Dilemma: breaking a truce or losing the game?

[Rodion]

This discussion applies for games with 3 or more parties.

I'd like to know the opinion of the community on this extreme case.

Situation: you have a deal in place with another player. You made the deal because it benefited you, but since then the game unraveled in such a way that you'll lose unless you break that deal.

Should you break it or lose it?

I understand the 2 main arguments we'll see is the Herm Edwards' "we play to win the game" (deals are made to help you and you should not follow them when they don't help you) and the "one single game is not worth a loss of reputation" (breaking an agreement and getting backstabber tags may compromise your future ability of deal making + keeping the deal and losing is the ultimate "trustworthiness" proof).

What is your opinion on that?

[Dukasaur]

Always honour agreements. Losing a few points in a game is trivial to losing the respect of someone whom you may meet time and time again.

[Funkyterrance]

I am the same as Duke. I always honor an agreement. I believe you are only as good as your word.

[Master Fenrir]

I understand the 2 main arguments we'll see is the Herm Edwards' "we play to win the game" (deals are made to help you and you should not follow them when they don't help you) and the "one single game is not worth a loss of reputation" (breaking an agreement and getting backstabber tags may compromise your future ability of deal making + keeping the deal and losing is the ultimate "trustworthiness" proof).

What is your opinion on that?

How much I liked/respected the other players in that particular game would probably be the deciding factor in my decision.

[rdsrds2120]

If the other players had been playing fairly, I might break it a little bit and say "Hey, I don't want to do as much as you". As long as I wasn't too aggressive, I don't think the other person would mind. This is dependent on the type of deal that was struck, though.

-rd

[oVo]

Don't make deals you can't keep.

[karelpietertje]

I think the concept of a truce should be a 'sync' of two players knowing the best strategy is working together.
I am against the idea of a truce that binds you to any move that's not in your best interest.

[Johnny Rockets]

Interesting to see whose word is worth what.

J

[karelpietertje]

Interesting to see whose word is worth what.

J

Interesting to see whose brains are worth what.
I don't make truces, for the record.

[Funkyterrance]

I don't see it as a question of intelligence, I see it as a question of integrity. One person would rather maintain his/her honor while the other would rather gain an advantage in that particular game. It boils down to what is more important to the individual. Stupid people are just as capable of treachery as smart ones.

[Master Fenrir]

I don't see it as a question of intelligence, I see it as a question of integrity. One person would rather maintain his/her honor while the other would rather gain an advantage in that particular game.

That's entirely subjective, man. The entire point of the game is to win, so if you refuse to win when you can, does that not violate the integrity of the game? Especially when the purpose of any truce is self-serving: to protect your ass long enough for you to build up the force required to win.

It boils down to what is more important to the individual.

Yeah, exactly, but you're making it sound like the two options are "a citizen with solid integrity" or a "truce-breaking, nickel-stealing, man of no integrity." Here's the two options:

1) Somebody who values integrity. - Cool. If you want to lose the game and let me or somebody else win, I think that it does show integrity, and they're your points to lose, so I'm not going to call you an idiot for not winning the game.

2) Somebody who plays an internet game for fun. - That's the reason why most people start playing here. They want to win. Winning is fun. Breaking their truce with me to win the game because it's fun is a completely understandable move.

Will I be happy about it? Probably not. Will I foe them? It depends. But will I judge them as having no integrity for a move they made that cost me virtual points in an internet game that ultimately means nothing and has no effect on me in real life? Absolutely not.

Here are the key words in Rodion's post that keep me from passing judgment:

the game unraveled

To me, truces are made with the assumption that the game will be played with a reasonable amount of intelligence. But what happens if it's not?
Player A agrees that he will not attack Player B at X if Player B does not attack Player A at Y. Player C suicides into Player B, leaving him with 1 troop on region X and Player B has 5 spoils. Player A should not kill the single for the cash?

I think it depends entirely on the details of the situation, which Rodion did not provide.

And for the record, I don't play no spoils/flat rate standard games exactly because of nonsense such as this.

[Metsfanmax]

Whenever you make a truce, there's an unspoken agreement that the only purpose of the truce is to benefit both players involved. If a truce is about to kill someone, I would expect them to rationally consider it void, because the whole point of the truce was nullified if it forced that player to become eliminated.

[Funkyterrance]

I seem to have struck a nerve. This was not my intent, truly. I was just responding to karel's insinuation. As far as forming a truce in order to get ahead, yes that is the only logical reason to enter into one. Is honoring this truce when it is no longer advantageous violating the integrity of the game? I should think not. It's just one way to play the game: with honor. I am a little confused why if the game is so meaningless then why consider breaking your word for it, virtual world or not? After all, there are real people connected to all of these games. I am possibly in the minority on this but I am not here strictly to win, I also enjoy the sport. For me it is more "fun" to lose some points to prove to someone else that "yes, you can trust me when I enter into a truce with you" than it is to break the truce to get an advantage in that game. I am not saying that any way is necessarily better but they both speak something for themselves.

[Frogmanx82]

I think it comes down to whether you value your rating or your ranking most. Do you care about success over relationships and integrity. For me, there isn't enough money on this to sacrifice my integrity and I would keep my word and take the loss. In my younger days I was probably the opposite. You come to realize that success comes and goes, games can be won down the road. A lost integrity cannot be recovered.

[Chariot of Fire]

Depends on the circumstances, but it's a really good question Rodion has put forward. I guess we've all been there at some time.

If by breaking the truce you can eliminate the player with whom you had that truce then it's probably ok. He's no longer an active participant in the game therefore the truce is no longer valid.

If however you're looking to damage him before he does the same to you then you have to use the only advantage you have - and that is that it is your turn before his and so you are in a position to negotiate an end to the truce, e.g. "Hey blue, I'm serving notice that our truce will end after we each take two turns, do you agree?" and wall post him the game number to ensure he gets to read the gamechat before you play your turn. If he says "OK" you are laughing. If he says "No way" you are laughing.

So the key is being first to instigate change to your existing truce, and by doing so you retain not only your chances of winning but also your integrity.

[Master Fenrir]

I seem to have struck a nerve...

Haha, not at all, dude. You just said something that I felt was worth a response. I hope you didn't take me as being hostile or angered, because I wasn't in the least.

I am a little confused why if the game is so meaningless then why consider breaking your word for it, virtual world or not?

I didn't say that I would break my word or suggest that others should, I just said that I'd understand. And I didn't say that the game was meaningless, I suggested that the primary function of the game is to have fun.

I also suggested that judging somebody's integrity based on their actions in an online game seems odd to me, because while you sit there typing about honor and integrity and not breaking truces with your right hand, you could have a 2nd tab open downloading pirated software while you molest a kitten with your left hand and nobody would know, while the player who does break truces does neither of those things.

My point being that e-rep is a ridiculous concept. If you keep the truce because you value your own integrity and it's a completely intrinsic decision, kudos, but doing it because "one single game is not worth a loss of reputation" as Rodion said is a goofy thought to me because it implies that you care how others perceive you when any perception they have would be shallow and meaningless. Follow me?

[Chariot of Fire]

I only molest kittens in the knowledge I won't get caught, but my public persona is of a cat-stroking champion of animal welfare.

[Rodion]

My point being that e-rep is a ridiculous concept. If you keep the truce because you value your own integrity and it's a completely intrinsic decision, kudos, but doing it because "one single game is not worth a loss of reputation" as Rodion said is a goofy thought to me because it implies that you care how others perceive you when any perception they have would be shallow and meaningless. Follow me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma - the whole article is interesting, but here we should focus on the "iterated" version

When I mentioned "loss of reputation", I took into consideration the fact that some players play against each other on a regular basis. By betraying someone's trust on one game (and possibly winning), you'll make your life a lot harder on all future games you play with that person: making deals will never be as easy and the other player may actually feel he is entitled to breaking the deal as you once did in the past. That could escalate to a vicious circle that would cripple you forever when playing with certain people.

Something else that I considered was not breaking a deal in order to get a trustworthy tag (or to avoid a backstabber one). If you're dealing with someone you don't know, the prudent thing would be to check his ratings for red flags.

Bottom line, by breaking truces a few times you could be permanently crippling your ability of forming much neeeded alliances in future multiplayer games. Thus, being a man of honour could pay dividends in the long run.

[Funkyterrance]

Fenrir,

In my opinion those areas where there is no real life repercussions are the most tell tale of someone's persona exactly because its not going to affect you in rl. You are implying that I care how people perceive me online but I have never even suggested that. I have certain beliefs/opinions and that's that. It has nothing to do with my e-rep, whatever that is. I think honor is either something you value or you don't. I don't think its one of those things you leave at home. I can definitely judge someone's integrity in a game since we are talking about a game. If you want to transfer that into your rl persona that's your decision. I happen to believe they are both related but that is beside the point and I only bring it up because you opened that can of worms. I AM sensing a little hostility in this matter since "while you sit there typing about honor and integrity" seems a bit hostile to me. I've not mocked you in this conversation so I am wondering why you are starting to go in that direction?

[Master Fenrir]

I AM sensing a little hostility in this matter since "while you sit there typing about honor and integrity" seems a bit hostile to me. I've not mocked you in this conversation so I am wondering why you are starting to go in that direction?

Subject: Talkative players

Also, on more than one occasion, an attempt at humor has been interpreted as me being a dick, so I'm kinda reserved unless I'm playing with people that know me.

