"Peace?" -- quiz time

Strategy, feedback, or anything SUBTERFUGE-related
Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:03 pm

  • seethestar wrote:Absolutely - but if you play it right that never happens.


    Which part are you saying absolutely to? I asked a bunch of either/or questions.

    I imagine you must have racked up quick a few negative medals doing this? Also, are you concerned that with how small the player base is that eventually youll have to play with people who identify you as untrustworthy diplomatically?
    User avatar
    kevlargolem
     
    Posts: 266
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:56 am

Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:52 pm

  • You can't avoid playing with the same people forever Seethestar. Your rep is gunna catch up with you. :D lol
    User avatar
    redqueenn
     
    Posts: 22
    Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:02 am

Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:07 pm

  • redqueenn wrote:You can't avoid playing with the same people forever Seethestar. Your rep is gunna catch up with you. :D lol

    Especially now that he's said it on the forums :D
    "Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence, or is this the wrong crowd for that?" -Hoban 'Wash' Washburn, Serenity
    User avatar
    roadkiehl
     
    Posts: 777
    Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:43 pm
    Location: Above It All

Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:55 pm

  • seethestar wrote:
    kevlargolem wrote:
    seethestar wrote:A peace treaty is valid until it no longer serves my interests that it remains valid.


    Vicious! Ok, this is interesting. So does that mean if someone so eagerly dismisses diplomacy in the same way, would you moan and complain that you were betrayed, to try to get people on your side? Or do you just accept it, turn and try to counter with force as best as possible?

    In other words, do you play a double-standard where you drop diplomacy when convenient but would feel/act as though they lied to you if they did the same?


    Absolutely - but if you play it right that never happens. Far far better to be the betrayer than the betrayed - just as it is always better to be the attacker rather than the attacked...

    All too often I see people go down with a sinking ship because they hang on to their alliances even though they no longer server their aims. I have absolutely no qualms in telling player A I'm helping him by attacking player B and then telling player B I'm helping him with player A - whilst I really ignore both of them and go after player C.

    Of course I also have a rule to try to avoid playing multiple games with the same clientele... But so far I'm 12 first places from 12 public games played.


    This is definitely going to catch up with you.
    6payh
     
    Posts: 170
    Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:25 pm

Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:01 pm

  • At seethestar -
    Attachments
    image.jpg
    image.jpg (41.18 KiB) Viewed 2446 times
    Zyxe? Now that is a name I haven't heard in a long time.
    User avatar
    zyxe
     
    Posts: 833
    Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:12 am

Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:52 am

  • seethestar wrote:
    kevlargolem wrote:
    seethestar wrote:A peace treaty is valid until it no longer serves my interests that it remains valid.


    Vicious! Ok, this is interesting. So does that mean if someone so eagerly dismisses diplomacy in the same way, would you moan and complain that you were betrayed, to try to get people on your side? Or do you just accept it, turn and try to counter with force as best as possible?

    In other words, do you play a double-standard where you drop diplomacy when convenient but would feel/act as though they lied to you if they did the same?


    Absolutely - but if you play it right that never happens. Far far better to be the betrayer than the betrayed - just as it is always better to be the attacker rather than the attacked...

    All too often I see people go down with a sinking ship because they hang on to their alliances even though they no longer server their aims. I have absolutely no qualms in telling player A I'm helping him by attacking player B and then telling player B I'm helping him with player A - whilst I really ignore both of them and go after player C.

    Of course I also have a rule to try to avoid playing multiple games with the same clientele... But so far I'm 12 first places from 12 public games played.



    To be clear what I said absolutely to - I accept and expect to be betrayed by anyone at any time - and yes I would play the "you broke the deal" diplomacy card, infact I would play that card before they actually attacked. Much better to tell player B that player A just attacked you so will they now help you against him before he actually does attack than when your fighting a war on your territory. The one thing I have discovered about this game is very few people actually talk to everyone in a game - and in that state misinformation is really easily spread.

    To answer the second question - no I don't have many negative medals - infact the only one backstabbed medal I have was actually undeserved (where someone thought I was backstabbing when actually that time I wasn't.....!)

    And anyway what I am stating here isn't much different to what anyone else would do if the opportunity arose - this game most certainly isn't about telling the whole truth all the time.

    To be extra clear here - I would treat a "deal" differently to a peace treaty. Multiple times I have agreed to three way deals "for the medals" early in a game and have always honoured these to the conclusion.
    seethestar
     
    Posts: 37
    Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:06 pm

Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:15 am

  • 6payh wrote:
    seethestar wrote:
    kevlargolem wrote:Vicious! Ok, this is interesting. So does that mean if someone so eagerly dismisses diplomacy in the same way, would you moan and complain that you were betrayed, to try to get people on your side? Or do you just accept it, turn and try to counter with force as best as possible?

    In other words, do you play a double-standard where you drop diplomacy when convenient but would feel/act as though they lied to you if they did the same?


    Absolutely - but if you play it right that never happens. Far far better to be the betrayer than the betrayed - just as it is always better to be the attacker rather than the attacked...

