Re: Is this gamey?
 

Well maybe not much, but at least a bit. Ok, no ship trades is a good solution also http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But no tech trades allowed is what I regard as the absolut minimum standard. With only ship trading allowed, you have to build the ship, trade it, move it to a shipyard to analyse, do the analysis - more time, not the otherwise possible instant exchange. Plus, you cannot ally tech-wise with someone from the other edge of the galaxy, and are limited to those who are near to - a natural, "healthy" limitation.

Of course, total dedictation to an alliance might lead to building shipyard-colonies within the other players empire to facilitate these trades. But these kind of alliances, from start to end at all costs, are another problem - I also think alliance victories should not be enabled. I favor Last man standing, where you have to beware who you are working together with and how closely.

Alliance victories possible and tech trades allowed reduces the game to a kind of "how many friends can I get together into this game". These kind of games are team vs. team in reality and not player vs. player - whoever wants to be the lone wolf there will surely loose if there is a minimum of competence in any team.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

That would be nice, except you can gift shipyard bases easily enough, stacked with a shipyard base of your own, to allow instant analysis and building of tech example ships with no engines. All you need is diplomatic contact.

PvK

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You hit the nail on the head here Gpa. The problem as I see it is by giving the little hangers on the title of co-winner you elminate the incentive for them to eventually band together and take out the BMOC, or die trying. This severly limits the oppotunities for REAL diplomacy in the game. I don't consider the "Yes boss, whatever you say boss." stuff that goes on between the big guy and his lackeys as diplomacy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

While you say even though it's never stated everybody knows who the winner is, I honestly feel if it were stated openly the BMOC would have a much harder time recruiting his minions and keeping them loyal. Compare these two statements:

"Join me in a powerful alliance. We will defeat the other empires and rule the galaxy together."

or

"Join me in a powerful alliance. You will help me to defeat the other empires and I will rule the galaxy. As long as you don't go agasint me I won't destroy you and I will always know your assistance was an important part of my success and will think highly of you for it."

You might still get a few to join with the second, more honest statement, but likely not as many.

And the other question is would the BMOC have gotten as big as he did without the early absolute alliances and complete tech trading that goes on with the understanding of a team victory? Maybe, but it's doubtful in most cases.

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

As I said: if you don't mind who is owning a shipyard within your empire. Victory condition Last (single) empire standing, where teamgaming doesn't make sense, I would say this is not really common. But that is just guessing - I have not that much experience.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ditto. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I find this tedious too because do to this requires way more time put into a game planning the tech each will do than I want to do. (if a turn takes me more than 15 or 30 mintues I'll just end it and hell with what I forgot)
The reason I like to ban it is to prevent 2 or 3 players from allying and trading tech like crazy and forgetting that it is a "Last man standing game" I suspect if players accepted that is was actually a Last man standing game then tech trading would not really be a problem.

It actually never really occured to me that players would think a game wasn't Last man standing if those were the victory conditions. I mean ganging up on one player is OK to a point. But ganging up on him and ending the game when he's done, well that's gamey (nudge nudge wink wink http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Re: Is this gamey?
 

I never really understood the idea that "if people understood that it was a Last man standing game they would be more hesitant to trade technology".

Assume there is a game with 4 players: A, B, C, and D. Further assume that in any conflict a player with superior skills and superior technology will defeat a player with inferior skill and technology (i.e. luck plays no part).

Now say A and B decide to form an alliance and trade technology. They will quickly defeat C and D who have poorer technology and then face off against each other. Since A and B have the same level of technology the one with the greater skill will win.

So the question of whether or not to trade technology with your ally boils down to one of skill. Do you think you are more skilled than your ally (or perhaps in a more favorable situation). If the answer is yes then you should trade and if the answer is no you should not. (actually you should trade anyways because C and D are going to trade anyways and you need to keep up with them, but let's not get into that). Due to some strange quirk of psychology most people feel that they are more skilled than their allies (although Garrison Kiellor might say something funny about that). So psychologically speaking most people will want to trade in this situation. Because this is so C and D are forced into trading with each other if they want to survive at all, much less be the Last one standing.