See above. Apologies again if you felt I was being hostile or mocking you. I wasn't. The "you" in that statement wasn't meant to be specifically you, but more of a general "you" to somebody making your argument. You still don't seem to be following me, though, so I'll be very straightforward and leave out the attempts at humor, and then I'll leave it at that.

In my opinion those areas where there is no real life repercussions are the most tell tale of someone's persona exactly because its not going to affect you in rl.

I agree. The internet does a very good job of letting people unleash their inner d-bag. However, just because a person plays an online game with integrity does not mean that they are a person of integrity. That's the distinction I was making and you were not.

You are implying that I care how people perceive me online but I have never even suggested that. I have certain beliefs/opinions and that's that. It has nothing to do with my e-rep, whatever that is. I am so popular on cc, haven't you noticed? I think honor is either something you value or you don't. I don't think its one of those things you leave at home.

No, I'm not. I specifically quoted that and made reference to the fact that Rodion posted it, not you. I also didn't imply that Rodion cares or that Rodion is goofy, just that I think the notion is goofy. I agree with you about the value of honor and I'm glad that it's something you take seriously and that you make your decisions with your personal code of honor in mind. The difference between that and the e-rep is doing something because you think that you should vs. not doing something because you are afraid of how it will be perceived by others. I think that the former (personal code of honor) is just dandy and the latter (e-rep) is lame.

I can definitely judge someone's integrity in a game since we are talking about a game.

I disagree. You can judge the integrity of their gameplay, but not their integrity. I know that it's a small distinction, but it exists and it's what bothered me about your initial post enough for me to post. If you disagree with me, that's cool, and we can both respectfully disagree with each other.

[Army of GOD]

If it's a standard escalating game and I can see that someone I made a truce with is on the doorstep of eliminating people and winning, then of course I break the truce.

If it's down to me and the person I made the truce with, then of course I break the truce.

When I get too strong (to the point where I've almost won) and someone backstabs me, I don't mind, because I know I'd do the same in their position.

And yes, I value arbitrary points over a possible loss of respect from someone over the internet.

[Funkyterrance]

Fenrir,
Thank you for straightening all that out for me, I appreciate it.
If I suggested that you yourself lack integrity, I too apologize.

I will tell how it usually plays out when I make a truce with someone in a game. I, for the benefit of the doubt, picture someone who trusts that I will honor the truce. If I made the first move to break it dishonorably, regardless of the situation, I would feel like a turd. This overrides any desire to win/gain an advantage. If THEY do, it's no skin off my back, I'll just most likely lose this one. This may seem strange since the purpose of the truce was to gain an advantage but I just would not have ANY fun if it was me who did the betraying. As far as crushing my opponent during a well earned victory, I am not one to deny myself of the simple pleasures.

[Dukasaur]

If it's a standard escalating game and I can see that someone I made a truce with is on the doorstep of eliminating people and winning, then of course I break the truce.

If you find it necessary to break a deal in that situation, then it was a badly-designed deal to begin with. Recently someone asked me for a truce in an escalating standard, and I was careful to stipulate, "truce until the cash reaches 20." Of course I knew that someone going for a sweep would need the flexibility to attack anywhere and everywhere, but instead of being in a position of needing to break the truce I made sure it would expire at the appropriate time.

If it's down to me and the person I made the truce with, then of course I break the truce.

If it's 1v1 then all bets are off, of course. I think that's implicit in every deal.

When I get too strong (to the point where I've almost won) and someone backstabs me, I don't mind, because I know I'd do the same in their position.

This seems incomprehensible. You know they're going to win, so you're out the points anyway, but you're still going to sully your hands with a last-minute backstab? Why not go down with honour?

And yes, I value arbitrary points over a possible loss of respect from someone over the internet.

Why? All the points do is move you up the scoreboard to gain more respect.

[MeDeFe]

When I get too strong (to the point where I've almost won) and someone backstabs me, I don't mind, because I know I'd do the same in their position.

This seems incomprehensible. You know they're going to win, so you're out the points anyway, but you're still going to sully your hands with a last-minute backstab? Why not go down with honour?

I'd say "almost" is the key word there, I'm reading AoG such that your backstabbing is the only thing that can still prevent the other player's victory. And yes, in such a case I will gladly stab the other player in the back, then stand back and wait for another player to pick up the slack, then kick that player in the balls.


Generally I'm with karel, Fenrir and metsfan, a truce should be mutually beneficial, really just two players agreeing to doing what would benefit them the most anyway. If the situation changes so much that it's in one of the players' best interest to attack the other player, well, that's the game.

[AAFitz]

Honestly, if you made a truce so long and so bad that you will actually lose the game if you have to break it, you deserve to lose for making such a truce, and likely would not have won even by breaking it.

There is almost no need for any truce that even has the chance of letting you lose, especially in a 3 player game, so you might as well keep your word at that point, lose the game and actually perhaps learn from that one mistake and never repeat it ever again.