bulk death gifts is a real annoying part of the game (depending on which side you're on I guess!) - but that's a risk you take when you move to eliminate someone. If you think it's a likely scenario you may be better off leaving them alive.. or at least getting a pirate in position to cut off any potential gifting.
    colonelblair
     
    Posts: 47
    Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:24 pm

Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:22 am

  • 1a
    2a
    3c
    Idk about the rest
    Baa.
    bleatingsheep39
     
    Posts: 809
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:11 pm
    Location: In the pasture.

Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:15 am

  • 1. A or E
    Depends on the person. If the person has a good reputation, I'll assume E, but there's no warning.
    2. A or E, same as above.
    It's the same thing as above.
    3. C or D
    Again, it depends on the person.

    4. E, H, M (sometimes) , O, P
    Any direct attacks will be met with a counter attack, as long as the attacks are intentional. If you are planning an attack against me, I'll attack.

    5. I, J
    You aren't trustworthy if you attack your allies, and I won't accept attacks to my allies.

    6. K, A, D, F
    I would tell them to fund me if they refuse, but I would warn them if I attacked.

    7. M (sometimes), G,
    If my enemy's directly attacking me, and the funding isn't a decoy to make him trust the other player, I'll break the treaty and attack.

    8. N, C.
    Not much to say here. If you insult me or hurt my chances of winning, I'll warn and attack if you don't stop.
    Hello!
    platypusofdoom
     
    Posts: 3
    Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:57 pm

Previous


Return to General




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests
cron