Honor?

[Zombie]

Hi, I've only played a few games and recently broke a truce when the other party only had 1 troop, on 1 land left. The other players went nuts but I thought it was good move to get the 3 cards that player had. How important is the honor stat, is there ever a good time to break truce, what negatives are there to doing it? I appreciate the response and thanks as I'm trying to learn on this site.

Zombie

 

[PackerHawkeye]

Honor is how other players rate you and could be based on breaking truces or a lot of other things. Abusive language in games, overall tactics, general butthurt, etc.

The diplomacy rating it what gives you a better indication of who you can and can not trust with truces.

 

[masterjskye]

Hello Zombie, and welcome to the forums.

Well it is a hotly debated issue. For the most part, people here tend not to break diplomatic agreements. That is not to say it isn't done, it is, but it can engender some pretty negative feeling from your competitors. Basically, it is not against the rules to break an agreement but most people will think it is a dirty move and they will remember it. The Diplomacy score on your page shows me that you have broken 2 agreements since you started here 3 weeks ago. And it also shows me that maybe 9 out of the 10 people who have took the time to rate you have rated you as a dishonorable player. Honestly, that is pretty bad.

In terms of gameplay it will only affect the way others view you. I.E will they trust you enough to make a diplomatic deal with you, or, if you move up the ranks, will they want to invite a player that they perceive as "dirty" to their own private games.

It really depends on how you want to be seen by the community. For some it doesn't matter one iota, for others their perceived honour is everything to them. I would personally advise you not to break an agreement casually, especially if you plan to stick around for a long time. If you get really good and move up the ranks the only real way to maintain a high score is to play against other similarly high players, and quite a lot of them that I know probably wouldn't want to play with someone with an honor rating of just 12.

When you're just starting out there is a temptation to do whatever it takes to get those wins, and be damned with the consequences. But like I say the longer you spend here I think that opinion may shift, it certainly did in my case.

 

[Cagey]

The circumstances you describe - 1 troop left - is rather extreme, you won't often be faced with a situation like that. It's not cheating, it's a legitimate move, however it goes on your record and in future players will be less likely to make deals with you. Essentially the downside is how you're perceived by other players in future games. Make a habit of it and few players will make treaties with you because they'll doubt that you'll honour them. You'll also be less likely to make friends or be invited to join games.

 

[ndrm31]

Hi @zombie, in my case, I wouldnt do it, to break a truce, I rather chose to respect the truces, than to have a few more points in my profile, a profile that doesnt mather to anyone but me, what I mean, and Imao is that I care more to respct truces that to win a single game, and ias u said, if that player had just a troop left maybe there were other paths to reach him, maybe not, but also in this cases you can send a diplo o private message to the player saying, look: you are done, is it ok if I break this truce?, or even to post it in the common chat, anyway for this last example there is also another topic, and for what I know there isnt still a consensus of all of we, think that is the best or more ethical in this cases

 

[iLoveBadDiceBANNED]

Hi, I've only played a few games and recently broke a truce when the other party only had 1 troop, on 1 land left. The other players went nuts but I thought it was good move to get the 3 cards that player had. How important is the honor stat, is there ever a good time to break truce, what negatives are there to doing it? I appreciate the response and thanks as I'm trying to learn on this site.

Zombie

" is there ever a good time to break truce "

In my humble opinion the ultimate, most optimized time to break a truce is as soon as the person you made the truce with believes you are not going to attack them and move their troops elsewhere ...

What you did was great, but why wait till the last moment to break a truce you could have broken a while back?

 

[FLAGG]

In other words.......If iLoveBadDice ever does play a mulli-player game, do not bother making a truce with her

------------------------------------------

Zombie - people have all different philosophies about this, as you will surly see from this thread - you must make your own, and you will become known for it.

I never break an official diplomatic treaty - even if I lose the game because of it. That is the way I want to be known. Different people play different ways.......

FLAGG

 

[Jalthise]

" is there ever a good time to break truce "

In my humble opinion the ultimate, most optimized time to break a truce is as soon as the person you made the truce with believes you are not going to attack them and move their troops elsewhere ...

What you did was great, but why wait till the last moment to break a truce you could have broken a while back?

Only for single games. For repeated games with learning by the opponents, I'm sure the equilibrium solution is different ^^

 

[Chilly]

Only for single games. For repeated games with learning by the opponents, I'm sure the equilibrium solution is different ^^

Tit for tat. :-D

 

[iLoveBadDiceBANNED]

Only for single games. For repeated games with learning by the opponents, I'm sure the equilibrium solution is different ^^

hmmm ... you know me well enough to know I cover all my bases and already have that under control ... I mean I have that "problem" taken care of !!!

My dice program comes with a standard issue cyber neuralyzer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuralyzer

 

[blublank]

" is there ever a good time to break truce "

In my humble opinion the ultimate, most optimized time to break a truce is as soon as the person you made the truce with believes you are not going to attack them and move their troops elsewhere ...

What you did was great, but why wait till the last moment to break a truce you could have broken a while back?

Ans this is part of the reason why so many people here seem to not like you.

I would agree with ndrm31:

...also in this cases you can send a diplo o private message to the player saying, look: you are done, is it ok if I break this truce?...

I had something similar to this happen with BallzDeep in the "old paintings" tourney not that long ago. He didn't realize that the truce was there, and once he broke it he apologized profusely. He and I cam to an agreement that he wouldn't try to make a run at me first in one of the other games we were playing. In order to be transparent with it, we discussed it in that game as well, and the only agreement that we made is that he would o after someone else first.

That said, the diplo score is the only thin that truce breaks effect, and only if the other person confirms the break. In the example with BallzDeep, the apology was enough for me not to confirm the break. Being honest with the other players can be the difference between a bad relationship, and one where both parties are happy.

 

[iLoveBadDiceBANNED]

" is there ever a good time to break truce "

In my humble opinion the ultimate, most optimized time to break a truce is as soon as the person you made the truce with believes you are not going to attack them and move their troops elsewhere ...

What you did was great, but why wait till the last moment to break a truce you could have broken a while back?

Ans this is part of the reason why so many people here seem to not like you.

Gracias mi amor

 

[chefsmitty]

I had something similar to this happen with BallzDeep in the "old paintings" tourney not that long ago. He didn't realize that the truce was there, and once he broke it he apologized profusely. He and I cam to an agreement that he wouldn't try to make a run at me first in one of the other games we were playing. In order to be transparent with it, we discussed it in that game as well, and the only agreement that we made is that he would o after someone else first.

isn't that collusion? to make agreements prior to the game?

Seems like no big deal though. I had this same scenario happen to me and I did not break truce and would of won the game had I. I honored the truce ....and lost.....but many games down the road I was question by a player saying I was "dishonorable" and a third party happened to be in the first game and remembered that I would not break truce and adamantly defended me. Like everybody's saying, it really just depends on how you want to be know. In my case it reassured me that I had made the right decision and was rewarded for it.

 

[voluntaryist1]

Honor: 60(7)
Diplomacy: 942(2) What does this mean? I'm pretty sure a couple of people voted dishonorable out of spite even though i only broke 2 truces one of which was a complete accident it didn't even give me the warning the other one called me a bunch of names so i decided to fuck em over.

 

[rob6483]

It's like this - Honor: your score (total votes) and Diplomacy: your score (total treaties broken). New honor score votes get tallied into the total but not the score, so I'm guessing you've got 3 honorable votes, 2 dishonorable votes, and 2 currently unknown that will get factored in over the next few days. In theory that's to reduce spiteful dishonorable votes. Diplomacy is supposed to work out that if you break a treaty, you lose points but then slowly regain them over time, but I don't believe this is currently working.

Essentially, your honor score is a rough approximation of what kind of player you are - whether you're fun to play with, reliable, fun to chat with, or really just about anything else. The diplomacy score is to see how likely you are to keep a treaty.

 

[Capt-Matt]

What about the use of diplomacy to use a player who is likely to lose (they only have 50 or so troops left toward the end of the game) to act as a "kamikaze" to weaken a player that is in command of the game? Is this considered honorable in MC? In short: is the name of the game to win at all cost?

 

[hat7rick]

diplomacy is something that either black or white imo. there are rules. If u break a diplo agreement u get ur score lowered, the end.
honour on the other hand is highly subjective what could be honourable to some might not be for others. To me what u are saying is fine. I wouldnt rate u dishonorable for doing it

 

[rob6483]

What about the use of diplomacy to use a player who is likely to lose (they only have 50 or so troops left toward the end of the game) to act as a "kamikaze" to weaken a player that is in command of the game? Is this considered honorable in MC? In short: is the name of the game to win at all cost?

I guess I'm not really sure what you mean by that. It's not only not dishonorable for a weak player to be attacking the strongest player, it's usually good strategy for the weaker players to gang up on the strongest player. Where it may cross into dishonorable is if that player continues to be attacked as the sole target for the group until they've been eliminated. That's not really very nice and would earn a negative score from me. Like hat7rick said though, it's pretty subjective.

 

[Sebrim]

I think it is dishonorable to 'use' another player to your benefit. However, if it is a question of weakening a stronger player in teamwork, then that is a completely different question.

 

[masterjskye]

I don't mind if I am in the strong position and the others team up to knock me down to size a bit, but if they then carry on and absolutely decimate me after being dominant for the whole game it really really pisses me off! I'm in a game right now where I can see it coming, I just hope the others draw the line when I am at a comparable troop level to them.