hiunmaiden wrote on Sun, 05 November 2006 18:51

I wish I had not started this post now I never said to blacklist anyone I didnt intend for anyone to think thats what I meant.

I wasn't referring to your comments, and apart from the original post, which was obviously a "heat-of-the-moment" thing, I think you've been quite reasonable here. Sorry if I gave the impression I was upset at you.

Quote:

I just take Stars! to personally sometimes.

Don't we all

Quote:

I was just annoyed he didnt give me a years notice and instead just gated in the same year. I helped him early on in the game to by giving him a planet I had already colonised with 100k+ people on it to help his early expansion so I guess thats why I was annoyed. I just took it to personally.

Entirely understandable, and I probably would have been exactly the same - on either side. There's no way I'd give my target any kind of warning of an impending surprise attack; conversely if it happened to me I'd be very upset.

Quote:

I apologise to Lefnufrag. Alls he did was take advantage of my weakness yep there is nothing wrong with that. In fact I THANK Lefnufrag for teaching me a lesson for future games - thankyou.

Now thats a constructive attitude

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 05 November 2006 08:55

Because such action is so deplorable by a player is why I say make it public knowledge to all the other players in the game.

This way I need to be on that list at the top, because I hardly remember formaly declaring the war. . I just hit hard. BUT I never broke an agreement As my targets are those I don't have an agreement, technically that's not a backstab. You know, "All is fair in war and love." Stars! is both.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 05 November 2006 08:24

Quote: Wow, I think this thread is out of control. I don't it would be appropriate under *any* circumstances to publicise someones private email address without their consent. Thread out of control? - no - not really - We've managed to hash out the issue quite well I think But, Dogthinker is right about the e-mail address issue - I was out of line with that comment. I hereby modify it to say -'publicise the player's AH name' so that other players know in advance when they get into a game that they are in a game with someone that has no problem doing this to another player.

Asking for the players email definately goes too far, and as moderator I surely would have censored it. Asking for the players HW name for blacklist purposes is a step too far as well. Now, hiunmaiden already gave that name, however already *before* the blacklist request so I'm leaving it.
We're *not* starting a backstabbers witch hunt here (or anywhere else on this forum).

mch,
modaw

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 06 November 2006 13:40]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 06 November 2006 18:37]

Report message to a moderator

iojho wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 21:49

Some players play only to win no matter how and sadly, such situations happen and nothing can be done to prevent them. In such situations I just abandon the game in order to deprive such persons of the rest of fun.

My own initial reaction, too.

But I've been shown that it's actually more interesting to remain in play while you forge a "let's kill the backstabber" alliance with the other players.

That sure deprived him of his fun!

Note: he was far better at deceit and treachery than backstabbing.

[Updated on: Tue, 07 November 2006 05:39]

Report message to a moderator

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.

Report message to a moderator

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....

Report message to a moderator

iojho wrote on Sat, 04 November 2006 20:49

In the last game I have played: "Nowhere to run", despite conluded "I will kill you last" agreement I was suddenly attacked by my "ally" before the agreement expiration (there were still other races) without any notification. Some players play only to win no matter how and sadly, such situations happen and nothing can be done to prevent them. In such situations I just abandon the game in order to deprive such persons of the rest of fun.

I may have been crippled but Im not quitting . I kind of have my hands full also dealing with a very nasty third alliance seperate from all this nonesence but I also intend on doing my very best to rebuild and stomp said player Lefnufrag into dust.

[Updated on: Tue, 07 November 2006 10:53]

Report message to a moderator

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

[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

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

Exiting the exitless alliance ... most funny one i have seen was that:

"We see that you are worthless to be member of our alliance any further. Therefore we kick you out. We may attack you unless you do *pile of demands*."

Report message to a moderator

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...

Report message to a moderator

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.

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Dogthinkers wrote on Wed, 08 November 2006 00:47

Because they might say "No"

Since when does that stop the othere side to do what it wants?

If I want to split and he doesn't I'd just say him "You''ll be set to neutral in next turn, so you can this turn gate out ships in my space. I too am removing my ships. I'll not commit hostile actions against you for at least X turns, unless you start them. Any intrusion in my space will be regarded hostile action. So long and thanks for being an ally!"

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

LEit wrote on Wed, 08 November 2006 07:48

Many 'only one player can win' games have alliances that don't break up even when one of them is declared the victor, usually because the victor is a much bigger empire then their ally by the time the game ends. and/or they've been through a lot together and just don't want to fight each other.

This is a big pet-peeve of mine. If the game is set to one race victory and you don't play to be that race the effect is not limited to your race losing, but you also mess with other races who are counting on everyone playing to win the game. Several times I've worked for decades to get in a position to win when the 1st place player's ally has to turn on him, only to have the ally refuse to do so even though it means that there is no chance to defeat the 1st place player.

Report message to a moderator