In this game it is a FFA in diplomacy, heck even my clan the space ponies and the other original SoaSE clan the galactic empire are friends in the real world (meaning on the forums and such) but in game lore we have created a story line that is all back stabbing and treachery.

It makes the game fun and as long as you don't do it every single time you play it should be just fine.

in a FFA, you are supposed to backstab, all alliances will end ... people expect this from you and will do the same, if you do not backstab you will just die quickly ...

Like fearchiken was saying, thats the way the game is supposed to be played and you play to win the game. Me and Fearchiken are actually ICO friends because we played in a game where we teamed up against the strongest player in a 3v1. The war lasted about 2 hours with our ally eventually backstabbing us but by then it was too late and we had already defeated the strongest player. That was fun as hell.

Then in another game me and fear form a truce at the beginning at begin dominating the solar system, forcing 2 of the 6 players to quit. Thats when fearchiken, who was the strongest player, backstabbed me. Then I get a BSOD, damn unstable overclock.  

Does that mean I will be gunning for him in our next game? Certainly not. I'm going to form alliances and break them when they suit my needs. I think within the game I'm playing. I won't attack someone that backstabbed me before just for the sake of revenge because that could very well get me killed.

Divide and conquer, just like the Romans did it.

mmm. typically I am weary of a back stab, while it might be a bit easier to backstab, its risky, because it can end up as a dogpile, and you are the dog. I find it much easier to crush the enemies together and then when its just me and allies finish them off.

I also make sure I can come down on a backstabbing "ally" if needed. Its not out of hate or anger, but out of principle... I deter backstabing by prioritizing backstabbers, its a threat and a promise... But I wouldn't be mad at them or think lower of them. Nor will it carry between games.

I am so close to getting all the achivements, just a few more days and then I would start playing online more seriously. The few quick online games I played I dominated. I learned so much by targeting each achievement, that learning really helps when its time to play.

Moral of the story, a FFA is a FFA, don't go into the game expecting fun things to happen, instead expect the worst to happen. I.E. in a 8 player ffa, having 7 people team up on you and kill you for a easy win for their stats. If you want to avoid this sort of thing, join a TEAM GAME with locked teams.

I regularly host Team Games for people who like a constant team and not having to watch their ally/allies for signs of deception.

Third option is to host/join a 'True' FFA, this being a game where the teams are locked and all the players are on different teams. It can be one of the most fun game types where its all or nothing as no body can really ally properly (though deals can be cut, its not as bad a full alliance). In addition, the only way to win is to kill everyone else, making any verbal alliances or deals very short lived.

I make very few promises and when I do I keep them unless if it means a certainty of losing.

my memory is not good enough to remember everyone that "betrayed" me.

And come on realy: Youre gunning for galactic domination so you will be stepping over some guys dead body ANYWAY. Why not not your short term buddy? i mean its usualy easier to sneak in wtf amounts of siege ships if hes out fighting other people with you....

If you are really playing a larger game with more than 2 players, cooperative behavior will always win, so if you are known to be turn-coat, people who reliably stay in a pack will easily defeat loner types. Divide and conquer pretty much always wins. Of course, if the game is FFA, and there can be only one winner, then obviously at some point even an ally will have to declare war on another ally to win.

I view FFA as a fight to the end with last person standing wins, so all alliances are temporary. It adds more intrigues to the game to plan for and guard against backstabbing by "allies". FFA game gets boring fast if it turns into a game of who gets in to a lopsided alliance first.

Hon. Leaders;

A right thing done in a wrong way is wrong.

A wrong thing done in a right way is wrong.

Lying and backstabing might be stimulating, but can not grow your capacity for contentment. If you are not enjoying your vicarious authority and responsibilities with honour, then the time spent playing is in vain.

Respectfully

Pleroma

@themystic, I think I was in that game with you, you were yellow if I remember correctly, I was advent and I showed up at your wormhole where you destroyed my fleet If we're thinking of the same game though the guy who was trying to be all manipulative was on my team, and he was confusing the hell out of us too

I truly think that anything goes at all.

But I think that goes both ways too. I do recall those that sell me out or betray me and yes I do what I can to get revenge. It is truly fair game out there.

"The ends justify the means."

Niccolo Machiavelli... or some other dude I don't recall.

I think people here are conflating "alliances of convenience" and their inevitable end with backstabbing. There is a clear difference between them. In an alliance of convenience, players agree not to attack each other and/or to work against one or more other opponents instead, with the expectation that once whatever prompted the alliance is resolved, the alliance will dissolve. In a backstab, one player has misrepresented the alliance and has intentionally abused it, doing something like using a cease fire to walk a battlefleet into the heart of enemy territory, past the defensive lines of his "ally", then ending the alliance and bombing the place flat.

A simple example illustrates the difference:
If I ally with you in an FFA to defeat a third player, or just because it suits our mutual interests not to fight each other at that particular point in time, and then at some point when the alliance is no longer necessary, I terminate the alliance and proceed to attack you shortly afterwards, that is simply the termination of an alliance of convenience. If, on the other hand, I use this alliance to move my fleet past your defenses and into your core worlds, then drop the alliance and bomb the place flat, this would be backstabbing. The former is an expected behavior from an FFA game in which only one player can ultimately be the victor. The latter is a deceitful and underhanded abuse of an alliance which will almost certainly insure that any sane player is not going to ally with you in the future, and stay that way the moment he sees your fleet in transit towards his system. This is a clear example of blatantly treacherous behavior.

Keep in mind that in an FFA, players should not read too deeply into an offered alliance. A cease fire is merely an agreement not to shoot each other on sight, and does not mean you are actually allies.

I dunno why people are whining about backstabbing. If you cannot be botehred with it don't play a free for all, have set teams. Sure i can understand that it can be fustrating but at the end of teh day, just don't play a FFA if you can't handle politics.

Sunesen mate, your game sounded classic, and i think is a perfect example of how to take backstabbing. Makes me want to leap out of my seat, drive home from work and fire up Sins .

My take on backstabbing is simple: I don't do it. I *WILL* play the diplomacy board, and offer and end alliances of convenience, but I never backstab. However, I certainly don't expect anyone else to behave honorably. An ancient Arab proverb states, "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel!".

from a Stardock guy :



  

from « some other dude I don't recall » :




i had hoped that Stardock would have promoted good American values instead

Those who turn the other cheek get bruises on both sides of their face. "Good American Values" involves bombarding those who offend us with cruise missiles.

Another classic proverb is "Keep your allies close, and your enemies even closer"

I luckily haven't been on the recieving end of a treacherous alliance, nor the giving.

My game example showed one of the lighter versions of diplomacy turning out bad. Me and my buddy ganging on a hostile nightbor, which resulted in the nightbor seeking help from the only group that would have some interest in seeing our destruction. Perfectly legit. If i'd been ganged by two other players, I wouldn't hesitate to seek help with another group

Just started this whole debate because I would like to find out how others viewed the borders of diplomacy in a game like this, where the diplomacy rules are so much based on human behavior and whims.

It could appear that the general consensus is that "anything goes", although if you pull a major asshole move on your allies, you won't win a popularity contest next time you meet them. Guess it's all about how much of a good sport your opponents are.

... pleaze : no radical, un-American, commie propaganda on a game forum ...

Posting "Good American Values" on a forum these days isn't going to invite much else, although i like how you put the word propoganda in there, along with commie and "un-american".

Being an American myself and having worked for one former president (very, very low level) and been involved in many, many political activities over the years, to this day I have not been able to figure out what an "American" value is, I do know many values that we have adopted from those who came here from other places brought with them but none that we created.

I mean on the one hand we have stepped in to stop a helpless people from being crushed by others who were full of hate and lust for what they had and the next time we were the ones doing the crushing, full of hate and lust..

We have provided food to people to prevent starvation and civil unrest and the next time embargoed food sales to induce starvation and promote civil unrest

We have stepped in to stop genocide, we have conducted genocide

We have forgiven countries their financial debts. We have invaded countries to collect financial debt.

We have overthrown dictators to install democratic governments. We have overthrown democratic governments to install dictators

So I am not sure which one of those is our "American value"

This is a a world-wide forum, not just American. Values are individual. If one person wants to get revenge against a backstabbing fiend, it's his/her choice, and if one person forgives and lets him/her self be exploited, it's again a personal choice. Just because someone who seeks revenge is from Stardock doesn't mean Stardock is 'teaching' anyone anything. They're trying to sell a game here, not dictate peoples' values.

It's like saying that having the evil Drengin prevail in Galactic Civilizations 2: Dread Lord with humanity facing near-extermination promotes Drengin values. In fact, GC2's first expansion, Dark Avatar, has a campaign which is all about preventing genocide just so that you can enslave and oppress those whom you have saved, in manners that would make Vasari shudder in disgust. Stardock just loves the concepts of war, evil, genocide, slavery and oppression, don't they? No, it's just a marketing tactic to juice up a strategy game, get it?!!!

    ... i dont care one way or the other : im Canadian ...   

Well, it just happens to be the case that FFA is rarely much fun in strategy games, especially not if people can form (loyal) teams before the game started and such trickery - which unfortunately some people enjoy doing greatly, over and over.

More often than not, its not a game of a lot of unknown & changing allegiances where you can use diplomacy to its fullest, but just "more vs less" - and that sucks.