*To the site admins*

Would it be alright if I kept a running list of people on here who've back stabbed in games? I'd like to have people send me info if they were back stabbed and I'd list it here... Basically so people get a reputation like in Westeros

If you wouldn't like me to do that, thats fine though.

i am already taking such a list myself and would appreciate a public one

Last edited by derBleede on 2014-May-10 12:37, edited 1x in total

backstabbing is a big element of the game.....

it's the strategy for protecting against a backstab, and whether the backstab make sense or not......

True enough Jamie. But you also gain a reputation in Westeros for backstabbing...


Note that my quote is 'War is Deception'

Last edited by JakeZF on 2014-May-11 11:38, edited 1x in total

I guess you should clerify what you mean, since there are moments where not backstabbing wouldn't be rational.

Think of a situation where you have 6 castles and you have an agreement with another house. He should attack you instead of being loyal to you.
Or a situation where he has 6 castles and attacks you for his last castle in order to win the game.
There is even the moment where backstabbing makes sense if you will have a huge advantage which will clearly lead to victory in next 1-2 round(s).

If none of these is given the other player is just backstabbing you for fun and without a real reason since he doesn't have a real advantage of this.

If you really want to make a list for other players you should always check the games in which they betrayed and check the situation.

Btw I guess that kingmakers are even more hated that backstabbers because of their fatal influence who wins the game.

True enough. I would just take into account if someone told me someone else played 'dishonorably'. I know thats interpretable, but there is no way to perfect it.

Such a list is not really maintainable. How would you check the credibility of any claims? Suppose, you are in a game with two fellows, one of which knows about this list. He suspects that you have an alliance with the ignorant one and wants to dissolve it. How? Easy: submit the other's name to the list and make you aware of it. Also: would you accept entries from players already on the list?

Further, such an open list would be playing the game outside the game, which might be frowned upon by several players. Just like making alliances with one player in each and every single game you play with him.

The argument about reputation is not on the point. I am not aware of a public list of "Scheming Lords and Ladies of Westeros" in the books

bingo book... ^^

no, seriously: I think it's best to make your own list.

---

- What do we say to New Features? Not Today.

Okay, I'll keep it to myself then

backstabbing is a big element of the game.....

it's the strategy for protecting against a backstab, and whether the backstab make sense or not......
Of course.
But there is time meta-trust is also an important element on this platform.

There is 2 sort of alliances

1) Alliance where you're trying to protect yourself against a backstab from the start.

2) Alliance where there is strong mutual trust in the early stage for the games, and the two sides are focused on expanding the other way. and the backstab element come later.

A priori, 2) gives a far better advantage to the allied players.
But in the other hand, a very early backstab can give a better advantage to one of the player. Or worst : the other side planned to attack you early anyway, and lied from the start.

So this can't work with a player you can't trust and who don't keep his word.

If I know the players playing with me, i'll always choose to ally the one I trust more.

Late backstab are in most case totally legitimate.

Also, myself, i hate to lie openly, and i know i'm not the only one in this case. It doesn't prevent me to win game, maybe i would have better stats if i was lying hard, but i prefer to play that way.
(And of course have more esteem to those who do the same)

But of course, the variety of attitudes in the pool is what make the game  exciting.

Last edited by ajmyk on 2014-May-13 17:27, edited 3x in total

If you have an early alliance, don't make its terms simple, like
- "ally?"
- "ok"
done.

You should include more sophisticated clauses to prevent a "cold war" between the two of you. An example for a Tyrell/Martell alliance could be, that there is at most one footman allowed in Prince's Path, The Towers and Dornish Marches. That way Martell and Tyrell can both consolidate in their respective areas without deploying too many troops to defend their homes in case of an invasion.

Also, clarify whether you want to support each other in battles and/or clashes (which would be a rather obvious sign to other players i.e. not necessarily constructive)

When you say they 'should' do that do you mean there is a rule against doing that or thats just the proper way to do it?

No, that is just a suggestion