    All too often I see people go down with a sinking ship because they hang on to their alliances even though they no longer server their aims. I have absolutely no qualms in telling player A I'm helping him by attacking player B and then telling player B I'm helping him with player A - whilst I really ignore both of them and go after player C.

    Of course I also have a rule to try to avoid playing multiple games with the same clientele... But so far I'm 12 first places from 12 public games played.


    This is definitely going to catch up with you.

    I would like to mention that on my other account I have played 4 games, 3 of which have been 10 player (and titled "Proficient Players only (>1 game)') and which I have won. I think one of the key elements of success on my other account is the fact that I always play with non-forum, L1 people (because L2s don't like playing with L1s...). So yeah, if you want more medals, be L1, and create your own game and hope no-one who has more experience than you turns up :P )

    Oh and I also did it without backstabbing anyone, which just goes to show how (relatively) easy it is to win when playing L1 people...
    Kings aren't OP

    "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
    ----Albert Einstein
    User avatar
    tw2000
     
    Posts: 1135
    Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:52 pm
    Location: New Zealand

Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:21 am

  • When I agree to "peace", it generally means that we're beginning a process. It's starts with non-aggression, followed by cooperation, then eventually trust. There is no one meaning of a peace agreement, and I know that at any time there is the possibility of betrayal. The game, for me, is about accurately assessing the risk of betrayal at any time. If I get betrayed and wasn't expecting it, that's as much my fault as it is theirs.

    This game is called "subterfuge" for a reason. If everyone was honest and straightforward, it wouldn't be much of a game, would it?
    mnefstead
     
    Posts: 1
    Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:47 pm

Tue Jan 26, 2016 7:53 pm

  • seethestar wrote:Far far better to be the betrayer than the betrayed - just as it is always better to be the attacker rather than the attacked...

    It satisfies me to no end that there is a force of pure evil out there in subterfuge. Its not my style at all (I'm a used car salesman at my worst, and an ethical lawyer at my best). There's just so many people out there trying to play the game of building up that rep so maybe one day they get enough friends in the room to carry them to victory (again, this is what I do as well). The inevitable result of this is a popularity contest, where the loser has to put on a smiling face so maybe next time they might win, maybe given a slightly different room of people.

    Even your name is evil. You're basically a sith lord.

    seethestar wrote:To answer the second question - no I don't have many negative medals - infact the only one backstabbed medal I have was actually undeserved (where someone thought I was backstabbing when actually that time I wasn't.....!)

    Lol, hilarious. What an amazing medal system we have.

    seethestar wrote:And anyway what I am stating here isn't much different to what anyone else would do if the opportunity arose

    Uhhh... its pretty different. Especially to have such an open honest view of it.

    seethestar wrote:To be extra clear here - I would treat a "deal" differently to a peace treaty. Multiple times I have agreed to three way deals "for the medals" early in a game and have always honoured these to the conclusion.

    Oh come on now... dont take the wind out of my sails. A peace treaty is a "deal." Dont start getting into the crap of making excuses like the rest of us do.
    User avatar
    kevlargolem
     
    Posts: 266
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 10:56 am

Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:57 am

  • kevlargolem wrote:
    seethestar wrote:Far far better to be the betrayer than the betrayed - just as it is always better to be the attacker rather than the attacked...

    It satisfies me to no end that there is a force of pure evil out there in subterfuge. Its not my style at all (I'm a used car salesman at my worst, and an ethical lawyer at my best). There's just so many people out there trying to play the game of building up that rep so maybe one day they get enough friends in the room to carry them to victory (again, this is what I do as well). The inevitable result of this is a popularity contest, where the loser has to put on a smiling face so maybe next time they might win, maybe given a slightly different room of people.

    Even your name is evil. You're basically a sith lord.

    seethestar wrote:To answer the second question - no I don't have many negative medals - infact the only one backstabbed medal I have was actually undeserved (where someone thought I was backstabbing when actually that time I wasn't.....!)

    Lol, hilarious. What an amazing medal system we have.

    seethestar wrote:And anyway what I am stating here isn't much different to what anyone else would do if the opportunity arose

    Uhhh... its pretty different. Especially to have such an open honest view of it.

    seethestar wrote:To be extra clear here - I would treat a "deal" differently to a peace treaty. Multiple times I have agreed to three way deals "for the medals" early in a game and have always honoured these to the conclusion.

    Oh come on now... dont take the wind out of my sails. A peace treaty is a "deal." Dont start getting into the crap of making excuses like the rest of us do.



    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 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.

    The way I play this game is often to try an talk to everyone - form common interest agreements and then swing those to my advantage. Do it well and it's unlikely that other players realise they are being "played" until it is too late to do anything about it. Sure you may think my tactics dishonourable and yes it is potentially a risky play - but I'm not playing this game for anyone else's benefit.

    Sure I sometimes get into a "last 3" position where the other two both think they have a separate agreement with me - but I'd rather have a difficult diplomatic incident at that point than be ganged up on and eliminated early because I made no "friends".
    seethestar
     
    Posts: 37
    Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:06 pm

PreviousNext


Return to General




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests
cron