Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Anyone here ever been well and truly backstabbed?
|
Re: Anyone here ever been well and truly backstabbed? |
Sun, 05 November 2006 22:52 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
hiunmaiden wrote on Sun, 05 November 2006 12:51 |
I just take Stars! to personally sometimes. I was just annoyed he didnt give me a years notice and instead just gated in the same year...In fact I THANK Lefnufrag for teaching me a lesson for future games - thankyou.
|
Don't swing the other way entirely. You might miss out on some good allies. I would be wary of anyone who crosses you in this manner, ofc.
Quote: | Anyone here ever been well and truly backstabbed?
|
Truely backstabbed? Yep. I was playing an AR in a game among friends. Had a treaty with another player, with a 1 year "out" clause, both of us set each other to friendly. Also, to keep the game moving at a nice pace, you "bidded" the number of genned turns you could handle with turn submissions. If anyone planned on going to war, we had a gentlemans agreement that stated you must bid 1 gen. No one voted less than 3 turns on the turn of the attack. I opened my turn to find roughly 2/3 of my empire gone, including most of my warships, miners etc...Three turns and gate access is pretty much catastrophic to an AR.
That, my friends, is a backstab.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Re: Anyone here ever been well and truly backstabbed? |
Mon, 06 November 2006 05:15 |
|
|
We haven't been discussing blacklisting anyone here - nor would I want to see that happen either.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Anyone here ever been well and truly backstabbed? |
Mon, 06 November 2006 13:04 |
|
hiunmaiden | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 37
Registered: November 2004 Location: liverpool, uk | |
|
mazda wrote on Mon, 06 November 2006 09:12 |
hiunmaiden wrote on Sun, 05 November 2006 00:53 |
Oh believe me even before I had no chance of winning not in a million years but it certainly has not helped the alliance I am in and completely messed up ingame future plans for our alliance.
|
Just to add my tuppence.
You post that you were also in a "regular" alliance, as well as having this "outsider" set to friend.
If you had been given notice by the "outsider" that he was going to attack you then likely he would also have faced your full alliance.
I think that he made the right decision.
Note I am not criticisng anybody here.
I have been in exactly the same situation with regard to player relations (even had players set to friend that other friends were fighting with), but you have to be careful in such situations.
If you want the advantages of having somebody set to friend then you have to take the downsides.
Too many games are spoiled by large groups of players casually setting each other to friend (and I am also guilty of that).
So anything that can reduce that tendency has to be good, IMO.
You only have to see the lengths that people go to in trying to set rules that make people fight to see that this is the case.
Regards,
M
|
Yeah I agree with that (that far to many people set far to many other races in game as friend (I have been extremely guilty of this charge!)). So yeah there is a need for hosts to set rules to force people into war. And it is a game of conquest so yeah hosts need to do this cus it is the nature of the game.
But just for the record it wasnt as if this guy was a loner, complete isolated. In fact his economy before the attack was definitely stronger than mine. Plus I know he was (I assume still is) in an alliance or at least a strong friendship of 3 or 4 himself.
So it just annoyed me. He was in a stronger position than me in game and he had friends himself whom Im sure would have aided him in battle. He wanted to declare war on me. Fine. I just would have thought a lot more of him and no ill feelings etc etc if he had given me a years notice and made it a fair fight.
[Updated on: Mon, 06 November 2006 13:40]
Up The Irons!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Anyone here ever been well and truly backstabbed? |
Mon, 06 November 2006 15:36 |
|
|
I wish to confess. I was the player who 'backstabbed' huinmaiden. It has been very interesting and informative reading people's posting on both sides of the debate. I'd like to add the 'perpetrator's' point of view.
