Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Backstabbing
Backstabbing |
Sat, 12 June 2004 20:05 |
|
|
I have opened this thread to create a discussion that revolves around honor and treachery.
Most of the players I know that play Stars! have impeccable integrity and honor. - They keep their agreements and do not attack their friends. In most games, NAP's are nullified with the agreed termination notice.
What does everyone think of a player that does not honor this unwritten code?
Ptolemy
[I have played Stars! for at least 8 years - my integrity and honor is impeccable and many of you new players can attest to that. There are still some old hands around that I trust without question.
Sadly, many players like Jeff Crawly and Art Lathrop in Hong Kong have stopped playing the game. However, Stars! does go on - it is such an amazingly successful game - much more so than the Jeff's that created it could ever have imagined. I personally am honored to have played this game this long, tested new releases, and still love it
Many thanks to Ron at Autohost for still providing the Autohost service to the dwindling player community and to the Jeff's that created the game so long ago.
Ptolemy
[Updated on: Sat, 12 June 2004 20:07]
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Sat, 12 June 2004 23:09 |
|
Orca | | Chief Warrant Officer 1 | Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003 Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
Habitual backstabbing is stupid - no one will trust you. But if executed at the right time, for the right reasons, I don't see anything wrong with it. The point of the game is *winning* after all...better if you can do it as a solo victory than otherwise. By the same token though, you want to use it very carefully since it *does* affect people's perception of your honor. Hence the popularity of treaty breaking provisions - might as well give waffling people one less reason to backstab.
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Backstabbing |
Sun, 13 June 2004 04:27 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1211
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
Ashlyn wrote on Sun, 13 June 2004 06:14 |
Orca wrote on Sun, 13 June 2004 05:09 | But if executed at the right time, for the right reasons, I don't see anything wrong with it.
|
Never a good time to backstab. Never. If I have to backstab to win, then I don't want to win. My
|
If backstabbing would be the only option to make me win the solo-win game I'd consider it. That's also the only reason I'd consider it. IMO in that situation, when only 2 contenders for the solo victory would remain, the attack on the other one would hardly be called a backstab.
My
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Sun, 13 June 2004 04:34] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Backstabbing |
Sun, 13 June 2004 12:56 |
|
vonKreedon | | Lieutenant | Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003 Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
I fall into the camp Seven, Iztok and Orca, the object of the game is to win and all players should keep their eyes on the prize. If their is a way to win by explicitly violating a written treaty, and there is no other means as likely to provide the win, then I would seriously examine executing a backstab.
In many ways it takes two to backstab. One player has to be willing to backstab, but the other player has to make himself vulnerable to the backstab. I am regularly re-evaluating the strategic situation to determine how to mitigate the risks, including the risk of backstabbing; this is simple due dilligence.
Another issue is the definition of backstabbing. I have a strict constructionist view that if the action is not explicitly forbiden by written treaty then it is allowable without being called backstabbing. So treaty writing is very important in preventing backstabs. In the opening post to this thread Ptolemy said,
They keep their agreements and do not attack their friends. In most games, NAP's are nullified with the agreed termination notice.
What does everyone think of a player that does not honor this unwritten code?
I think that unwritten codes are worth the paper they're written on.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Sun, 13 June 2004 14:51 |
|
|
vonKreedon wrote on Sun, 13 June 2004 10:56 | I think that unwritten codes are worth the paper they're written on.
|
In my last game, I gave 3 years notice before attacking my main opponent despite no NAP (he was fast starting JOAT). Previously I had been friendly both to him and the HP IT he was picking on.
May have been easier in the short term to suprise, but I gained in the longer term... one is less feared when one acts extra honourable beyond even requirements.
[Updated on: Sun, 13 June 2004 14:52] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Sun, 13 June 2004 18:16 |
|
slms | | Crewman 2nd Class | Messages: 18
Registered: March 2004 Location: Portugal | |
|
My personal opinion is that backstabbing is bad.
But that is just a personal approach for the importance of honor and integrity of character and, as it is a subjective argument, it is not valid in any true debate, so here is my constructive view about the subject:
Backstabbing is always bad (I known, never say always , but...) in the game for only one reason:
The game ends, you won (you had won that game easily didn't you ? If not you are really really stupid... ) but the problem is that your reputation becomes damage forever (hum, another bad word ...). And that is the problem: Human nature doesn't forgive and in other new game the other players will remember and guess what : revenge is a dish better served cold
The principal behind real backstabbing is not to gain a temporally advantage (that is stupidity only) but to cripple someone so bad that it is impossible for them to ever, ever, come against you in the future... The problem here is that new games are just that: NEW game and you don't keep the power of your previous game, just your bad reputation...
So if you do it, do it in a efficient manner: kill the real player and be sure that you will burn in hell
Another thing that I truly agree with vonKreedon is that you are only subject to backstabbing if you are weak! So, don't be or don't show your weakness and forget about backstabbing
- Sergio Silva
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: Backstabbing |
Mon, 14 June 2004 16:13 |
|
Carn | | Officer Cadet 4th Year | Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
Just a short point, the real disadvantage of an untrustworthy ally is not the backstab, but the cost of the potential backstab. The more you mistrust your ally, the more you have to keep fleets near gates instead of sending them to enemies, the more defenses you have to build/maintain in "safe" territory, the more slowly trade will go on(you would not give a dangerous WM ally a few thousand tons of mins for DN building while you keep on researching for nubs), the more problems with intersettling and the more communication, scanning and thinking MM has to be done(why has he moved 200 BBs+200 Bombers away from front - fleeing, hiding or prepairing attack and against whom?).
If there is too much distrust, it might happen that having no alliance and intersettling might be better.
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Mon, 14 June 2004 17:01 |
|
vonKreedon | | Lieutenant | Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003 Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
What Carn terms mistrust is, IMO, necessary risk mitigation. Not to dig up Reagan so freshly in the ground, but his phrase, "Trust, but verify.", is extrodinarily well worded. For example, if I allow intersettling, then I better have risk mitigation in place; I intersettle as well, I stipulate no SB, I stipulate no defenses, etc. To simply take on trust that my ally has no and will have no plans to do me ill is laziness.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Mon, 14 June 2004 17:10 |
|
icebird | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 | Messages: 178
Registered: September 2003 Location: In LaLa land... | |
|
Stikleback wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 13:03 | Personnally, I can't forsee a situation where I would backstab, but wouldn't it make an interesting subplot to a game if 2 of eight races were notified at between turns 50 and 80 that a neighbouring race had desecrated a holy place and they must go to war!
|
That sounds like a fun idea for a game- I can't start another one right now, but it would be fun! A whole new meaning to the word paraniod... I can see two types of races- those who play regularly, trusting to luck that their allies won't be chosen, and those who sit tight and defend their borders until after they know who has to go to war with whom. Even more fun would be the possibility of some races using it as an excuse to start a war, even if they were not chosen.
"I had to attack them... the host said so!"
Back on the origonal subject, I can't think of any time in a normal game when I would backstab- special game rules might make it worth it, but still almost never.
-Peter, Lord of the Big Furry ThingsReport message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Backstabbing |
Tue, 15 June 2004 09:10 |
|
Carn | | Officer Cadet 4th Year | Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
vonKreedon wrote on Mon, 14 June 2004 23:01 | What Carn terms mistrust is, IMO, necessary risk mitigation. Not to dig up Reagan so freshly in the ground, but his phrase, "Trust, but verify.", is extrodinarily well worded. For example, if I allow intersettling, then I better have risk mitigation in place; I intersettle as well, I stipulate no SB, I stipulate no defenses, etc. To simply take on trust that my ally has no and will have no plans to do me ill is laziness.
|
I did not say, its not worth taking the risk, but if you have choice between allying with someone, you know has backstabbed succesfully several times, and someone, you know to keep every word of treaties, its easy choice, except for the other factors, like PRT,LRT,habs and tech.
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Backstabbing |
Tue, 15 June 2004 12:13 |
|
mazda | | Lieutenant | Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003 Location: Reading, UK | |
|
vonKreedon wrote on Tue, 15 June 2004 16:33 | In that post Carn says, ...someone, you know to keep every word of treaties.... This leads to ask a further question of the room, at what point does parsing of the words of a treaty to ones advantage become backstabbing? For example consider this treaty clause:
- Signatories are prohibited from bombing each other's planets.
So, how would you judge a player who signed the treaty and later packeted another signatories worlds?
|
Well perhaps "keep every word of treaties" is not the opposite of "backstabber" ?
Sounds like you are trying to define a new term of "nitpicker".
In your example you'd have to say the player was definitely not breaking the treaty.
He was almost certainly not sticking to the spirit of the treaty, assuming it was arrived at in an amicable fashion and not under duress.
Unfortunately "backstabbing" is a term that does invoke words like spirit, trust and honour, whereas breaking a treaty is more a technical issue of wording and omission.
How would I judge such a player ?
I don't know. Not too harshly. May well depend on my proviso above regarding the spirit under which the treaty was entered into.
Almost certainly it is simply an experience to take with you into other games, and you can prevent the same thing happening again.
Can't say I'd feel the same about a friendly ally who backstabbed me.
I know people jabber on about taking precautions etc., but by it's very nature I don't see how you can say you trust someone and then take every precaution to ensure they don't blow that trust. Either you trust them or you don't.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | |
Re: Backstabbing |
Sat, 19 June 2004 05:45 |
|
Carn | | Officer Cadet 4th Year | Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
Ptolemy wrote on Sat, 19 June 2004 07:50 | The other options of course are:
1)never to ally and always be strong enough to win without setting anyone to freind.
2) Never to trust anybody and so don't set anyone to freindly status - that way they can't get through your minefields or use your gates.
3) If you really feel you have to have an ally, make sure he gives you his password so you can check up on him or, make sure you keep a scout at every one of his planets so you can see what he builds - As soon as you see a gathering of warships - set him to neutral.
This is for the truly paranoid.... ....
Ptolemy
|
I thought the greatest advantages of having ally is, except tech exchange, intersettling and combined attacks against another poor soul and with both being paranoid is hurting.
Because with optimal intersettlement it is quite possible that your "ally" has 80% of your planets in 50 LY radius of some of his. If he then has an idea from observing and communication, what planets will produce and what SB they have he can use a 1 year production at a planet to overpower SB+production there.
That it is irrelevant if he does it to one planet, but if he does it to 20-30 he might cut of a part of empire from stargate connection for 2+ turns(1 turn to get something up to shoot small forces down, next turn for gate) and that is enough if he gates rest of his forces+mini bombers to nearby planets the turn he attacks. So even if you set your "ally" from time to time to neutral, to keep him uncertain, he can still deliver a dangerous blow if intersettled. Therefore intersettling needs extra precautions for the true paranoid, like big fleets moving randomly around own planets.
Bigger problem is battles, especially the ones where your "ally" suggest "don't worry, i'll send the beamers and chaff your missle-heavy fleet is missing, lets attack the big fleet of our long term enemy(, who has same habs as you, but who could intersettle with me easily)" . See the problem? What do you do as true paranoid? I think only safe way is to avoid big battles, where you rely on your ally.
No combine intersettling with attacking and what do you get?
20% of your free warships(= those you could throw into attack, not those you need for guarding borders against official enemies) patrol to keep ally from backstabbing. And of your remaining 80% fleet strength you are only willing to send half to a battle where ally is present to keep reserves.
The result is that the combined fleet strengths of your and your ally(who is as paranoid) are only 160% of what a single player has and at a single battle you will have only 80% of what a single player can bring to a battle. With that limitations you will have a hard time to defeat a single player, if he has the defensive position.
Thats what i meant in one of the above post, if the distrust is too great, then the benefit of an alliance might drop drastically or even go to 0.
Also consider all the work to check every planet nearly every turn and the communicating neccesary to keep ally placid, while you have several medium sized fleets randomly moving, merging, splitting and being increased near a lot of his planets.
(Why did you move fleet to x there are just my planets near?
I moved there because you have enough ships and bombers there to destoy several of my planets.
But i have to gather them there otherwise our enemy will see them and they should be a surprise, move your fleet to y to make a diversion attack, then surprise will even be bigger.
As long as you have so many BBs and bombers there my fleet cannot go anywhere.
...
)
There has to be some trust, otherwise alliance is of little use.
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jul 06 19:17:49 EDT 2024
|