Dirty Deals

[Blondo]

When do you get yourself involved in a dirty deal?

I'd like to start a thread that contains an attempt at showing where the water turns cloudy. On the whole my approach = you have an ocean of freedom to play the game as you see fit. Yet there are some islands where the water is more or less muddy. So to figure out if your deals are dirty or not ... like to reach consensus in every case that involves implicit and/or explicit diplo.

- Imo all secret diplo (= outside the game) is dirty.
- Also ganging up on a player is clearly unfair (unless you like the game to go on/prevent that player from going ftw).
- There seems to be nothing wrong with the bulk of win/win proposals (e.g. non-aggression deals; helping each other by forting troops away which usually happens in the early rounds when players like to conquer commands in places where they've got a strong presence; etc.). Yet even this kind of diplo can be too muddy => e.g. 3 player game in which 2 players entirely stay away from each other comes down to ganging up on the 3th player.
- Although there are many deals possible with a win/lose structure (most of the times counting on the favor being returned later in that game); a lot of those deals can result in players getting really irritated.
- ...

I'll edit this OP with all the "that guy" moves when we get a better picture of how "that guy" looks?

"Shady deals never yield a bright future"​

 

[pahtoz]

A dirty deal is more or less defined as an unfair deal. No matter what deals a player makes it will be to a certain degree unfair to some or other player on the board. Since every game is also unique compounded by the human element, that perception of degree of fairness will differ from player to player.
Your definition of muddy waters in a certain situation might be the only clear solution in another situation.

Whenever any of my games reached 3 players i always announced on the main chat with consensus that all diplo should now become void. Sometimes it worked and sometimes i still got ganged up on. I think that frustration and irritation is part of risk. Sometimes i think that i have become MORE angry at this game than any other games and sometimes i would think damn cunning fucker - excellent move! Its ALL part of the experience and enjoyment. Its almost like watching survivor. The one thing that keeps going in my mind is final two...final two...final two...but there can only be ONE survivor. The motto of the show says it all outwit, outplay and outlast

Now i honestly woudn't mind a thread to discuss the different styles and strategies of diplomacy and to hear everyones opinions on those, however i feel that we would need to avoid the naming and shaming aspect of it. So and so did this and that to me and now i just feel like crying!!!

 

[Cagey]

All's fair in love and war, mate.

As long as every deal you make is aimed at giving YOU the win (rather than gifting the win to your deal-partner).

 

[johnjdc]

A player got really mad at me for trying to make a 'strategic alliance' the other day, but I did it through the diplo channel, not outside the game, and it was to co-operate for a set period of time against the player who was far ahead of both. I don't think I was being unreasonable! What was a bit unfair was when an AWOL player adjacent to my region (12 domains) came back, and made moves which were very helpful to me, apparently out of gratitude for me not having wiped him out. Harsh, but the other player seemed to think I should have lost on purpose out of honor. Er, no...

 

[PackerHawkeye]

I see the title here and just want to add - Done Dirt Cheap!

 

[AAFitz]

In some way I consider all communication to be dirty and game-ruining. I think the game is much more fun in its pure form of letting my armies do the talking, and letting them do my diplomacy. Granted, it takes great players to play those types of games with, and with great players, no game would almost ever end, because only mistakes allow games to end, not good plays.

So, after accepting some diplo, Id say any going back on ones word is the only dirty move. The diplomacy feature, which allows if not requires secret diplomcacy means there is no secret diplomacy because its implied. I think all communication between parties should be seen by all other players. Only that way can it be above board. Since it isnt, while I consider it dirty, it really isnt, since the game is set up to actually encourage it.

I think there should be a seperate diplo chat board, and a seperate chat board, but that all words between players can be seen.

And while what you do blondo, which is set up deals with almost everyone on the board is legal, I think its dirty in its own way, but not illegal, and perfectly fine in the contructs of the way MC is set up. I do wish there was an option for non-diplo games, because I find it far more fun, but thats just personal preference, and now that MC has been set up with the diplo feature, the entire sites culture has probably been transformed to work with diplo in every game, and since there is an actual feature to allow secret diplomacy, it means pretty much anything goes, except for deciding before a game to work with another player.

That being said, two friends, even the most honest, are still more likely to favor each other and have better forms of communication, so even that becomes irrelevant....

So, after all that, quite a few things seem dirty to me, but in general, I think anything goes in MC as set up, so you either deal with it, or you dont.

 

[johnjdc]

I would like it if diplo messages became public after the end of the game, but I know people might be chatting generally so maybe that's too much to ask.

Just one thing, am I right that a truce means no attacking at all, as opposed to no conquering? I assume so and the wiki implies that, just wanted to be 100% sure.

 

[PackerHawkeye]

I don't think I've ever been warned about someone knocking down troops in a diplo agreement but I don't think it's happened to me either. You do get warned as soon as you try a single attack so I'd think that would count as breaking an agreement.

 

[riskyone]

When do you get yourself involved in a dirty deal?

I'd like to start a thread that contains an attempt at showing where the water turns cloudy. On the whole my approach = you have an ocean of freedom to play the game as you see fit. Yet there are some islands where the water is more or less muddy. So to figure out if your deals are dirty or not ... like to reach consensus in every case that involves implicit and/or explicit diplo.

- Imo all secret diplo (= outside the game) is dirty.
- Also ganging up on a player is clearly unfair (unless you like the game to go on/prevent that player from going ftw).
- There seems to be nothing wrong with the bulk of win/win proposals (e.g. non-aggression deals; helping each other by forting troops away which usually happens in the early rounds when players like to conquer commands in places where they've got a strong presence; etc.). Yet even this kind of diplo can be too muddy => e.g. 3 player game in which 2 players entirely stay away from each other comes down to ganging up on the 3th player.
- Although there are many deals possible with a win/lose structure (most of the times counting on the favor being returned later in that game); a lot of those deals can result in players getting really irritated.
- ...

I'll edit this OP with all the "that guy" moves when we get a better picture of how "that guy" looks?

"Shady deals never yield a bright future"​

What is the point in leading a 12 player Flat Rate game by 200 troops if one guy writes in the chatter. Hey everyone attack that guy. I feel the guy who says this. Is that guy. Accept a loss, sometimes you will win. Ganging up is wrong and it's gonna cost me a 12 player game. That I felt I had won fair. I guess others feel different. What are your opinions on ganging up because I feel it's wrong. It's a game, but I still have ethics. There is another player in that game who I feel played very well and wasn't a part of this, but I did have a huge lead over that player and now it's like 3 players about the same and 1 in some trouble. All because a player wrote in the chatter that everyone needs to attack me. I know some will feel that I am wrong. I am so happy that we now have a clan, Enemies of diplomacy. Some feel anything is fair in war.

 

[Bluebonnet]

You talking about the Europe Massive map still going on? I am not seeing the issue.
4 players still alive. The guy said it in the open comments section. So he gave the courtesy of a warning.

So the unwritten rule of no diplos in 3 player doesnt come into effect.
Did anyone message people using our email system? That isn't allowed.
So what am i missing?


Otherwise, I would pretty much expect to be hit with a 200 troop lead when troops levels are that low.
BTW, the main reason why i abhor settings like that. Flat rate, large map, few players. Calls for 200 round boring games.