First, I do understand that the source of funding is not obvious. Of course, in the end game, it becomes more and more obvious. Since I have no way (afaik) to reject funding, it makes for some very uncomfortable situations with allies if they don't happen to be the funder, and can sus it out.

I would prefer to have funding either REALLY be hidden, or have the option to reject funding. It makes me cross when I didn't ask for it, but have to pay like I did.

offscape wrote:but have to pay like I did.

I presume you were attacked by allies in the end because they thought you were getting help from the enemy?

If that is the case then I think that the person funding you has played a brilliant game of diplomacy by driving a wedge into your alliance. And I also think that your allies were looking for any excuse to backstab you anyway.

Haha, wow, that's brilliant.

Still, in that case anyone could play that game of diplomacy, whereas if both parties had to agree on the funding, the player being funded could decide to be risky and accept the funding, which might lead to being attacked by allies. So I think you should have to accept funding and either party could withdraw it at any time.

Champinoman wrote:

offscape wrote:but have to pay like I did.

I think that the person funding you has played a brilliant game of diplomacy by driving a wedge into your alliance. And I also think that your allies were looking for any excuse to backstab you anyway.

More like two of us not thinking ahead and one just being paranoid, but yeah. It adds another layer. Now that I've gotten over my mad at the game making me look like a liar, I will make sure to use funding creatively around newer players than me.

Still, I'd prefer to have the option to accept or reject. Do we really need a ploy that's only really useful around inexperienced players?

Just my opinion.

offscape wrote:

Champinoman wrote:

offscape wrote:but have to pay like I did.

I think that the person funding you has played a brilliant game of diplomacy by driving a wedge into your alliance. And I also think that your allies were looking for any excuse to backstab you anyway.

More like two of us not thinking ahead and one just being paranoid, but yeah. It adds another layer. Now that I've gotten over my mad at the game making me look like a liar, I will make sure to use funding creatively around newer players than me.

Still, I'd prefer to have the option to accept or reject. Do we really need a ploy that's only really useful around inexperienced players?

Just my opinion.

I don't think it's a ploy that's only useful against inexperienced players... As someone who's played played more than a dozen games, I can tell you that I definitely do not trust someone who's being funded by my enemy. And if they say, "No no, I didn't ask for it!" why would I believe them?
This game is built on lies and misinformation. I think the trick is ingenious in its simplicity, and brilliant in its use of trust. It's not a noob trick by any stretch of the imagination.

I know I've been in a situation where a neutral party that I'm funding also gets funded by my rival. I can tell you for a fact that I stop trusting that person immediately. There is no reason for me to believe them when they say anything anymore.
This happened in the Live Broadcast Game, actually, where Dane69, FateCreatr, and I all stopped trusting Key Lime because we saw he was getting funding from the other side.

roadkiehl wrote:

offscape wrote:

Champinoman wrote:I think that the person funding you has played a brilliant game of diplomacy by driving a wedge into your alliance. And I also think that your allies were looking for any excuse to backstab you anyway.

More like two of us not thinking ahead and one just being paranoid, but yeah. It adds another layer. Now that I've gotten over my mad at the game making me look like a liar, I will make sure to use funding creatively around newer players than me.

Still, I'd prefer to have the option to accept or reject. Do we really need a ploy that's only really useful around inexperienced players?

Just my opinion.

I don't think it's a ploy that's only useful against inexperienced players... As someone who's played played more than a dozen games, I can tell you that I definitely do not trust someone who's being funded by my enemy. And if they say, "No no, I didn't ask for it!" why would I believe them?
This game is built on lies and misinformation. I think the trick is ingenious in its simplicity, and brilliant in its use of trust. It's not a noob trick by any stretch of the imagination.

but the thing is, what if you really did want to reject the funding? Sure, its a strategy to get in the way of alliances, but what if you're aware of that? You can't do anything about it. What do you do then? There should be a choice: 'should I accept the funding even though I know its a strategy planned against me and risk losing my allianes?'

tw2000 wrote: but the thing is, what if you really did want to reject the funding? Sure, its a strategy to get in the way of alliances, but what if you're aware of that? You can't do anything about it. What do you do then? There should be a choice: 'should I accept the funding even though I know its a strategy planned against me and risk losing my allianes?'

