[LURKERS] Sweet 16: Civ Party Fun Time and Philosophical Debate

[SevenSpirits]

How is it relevant? Of course my decision are not random but if I attack someone in one specific situation it doesn't mean that I would attack once again in a different situation. My decisions are dictated by in game events not by my previous actions. I think this logic applies to most other players.

It doesn't GUARANTEE you'll attack them but it sure INDICATES it. Saying it is "no indication" is a gross exaggeration. If I am neighbors with player A and player B, and player A sends 2 chariots at me early in the game and player B doesn't, who is more likely to attack me later in the game? The answer, in the absence of other information, is player A. The reason is, players have patterns to their behavior; it is generally not random. One person might attack a whole bunch - at every opportunity. Another person might never attack anyone ever. Since players have different propensities to attack, any data you gather about them attacking is useful information to predict whether they will attack you more later. That is why you think player A is MORE likely to attack you. You don't know for sure they will, but it is indicated. OK, that answers your question about why what I said is relevant.

Now to respond to what you are saying: Your decisions are influenced by two things:
1) In game events, and
2) Your own mind

Whether you attack in situation X does not influence whether you attack in situation Y, as you say. However it does provide some insight into your mind for people watching you. In your mind, attacking in situation X was apparently reasonable. Since the alternative was that in your mind, attacking in situation X was unreasonable, seeing this attack in situation X indicates that your mind is more likely than previously thought to support a decision of attacking.

[Gavagai]

Whether you attack in situation X does not influence whether you attack in situation Y, as you say. However it does provide some insight into your mind for people watching you. In your mind, attacking in situation X was apparently reasonable. Since the alternative was that in your mind, attacking in situation X was unreasonable, seeing this attack in situation X indicates that your mind is more likely than previously thought to support a decision of attacking.

Me attacking in situation X only means that I'm more likely to attack in situations similar to X. I don't believe that there is such a thing as inclination to attack in vacuum.

[Catwalk]

I agree with most of your post Seven, except I think there's a big difference between a small opportunistic strike and a large campaign. I don't think his opportunism is indicative of a larger campaign later. I do think it's indicative of other opportunistic strikes.

I do agree there is such a thing as propensity to attack, though. Although that applies mostly to lower level players who play more by preference and less by analysis. Which is one reason why they/we are lower level players, personal preference can be a big limitation when it comes to good decision making. What's worse, it makes you predictable.

[SevenSpirits]

Me attacking in situation X only means that I'm more likely to attack in situations similar to X. I don't believe that there is such a thing as inclination to attack in vacuum.

It totally means you are more likely to attack in any situation.

The vast majority of people who could have attacked me have literally NEVER attacked me. Just a single attack puts you in a different category of players.

[SevenSpirits]

I agree with most of your post Seven, except I think there's a big difference between a small opportunistic strike and a large campaign. I don't think his opportunism is indicative of a larger campaign later. I do think it's indicative of other opportunistic strikes.

I do agree there is such a thing as propensity to attack, though. Although that applies mostly to lower level players who play more by preference and less by analysis. Which is one reason why they/we are lower level players, personal preference can be a big limitation when it comes to good decision making. What's worse, it makes you predictable.

Catwalk, I'm not sure what you mean by "opportunistic strike" or "large campaign". For me, opportunism occurs when your scouting unit gets an opportunity. Two chariots (and were there combat workers involved two, I forget) at that stage of the game qualifies as a major attack in my book and greatly increases the odds that the player will try to kill me, from my point of view.

Now Gavagai says that for HIM this isn't true, but I don't know Gavagai's mind directly. For me, previously he was "player who is unlikely to ever attack me" and now he is "one of the most aggressive players in the game".

[Catwalk]

Reading that turn again, I agree that it falls in between opportunistic strike and large campaign (yeah, I know those are not clearly defined terms). His original target was Plame Affair, the workers were more of a bonus.

[Becko]

Whether you attack in situation X does not influence whether you attack in situation Y, as you say. However it does provide some insight into your mind for people watching you. In your mind, attacking in situation X was apparently reasonable. Since the alternative was that in your mind, attacking in situation X was unreasonable, seeing this attack in situation X indicates that your mind is more likely than previously thought to support a decision of attacking.

Me attacking in situation X only means that I'm more likely to attack in situations similar to X. I don't believe that there is such a thing as inclination to attack in vacuum.

Well, it might also mean that you're more likely to consider a given situation to be similar to X. All situations are different in some aspects, but they are also similar in other. We then evaluate them according to the differences: "OK, last time I had five axemen and now I have four, but on the other hand his units are on flatland and not on a hill." Depending on their assessments of these differences, some people who would have attacked in the first situation do so in the second as well, while others retreat.

The question is where each person has their inflection point, where they change their mind from "Go!" to "Abort!". Unless you think that no rational player could possibly have refrained from attacking in situation X, your decision to do so is a data point for determining the shape of your decision curve. And while a sample of one may be small, it will still matter when you don't have much else to go on.

[Gavagai]

I sincerely don't understand. Let's imagine that Gaspar didn't build units at all and I just walked into his empty cities. Would this qualify me as an especially aggressive player? Or would it be something what just any player would do? Because I really don't see any clear borderline between this kind of situation and my chariot attack.
(Or another example. Early worker steal from AI is a typical high level SP tactics. Does it qualify players who do that as especially aggressive? No, they can be totally peaceful builders in all other respects. People do worker steal not because they want blood but because it almost always a good play.)

[Dhalphir]

While an early worker steal isn't considered especially aggressive, there are players who wouldn't do an early worker steal even if given the opportunity, as they are naturally more peacefully inclined and prefer not to immediately open hostile relations with a neighbour.

So if somebody does worker steal you, you know that they at the minimum don't have that inclination.

[Catwalk]

Gavagai, wasn't Plame Affair your main objective? You saw a single warrior defending it and drafted a plan to attack it with two chariots.