Hall of Shame

[Zeldor]

There are some people that deserver to be in Hall of Fame. Unfortunately there are others that try to be famous by doing opposite things. And they deserve their own place, so they are not forgotten. So write about them here


**** [info put on hold for now]

[Foodstamp]

Next time make him swear an oath at the River Styx.

[Dedas]

Oh my, here we go again...

[RamsHead]

*grabs some popcorn and takes a seat*

[quantum_mechani]

Foodstamp said:
Next time make him swear an oath at the River Styx.

If dominions ever gets an actual diplo system, it better have this.

[Dedas]

Like Hades it would.

[Twan]

This kind of thread is asking for metagaming consequences (this guy is evil, destroy him in his next game) for traitors and I think metagaming should be kept as rare as possible.

Of course I won't say I will never have metagame considerations. If I know someone who didn't respected his word with me (broke a 3t nap without warning ie) I won't trust him the next time of course, but I dislike the idea of making a list of traitors for the eyes of the whole MP community. It can create a very bad ambiance (and be abused as people can't know the situation in a particular game, that may explain -or not- why someone has done something).

The only people I would eventually put in a black list are not traitors (in a roleplayer perspective it's the character/nation who betray in-game not the player) but leavers with a good position (the players turning their nation AI or staling instead of asking for a sub) as they can be very detrimental for other players game experience, and their behaviour *as a player* is wrong.

But as even them may have good reasons (don't know, something personnal far more important than games, making them leave in a hurry ; I think I wouldn't be in a good mood for playing, or bothered by searching subs for games if I'm going to my mother's funerals or something like that) after all a black list is never a good idea.

[Zeldor]

But still, people that are joining 3:1 war in early game, breaking alliance and backstabbing that way have something wrong with morality.

And yeah, in that game I got first attacked by a player that joined the game just because he lost with me in previous one and wanted revenge. And some time after I got attacked by an ally You can get interesting people in newbie games.

I have no hard feelings, but I think that others should know who they are dealing with. So they can either join a different game or act accordingly.

[Amhazair]

What's wrong about ganging up on people? Sure, it kinda limits the prospects of the poor dude who gets ganged up on, but such is life in a multiplayer environment. (If you don't like that possibility you could just as well play a number of 1-on-1 games, where you mod your later games to start with a stable of researches and more territory.) Either try to have some fun dealing all the damage you can, or go AI and start a new game. (and maybe try to be the one tripleteaming in that one)

And for the record: I have been at the receiving and of an early game triple-team gang-bang, so I do know what it feels like. (and while at some points all I did felt quite futile, I ended up having fun, and managed to destroy several invading armies before finally and inevitably going down. )

From my earlier gaming experience (mostly boardgames) I also came into this gaming expecting betrayal to be a real possibility. An alliance to me was something you enter in because it benefits both parties, but at some point in the game where 'there can only be one' either you or your ally would feel the time was right to end the alliance. Since the community here seems to feel that NAP's are rather inviolate, I stick to them too, but if that weren't the case I'd definitely try to make the moment of 'betrayal' come as a surprise, and to try to deal massive damage with an initial surprise attack. (Of course, in many cases this moment of betrayal would never come, because, well, if you really have a good alliance there would only be a need for betrayal when you are the two of strongest nations in the game when nearing the final decision. And let's face it, how often does that happen in 20-player games? )

In my mind this doesn't (didn't) preclude strong alliances. In fact, I feel it makes for stronger alliances, since it's in your best intrest to make sure your ally really feels you're helping him out - and for your ally to do the same for you - so there's no reason for the sudden backstab. And I've allways felt the extra incertainity, and the need to plan for the unexpected worst possibility, while proceeding towards your main goal added to the fun too. Aniway, as I said, that's apparently not how the community here sees alliances/NAP's, so I go with the flow. But since you're talking about the 'intresting people' you find in newbie games: keep in mind they might be people who come from a gameing community where betrayal is indeed common, and just didn't realise yet how most people here see those things.

This

in that game I got first attacked by a player that joined the game just because he lost with me in previous one and wanted revenge.

on the other hand is just despicable - in my opinion obviously, though most people here will agree.

[Kamamura]

"Why do you hate women so much?"
"I hate everyone and everything, no-one gets special treatment!"

- from Discworld Noir

In a war to rule the world, everything goes <grin>