No, you definitely shouldn't be given the choice.

Let me put it to you this way. Imagine someone launches a queen-killing rig (Navi/Pir/Assassin) against your queen, and you're screwed. Do you have a choice in the matter? No. They're outplaying you. Suck it up. Come up with a brilliant counter play, sure. But you can't say, "No, I don't like that, you're not allowed to do that."
How about a more relevant example? Imagine someone stirs up the rest of the game into a coalition against you based on the false accusation that you're plotting against them each individually. Everyone gangs up on you and you're doomed. The most annoying and disliked people in Subterfuge are the people who say, "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!
This funding issue is no different. It was a brilliant play, and instead of everyone whining about it, try to learn from this anonymous player. He knows how to play the game right.
If it were a game balance issue, then I would listen more. But this isn't a matter of balance, it's a matter of wit and cunning. Complaining about this is like throwing the board when your opponent checkmates you.

roadkiehl wrote:

tw2000 wrote: but the thing is, what if you really did want to reject the funding? Sure, its a strategy to get in the way of alliances, but what if you're aware of that? You can't do anything about it. What do you do then? There should be a choice: 'should I accept the funding even though I know its a strategy planned against me and risk losing my allianes?'

No, you definitely shouldn't be given the choice.

Let me put it to you this way. Imagine someone launches a queen-killing rig (Navi/Pir/Assassin) against your queen, and you're screwed. Do you have a choice in the matter? No. They're outplaying you. Suck it up. Come up with a brilliant counter play, sure. But you can't say, "No, I don't like that, you're not allowed to do that."
How about a more relevant example? Imagine someone stirs up the rest of the game into a coalition against you based on the false accusation that you're plotting against them each individually. Everyone gangs up on you and you're doomed. The most annoying and disliked people in Subterfuge are the people who say, "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!
This funding issue is no different. It was a brilliant play, and instead of everyone whining about it, try to learn from this anonymous player. He knows how to play the game right.
If it were a game balance issue, then I would listen more. But this isn't a matter of balance, it's a matter of wit and cunning. Complaining about this is like throwing the board when your opponent checkmates you.

I fail to see any reason why you should have to accept funding, and I see many (if partial) reasons to be able to reject it if necessary.

If there was a more relevant example, it would be real life. Who said you had to accept any sort of funding in real life? If you cannot reject the funding that what is there to do except lose once you come into this situation? And once this 'funding' strategy becomes known to many people, the leading player in the game will just win. Lets say you're coming first, and you are being attacked by allied people, all you need to do is give funding to another player to create tension in their alliance. You'll be invincible. This matter is entirely different from that if your enemy launches a Pirate/assasin/navigator combo. You see, they are attacking you if they do that, showing hostility towards you, an attack is not something you can accept or reject, it happens because your enemy has the capabilities to attack you. But if they fund you, it should be a sign that they're trying to help you, not some trick to make you lose.

Moreover, you say "If it were a game balance issue, then I would listen more." So you would listen more if was unfair? But according to you, being attacked by everyone is not fair play. Where do you draw the boundaries then? What if someone started with 1 more driller than everyone else? how about 10? 100? Sure, it wouldn't be fair. So when are you going to listen? What are you going to do? Whine about it and tell the Devs? But thats like 'throwing the board when your opponent checkmates you.'

My point is that you should be given the option against funding simply so that you have more of a choice in a more realistic environment. Imagine if this was a real war. Would you really accept a gift from your enemy? Think back to the Trojan Horse. Of course they could have just left it outside, and they would have won the war for sure. But they didn't, they accepted, thinking is was a genuine gift. This is the type of cunning that Subterfuge is about, not the "you can't do anything about it" cunning. You don't force the Trojan horse through their gates and make them accept it. If that did happen, I'd probably be attacking it anyway.

@roadkiehl the difference between the funding situation and your example is that an attack is nothing you can reject but you can counter it in different ways. If someone really wants to hit toy in the face he just does this. You can't say "Sorry sir, but I don't accept your punch". (Sadly ) But if some really wants to give you money you can refuse it. He can put it in your pocket and you are still able to throw it away. In the game you can't refuse it. If he funds you, there is nothing you can do. Your ally can believe you or not, but there is nothing what you can really do to avoid the funding at all.