It seems a lot of people have talked about going into games fresh and not bringing preconceptions about other players into the game, and for the most part I have agreed on this point. But I was thinking about it some more lately, and I think I've changed my stance some. I still agree coming into games always allying with the same people, unbreakable alliances, etc. are not good...but to say I shouldn't remember how I've seen X person play? I'm beginning to think something is lost there. Thanks to Kestas, we've been building up a community of players here, each with our own idiosyncrasies and playing styles...why not explore them?
Each game I play, I have the opportunity to learn how to play better...say, when using a certain tactic might not be a good idea/is particularly effective...why shouldn't I also learn what negotiation tactics work better with a certain player? Or that he or she stabs often or rarely? Doesn't my body of knowledge about a player and how I try to use it to my advantage take the game to higher level? Yes, a new player hasn't had the same amount of experience as me, but they'll get it soon enough...and it cuts both ways, as I, in turn, know nothing about them and he or she is a wild card and must be treated with differently. But would this prejudice people against allying with new players? I think not, as it would be foolish to limit your options at the get go. It's just a different kind of negotiations.
So that's what I've been thinking...I'm particularly interested in what the rest of you think.
Though when you get down to the question of wether or not you should join a game based on who is already there, i feel that if you are joining just because someone you know, have played with, or are good friends with is a little weak. Just joining because you feel you will have the edge in creating or establishing alliances is very childish. Why not join in a game where you know noone and the only way your going to win is by making alliances, and not banking on ones you will assume you will aquire because of outside relations with he/whe. This i feel will better yourself as a player because you will be on eaual playing field with everyone.
Obviously, for those of you who will comment that "what if you've played with so many people that it would then be difficult to find a game with all new foes?" To this i would say duh...my post was not to create a sence of mind that you must seek new people to play, but to not just seek those who you feel will give you an edge in the game.
Doing this with me would be more than slightly counterproductive, because I tend to go into an individual game with a specific playing style in mind, and keep that persona for the remainder of that game, and that game alone.
For example, sometimes I go into a game as the crazy guy who breaks every alliance with everyone, and sometimes I go in as the guy who refuses to break his word the entire game long. I've even played a game where I spent the whole time telling everyone else every secret I could get a hold of.
Back before the points system was implemented, I used to take over CD countries that only had one or two units left, and tried everything from making random moves to supporting unexpected holds for a neighboring country.
Anyway, the point is that each time I go into a game, I play genuinely differently. So if you take your knowledge of how I played in the last game with you, it may have no bearing at all on how I'll play in the next one.
I am like EricHerboso. I enjoy going into a game with certain objectives in mind.
I once played a game where I only told the truth, and broadcast my intentions to everyone. It didn't work so well, haha, but it was fun.
I can't tell you to forget the things you learn from others, but I encourage you to remember that things won't necessarily the same, and more, I encourage you to try to be unpredictable. If others can figure out your style, then you need to change it up. That's a good way to reduce metagaming and keep games varied and interesting.
Use what other players think your play style is to your advantage. Keep them guessing.
Also bear in mind a useful sales maxim - customers rarely notice when you consistently get things right, but when you get just one thing wrong, they remember it forever.
People are more likely to remember you for that one stab, that one mistake, that one missed turn, that one game where you gave up. People remember negatives far more instinctively than they remember positives. That is why a good reputation is so very hard and time-consuming to earn, but can be ruined in a reckless moment.
If you're going to play different styles every game, its the times you play uncooperatively and confrontationally that people are more likely to remember.
The clean slate is definitely qualified...
My position is -
You do not take an ulterior motive into a game other than wanting to win within the spirit and letter of the rules.
Knowing about the players is of course all part of the intelligence you collect. It is up to you how you use that information.
If, for example, I consider a player to be unreliable, I will not rely on them. Simple.
If someone has managed to out-smart me in every single game since the Year Dot, I will try even harder to read their game and defeat them, but it would not preclude an alliance on the way to my dream...
The comment above about people tending to remember the negatives of your play is a very good one. It is a fact of life that reputations are much easier to lose than to build, and they are most often lost through something negative.
16 accounts
)
)
)
)
)