Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Gravey, I think your one of the few players who can play the game in your sleep. And if someone ever pulled this crap on you, you would still win because your that good of a player.

Your statement and comments are valid, and I would like to respond to them. So please don't think that I am attacking you, I would never do that.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Common sense often dictates this. Sometimes the line is very thin between a valid tactic and an exploit. The EB exploit for instance can look like a tactic, but is really an exploit giving the player the ability to amass a massive fleet in extremely short amount of time.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What if he doesn't know about all of the bugs, but player X does? Should Player X be an ethical player and tell the host? Or should he remain silent and use the bug to his advantage? Then in lies the dilemma.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, only if player X is caught.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have heard this argument many times. If you know its an exploit, and no one else does, then when you use it, you are cheating regardless if it is listed in the rules or not.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think this goes without saying. Play at your own risk.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would never do that. I have been beaten many times by brilliant players, and a few times by lucky ones. But when I find out that one or two of the players who beat me did so by using and exploit that allowed them to build massive amounts of colony ships within a fraction of the turns it should have, and did this throughout the game with other ships, then ya, I will label them cheaters, because that is exactly what they are.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, if something is cheating, then it's cheating whether or not you get caught. Now that is not to say something is cheating jsut because one person or another says it is. But that is the reason for this topic to begin with.

I will tell everyone this, and please take me seriously. There are ways to cheat on PBW. But there is NO way to cheat that is 100% guaranteed of not getting caught. No matter how well you cover your tracks, you cannot get around the fact that all the game files are stored on the PBW server. I can, and have at times, gone through turn by turn and compared to see if it were possible to legally get form A to B.

The most you can do is make it very difficult for me to catch you. And a good rule of thumb is that the harder it is for me to catch you cheating, the harder I will come down on you when I do catch you. So if you want to continue playing on PBW, don't cheat.

Geoschmo

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sheesh, four pages so far. Gadzooks. DavidG, I agree with this. I hope people will edit the Encyclopedia Malfadorica page here: so we can have a canonical list of what we'd like to include and exclude.

And people can erase from the page what's not an exploit, back and forth until a half-assed consencus is reached. I guess. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not gamey. Anyone -- even an utter newbie like I was the first time I noticed this, during my first ever (solo, btw) game of SE4 *classic*, could ascertain the probable results of building a training facility on each of a planet and BOTH it's two moons, just by reading theLITERAL description.

And then, as I did, test it.

Ergo ... it might not OCCUR to you to do so, or, you mgiht nto FIND a two-moon planet.

So what?

You might also get stuck, early in a game, with nothing but small-and-tiny, mostly-domed colonies. I did, recently, on PBW. Would I call the guy who got luckier, with a couple big breathables within ready range of his HW, a cheater for it?

Hell no.

It might seem contrary to expectations WRT how the facilities work to some, but not to me. IMO, a single training facility represents "the best of the best" in naval academies (etc) on that entire PLANET (or moon).

If there's also a moon, you can have the best-of-the-best THERE, too.

Why shoud having two ultra-close-proximity "elite naval academies" do mroe good than a single academy?

One word: competition. Competitive spirit brings out the best (and worst) in people. Having two entire naval academies, able to form training squadrons and engage in wargames against each other ... each with their own cadet uniforms, own insignia-and-colors for the training vessels, and so on ... could greatly, greatly, enhance the efficacy of the efforts to train those cadets.

However, I personally think a training facility should give a ONE-time benefit to a ship, to a much higher level (say, 5x the facility level), and only upon construction, refit, or un-mothball of the ship ... representing the assignment of a NEW, well-trained crew.

However, SE4 doesn't do that ... more's the pity.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Guess I must not be just anyone, because it never occurred to me to try this multiple training centers option. It seems both counter-productive to the spirit of the training facilities design(Hey, you get an advantage in combat, but here's the catch: you have to keep your ships on hold for X turns to get it)and to gameplay itself. The 'competition' explanation can be reasonable if you (as a member of a game or a host) accept it. However, the training is done at one location by one ship/fleet....so this works only if you have a race that can split into different selves and re-incorporate every turn to incorporate the knowledge of each. By the 'competition' logic, you should be able to use multiple system robotoid facilities/time shrines or even multiple planetary factories to boost resource/research/intel generation. I'm sure it's been tried, but the game has been designed to disallow that option. If you can't build multiple training facilities on one planet to avoid this "over-training" in a sector, it seems to me that multiple planets in one sector shouldn't skirt around this stipulation, which might be murder to code in such a checking process without creating unforseen bugs.

It also never occurred to me to use training facilites and psychic training facilities together. This too seems to hedging at the edge of what's allowable, although that would seem more fair. The benefit of a training center is to boost a ship/fleet skill by 1-3% per turn. A psychic facility can do the same but anywhere in a system. Perhaps that's just how I would like to play, that any benefit comes with a cost.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Well here goes stab II. I was playing a great game long ago in a c-64 galaxy far away. Lords of conquest. I the game you could trade resources for resources. Well I desperatly needed a horse to carry out an attack against an opponet. I traded a fellow player a horse for another horse the key 'Gamey" thing here was I got to pick the place where I could put the horse That I traded for anywhere on the board in any of my territories. Well I put it just right where I needed that horse and a few seconds later I had a new provence. And the player I took it from flew into a rage and accused me of cheating.
So the second definition of gamey is if you think of a clever move first that could be percived as gamey.
In Version 1.67 is it 'gamey' to put a weapons platform on a planet with the talisman with an engine destroying weapon on the platform so that when the enemy fleet attacks and one ship in the fleet has it's engine destroyed the fleet can't move until it is repaired? In other words you can only take one planet per game turn.
(I think it is clever use of your combat resources)
But that tactic can give you a big advantage in a game and it exploited a known bug.(engine destroying weapon in SEIV 1.67)

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Ethics, Cheat, Exploit, Bug, Competative, Things that don't make sence, Limitations.
When all is said and done couldn't the issue be resolved by checking with the game host? I would think that if there is any doubt as to weather a given action was unethical or cheating that the final judge woudl be the game master. That is the way it always was when I played mineatures.
I have not played much PBW so I could be way off base.
Now that I think about it, perhaps I did something I should not have. I once addressed a message to an ally telling him I was doing one thing. I was actualy doing something different but the message was credidble. I then deliberately sent that message to my advesary. So without thinking I may have violated the intended purpose for ingame communications. What do you think?

[ January 11, 2003, 05:24: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Well personally I think you were doing an ok thing if you were playing like a stinking cardassian. But, and I find this true of myself, people tend to have a hard time seperating The SEIV player from the nice cuddly human outside the game. I remember reading in an old Wargaming magizine about the Avalon Hill game diplomacy about the tactics of lying. The Big lie the medium lie and the small lie. It was just part of the game.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Heck, now we aren't gonna lump lying in and call it gamey are we? I lie all the time in PBW games. I've even been known to lie in out of character email communications from time to time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Gryphin, you aren't wrong. The game owner is the final say in PBW games whether these things are cheating. THe only time we get involved is if it's a possible issue of hacking, data file manipulation or something like that. I have at times looked at game files at a game owner request to see if a player is doing a bug exploit. But if it turns out to be true, it's up to him what action to take. I won't ban someone from PBW for that.

Geoschmo

[ January 11, 2003, 05:47: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Gozra I have to admit I was playing more of a "noble" race. That said, I was also fighting a loosing battle for my life. At the time I saw it as no more than a form of mis-information dissemination that you see in fiction. Sadly I don't know if it worked.
Now that I think of it. I did similar things while playing miniatures. On more than one occasion I left out false equipment list and orders to troops. I know some of those worked. I guess you could say I was exploiting a human weakness.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Wow! I would really like to respond to each an every one of the Posts in this thread but even I don't have that kind of patience. I think I'll respond to just a few but let me start by quoting something I wrote many years ago:

"Any organization in need of a Code of Ethics is too far gone to be helped by it."

This community does not need a code of ethics! Just as Canada does not need a gun registry-- the law abiding will be good doobies and register and the crooks will still have their guns. For the most part we are "law-abiding citizens" and guys like Geo (with a little help from general population) will hunt down the "crooks".

Exploits. What is an exploit? I don't really agree with the definition accepted by the community, which is: "A part of the game play that does not conform precisely with the stated rules." The old 100 mine limit problem would fit this definition. The present Temporal weapon problem would not! It is a serious bug.

But as I said, I don't agree that this is the proper definition of an exploit. It is a bug! Albeit minor. I have played many games (dare I say all!) with bugs and you learn to live with them if they aren't game wreckers, and eventually, to take advantage of them. Some are never corrected. Some of them can't be avoided. One good example applying to pre-Gold games is the fact that the lower player number shoots first in any combat. By the current definition, this is an exploit and totally unavoidable until gold corrected it. And if you think thats a small thing, take a look at the remnants of my fleet in "Conquista".

To me an exploit is taking advantage of any part of the game to enhance my chances. When I design my empire, I exploit these characteristics to enhance my game style. I exploit emergency build in concert with empire stats, base design, colonizer design in a way that suits me and maximizes production. I do not leave it on for the full ten turns pumping out colonizers. That doesn't suit me, but I believe my way is better. No one here would say I am cheating in any manner by doing this. Nor would they say it is unethical. It is how you play the game... or at least one way. So if the game is poorly programmed presenting me with a problem and/or opportunity, I handle it as best I can. In fact, I often become a better player because of it. In the game "Conquista" mentioned earlier, when I was able to avoid those nasty warp point battles, I did extraordinarily well, because I was forced to plan and design around an unfortunate bug. In other words, I had to think!

Encyclopedia Malfadorica - PBW Ethics: IMHO there is not one thing in this article that has anything to do with ethics. It is merely a bunch of opinions on the "funnest" way to play the game. Excuse me, but I'll decide that on my own, and join the games that I find "funnest".

I'm still not sure what this EB "exploit" is but I'm beginning to get a glimmer. Let me let you in on a couple more bugs that I have never seen mentioned. Did you know that you can get emergency build to go beyond 10 turns? Without doubt, you can get it to go 11 turns. I found this out entirely by accident. I thought I was going to have to wait for 4 turns of slow build, but surprise, surprise, the ship was built on the 11th turn. And yes I'm quite sure it was 11 turns at E build; even the math agreed. What I'm wondering, is can it go even further? Suppose you have a ship that takes 15 turns at E build?...

The other is the upgrade facilities button. It will upgrade facilities currently under construction. This will not work with ships (it used to in the early Versions) but it still works for facilities. You can have a Monolith 2 with one turn left and upgrade it to Monoith 3 at absolutely no cost. The next turn you will have a Monolith 3 even though you started building a Monolith 2.

from Rextorres:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This I grok!

from Gozra:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That might be me. There are no cheaters on my black list... yet! I haven't found any. The ones that are in there have a lack of consideration and commitment. I have no time for these sorts.

So, is it unethical to exploit a bug? No! It is not! You play the hand you are dealt. Is it unethical to exploit a bug forbidden by the host? Yes! Of course! By joining the game, you have agreed to the rules. To break them is cheating, plain and simple.

Okay, I've rambled on long enough. Who's next?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where is this list? I'd hate to get into a multiplayer game and use one of these on accident.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Well... the list is kinda out-dated, cause I haven't started any games with the 1.78 patch (upgraded, yeah). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Everything in the list is fixed in 1.78 except Retroseries (which isn't a bug anyways http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

I add new ones when I learn of them. The list for Adamant 004 is like this:

No bug exploits allowed:

-exceeding the 100 units per sector limit (this includes satellites and mines). To account for a slight margin of error due to the fact that you cannot directly control the number of units allowed, 105 shall be the absolute limit.

-Using a colony ship as an early tech minesweeper (which will no longer be an issue after the next patch, btw).

-Using drones as early tech minesweepers (which will no longer be an issue after the next patch, btw).

-Retroseries building is not a bug, it is an intended game feature, and so is not prohibited by this rule (ie: it is allowed to be done).

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was only teasing you guys. if i ever got around to becomming involved in a MP game, I am sure I could find out what that exploits are. If nothing else, I would ask the game host. After a number of 3yr SMAC PBEM games, I am still a little soured on the whole idea. Not opposed, and it's fun, yes. but I would have to make sure I like this game enough to make a long commitment. I have already read about the drop-out problems. Had that a lot in SMAC also. I think I know what the exploit is your talking about, and is I am correct, it was generally accepted in SMAC and not gamey at all. But as the original CMN and co-writer of the SMAC PBEM rules, I feel any dis-allowed or frowned-upon tactics should always be agreed upon by the host and all players before the first turn is sent.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Hmm I think I now know that Gamey = a bad thing. Wasn't sure before. It sounds like calling something 'gamey' is just what sore losers do when they are beaten by a tactic they did not know about. I used to play a guy were everytime I won I got accused of using a cheesy rule or tactic. The result was that every new game something else got Banned (ie Tech trade, surrender, red planets, Intel) untill finaly it was suggested that my using Ancient Race was cheating.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

LOL @ ancient race being a cheat.

When life gives you lemmons, eat em. you could have recieved limes instead

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Likewise.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Got time to edit?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah see, I have a real problem with "gamey" -- it supposed to be a game. I suppose that means I'm not roleplaying my bloodthirsty Krill race properly by making a trade alliance. Maybe I dont feel like playing that way?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Now see Arkcon, would a true bloodthirsty race really advertise themselves as such? Wouldn't they list themselves in the Galactic Who's Who as a race of peaceful artists? That way the sucker races would all turn their back and they could pounce them. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Wellll It looks like:
'GAMEY' is not a situation but a state of mind.
I was a bit irritated at a friend when he revealed that upgrading a ship and not upgrading the engines left the ship with it's current fuel load. My first thought was damn I wish I knew that and I got that gamey feeling. But He just knew the game better than I and so NO ONE has come up with a truly 'GAMEY' Situation.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

I think this is the first time I have seen Rambie post. I am in aw. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Explain this please?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Explain this please?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think Fyron's statement is pretty self-explanatory. What is your question about it? Do you disagree?

Geoschmo

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why would it not work this way? When I take my car to the shop to get an oil change or have speakers installed they don't drain the fuel tank. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

AT...

Mothballed retro fitting.

I do hope he does not take that away. As it makes sence.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why would it not work this way? When I take my car to the shop to get an oil change or have speakers installed they don't drain the fuel tank. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are right GEO it should work taht way but when I upgrade I upgrade everything and it was just something I did not notice and being out of fuel after an upgrade is a minor problem I still contend with. I guess I need to pay even closer attention to the game.

[ January 11, 2003, 18:42: Message edited by: Gozra ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is one of those few things where not only do I not think it's an exploit, I can't even understand the position of anyone that does. At least noone that objects to it has done so in amanner I could relate to. Like with the mine and training thing, I personally don't have a problem with them, but I could at least see why someone might. But allowing retrofits of mothballed ships isn't gamey. In fact NOT allowing it WOULD be gamey. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

I am putting up a prize of 10 Galatic credits for anyone coming up with a "gamey" situation that the better than 70% majority can aggree that it is gamey. No rotting flesh stories either. Gold 1.78 only Bugs not allowed.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

I think the definition of 'gamey' really depends on why a person plays a given game in the first place.

Allow me to posit a hypothetical game player, one who plays a given game because they find the 'game universe' to be compelling, for varying reasons. Perhaps they enjoy science fiction-inspired settings, or maybe they have personal interest in the historical perspectives offered by a game, or maybe the fantasy elements really appeal to our hypothetical game player. This type of player will often try to stay true to a particular style of play that they feel is consistent with the spirit in which the game is intended, at least as they perceive it. This is how they enjoy the game, by trying to stay 'in character', as it where.

Let's say another hypothetical player-type is also attracted to the fictional universe in question, but maybe not to the same degree. This person gets greater enjoyment out of the strategic challenges, or empire building, and doesn't balk at the micromanagement required to get the most out of their position in the game. While this player may also have been attracted to the game by the coolness of the science fiction/fantasy/historical/etc theme of the game, what they really enjoy is the down and dirty nuts and bolts of the game system, and the challenge of outplaying their rivals and winning the game. The setting is just an added bonus, making the micromanagement tolerable. After all, who would play SEIV if all the graphics where removed, and it was distilled down to a huge spreadsheet? Not too many people, I think.

Generally speaking, these two types of game players will get along just fine. But where their philosophies overlap there is a bit of a gray area. This gray area is where the term 'gamey' comes into play. A Nuts and Bolts (NaB) player may see absolutely nothing wrong with a particular tactic (I won't get specific because it's open to interpretation), since this tactic is clearly allowed by the rules and doesn't involve obviously nefarious methods like hacking the game/exploiting bugs in the software, etc. The Spirit of the Game (SoG) player, however, may view such a tactic as 'gamey', as it clearly (to them) goes against the implied spirit of the game universe, although it is technically allowed (usually by the limitations of programming a simulation of a huge universe). (By the way, I hope no one objects to my terms, I'm not trying to stereotype anyone.) The SoG's argument would be along the lines of "Your race would never do (insert tactic here), you are playing unrealistically and exploiting the limitations of the medium!" while the NaB's response might be "What are you talking about? I'm not breaking any rules, and I can't believe you are being so anal. It's just a game!" or something to that effect.

Most times, of course, arguments like this never arise, but some tactics eventually come to be viewed with increasing suspicion over time, and will occasionally spawn the 'gamey' debate. Neither side is right or wrong, of course, because they each have their own motivations for playing the game. In a game like chess, which is already distilled down to its tactical essence, this type of debate would never arise. Can you imagine: "Why is your king hiding! That would never happen in the Middle Ages, kings always led their armies into battle!!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Anyway, that's my rambling take on the 'gamey' term. I hope it made at least a little sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

In my opinion, there are certainly exploits that should be avoided because they unbalance the game and make it less interesting and / or fun. I think a common link between 'gamey' exploits would be that the rules or game mechanics allow something that is inconsistent with what is expected.

I would like to tell of an escapade that happened in a pbem game I ran. Before I tell any more details, I would like to say that as soon as someone mentioned that this might be less than sportsmanlike, the player in question ceased this activity immediately. In our conversations, it was obvious that he would have never done it if he thought someone would dissaprove.

In one game we played, this player chose ancient race. This (in and of itself) is fine and I find nothing wrong with it. He then proceeded to trade with computer races. Again, this is fine and I find nothing wrong with it.

What happened next, however, was (IMHO) a problem. He claimed a system he had never been in (OK by itself). He traded it to a computer race for one of their HOME PLANETS! This I had a problem with. There is no way a race would trade one of their HOME planets for an undeveloped system half way across the galaxy.

I am interested in commments from others about this tactic.

I am also interested in continuing the discussion and coming to a consensus as to what is appropriate and what is not.

In my opinon...

If it is a bug that will be corrected it is wrong to exploit it.

If it is a bug that cannot be avoided, the tech should be avoided by agreement.

It it is an exploit of a 'gross inadequacy' of the AI it should be avoided. There is room for debate on what constitutes 'gross inadequacy'.

There are many other 'tactics' that may reduce the playability of the game, but they are unavoidable in many cases.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">WOW!!! It is totally obvious from this that there is a bug in how the game evaluates the value of a system. I hope MM knows about this. I'll be extremely surprised if anyone thinks this is fair play.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Well put Darkhorse.

But one thing, "gamey" can show up in chess. Imagine my irritation
When I was a child, and first learning the game, the first time I learned of "casteling" I got mad because the rules said you only can move one piece per turn, not two! So I called my friend on it, and he explained how that was part of the game. Now, I really got indignant with him when I went to apply the move and was told I couldn't because I had previously moved my King. The conversation really got heated the next game when after I had pieces in place for this "gamey" tactic, he casteled on the queen side, which does not go all the way to the edge, negating my previous piece strategy placement.

Of course, I have since learned to love the move, and the game. (And it didn't ruin our friendship) But it does provide a good example of different views on "gamey"

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I did not know what this was. Fyron explained it to me. And I know better than to argue with the might G. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif So not comment.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Atrocities. ROFL! Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. I had no idea you didn't understand the term. I thought you were objecting to it on some principle.

Darkhorse. What you describe is one of the main reasons the No trade option was added to the game. There are quite a few people that would say playing against the AI period is "exploitive" gamey, because they are so weak. It's not uncommon at all for PBW games to be human only.

Geoschmo

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Oops. After reading a little more, I know what the EB bug is. It was not what I was thinking of before.

In SMAC, one of the exploits that came under scrutiny was the tech accumulation carry over. Or, Leap-froging. It was put on the CMN options list of disallowed tactics. I think something like that would be called for here (I mean the list). Acessable to all, thread debateable prior to game starts.

