Sportsmanship vs stabbing your Allies

[CMetternich]

When I joined this site and played my first games, I got the impression that a player is not obliged, but encouraged to behave in a certain way :

Respecting alliances / a truce or an agreement about a certain region for instance.


Although one is not obliged to respect them, I played several games with honorable enemies who were absolutely true to all arrangements made in the game chat.
Lately, I have to say that more and more I negotiated an arrangement, I respected them only to find out that others never intended to respect this arrangement. When they feel it is their benefit they break the truce earlier as arranged or simply without the one-turn notice.

For instance a stark example - a game I currently play: Early in the game a player proposed a truce to me, I agreed. The next turn he deliberately stabs me and tells me he just changed his mind- The "explanation": I didn´t stand still but tried to grow (in other directions) and get some additional regions.


So I´d like to get in touch with other players and their opinon about the obligation to respect the arrangements made in the Game Chat.

[iAmCaffeine]

Whilst I have never actually made a truce with anyone, my line on these things is that all is fair in love and war. It's not great etiquette to agree to a truce, more so to propose one, and then break it without warning, but at the same time deception isn't uncommon. If you're seriously bothered then rate accordingly. Personally I would rather not make a truce in the first place, but say things in game chat with certain tones and suggestions, and use strategy rather than make an agreement with other players.

[Funkyterrance]

I generally foe a person like this. It's like telling someone you will pay them back on a loan and then saying "sorry, sucker!". I don't tolerate it in real life and I don't tolerate it on here. Nothing is free, not even an advantage gained by outright lying to another player.

[pickleofdoom]

In a game where there can only be 1 winning side, for two parties to make common cause is in itself an attempt to subvert the initial premise of the game that each person must win by conquering all others. Such behaviour is to be seen in games where there is no possibility of creating an optimal strategy based on the hypothesis that all other players are i) acting rationaly, ii) competing.

Personally, i like the rational agent type problem, keeping both hypothesies. it has more of a feel of a mathematical problem to it. So in large multiplayer games i would go for esc spoils, where irrational opponents or alliances are neither necesary nor useful. In principle it is possible to play a perfect game, where all parties played optimaly. Of course the outcome would then be down to luck, but, provided the game lasted a while and i got to participate in the action, i would feel satisfied. but that is basicaly a matter of taste or aesthetic sense.

In the case of multiplayer no spoils or flat rate games, one or other of those assumptions must be negated in order for an optimal strategy to exist. From what i understand, successful no spoils players generaly try to eliminate hypothesis i) by playing public games, and then relying on predictable patterns of irrational behaviour from weaker players in order to come up with a plan. On the other hand the truce is an attempt to get rid of hypothesis ii).

Eliminating hypothesis i) is an interesting challenge, because it involves understanding human behaviour as it really is, rather than dealing with idealisations. People have biases, which can be understood and planned for. Eliminating hypothesis ii) is an attempt to find a shortcut to victory without solving any interesting problem. In most games or sports such behaviour would be forbidden by the rules. I dont fully understand why it is not forbidden on CC, but probably they have their reasons. I dont see why someone engaging in such a strategy has a right to expect anything from others who do the same, and certainly dont think it has anything to do with honour or sportsmanship.

[AyeTrain]

You're quite right that one is not required to respect a truce, but certainly encouraged. I would just shrug and play around this backstabber, but I would certainly give him a poor rating when the game is over: I think there's a tag for backstabber.

These games are very like real international relations: some allies you can completely trust, like people you've played before. Others you are reasonably confident you can trust, like ones you've never played before but who have a high rating over time. Others are new players---so unknowns---or have a poor reputation, and if I had to make an alliance with them, I'd keep some troops on the border, just in case, and I wouldn't expect any effective help from them.

It would be nice if everyone acted rationally, but not everyone does.

[pickleofdoom]

In a game of risk, the objective is to conquer the world. Honourable play means trying to acheive that game objective without cheating or spoiling the fun.

In the case of international relations, conquering the world is generaly regarded as a bit dishonourable in and of itself. The objective is to find mutualy beneficial situations and avoid conflict. The goals are therefore totaly different and honourble behaviour is not the same thinhg in one case as the other.

[Funkyterrance]

You're quite right that one is not required to respect a truce, but certainly encouraged. I would just shrug and play around this backstabber, but I would certainly give him a poor rating when the game is over: I think there's a tag for backstabber.

These games are very like real international relations: some allies you can completely trust, like people you've played before. Others you are reasonably confident you can trust, like ones you've never played before but who have a high rating over time. Others are new players---so unknowns---or have a poor reputation, and if I had to make an alliance with them, I'd keep some troops on the border, just in case, and I wouldn't expect any effective help from them.

It would be nice if everyone acted rationally, but not everyone does.

The problem is there are so many players here that it's hard to follow one person's "reputation". I tend to not form truces in the first place unless there are ones already formed against me. This reduces the chance of someone winning who doesn't deserve it strat-wise. I see lots of players trying to compensate for playing ability by trying to "control the odds" with truces and basically if you aren't part of the solution(telling them to get fked when they offer a truce out of desperation) then you're part of the problem.

[laughingcavalier]

Nice to see discussions like this coming back into gd... More new players staying long enough to get to grips with the game?
Folkz who will kill you bcos you get too big are lozers who missed the point that we are all here to conquer the world and not just to worry about what is happening on our borders this turn.
So you gotta find a way to deal with them... Be specific about the terms of an alliance - "nonaghression on x border for y turns or until z happens.". And limit your dependency on other players, have a plan b. The real pleasure in playing against vindictive alliance breakers lies in winning the game after they have been eliminated.

[vonraider]

Risk without truces and the backstabbings they encourage is no kind of Risk at all. At least here no one can flip the board over when they get screwed.

[Funkyterrance]

Risk without truces and the backstabbings they encourage is no kind of Risk at all. At least here no one can flip the board over when they get screwed.

How exactly do truces encourage backstabbing? Admittedly there is temptation from time to time but the decision to backstab is more resultant from interior influences than exterior.

[DoomYoshi]

Unfortunately, if you honor agreements, you can get banned, as in Kiron's case.

[BigBallinStalin]

Usually, when making truces, it's a good idea to add this caveat:

"If either of us is clearly about to dominate the game, then all previous agreements are null and void."

(Something to that effect). Although it can be vague, it serves good enough as a reason to ignore all previous agreements. No one should be expected to take it up the arse while they respect an agreement.

[xiangwang]

Truces are broken all the time. The only benefit of a truce is to not waste troops on each other so u grow compare to the other players not in the truce. It's only when the usefulness of the truce is pointless is breaking it becomes more common. No point breaking a truce if the benefits doesn't outweigh the costs (usually an angry ex-ally likely to suicide into you)

[vonraider]

My thoughts exactly xiangwang.

[Funkyterrance]

No one should be expected to take it up the arse while they respect an agreement.

Unless of course it's part of an intricate CC role playing fetish.

But yeah, good tip BBS.