Backstabbing with defection off

[parrot of doom]

Well I just got annihilated by the enemy in a 3v3, as Africa. My main ally sat there and did nothing throughout. A huge fleet off my coast, didn't send any fighters to kill the bombers, nothing. Just sat there doing nothing.

So for a laugh, I sent my remaining bombers over to his massive fleet, and sank half of it. I then fired 30 sub nukes on his silos and cities in South America.

It was hilarious. So hilarious that he threw a big strop and ended the server And the best bit was that he couldn't stop any of my nukes because defection was off

Thoughts on this? Yeah its a bit lame, but I thought it was funny.

[GrandfatherBones]

i would have done the same.

[Splatterer]

That's what he gets for not helping!

[AlfaFoxtrot]

With defection off can you remove the ceasefire? I sometimes do that with allys if I'm planning to backstab later on, but someone else is attacking - set a ceasefire so my silos don't target the incoming nukes

[Spacemonkey]

Thats pretty sad, it's ok to attack an ally if defection is on, it's part of the game, but attacking them when defection is off, they can't leave the alliance.

Maybe he didn't see what was going on, or maybe he couldn't get his fighters fast enough there, and did you ask him for help?

I thinks it's pretty lame that you attacked him just because he didn't 'help' you.

I would have shutdown the server as well if an ally attacked me when defection is off, I don't want to play with idiots who don't know how to play the game.

[parrot of doom]

What are you on about 'dont know how to play the game'?

Its people that close servers down who don't know how to play. I think you just added yourself to that category.

[Ace Rimmer]

I agree, I don't think there's any valid reason to shut down a server just because of another's playing tactics, of course there are occasion 'emergencies' that come up. We can be reasonable about that.


I've never played with defection off, but it would seem that's a loosing strategy. (to attack your ally)

With defection on, and especially in diplomacy, it all depends on the situation.

[Spacemonkey]

Attacking an ally with defection off is not a tactic, it's just being an idiot, because there is nothing the other guy can do about it, it's not fair gameplay. It's just pointless, doesn't help either of you to win, just gives the other players an advantage.

Attacking allies when defection is on is fine, it's a good strategy for winning, but if defection is off, it's pointless, it will just piss people off, no wonder he shut down the server.

[xander]

I have to say, I am with Spacemonkey on this one. It is implied by the very structure of the game that you will not attack allies when defection is disabled. It does not mean that they have to help you -- if you are leading an ally by 50 points, but get nuked into oblivion by an enemy, that turns out well for the ally. However, it does mean that they should not directly nuke you -- there is no defense against it.

xander

[A. Smith]

*agrees with xander and monkey*

the point of the game is to make points (NOWAI!!!11!shiftone), and backstabbing with defection doesnt do you any good... actually, you lose as many points as he does.

[xander]

*agrees with xander and monkey*

the point of the game is to make points (NOWAI!!!11!shiftone), and backstabbing with defection doesnt do you any good... actually, you lose as many points as he does.

I can see one situation where backstabbing with defection disabled might help -- in this hypothetical situation, Able is in the lead with 150 points, and Cain is just behind with 145 point. The enemy is more or less dead, so neither is going to get any more kills from them. So, Cain takes out Able's silos, and lets the enemy wipe out his cities with a few remaining bomber- and sub-based nukes. Cain wins the game. This would only work in Survivor or Default scoring, and probably wouldn't work very well anyway.

That being said, it is still a shitty thing to do, because no one should have to expect being backstabbed when defection is disabled. Disabling defection basically tells the other players that you want to play a team game, and violating that ruins the game for everyone.

xander

[AlfaFoxtrot]

Taking out their silos/radar is a valid enough tactic, means that if they get attacked by anyone else they will get nuked a lot more, making it easier for you to win (if they are close to you in points).

I do agree that it's a bit cheeky though, as there is no warning and if you're looking elsewhere you can genuinely miss those incoming bombers...

[xander]

Taking out their silos/radar is a valid enough tactic, means that if they get attacked by anyone else they will get nuked a lot more, making it easier for you to win (if they are close to you in points).

I do agree that it's a bit cheeky though, as there is no warning and if you're looking elsewhere you can genuinely miss those incoming bombers...

So you believe that it is fair to attack someone who has absolutely no ability to defend themselves, thanks to the fact that they are in an alliance with you, and cannot leave that alliance?

xander

[Ace Rimmer]

Question, what does fair have to do with Defcon?

While I would probably not engage in the type of play being argued over in the situation of defection off, I thought the point was to loose the least.

And I still say, barring emergencies, no matter how one or two individuals might play defcon, shutting the server down because someone attacks an ally with defection off is more 'wrong' than the person attacking his ally. Now, if everybody was engaging in some sort of unwarranted behavior, thats a different story.

[xander]

And I still say, barring emergencies, no matter how one or two individuals might play defcon, shutting the server down because someone attacks an ally with defection off is more 'wrong' than the person attacking his ally. Now, if everybody was engaging in some sort of unwarranted behavior, thats a different story.

If a player has set up a server without defections, it is implied that attacking allies is not okay. That is the point of that setting. By joining a server, you are agreeing to play by the rules set by the server. If players do not follow the rules set by the server, then I have no problem with the server shutting down. I still think that it should gracefully fall back to another machine, but if I set up a game, and people are not playing by the rules, I will shut it down. I see nothing wrong with that -- it is, after all, just a game.

On the other hand, I do believe that it is appropriate to whinge about hosts who shut down games because they get beaten. In that case, all of the players are playing by the implied rules of the game, and the host just isn't as good. If people are playing by the rules, and you have the time to sit for a game, there is no reason to end the game prematurely.

xander