Just Shut the F*ck Up!! (strategically speaking)

[VillageIdiot]

One of my flaws I'm well aware of is I have impulse struggles when it comes to walking away from a fruitless debate that ultimately makes things worse.

Instinctively, when we disagree with something we want to debate it. Maybe we stabbed somebody but felt it was 100% justified based on previous behavior, maybe we can't resist calling another player an absolute moron because they're playing in a fashion that is completely assisting in another players solo and they just refuse to see it, occasionally we see a war of words in the global press and can't resist stating our opinion, and sometimes we know better then our ally but fail to see that our lengthy verbal conviction about our strategic suggestions are turning them off and greatly damaging your relationship.

Sometimes the best move is just to recognize the temperature of the situation and just shut the f*ck up.

There are so many players out there that when their game starts to flounder they instantly go into "take things personal" mode and vengeance over the players directly (or even indirectly) responsible starts taking priority over almost everything else. I've been on both sides of that, benefiting from an upset player taking it out on others as well as suffering from suicidal revenge seekers. I discovered more and more that once they got into these mindsets, debate or reasoning rarely improves the situation. More often then not, allowing an outlet channel of fluid communication only cements their hostility more and more. Often the best thing is just to cut communications with them to a bare minimum during these periods. It won't necessarily cause things to blow over, but it clears the path for other potential outlets to catch their attention. I've certainly been able to deflect peoples anger and frustration onto other players a time or two in the past. A person may be just as upset at the person who stabbed them as they are towards players who didn't come to their aid or heed their warnings (regardless of whether it was reasonable or not to expect them to). Human nature is wanting somebody to blame and pay for their suffering, best to lay low and let somebody else be that person.

If competitors are going at it in the global press, for gods sake just let them and hope it spirals out of control. That's a blessing and best you can do is fade into the background at that point. If you're going to try to pot stir or fire somebody up with encouragement then do it privately so it doesn't blow back on you.

When it comes to timid players, sometimes you need to just take a step back and use the kid gloves. No matter if you know the exact recipe to get the job done, shoving it down a timid players throat could ultimately backfire on you and they either completely shut down on you or they find a new ally. In these situations earn their trust and respect a little at a time and hopefully over time they'll allow you to get a bit more involved in their decision making. Most likely what's going on is they're not quite grasping everything and they're fearing you might be fast talking them into some kind of trap. Recognize these types of players and try to help them come to good decisions on their own. Providing simple tips for them to consider can be a lot more effective then an overwhelmingly detailed strategy.

And when it comes to the morons of the world, well....diplomacy is the name of the game after-all so usually best to just swallow your pride and keep it to yourself. There are exceptions of course to any situation, sometimes publicly slandering a player may lead to bonding with others that feel the same way and strengthening new relationships. It's all situational, just make sure you're not just doing it for the sole reason that it feels oh so good. Save that for the after-chat or AAR. Not something I'm completely disciplined at yet (as a few out there would attest to) ... but I'm working on it.

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference

[dancing queen]

Can I get a "hallelujah?" PREACH

[Octavious]

A very good post as always.

One thing I will add is that we all have our individual weaknesses. For those of us who share the problem of losing interest in games and making mistakes because of it, a good rant at the game moron can be all that's required to refocus and get back into it. Never underestimate the benefits of feeling good. Ultimately if the game didn't make us feel good we wouldn't play it.

Mark Twain worried too much about the opinions of onlookers. All that matters is whether you enjoy arguing with fools or not :).

[VillageIdiot]

I completely agree with this, which brings up a very good additional point. A good rant very much can go a long way in keeping a demoralized and demotivated player interested, and in that spirit denying to engage in that energized rant with that player can helps ensure they don’t “refocus and get back into it”.

A pissed off beaten down player hates your guts for your evil game play and will do everything they can to see harm come to you. A calm beaten down player whos had time to cool down and reflect and accept their fate may lose interest in their gameplay, look forward to the game ending, maybe stop talking to others, and in hindsight may start to respect you for good strategy. That’s a kind of person who may come in handy again in the end game.

[Yigg]

To what end?

That's always the question I ask myself when I start seeing people lose their shit on the global chat. Is a rational actor busting out the Chainsaw? And if so, who is their message really aimed and what are they trying to accomplish. But that doesn't matter as I'm already dead. And that's because I've assumed I'm working with rational actors. Your message is so on point here, VI. An angry or butthurt player is just like a tornado, and is coming through and destroying everything that gets in the way. It reminds my a lot of Lynne Koplitz's comedy bit on the topic. But I digress. You can't tell someone that's acting irrationally that they're crazy and/or wrong. That's like going outside and shouting at an actual tornado, "stop it, tornado!" You're just going to get yourself killed. Like you suggest, laying low and letting someone else take up that mantle is a good idea. Or even better, in private press, agree that player x was a total douche and pour gasoline on that fire. Why not? But the best solution would be to gather a coalition of everyone else on the board to kill the tornado. Because who can resist the temptation to shut up the loudmouth and gain a few SC's in the process. Chances are they'll just CD out once they realize no one is listening and just carving up their centers.

But what really grinds my gears are the players who start in on the lecture. And you all know exactly the one I mean. Private or public, it doesn't matter. The condescending lecture on how the game is supposed to be played. See, this is kind of the spiritual opposite of the illogical press you're talking about, VI. It's hyper-logical, but similarly inspired by the anger and frustration of another player's orders or press. This is the guy who would throw a game to another player, not as a threat to achieve some sort of goal, but out of genuine spite that another player doesn't share his values or vision and must be punished for it. And it's just as crazy as the tornado guy. That's like playing a game of Monopoly for 8 hours, and being so infuriated by the guy next to you trying to win by putting hotels on the shitty brown properties that you trade all of your own properties to someone else just because you think the brown property guy is crazy. Sure, maybe putting hotels on brown isn't the best way to win. But it doesn't matter, because now you've both lost a game you've been playing all night. Good job.

So the real snake head eating the head on the opposite side is how one of these types of crazy can, and often do, spawn the other. That's the real danger you want to avoid as it's the very trap you're trying to warn against in your post here, VI.

[bo_sox48]

VI, I just gotta drop in and say that your posts here are fantastic. You do a great job explaining why I'm such a piss poor press player.

[ghug]

I will say that there's often a purpose to the chainsaw or the lecture. People are emotional at the core, and getting them emotional can often be very effective in changing how they're playing. Some of the best players I've played with are the ones who are really good at getting under people's skin.

A corollary to that, I think, is that sometimes the value of communication is overrated. There's a strong correlation between amount of press sent and ratings, and we hear the oft-given advice of "talk to every player every phase". Those certainly are both more accurate than they are inaccurate, but it can often be beneficial to have radio silence for a little while, or to be the guy who isn't talking the most. A player with a big ego might prefer a mostly-yes-man who writes short messages so that they think they're in control. An anxious player might be afraid of someone who appears "too good". The advantages of talking less to angry people have just been expressed well at great length. Silence has its place in this game.

[VillageIdiot]

The advantages of talking less to angry people have just been expressed well at great length. Silence has its place in this game.

Exactly, radio silence has it's place. You have to read the situation, often "minimal communications" is a better approach but there's times where nothing at all is better.

Lets take an example of a breakdown in an alliance due to something you did that the other person considered a betrayal.

Reaction #1
"YOU PIECE OF SH*T MOTHERF*CKER!!! I WILL SPEND THE REST OF THIS GAME MAKING AND USE MY LAST ARMY TO MAKING SURE YOU DIE WITH ME!!"

Your Response: ...

Reason: Talking now would only build him up more in your direction, snubbing with silence still fans the flames but without an outlet and somebody else may say something foolish and attract his ire, otherwise allow him to either burn himself out or cool down. Online games have long rounds and emotions can cool down a lot in a few days if there's nothing feeding into it.

Reaction #2
"That was really dumb. You better undo this right now or i'm just going to throw the game to player B if you don't undo what you just did and make this right."

Your Response: "I understand why you feel that way. I did what i felt based on what was best of my game - it may be a mistake, we'll see. Good luck." [end]

Reason: He's got hard feelings but isn't necessarily in 'kill you at all costs' mode and probably isn't really emotional enough to give up trying in the game purely for revenge. Conversations/negotiations are probably at their least credible in this moment on both sides and explanations will only come across as completely insincere and could potentially amplify hard feelings in your direction and further damage credability. Be friendly but let the immediate sting die down a bit and then start on rebuilding for later renewed relationships.

Reaction #3
"Ah, you got me. I had a feeling you might try that but i foolishly ignored my instincts. Well played - if i'm being honest i probably would have done the same thing. You committed to this, or want to talk?"

Your Response: "You're a classy guy. Yes it was undeniably the best move given (yadda-yadda) and definitely nothing personal. Absolutely, lets talk."

Reason: He's cool headed. Keep some caution in mind as trust has still been bruised, but this person seems still in rational game mode so continue with standard best practices of good communication.

[Yonni]

Silence has its place in this game

Another stumbling block to this is the "last seen" feature. I'm often terrified to let a message dangle even if I know it's the best thing to do at the moment.

I think one thing worth adding is that people read into a change of press style quite a bit. Suddenly going quiet with someone who you've been quite active with can be interpreted as a sign that you're about to stab. It can be tricky to keep up a friendly and non-combative discussion when you're about to fuck someone over but it's important to try.

[VillageIdiot]

But what really grinds my gears are the players who start in on the lecture. And you all know exactly the one I mean. Private or public, it doesn't matter. The condescending lecture on how the game is supposed to be played. See, this is kind of the spiritual opposite of the illogical press you're talking about, VI. It's hyper-logical, but similarly inspired by the anger and frustration of another player's orders or press.

Yes total worm hole, always best to avoid these types of conversations when possible. When people start losing the game they often resort to trying to win a moral victory but rarely does anything good ever come of it and just ultimately grates on you both.

I have to admit I've gotten preachy from time to time after being wronged. Often it's just my form of an outlet in these situations or excuse to keep lines of communication open for whatever information i can harvest from that (bad attention is better then no attention), but also don't discount the value of a good super heated deep argument to distract your opponents attention away from what he should be doing like fostering new allies and thinking about strategies. This ties nicely to Ghug's point about "People are emotional at the core, and getting them emotional can often be very effective in changing how they're playing".

But game psychology is a whole other topic and can be saved for a future post.

[VillageIdiot]

Silence has its place in this game

Another stumbling block to this is the "last seen" feature. I'm often terrified to let a message dangle even if I know it's the best thing to do at the moment.

I think one thing worth adding is that people read into a change of press style quite a bit. Suddenly going quiet with someone who you've been quite active with can be interpreted as a sign that you're about to stab. It can be tricky to keep up a friendly and non-combative discussion when you're about to fuck someone over but it's important to try.

Nothing messes with my brain more then an outstanding unresponded message from an ally who's since entered and finalized orders. Oh how i wish indicators were removed.

[ghug]

Your Response: ...

I think this would tick me off the most, to be honest.


I think this is leading us into a "what to say after stabbing" discussion, though, which is probably one of the worst parts of my game. How do you turn reaction 2 into reaction 3 without risking reaction 1? At what point does justifying your own actions become unwise because you're revealing information to someone who's your enemy?

When people start losing the game they often resort to trying to win a moral victory but rarely does anything good ever come of it and just ultimately grates on you both.

Again, there''s a thin line here. If you think they're doing something unwise (or at least that you can convince them that they are) and it's salvageable, you have to explain why. Tone is important.


And I'll second the hatred of last seen. Fuck that noise. It causes more stress both to the person looking but not talking and to the person who sees that they're doing it.

[President Eden]

Why do you have to talk to them after a stab?

>t. gunboater

I am serious though. Even in the cases where they're totally cool with you and willing to talk things through, how often do you run into situations where the person you stabbed can legitimately make you a sweeter offer and has the capacity to make good on that offer? If they weren't in position to do so before you stabbed them, why would they be in such a position afterward?
If you stabbed at all, shouldn't you have done so in order to cripple them greatly and give yourself a relatively easy ride to their capital?

In my games, the hard part about communicating with a stab victim is not how they reacted, but rather what to discuss in the first place. I already demonstrated that I think I can do better on the board than they can offer in the boardroom. Of course I can just be wrong in my read of the board, but that's only one subset of cases I would think.

[Octavious]

Why do you have to talk to them after a stab?

>t. gunboater

I am serious though. Even in the cases where they're totally cool with you and willing to talk things through, how often do you run into situations where the person you stabbed can legitimately make you a sweeter offer and has the capacity to make good on that offer? If they weren't in position to do so before you stabbed them, why would they be in such a position afterward?
If you stabbed at all, shouldn't you have done so in order to cripple them greatly and give yourself a relatively easy ride to their capital?

In my games, the hard part about communicating with a stab victim is not how they reacted, but rather what to discuss in the first place. I already demonstrated that I think I can do better on the board than they can offer in the boardroom. Of course I can just be wrong in my read of the board, but that's only one subset of cases I would think.

In my experience a stab is a remarkable tool for changing perspective. The stabbed player moves rapidly from a reality where he is a solo contender with strong alliances to one in which he has few friends and zero chance at a win. He likely still has a variety of options, often including making your life as miserable as possible in an act of vengeance, or carving out a niche in which he has a decent shot at a draw as a minor power. It's your job to steer him away from kicking you in the bollocks and more in the direction that is of mutual benefit.

[VillageIdiot]

In my games, the hard part about communicating with a stab victim is not how they reacted, but rather what to discuss in the first place. I already demonstrated that I think I can do better on the board than they can offer in the boardroom. Of course I can just be wrong in my read of the board, but that's only one subset of cases I would think.

What a limiting philosophy that would be.

The board changes every round to round, and especially after such shake up as a stab everybody should taking stock and re-evaluating what's best for their game. Not every stabbee has the capacity to be open minded about looking past a stab, but most the good players can. I rebuild relationships with both stabbers and stabbees all the time, quite often immediately afterwards as that's often when other players would least expect it. A player may have been stabbed simply because they carried too much power and was too dangerous to carry on the way things were and action was needed to remove that power that they were unwilling to give up on their own. It was an understandable situation and, with the right diplomacy, one that can be worked past assuming the result of the stab was a more balanced distribution of power or an opportunity existed to quickly find that balance again at a third parties expense. If you're each others best option at that point in time then why not go with it?

Its not personal, it's just business.

[VillageIdiot]

When people start losing the game they often resort to trying to win a moral victory but rarely does anything good ever come of it and just ultimately grates on you both.

Again, there''s a thin line here. If you think they're doing something unwise (or at least that you can convince them that they are) and it's salvageable, you have to explain why. Tone is important.

There's a difference between moral victory debates and arguing a difference of opinion as i think you're referring to. Moral victory debates refer to preaching about how they played a better game because they have not (yet) lied or stabbed anybody, or the evils of greed, or power of friendship, or bad integrity of draw whittling, or ass-holiness of how much or how little you talk, or whatever banner they want to hang their consolation imaginary win victory on. Quite often then not these are fruitless conversations and given enough attention can re-motivate an otherwise mentally defeated player, so approach with care. Be friendly and respectful in letting them vent and self-eulogize and maybe that will be enough for them to accept their situation and give up the fight.

[Yigg]

This has been one of my very favorite threads thus far.

[President Eden]

In my games, the hard part about communicating with a stab victim is not how they reacted, but rather what to discuss in the first place. I already demonstrated that I think I can do better on the board than they can offer in the boardroom. Of course I can just be wrong in my read of the board, but that's only one subset of cases I would think.

What a limiting philosophy that would be.

The board changes every round to round, and especially after such shake up as a stab everybody should taking stock and re-evaluating what's best for their game. Not every stabbee has the capacity to be open minded about looking past a stab, but most the good players can. I rebuild relationships with both stabbers and stabbees all the time, quite often immediately afterwards as that's often when other players would least expect it. A player may have been stabbed simply because they carried too much power and was too dangerous to carry on the way things were and action was needed to remove that power that they were unwilling to give up on their own. It was an understandable situation and, with the right diplomacy, one that can be worked past assuming the result of the stab was a more balanced distribution of power or an opportunity existed to quickly find that balance again at a third parties expense. If you're each others best option at that point in time then why not go with it?

Its not personal, it's just business.

Why do you have to talk to them after a stab?

>t. gunboater

I am serious though. Even in the cases where they're totally cool with you and willing to talk things through, how often do you run into situations where the person you stabbed can legitimately make you a sweeter offer and has the capacity to make good on that offer? If they weren't in position to do so before you stabbed them, why would they be in such a position afterward?
If you stabbed at all, shouldn't you have done so in order to cripple them greatly and give yourself a relatively easy ride to their capital?

In my games, the hard part about communicating with a stab victim is not how they reacted, but rather what to discuss in the first place. I already demonstrated that I think I can do better on the board than they can offer in the boardroom. Of course I can just be wrong in my read of the board, but that's only one subset of cases I would think.

In my experience a stab is a remarkable tool for changing perspective. The stabbed player moves rapidly from a reality where he is a solo contender with strong alliances to one in which he has few friends and zero chance at a win. He likely still has a variety of options, often including making your life as miserable as possible in an act of vengeance, or carving out a niche in which he has a decent shot at a draw as a minor power. It's your job to steer him away from kicking you in the bollocks and more in the direction that is of mutual benefit.

I don't disagree with either of these posts and think my post reinforced the key argument of the OP rather than diverging from it.

Probably I implied more than I meant - I'm not saying you should, as a matter of course, not talk to the person you stabbed. Rather, I get the sense people view press as an end to itself rather than a means to an end (winning), and feel obligated to "keep comms open" or "reestablish communication" with someone they just attacked.
And I think this ends up, for many players, creating a picture to the player they attacked of someone who is indecisive or doesn't know what they want; making them only look worse as a potential ally to that player.

Let me ask you this, VI, Oct (and anyone else for that matter) -- do you ever message the player you stabbed before they message you, on the turn after you stabbed them? As a general matter of course, do you generally tend to message first, message second, or not have a trend?

[VillageIdiot]

Let me ask you this, VI, Oct (and anyone else for that matter) -- do you ever message the player you stabbed before they message you, on the turn after you stabbed them? As a general matter of course, do you generally tend to message first, message second, or not have a trend?

I'm not much of a stabber, Octavious is probably the better person to field this one.

[Octavious]

I'm not much of a stabber, Octavious is probably the better person to field this one.

Every time you tell a lie the baby Jesus cries

I usually get the message in first. Partly because it helps dictate the direction of the conversation, but mostly because waiting for a message that may not even come wastes a huge amount of time. If they talk first it's not something that worries me though.

Thinking back to games with VI, he is exceptionally good at prioritising messages and finding the right tone after he has made a hash of a stab. Credit where credit's due, I don't think there's a player better at recovering from embarrassing errors :).