This is only my 3rd Stars! game against other players, my first as a WM, so I don't know all the no-no's. I've taken concrete agreements very seriously, including NAP's with warning of expiration clauses. As came out in this discussion, there was no formal agreement. I would stop a ship of mine at his starbases and they would always get refueled, so I thought about taking advantage of the Friend setting by gating in warships and bombers to kill all his starbases and much of his population very quickly. I mentioned my plans to 2 allies, and they didn't say not to. So I did it, and it was quite successful, except he added a gate to an empty Space Dock the very same turn.
In retrospect, it was an underhanded thing for me to do, and, whether you believe me or not, I will NEVER do it again. I have seen the frustration and disappointment it caused to huinmaiden, and I don't want to do that again to anyone, nor have it happen to me.
As an addendum, the Stars! gods may have had some revenge on me, because the very next turn my computer had such problems that I was unable to go online at all and either send orders or send email. My strike force got seriously depleted by counterattacks and by rebuilt Space Docks.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Anyone here ever been well and truly backstabbed? |
Mon, 06 November 2006 15:47 |
|
hiunmaiden | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 37
Registered: November 2004 Location: liverpool, uk | |
|
leknufrag wrote on Mon, 06 November 2006 20:36 | I wish to confess. I was the player who 'backstabbed' huinmaiden. It has been very interesting and informative reading people's posting on both sides of the debate. I'd like to add the 'perpetrator's' point of view.
This is only my 3rd Stars! game against other players, my first as a WM, so I don't know all the no-no's. I've taken concrete agreements very seriously, including NAP's with warning of expiration clauses. As came out in this discussion, there was no formal agreement. I would stop a ship of mine at his starbases and they would always get refueled, so I thought about taking advantage of the Friend setting by gating in warships and bombers to kill all his starbases and much of his population very quickly. I mentioned my plans to 2 allies, and they didn't say not to. So I did it, and it was quite successful, except he added a gate to an empty Space Dock the very same turn.
In retrospect, it was an underhanded thing for me to do, and, whether you believe me or not, I will NEVER do it again. I have seen the frustration and disappointment it caused to huinmaiden, and I don't want to do that again to anyone, nor have it happen to me.
As an addendum, the Stars! gods may have had some revenge on me, because the very next turn my computer had such problems that I was unable to go online at all and either send orders or send email. My strike force got seriously depleted by counterattacks and by rebuilt Space Docks.
|
You did not backstab me. That was just me talking rubbish when it happened and I was just pissed off and taking it to personal.
Up The Irons!Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Different player attitudes |
Mon, 06 November 2006 18:35 |
|
|
I've read this thread with quite some interest, pleased but not really surprised about the variety of the responses.
For some players diplomacy is the main thrill, for others diplomacy is a dreadful tedious necessity and then there are all shades inbetween. Thus every player should take care wether the game settings suits him or her.
Personally I love to play together with an ally because the game makes much more fun when having somebody to discuss it with (and discussing Stars with non-playing friends, as you all know, tends to give you this weird looks rather soon). If I ally with somebody, I prefer to ally for the rest of the game and to share everything: knowledge, tech, victory.
Nevertheless I make sure to make a formal treaty that includes a clause with a clearly defined way and time-frame how to cancel the alliance. Otherwise, if somebody changes his or her mind, there is no other way to leave the alliance but by backstabbing.
Since I also dislike games with 8 players in which the alliance of 6 players wins, I am usually playing games where:
* a shared victory is possible
* there is a restriction on the number of players an alliance may consist of
Not surprisingly I shy away from games with the the victory condition:
* Only one player can win.
This victory condition means that at some point an alliance has to break up, this again means you can't or at least shouldn't share every knowledge with your ally-who-will become-your-enemy. You have to be paranoid because the victory condition make a backstab so much more logical and worthwhile.
Having an alliance but feeling the need to be very careful and at least slightly paranoid about my ally-who-will become-my-enemy... oh no, I don't like this way of playing. I can't really cope with it.
But for other players, especially in a large 16-player-universe, diplomacy and interaction is what they feel the most interesting. And it is good that Stars allows for this variety. This doesn't mean at all that every diplomacy-minded player is a probable backstabber but I guess that for those the intrigue of diplomacy, of keeping a treaty to the word (and not to the spirit) is a much more integral part of the game and for some this inlcudes also a backstab.
While being furiated and acting the very same way like Ptolemy described it above or Jason in the annals of the Stars! Official Strategy Guide and certainly I would never again ally up with somebody who had once backstabbed me, nevertheless I would see backstabbing as rather an integral possiblility one has to cope with and has to prepare for when the game settings somehow support them.
[Updated on: Mon, 06 November 2006 18:37] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Anyone here ever been well and truly backstabbed? |
Tue, 07 November 2006 05:41 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Ptolemy wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 23:28 | I suggest that just quitting is not the best solution. If you just quit, you give the new enemy at lest MOST of your planets without a fight. The best thing to do is make very sure HE CAN'T win by freely giveing planets to his enemies - i.e helping them take the planets over, AND, running a scorched earth policy for the planets the enemy is going to get anyway.
When you get backstabbed in this way, make sure EVERYONE in the game knows it has happened with an in-game message to everyone and, deny the backstabber any possibility of victory. By doing so, you gain a victory yourself.
Letting everyone know what has happened will generally guarantee that the backstabbing player will not get any allies for the rest of the game.
Tie up as much of his resources as possible to let HIS enemies gain an advantage - The more he spends trying to clean you out, the less he can spend later to fight the ones that will kill him. If you just quit, you greatly enhace his strength with no loss to his minerals or resources.
|
Wholeheartedly agree.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Different player attitudes |
Tue, 07 November 2006 15:22 |
|
|
m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 11:01 |
Altruist wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 00:35 | Nevertheless I make sure to make a formal treaty that includes a clause with a clearly defined way and time-frame how to cancel the alliance. Otherwise, if somebody changes his or her mind, there is no other way to leave the alliance but by backstabbing.
|
Pray tell me what's so wrong with "Hey, mate, I think this partnership needs to end. What say in 3 turns we set each other to Neutral and see what happens?"
Unless you tell me it's the very fact that you could counter-offer, or backstab him, or....
|
In an "only 1 winner" game, there really shouldn't be any NAPs or formal alliances with no exit clause, and the only recourse if you've signed up for one is to approach your ally and point out that the treaty conflicts with the game rules and will have to be renegotiated. This would be similar to negotiating a business contract that violates national laws.
If more than one winner is allowed, you have to ask why you want to terminate a treaty that doesn't allow for it. Or, more to the point, why you entered into such an agreement in the first place
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Different player attitudes |
Tue, 07 November 2006 18:47 |
|
|
[email | m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 22:01]Altruist wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 00:35 | Nevertheless I make sure to make a formal treaty that includes a clause with a clearly defined way and time-frame how to cancel the alliance. Otherwise, if somebody changes his or her mind, there is no other way to leave the alliance but by backstabbing.
|
Pray tell me what's so wrong with "Hey, mate, I think this partnership needs to end. What say in 3 turns we set each other to Neutral and see what happens?"
|
Because they might say "No"
I wouldn't permit someone to exit such an alliance honourably, unless I thought I had more to gain by exiting than you did.
I generally avoid such 'exitless' alliances these days, unless I have very good and well thought out reasons for needing such leverage against a player.
[Updated on: Tue, 07 November 2006 18:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Different player attitudes |
Tue, 07 November 2006 20:20 |
|
|
m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 12:01 |
Altruist wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 00:35 | Nevertheless I make sure to make a formal treaty that includes a clause with a clearly defined way and time-frame how to cancel the alliance. Otherwise, if somebody changes his or her mind, there is no other way to leave the alliance but by backstabbing.
|
Pray tell me what's so wrong with "Hey, mate, I think this partnership needs to end. What say in 3 turns we set each other to Neutral and see what happens?"
Unless you tell me it's the very fact that you could counter-offer, or backstab him, or....
|
Nothing wrong with it... if it can be done in censensus.
But what about, as Dogthinkers pointed out, if your ally doesn't want to break up the alliance? And in most cases it will be quite likely that breaking up the alliance and probably changing the status to war soon, is not in the interest of every member of the alliance. That makes negotiations often, not always, a bit difficult.
And what about, after you expressed your wish to cancel the alliance, your "ally" immediatly starts to attack you? Is this ok, or a backstab? Or he demands a cancel-time of 15 years?
This uncertainties alone might lead to think about a backstab.
Or when you want to cancel the alliance because your ally doesn't talk to you anymore? And gets active again right after you started bombing his first planets...
Thus IMHO it is always better to talk about the way out of an alliance right at the beginning when all can agree on a consenus or if such a consensus can't be reached, can decide not to ally at all. When the time comes for an alliance to be canceled, for whatever reasons, it is very often the worst time to start negotiating this point. It might cause a lot of problems and bad blood.
It's actually quite difficult to part a close alliance without one side feeling the other is somehow cheating. Usually you have a cancel-time, let's say 4 years. What about such things like scouts (now possible spies), minefields, orbiting "ally"-ships around your planets, that big ugly warfleet exactly 16ly away from your HW peacefully waiting until the cancel-time expires...
Actually I don't think that you can formalize everything in a treaty, trust and honour are needed as well. Defining ways out of an alliance isn't the Holy Grail but it helps. And I bet half of the felt backstabs are, at the root of it, alliances in which cancel-options weren't a theme.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Different player attitudes |
Wed, 08 November 2006 05:59 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Altruist wrote on Wed, 08 November 2006 02:20 |
m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 12:01 | Pray tell me what's so wrong with "Hey, mate, I think this partnership needs to end. What say in 3 turns we set each other to Neutral and see what happens?"
|
Nothing wrong with it... if it can be done in censensus.
But what about, as Dogthinkers pointed out, if your ally doesn't want to break up the alliance? And in most cases it will be quite likely that breaking up the alliance and probably changing the status to war soon, is not in the interest of every member of the alliance. That makes negotiations often, not always, a bit difficult.
And what about, after you expressed your wish to cancel the alliance, your "ally" immediatly starts to attack you? Is this ok, or a backstab? Or he demands a cancel-time of 15 years?
|
Lessee...
Cancel-time or other demands are negotiable. Hence, an actual alternative to backstab.
If I say "let's talk" and he IMMEDIATELY attacks, how could that NOT be a backstab?
At any rate, if no peaceful breakup can be achieved, I can always say "you were warned", or even just set him to Neutral and ignore him for as long as he doesn't attack me. While some could consider that a "backstab", too at least it would be a completely different kind of "backstab".
PS: yeah, right, my HW won't have TWICE his ships waiting with 98% cloaking to at least a significant part of them...
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Different player attitudes |
Wed, 08 November 2006 06:02 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Dogthinkers wrote on Wed, 08 November 2006 00:47 |
m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 22:01 |
Altruist wrote on Tue, 07 November 2006 00:35 | Nevertheless I make sure to make a formal treaty that includes a clause with a clearly defined way and time-frame how to cancel the alliance. Otherwise, if somebody changes his or her mind, there is no other way to leave the alliance but by backstabbing.
|
Pray tell me what's so wrong with "Hey, mate, I think this partnership needs to end. What say in 3 turns we set each other to Neutral and see what happens?"
|
Because they might say "No"
I wouldn't permit someone to exit such an alliance honourably, unless I thought I had more to gain by exiting than you did.
I generally avoid such 'exitless' alliances these days, unless I have very good and well thought out reasons for needing such leverage against a player.
|
That's a quite good piece of advice, actually. Thanks!
I'll remember it if you ever propose a treaty to me.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 13 02:03:54 EDT 2024
|