I don't know if people know this, but kdice is a game of war. Treat it like so. Trucing doesn't guarantee anything. Truce with the wrong person and you'll see.

Respecting peoples truce over other peoples flag is just a PGA.

I truce. I PGA.

PGA = game-to-game favour

stormlord would you mind to prove your point with some kind of argumentation? because the debate has already been and the point why truces are held over flags is made since more than 2 years. so what new evidence you bring?

Ryan himself said truces are part of the game. He also said the only real point of flags is to end the game quicker, not to guarantee immunity if you have flagged.

Just search the forum for his posts and you'll see.

My definition of a a game-to-game favour is any move in your current game for the benefit of a future game.

We can split moves into rational and irrational moves. A rational move will bring you closer to victory, while an irrational move will do the opposite. If a rational player played for the current game they would only ever play rational moves.

Fighting to secure your truce partners position is an irrational move (for arguements sake you can 1 hit him and the game will end). A rational player playing for the current game would 1 hit him every time.

The reason to play the irrational move is to benefit you in future games, which fits my definition of a game-to-game favour.

NOT backstabbing also fits my definition.

Silex,

You are right when you say that truces are part of the game and knowing when to truce is a skill that makes a difference.

Some truces are legal. Now, considering "legal trucing" as fair or unfair behavior is a different business. I consider trucing unfair because it introduces external elements into a game that has a fair distributions of resources.
As a fair combatant in a fair game I would expect fair opponents. Which makes me consider truces/alliances to be disloyal towards your opponents. Alliances do not respect what in principle should be a fair battle among similarly weighted combatants.

I chose not to truce almost since I started playing this game --a long time ago. That obviously had a profound effect on the amount of points I make every month. Very simple math would show me that trucing would produce me more points. But I care little for points. In the end, I cannot exchange them for anything valuable.

I perfectly understand that players ally in an attempt to tilt the balance in their favor. But I also see truces as a way to cover their inability to finish the job on their own. It is the usual trade: one skill covers for the lack of another skill. Knowing how to truce is a skill that makes the game easier by reducing randomness. From my point of view, that lack of randomness makes the game less exciting, sometimes way too boring for my taste (think of v-flags).

You could argue that counter-trucing does help to restore the balance and increases randomness to a certain level. I would agree. But still I would not counter-truce, because that only promotes trucing, the kind of behavior that I consider disloyal.

I give more value to the harder planning problems that arise in the game when the distribution of forces is fair, that happens more in the games with more randomness, games without trucers.
Please don't ask mo to go to dicewars. I won't change dicewars for kdice simply because the bots are not as smart or as dumb as humans can be.

I don't expect you to agree with me.
I just want you to consider that the problem is not that players are too dumb to get "the social aspect" of the game. What happens is that different people interpret the game differently and have different expectations from it. Imposing your view on how the game should be played is just another way of imposing pseudo-rules on how people should behave. Let them explore, let them be different! In the end, most players will become trucers because it produces more points. Then I wonder what is the rush to indoctrinate them?

I agree with those who argue that kdice has a "social/political/whatever" aspect in it. But some of you are pushing it too hard. The social part is not that important, not for everybody. If you are eager for social interaction or need training in social/political skills, you are in the wrong place. Try real life!!

cheers,
--me again

p.s. I am glad to hear that some people are trying to play without trucing :).

p.s.2 dicewars bots also truce ;)

p.s.3 this post was way too long

you are wrong storm. figthing to secure your truce Ps position is not an irrational move. It proves that you are a reliable trucepartner, and it HONORS a previous made agreement. Ryan has punished players for not honoring their ingame agreements.

we should be talking more about tacos

"you are wrong storm. figthing to secure your truce Ps position is not an irrational move. "

Irrational over 1 game (say it's your last).
Rational over many games (game-to-game favour).

"Ryan has punished players for not honoring their ingame agreements."

This is the first i've ever heard of Ryan doing this, and if he has it kinda sucks. The only in-game rule is that of game-to-game favours which ironically this kind of behaviour from Ryan only supports. If he doesn't want backstabbing/liars he should implement diplomacy into the game mechanics.