Also people who tend to think that they are unskilled (i.e. beginners) usually will not play to "win" the game via the Last man standing victory condition but rather rationalize that they are "winning" if they survive as long as possible against the others. So they will gladly trade even with an ally who is more skilled than them because it helps them survive longer than C and D even if they know they will eventually "lose" because of it.

So I don't think the Last man standing victory condition has anything to do with people's desire to tech trade or not. If tech trading is allowed a competitve player must do as much of it as they absolutely can in order to even have a shot at winning. And I agree that this aspect of the game is one that I really don't like and tend to avoid doing as much of it as I should even if I know it will mean I will lose.

[ July 30, 2003, 18:09: Message edited by: teal ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Garrison Kielor?

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Back to the original question: Is gifting a planet to a doomed ally a gamey move?

I am with Geo on this. A lot depends on what the motivations and reasons for this are. If it is psychological in nature (for example if the game involves a group of friends playing who will have "bragging rights" and will relentlessly rib anyone who is eliminated then perhaps a subset of this group will act to avoid letting their ally be eliminated because they don't want to see their friend insulted outside of the game). In these sorts of cases I don't see anything wrong with the gifting of a planet.

Gifting the trade income back to the player who gifted you the planets is extremely gamey and exploiting an "unrealistic" bug and is not something that I would condone.

The whole problem here is not actually the gifting of planets, but is the way trade income works. The way it should work is the income derived should be the percentage of the smaller empires income, not each member of a trade alliance taking a percentage of their partners income. If it wasn't for the screwy way trade is implemented in SEIV then this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue. Also it is theoretically possible that someone had a wide ranging intercolonization agreement with their ally and because of this you are able to virtually wipe out an empire except for one or two planets which were deep in their allies space. Practically speaking, this is the same situation, but it is 100% not gamey.

Lastly to anyone who is listening... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif A game is certainly Last man standing unless explicitly discribed otherwise. However, I do wish that there was a way to end a game with a mutually agreed upon single winner say when one empire takes over 3/4 of the known galaxy and it is only a matter of time before the others fall.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I shouldn't refer to cultural icons since this is a worldwide forum. My apologies. I might have spelled his name wrong. He is the host of "A Prarie Home Companion" on National Public Radio in the U.S. where "All the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average"

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In your opinion, yes. That opinion is not shared by a very large portion of PBW players (perhaps 50/50). So, this is why things like this MUST be stated at game creation.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In your opinion, yes. That opinion is not shared by a very large portion of PBW players (perhaps 50/50). So, this is why things like this MUST be stated at game creation.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually if it is not stated in the game description then the default position is what the game itself describes. If you do not put in another victory condition then Last man standing is when the SEIV program will declare one person to have won. The fact that the majority of the PBW community (myself included by the way) would rather call a game a draw than drag it out to its inevitable conclusion and waste hours and hours of their life on the game does not change the fact that, unless stated otherwise, the rules of the game are the default rules for basic SEIV, and those are Last man standing.

[ July 30, 2003, 19:06: Message edited by: teal ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

In your opinion, yes. When a game ends is a matter of choice. It is certainly not dependant simply on just when the game says it is over. It is a subjective issue, and so needs to be discussed and declared before the game starts.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Teal, you will learn that it is neccesary to consult with Fyron first on which parts of the game are to be taken literally and which parts are subjective and open to interpretation. Once you get to that point your life will be much simpleler.

[ July 30, 2003, 21:30: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

bah
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Yes. What happened was I saw a post and said, "oh look a message by Fyron I bet I'll be extremely ticked off by it" and sure enough I was... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I probably would not have been ticked off if any one else had said the same thing.

I suppose I object to the use of the word "opinion". It is not actually my opinion, but the way the game is set up (i.e. it IS the default position of the game that Last man standing determines the winner. It is clearly written in the code for all to read... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And furthermore I 100% agree that victory conditions should be declared before game start. The question was what should be the default position if regretably they are not... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

And yes Fyron. People can stop playing whenever they want to. That does not mean that according the rules of the game they have determined a winner (they have not), but it does mean that according to the rules of society they have determined a winner. In this situation I personally would prefer to follow the rules of society, but it is not my "opinion" that the rules of the game are different. It is fact... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ July 30, 2003, 19:30: Message edited by: teal ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would say there is. Tell the host to declare the game over. I don't think most hosts (me included) expect the eventualy winner to hunt down every Last ship and mine.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would say there is. Tell the host to declare the game over. I don't think most hosts (me included) expect the eventualy winner to hunt down every Last ship and mine.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I cannot recall ever having a game where an obviously defeated foe would not conceed the game if asked. Very few people enjoy dragging out a game which they serve no purpose in. I have stayed in a few sometimes beyond when I had a chance, but there were still viable empires and the issue of the winner was very much in doubt. So in that case I wasn't holding up the end of the game or anything.

There are also victory conditions other then LMS. I don't particulaly like score as a determining factor between empires that are close in power, but the "Quadrant at peace" victory condition is a good one. Because if anyone still thinks they have a shot at winning and aren't in first place they can simply declare war on someone and the game continues.

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is rather offensive.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exactly. It is silly to expect the winner to have to go crush every Last ship and planet on the map.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well I think many (such as myself) might be a bit hesitant to trade or give away that really expensive tech when you know it will eventually be used against you.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I shouldn't refer to cultural icons since this is a worldwide forum. My apologies. I might have spelled his name wrong. He is the host of "A Prarie Home Companion" on National Public Radio in the U.S. where "All the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average"</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOL!
Isn't that supposed to be "All the men are strong, all the women are good looking, and all the children are above average"

Re: Is this gamey?
 

I think that we all will never agree on whether one winner or team winners is better, but we don't need to. What we can all agree on is that it should be stated up fron if team winners will be allowed. Because if one person is playing on the assumption that there will be only one winner, and two people are playing with the assumption that they will be team winners, the single person is going to get stomped almost every time. It's not fair to simply say that "Well he should have got an ally then" because many people don't like playing that way. If you tell them up front there will be team winners they will probably pick another game. If you tell them up front that there will me only one winner the two people can still ally, but they will probably not cooperate quite as closely. They will only help the other guy as much as is neccesary to remove the other empires. Which gives the guy more or less going it alone a more level playing field.

So the moral is state the objectives up front and stick to it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is rather offensive.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would like to publicly apologize to Fyron for my rude comment. Publicly commenting on another forum member's general behavior is extremely bad forum etiquite. It is distracting from the facts at hand and has no place in civilized discussion. Consider myself thuroughly spanked.

[ July 30, 2003, 22:51: Message edited by: teal ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And you will use his tech against him. And you will use your tech and his tech against everyone else. As long as the trade is fair, both of you are better off than if you had not traded.

This point is completely independent from whether team wins are allowed or not. Players who trade will have an advantage over those who do not. Players who trade as much as they can will have an advantage over those who trade in a limited way.

Which means everyone should get into an alliance right away, correct ? Yes, however :

- Alliance-type players assume their alliance will hold until everyone else is eliminated. A clever player may turn on his allies (or create an 'alliance within the alliance') when the non-allied players are almost, but not quite, beaten. Ironically, this tactic is often called 'gamey' by alliance-type players.

- Trades are not always fair. If you are receiving less than you give then it might be better not to trade at all, or at least to find another partner.

My opinion is that full cooperation with my partners, in the long run, beats isolationism and/or backstabbing. But that's just IMO.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

True Erax. I can't disagree with that one bit. The players working together will be at an advantage. Probably not quite as big of an advantage, but still an advantage. But if the allies are not allowed to declare themselves co-winners, you can use that possibility of breaking the alliance early against them as a wedge to try and break up the alliance. It's the classic weapon that small empires can use to survive in a game with larger empires. One of my favorite ways to play actually. My empire stays small so less MM, but I get to feel like I am still a factor in the game and manipulating the other players. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Of course you can't always do it succesfully. It's a skill that takes practice and talent, just like straight up empire building does. But with co-winners it's not even an option. Give me the option of at least trying it and I can deal with being a small empire among big guys. If I only wanted to be the biggest I would make alliances and trade tech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And you will use his tech against him. And you will use your tech and his tech against everyone else. As long as the trade is fair, both of you are better off than if you had not traded.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">True, however, in an alliance game you would benefit from making one sided trades or just gifting tech to your ally. that's the kind of trading I think would stop in a Last man standing game.

[ July 31, 2003, 22:56: Message edited by: DavidG ]