The rules list was set up like a check list, that was completed by the person making the challange to other players (in this case, the host). that was posted in the thread offering slots. if someone didn't like the rules, then there was no need to request a position. This eliminated the problem that seems apparent here. Most people that view a certain tactic as gamey, is because either they would not use it (so what, personal choices are not gamey), or they did not know about it and other players in the game did. In smac, we found out most things viewed as gamey were of no consequence once everyone knew about it, and if disallowed was stated prior to game start. If a tactic is not disallowed, or specifically allowed, and a player by choice decides to not use it, then any other players that do are NOT cheating.

I will give it a shot.
GAMEY: cheezy, can't believe you did that, ur an arsehole for doing that, I am pissed cause I didn't know about/think of it first.
Example: Using captured "other breathers" to colonize/re-colonize red-dot planets. (some might view this as gamey, don't flame me)

Exploit/Cheat: Using a tactic that allows something in the game to work beyond how the game was designed.
Example: (not a true example) If you figured out a way to re-order the build queue without losing accumulated construction, that would be an exploit/bug. Currently, this is not allowed in-game.
(tho I think that should be allowed/fixed)

And one more quick comment..... WHO gives a flying hoot what people do in a single player game? in SP, there are not any gamey/exploits tactics. the only person you have to please is yourself. If I choose to re-load a game 15 times until I get a combat result in my favor, that is my choice. Provided of course I am not using final scores in a MP competition. After all, in that situation, your not really just in a SP game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

DarkHorse, The "Nuts and Bolts vs Spirit of the Game", Reminds me of the "Letter of the Law vs the Spirit of the Law" debates.
There are times I support "Letter" and times I support "Spirit".
In SEIV terms I guess it means checking with the Game Master / host. There is a drawback to checking with the Host if they are playing. It may reveal a clever tactic / strategy that is not found to be unacceptable. Now you have shown your hand. An example would be when I "accidentaly on purpose" sent misinformaiton to my adversary.

/Ramble
Jay walking is against the law. I do it at 6:30 AM because there is no danger to myself or others. That law is to protect not only me but drivers who could get hurt swerving to avoid me. I don't do it at 8:30 AM on a work day morning because it would likely cause an accident, (and get me injured in the process).
(hope that is a good metaphor / analgy)
/End Ramble

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree completely. While I think 'gamey' might be a gray area that depends on one's perspective, exploitative tactics intended to fleece the inadequate AI are definitely not! I prefer a good challenge from our artificial friends, so even in single player games I try not to exploit anything. Usually, I turn off mines, intel and stellar manipulation, three things I think the AI is weakest at. As far as trades, I don't bother offering any, which solves the problem neatly. That way at least the AIs can trade with each other.

p.s. when I say inadequate AI, I'm not being insulting toward the developer's programming skills; the state of computer AI today just isn't advanced enough to keep up with ever more complex games. Someday I hope to play computer opponents that do a reasonable job of playing like the sneakiest of humans, but we aren't there yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I'm more of a lurker. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I haven't played many multiplayer games yet so I haven't ran into a "gamey" situation.

As for the Mine/Sat thing, that'd be hard to control. I can see restricting a minefield to be set by only one race, so you can't double the mines (200+) and you'd think the mines would see the other races mines and explode anyway.

What about using colonizers as scouts, not just mine sweepers/detectors? Exactly how would a colonizer sweep mines anyway?

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Me either, I consider that a totally valid move. Why couldn't you retro-fit a ship in mothball before putting it back on active duty.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Me either, I consider that a totally valid move. Why couldn't you retro-fit a ship in mothball before putting it back on active duty.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mothball retro fitting?

Is this possible?

Or are you saying you don't want it to be possible? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

"What about using colonizers as scouts, not just mine sweepers/detectors? Exactly how would a colonizer sweep mines anyway?"

In an old patch mine damage wouldn't stack, and would be erased after every mine. This meant a colonizer, with that huge, damage-soaking colony component, could take an infinite amount of hits from small low tech mines and survive.

It worked like so:
Small mine, two 100-damage wareads.
Colony component, 200kt resistance.

Mine warhead one explodes, does 100 damage to colony component. Since the component is still inact, the damage is lost. Mine warheads #2, 3,4,5,6,7..n do the same thing. The colony component absorbs 100n damage, when really it should have been taken out with the second warhead.

Phoenix-D

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

IT is possible. and used by many players.

I do not think it is a 'gamy thing'

I like it

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

What I do not like about retrofitting mothballed ships is that some people exploit it with retroseries builds to avoid part of their costs (the maintenance). Retroseries building should be really expensive, and mothballing can cut down the costs paid if the series is a long one.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Well, one of the advantages to retroseries bldg is that your ship can collect experience while in the retroseries process instead of the ship being in the build que - so strategically it probably wouldn't make sense to mothball anyway.

[ January 12, 2003, 23:00: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Tesco Samoa and Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So, it is possible. And exploitable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Your comments seem to imply that this may be one of the 'grey' areas which may be improper to exploit.

I am just a newbie on this, but my thoughts are there is a difference between unethical conduct and an aspect of the game that may not be possible or practical in real life but is possible in the game.

Like hacking the code or playing two empires in the same game is clearly unethical.

In real life a mothballed ship cannot be upgraded. If you upgrade it, it can no longer be mothballed.

Yet the game allows both to co-exist.

Personally, I do not think it is unethical to exploit something in a game that is impossible in real life.

If we do not like it, we can ask for a code change or declare it illegal for use in a game.

The latter clearly presents some problems as discovery of the infraction will take some time if ever, and the damage has been done to some of the empires.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why exactly? There is absolutely no reason to why it would be necessary to pay a full crew to man a ship at combat readiness while you are ripping out its guts and entirely replacing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then we should also not be flying around between star systems in the game, and should never build a single starship.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why exactly? There is absolutely no reason to why it would be necessary to pay a full crew to man a ship at combat readiness while you are ripping out its guts and entirely replacing.
QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hi Graeme http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Mothball is defined in my dictionary as
1. a ball made formerly of camphor---Oops wrong mothball http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Let's try again
1. To deactivate (as a ship) and prevent deterioration chiefly by dehumidification.
2. To withdraw from use or service and keep in reserve.

My understanding of mothballing is that basically the ship is sealed off. If so, you cannot upgrade a ship and still have it sealed off.

As to paying a crew for being in combat readiness, take the Bismark as an example. It was built, and then IIRC went on sea trials in the Baltic for about a year to train its crew. Only then did it venture into the Atlantic.

The sea trials were important because in its first battle, it sunk the battleship Hood which was the pride of the British fleet and damaged the Prince of Wales.

Pretty good for a novice ship. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So, if we want to be really accurate, I guess we could build the spaceship, and then have the ship hang around the planet for a year while its crew are being trained (to the basic minimum) and only then venture out into deep space.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

I agree. The ship is mothballed and not crewed.

It still takes a turn to unmothball the ship and costs resources.

I just feel it is logical to build tons and tons of ships and if you cannot afford to keep them around mothball them.

A classic example of this would be fighting two different types of races.

Race a is organic and constantly builds ships with organic armor maxed out
Race b is a missle / fighter / psychic race.

You build BB ships with crews and Armor skipping weapons to fight Race A.

You build PDC and Master computer and quick fire DF weapons ships to fight Race B

Your At war with Race A so you moth ball your Race B attack ships and build ships to Race A.

Mean while you have just researched MC 2 so you upgrade your mothballed ships... ANd every time you get an up grade you upgrade those ships.

After a while Race A and you agree on a treaty so you mothball about 75% of your fleet and unmothball 25% of your Race B fleet.

Then you just keep building ships for both fleets, mothballing those you cannot afford to keep around and upgrading them when you need to.

That my friend is how to use the mothball and retrofit to its proper use.

It also allows you to max out your spending.

Warning.

Make sure you have enough resources stored to unmothball ships when you need them. And then some extras to have them go about 4 to 5 turns while continueing to build at current rates.

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

Yes Tesco, I already knew that. That use of retrofitting mothballed ships is not a problem. The problem is when people abuse it with retroseries builds to avoid a big chunk of the costs of the retroseries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

T.S. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I can see your point although I have never tried it.

If you want an instant fleet (well, as instant as is possible), unmothballing and retrofitting will get you a fleet faster than any other method. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

All you need is a lot of ships with repair facilities hanging about and the resources to absorb the additional 50% cost (30% to gut the old component plus 20% to install the new components) as well as the cost of the components themselves.

Very expensive as you say. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But then it may be cheaper than having a smaller fleet hanging around doing nothing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: PBW ethics, opinions please.
 

T.S. I think I may have missed the main thrust of your point.

And that is retrofitting while the ship is mothballed, thus avoiding maintenance costs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif