Well, he seemed to want to exit with a splash. A poorly executed treason against an unsuspecting and heavily deceived replacement player, but splash it is.

So long, backstabber, I hope you get what you deserve.

Report message to a moderator

Seems to me that Karma may have payed you back for previous transgressions.

Thank you Prickly Pea.

Ptolemy

Report message to a moderator

Successful Backstab?! Rare thing.
"Strictly solo victory only. Victory by surrender of all active players."
Such victory conditions suggest against sitting pants down somewhere ... quite strictly?

[Updated on: Sat, 26 August 2006 09:10]

Report message to a moderator

Well stated Kotk

Ptolemy

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 15:09

Successful Backstab?! Rare thing.

Oh no, it won't be successful. Hence the shame.

Report message to a moderator

Ptolemy wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 14:35

Seems to me that Karma may have payed you back for previous transgressions.

So, what will be your payback for cheating, then?

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hmm. Backstabbing is very correct thing to do unless specially forbidden in game rules.

Groundless accusation in cheating however is ... quite thing to do.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 26 August 2006 22:07]

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 23:20

Quote: Backstabbing is very correct thing to do No trust means hard to organise gang up on the competing monster.

Where did i say that backstabbing is a "profitable strategy"?

I meant correct in the sense of perfectly correct way to play. Incorrect is for example calling your comrades with foul names or accusing them in various perversions and cheating.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 26 August 2006 21:58]

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 21:06

Groundless accusation in cheating however is ... quite thing to do.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for Ptolemy's explanations of his groundless accusations, too.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 26 August 2006 22:34]

Report message to a moderator

BackStabbing is not wrong.
Whether it is honorable is another thing.

It also helps when setting up an alliance to specify some form of get out clause.
(for me I nearly always specify a 1-5 year cancelation in any treaty).

In the same game I have just broken a treaty, peace with a 2 year get out clause was agreed between me and another player who I had been fighting for some time.
Part of the peace deal involved me vacating some planets and "Upgrading" the spacebases to empty.
My long term ally finally had built a large fleet which he gated to one of the planets (just as I was going to vacate the last LF of pop).

So I emailed the other player saying - I give you 2 years notice that the NAP is over, I also wont be handing over the rest of the planets. If you wish we can resume hostilities next turn as I have not fulfilled all the terms of the agreement.

This was an honorable exit from a treaty (I am sure it annoyed him though), a backstab would have been to wait until one of his fleets was about to take possession of a world and gate in my & my allies fleets to destroy it.

The worst kind of backstab is where you use the fact that the other player has you set to friend to use his gates to gate into all his worlds and blow up the bases.
However it is not against the rules.

Joseph

PS - name calling is not nice particularly "cheater" stop it! there are few enough of us that we should be able to "play nice", also if being an idiot precluded you from playing stars I would have had to give up years ago.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 04:27

I truely do not know what you are referring to. I have no issue with you regarding backstabbing.

Funny, that's the opposite of what your first reply to his tread stated. Random fingers or short-term memory problem?

About the unfunny part, what do you call the relentless drive to benefit by a previously unknown (or at least unpublished) game-engine bug, denying its very existence even after being proven wrong, name-calling all those who proved you wrong and killing a game in the process?

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sun, 27 August 2006 11:14]

Report message to a moderator

Hello all.

I am sorry to have caused a few heated words on this board and upset to fellow players. I treat stars as only a game (though a great game!) and had I known it would cause real life upset I would have taken another path in the current game. I hope that calmer heads will prevail over the next few days.

Due to time limitations, I won't go into the details of this particular case. However, I would say that:

1. There was no official agreement with between our races
2. I sent an email to try to set up an official NAP but received no reply
3. I saw various manoevers that I interpreted as a prelude to an attack so I hit first.
4. With the leading race having conquered immediate neighbour and agreed a favourable truce, it seemed that my victim's race would be next on the list and I rather grab those planets myself
5. It was first time in a game that I got Nubs and I was impatient to use them

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

PricklyPea wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 19:38

1. There was no official agreement with between our races 2. I sent an email to try to set up an official NAP but received no reply 3. I saw various manoevers that I interpreted as a prelude to an attack so I hit first. 4. With the leading race having conquered immediate neighbour and agreed a favourable truce, it seemed that my victim's race would be next on the list and I rather grab those planets myself

And if you can believe that, he's got a wonderful bridge for sale... but you have to set him to Friend 1st.

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 16:50

If you wish to debate only each other then I suggest you move it to email or personal message.

You don't want to read what he writes in PMs.

Quote:

please include details we don't know so we can actually learn something such as what supposed unpublished at time bug/weakness in game is. Thank-you.

Of course. Here's the bug description (amidst a lot of unrelated posts) and preliminary tests/workaround suggestions:

http://starsautohost.org/sahforum/index.php?t=msg&th=288 8&start=0&rid=625&S=dce6ec72e812bde40d0218886c5e 4917#msg_num_17

The game was "Armistice Too", whose Private Forum still shows the interesting thread "Let the Game Continue".

The knowledgeable third party who actually nailed the bug down is Micha.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 04:08

PricklyPea wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 19:38 1. There was no official agreement with between our races 2. I sent an email to try to set up an official NAP but received no reply 3. I saw various manoevers that I interpreted as a prelude to an attack so I hit first. 4. With the leading race having conquered immediate neighbour and agreed a favourable truce, it seemed that my victim's race would be next on the list and I rather grab those planets myself And if you can believe that, he's got a wonderful bridge for sale... but you have to set him to Friend 1st.

1&2. In early emails I characterised the veggie/bread relationship as an 'informal' or 'unofficial' alliance. We were set to friends and traded tech but had no NAP or other agreements in place. I later emailed to state that we had no NAP in place and would like to set up an official NAP. This was especially important given that the Dukks had attacked the Brutes on the basis that there was no official NAP.

3. When I was about to miss 6 turns on a holiday, Bread freighters moved their own freighters loaded with (presumably) minerals over my in space freighers positioned to defend against a Bread packet attack (Breads are PP). I could be wrong, but this looked like a prelude to uploading minerals to my freighters and attacking me while I was away. In the end the game was put on hold during that period and Bread freighters returned to their home planet.

Report message to a moderator

PricklyPea wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 11:38

I later emailed to state that we had no NAP in place and would like to set up an official NAP. This was especially important given that the Dukks had attacked the Brutes on the basis that there was no official NAP.

When did you send such message? And to whom?

Quote:

When I was about to miss 6 turns on a holiday, Bread freighters moved their own freighters loaded with (presumably) minerals over my in space freighers positioned to defend against a Bread packet attack

So you didn't actually read my message offering fuel assistance for those presumably needy fleets stopped at such weird places?

And, as reward to my colonists risking their lives to offer help, next turn he turned all his minefields against them without warning. Serves me right for having let that one pass.

Quote:

I could be wrong, but this looked like a prelude to uploading minerals to my freighters and attacking me while I was away

If you didn't actually dream that one, please explain why the "loaded-freighters manoeuver" was needed, then. Also, why didn't you consult me about the matter, same as you say you did when another race attacked another different race.

[Updated on: Mon, 28 August 2006 07:49]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator