Is this gamey?
 

This may just be me since this tactic was used against me but is this 'gamey'? One empire is just about to lose his Last planet so an ally gifts him a planet. So of course now this empire is still alive and making a crap load of resources from his treaties with my opposition. Is this just smart team play or is it 'gamey' It seems wrong to me but like I say maybe I'm just pissed because it has been used against me.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

That depends on the type of game. If it is just a normal PBW game, I would say the players that did that should be castigated, but that may just be me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif It is quite gamey to do that IMO.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Think this kind of things should be cleared before start the game... If this is not the case, then IMO is valid and not wrong.
But I understand you. In my case, never join to multiplayer games were the surrender option is allowed.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Its not a surrender... Its the opposite, really. The big empire gifts a planet to the almost-dead empire in order to keep his trading partner alive.
The little guy gets the trade income from the big guy to rebuild a fleet and help out the war effort.

Its like a Terrorist Shell Game.
"This is his Last hideout! We'll bomb it to glass!"
"Oops, he's left and is hiding out in yet another neighbouring country's land"
"Now THIS is his Last hideout! We'll really bomb it to glass and then bomb it some more..."
etc.

Sounds pretty annoying for the person playing the US http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But would make an entertaining story.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Government-in-Exile?

Is it the timing of the gift that makes it gamey? What if it had been 20 turns earlier, still gamey?

Re: Is this gamey?
 

If it had been 20 turns earlier, it is just less gamey. How realistic is it that you could just pawn of whole worlds of people at the drop of a hat? More likely, they would rebel against you and you would have to subjugate them.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

You don't necessarily know that it was a gift... it *might* have been a trade. Tech in exchange for a planet or something.

As for gamey-ness... I don't really think it is unless the game is strictly everyone-for-themselves, or there is a specific house rule against it. And it definitely would not be for team games (unless the rules say first team to lose a player).

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm... do I see two new settings in Happiness.txt?

This Planet Gifted := 200
Planet In Empire Gifted := 40

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well same thing. I think it is the purpose of the gift that bugs me.

MB is right these things should be in the games rules from the start. The problem is of course you don't figure out what these things are untill they happen once.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
If the amount of resources generated by the gifted planet
Is less than the amount of trade resourses
The gift receiver gets
Then
The gifting empire receives an “unrealistic” benefit from gifting the planet.

I feel it should not be allowed. To balance things in this case it seems like the gift receiver should break ties or abandon the planet.

I would have to say it is gamey.

Disclamer:
I don’t PBW so some would say
1) I am not qualfyed to respond
2) I am unbiased
3) Both

[ July 25, 2003, 13:07: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You forgot the BIG one. All those extra resources from the trade deals.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Except that the only one getting any benefit from those trade deals is the player being gifted the planet. Their economy is so small that their trade partners won't even notice if they are gone. And while the income from trade will allow the refugee player to remain in the game, it won't really allow them to be a factor in the game. So on balance I think it's really a non issue.

The only tangible benefit worth mentioning really is the extra research queue. And that I believe is not that significant. By the time this shell game is likely to be attempted the game will ahve reached the point where an empire doing research soley with research points recieved in trade is going to slow the alliance down as much as help it.

The only time I would call it gamey is if the game has some sort of specific victory conditions having to do with that player being eliminated, like the Survivor tournament or the Paranoia game. Other then that it's really not a issue for me.

So the player is still alive in the game, they aren't a factor in the game anymore. Move on to bigger fish.

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You forgot the BIG one. All those extra resources from the trade deals.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Except that the only one getting any benefit from those trade deals is the player being gifted the planet. Their economy is so small that their trade partners won't even notice if they are gone. And while the income from trade will allow the refugee player to remain in the game, it won't really allow them to be a factor in the game. So on balance I think it's really a non issue.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Assuming the player is keeping all those resources for himself then you are quite correct. What if, however, he is gifting resources back to the player who gifted the planet?

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well that's kind of a convoluted method of resource procurement. If I found someone going through all that trouble in a game to get a measely 50K minerals every turn I would be more concerned about what other shenanigans they were up to. In that case the minerals themselves would be less of a problem themselves and more of a symptom of a general lack of sportsmanship. I would not like to play with them again, or their co-conspirator.

I have no trouble whatsoever with players helping each other out in games. But when one is doing so to the absolute exclusion of his own empire and getting nothing in return, as in this case of gifting away all his trade income instead of using it to rebuild his empire, then that isn't gamey. It's cheating.

Geoschmo

[ July 25, 2003, 13:51: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Well, actually, assuming research has been passed, it doesn't even have to stop at gifting back the resources...the person could build a ship at his shipyard and gift a built ship. Even better.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Well, I still don't think the gifting of the planet itself is a problem. I think it all comes down to what the intent behind the gifting of the planet is. If it is to get around some victory condition that depends on a players elimination then obviously it is wrong. If it is to make possible some convoluted scheme to gain for the gifting player additional resources, research, ships, etc. out of ether then I think it is also clearly wrong.

If on the other hand it's merely a way to keep a friend in the game and he intends to try and legitmatly rebuild his empire, or if it's a matter of saving a weaker empire and maybe having them become a useful ally later in the game (The fable of the mouse and the lion anyone? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) AND it is not expresslly forbidden in the pre-game conditions I would not have a problem with it.

Geoschmo

[ July 25, 2003, 14:29: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Geo said it first, (and better) but since I prepared it:

Seems like it comes down to
Intent
Execution
If the recieving player keeps and uses the resources then it seems fair. Yes they can using the Trade Resources create a ship every two to four turns. If this were a specialty ship such as a warp opener / star buster / mine sweeper / cloked spy ship etc… it could have a impact on the game.
Perhaps the two sides need to reach an agreement on what the recieving player can and cannot do.
Some items for consideration are:
Intel
Research
Specialty Ships

Re: Is this gamey?
 

As pointed out earlier, the benefits of this move may be overestimated. The bonus produced by the arrangement is a drop in the ocean, and the empire giving the planet has foregone a chunk of resources.

It may be frustrating for you, but it is not gamey. I have seen this move many times, and mostly, I think that it is to keep a player in the game so they can continue to have some kind of impact for a bit.

For all intent and puropse, they aren't able to really do much with one planet, so it does not bother me at all. Their expansion will be at the cost of their allies. There is only so much space in the quadrant, and you have made progress in a forward direction.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually I think it is likely the player with one planet is generating as much as 50% of the resources of my 3rd place empire due to treaties.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Without knowing all the details, it's not necessarily a drop in the bucket. IF the "little player" is allied to 2 other empires who each have 200,000 in research and 400,000 in resource generation, the treaty will generate (varies according to empire settings) a chunk of research (to be put to use on SOMETHING) and a LOT more resources that could be gifted back to each empire than the gifted planet could EVER pruduce (assuming it was just a 1, 2, or 3-fac planet and not some huge breathable).

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was just an example, of things that I want to clear before join a game (really make me angry when one empire surrender to their ally).
If I don't asked about questions like this, then, my opinion is that will be forced to accept anything...
For things like this, was discussed before, if would be good to have some standard "house rules" to play in PBW or not...

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, points taken. But still I think the idea of gaminess should reflect the intention behind the planet gift and not the act of the gift itself. If the one planet empire living on the trade and generosity of his allies is going to remain an active participant in the game, and attempt to rebuild his empire, build a military, and be some kind of a factor I don't have an issue with it. If he is just acting as an offshore account creating wealth and or producing ships for the allies then it's what I would consider gamey or even outright cheating depending on the severity.

However it is an interesting point to consider. Perhaps we should seek a change in the next patch to rectify this. I am thinking a good solution would be an artificial cap on trade income. Maybe make it a percentage of your own empires income. I suggest 100% by default. So what you would get is you cannot receive more then 100% of your own empire income in trade with another empire regardless of their size and the current percentage of trade. So you could still in effect double your economy through trade with one empire, or quadrouple it with four allies etc. But you couldn't make an obscene amount of resources off you huge allies and be producing nothing of your own.

This percentage could be put in settings.txt so people could change it for mods if they want, up or down.

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If team victories are allowed in that game, then you could argue that the empire is indeed getting something in return.

And I think calling it cheating is going a little too far in any case. That said, your suggestion on how to prevent it from happening (trade amount cannot surpass what you generate yourself) seems like a great idea.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That may be true. I tend to do that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But it sure stinks. The idea of a team game I think is one in which all the players try their best and at the same time help each other out and cooperate against the other team. But this type of thing isn't that at all. It's one player who isn't even trying in the game and the only purpose they serve is as an artificial resource generator for the other players on his team. If this isn't a clear violation of the letter, it's at least one of the spirit of it.

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

This whole "gifting resources back thing" seems like a really difficult thing to do. Gifted resources come from your storage, IIRC. So that one planet must designate a significant portion of it's precious space to storage.

And so what if they get a research bonus? It will not compare with an empire's research. Their progress will be quite slow.

As for incoming resources, what good are they when you only have one yard?

Besides, if it is an intel game, you can just crucify them with Communications mimic and other attacks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, you have 50K storage by default. Depending on your situation that could be considered an insignificant amount, or not.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, you have 50K storage by default. Depending on your situation that could be considered an insignificant amount, or not.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hehe, I don't know about the rest of you, but in most of my games, I certainly have wished for another 20 or 30k of minerals (or rads or whatever) per turn... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ...to keep my fleet in the positive.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

The incredible amount of trade income available to a single planet empire is the only thing makes this gamey.

I don't think it is gamey to make a gift and expect gifts back. That is simply the easiest way to execute a long term trade agreement. I sell you one planet and you pay me back with interest over 30 turns. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Is this gamey?
 

It's pretty telling that no one has yet mentioned the "subjugation" or "protectorate" treaty type features in this discussion.

Seems like those are interesting features which are underdeveloped to the point that no one ever considers using them, but instead use Surrender or the sort of procedure described here. If the features were better developed and enforced in the game mechanics, it could change a common and somewhat questionable situation into a more interesting one.

A trade limit feature is a good idea.

Gifting should have some more game program support for limits, too.

PvK

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Difficult?? how so? In this particular game (which BTW I'm 100% sure this type of gifting is NOT going on) 50k on minerals per turn would be quite significant. If he chose to build a couple storage facilities on the planet I think the gifts could approach 150-200k per turn which would almost equal my entire empires output http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif . (and no Intel is not turned on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well same thing. I think it is the purpose of the gift that bugs me.

MB is right these things should be in the games rules from the start. The problem is of course you don't figure out what these things are untill they happen once.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, everytime I hear one of these questions it seems someone says it should have been clearly stated in the game. Sheeesh! If we had to start setting up games with boilerplate conditions all the time, the next excuse would be, "Well,there was just so much 'small print', I didn't feel like reading all of it."

Personally speaking, it's one thing for someone to work within the rules and do something "gamey" (I don't care for it much but, hey, at least the rules and game permit it) but it's an entirely different thing when someone discovers a flaw in the game and uses it.

[ July 25, 2003, 12:23: Message edited by: Slynky ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Gamey – Seems that way but is it a “ bad gamey”
The net results are:
1) It keeps what may be a personal friend in the game
2) Allows an extra research que for the alliance

What are the other results?

Re: Is this gamey?
 

ok, theoretical situation:

with just three allies, that could be 60% of there average resources.

with trade-back, an increase for each of them of 20%, without adding a trading partner. so the resources each would get would be equal to having a funtioning trading partner. 20% sounds small, but i don't think it is.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You forgot the BIG one. All those extra resources from the trade deals.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

One counter-argument is that this could represent the effect of refugees, dissidents and underground resistance - things which aren't directly represented, but could abstractly be through this trade mechanic.

PvK

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Gamey? My goodness people, I do believe I could make a case for every feature of the game to be gamey.

It is gamey to:

use emergency build when there is no emergency
use retro-series building
NOT continue moving into a new and unknown system
be able to move the same number of sectors on the diagonal as on the horizontal or vertical
only be able to have 12 intel projects at one time (research too!)
bump up pop. on a planet by continually taking pop. from its moons
be able to move a freshly captured planet to jubilant on the turn

Well, you get the idea.

Until these types of games are so smoothed out as to be indistinguishable from analog, they will always be gamey.

I'm currently in a game where I am doing quite well. Two of my opponents have been so trod upon by my forces, that most of their planets must be rioting, but they continue to pour intel attacks on me simply because they still have viable partners. And its impossible to end this annoyance. Their planets are spread all over creation; borders are non-existant within their partnership. Whether by design or brotherly love, I don't know... and really don't care. Not because I think I can beat them anyway, but because I always go into a game expecting the worst and expecting some new wrinkle I never thought of. If it was the SOS every game, I wouldn't bother playing. Its things like this that keep the game fresh and new to me.

In-game rules are great; they can add a new wrinkle to game all by themselves. But if it ain't in those rules and isn't a cheat, its fine with me.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Using normal game rules to your advantage is not gamey, unless you are exploiting an obvious bug. A few things are widely considered unwanted, and should be regulated in the game setup - easiest way to do to avoid misunderstandings and discussions like this.

But there is a clear line crossed if you totally stop playing for yourself, and only participate to give everything you have to another player. This is nearly the same as if someone would join a game twice unter two different names, and THIS is clearly not "gamey" but plain and simple cheating.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

And on a similar note, something I have seen too much of recently. Player A decides they don't want to play anymore, so they surrender to Player B. I think this is why many game owners disallow surrender in their games. Player A just does not seem to understand, or they don't care, that the immediate doubling of one empire in the game is a total disadvantage to the rest of the players who are working hard to better their empires legally. And how guilty is Player B for accepting (ie not reporting the incident, but just playing on)?

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, like so much else in this discussion it totally depends on the situation. If B has been in a conflict with A and once B gets a clear advantage surenders rather then fight to the death, I don't think B has any responsibility to notify anyone and wouldn't think negativly of them if they simply played on.

If A has a viable empire and is simply tired of playing the game though that's different.

Geoschmo

[ July 27, 2003, 18:17: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

A couple of comments...

It has been mentioned that it is unrealistic for the trade income for a planet to be larger than its gross production without trade. I don't actually have a problem with this on the grounds that that planet might have beaches covered in diamonds instead of sand. Or streets paved with dilithium. Or any other item you might think of.

In fact, the sand on our beaches might be ridiculously priceless to them! Who Knows.

Bu seriously, on the subject of 'gamey' tactics. It is really difficult to split the hairs between gamey and non gamey. There are, however some guidelines. Here are some ideas.

INSECT LOVERS FORBIDDEN

First, it is inappropriate to take advantage of a bug in the game. Of course, some people disagree about what is a bug and what is a feature, so it is best to list what bugs can be exploited and have a gentleman's agreement not to exploit them.

NO ABUSING THE ABBOS

Second, it is inappropriate to take advantage of the AI. This one is even harder to define. It is my opinion, that it is best to not even have AI in a multiplayer game. However, sometimes it is advocated by some of the players and must be dealt with. If you do, you need to be sure and turn off surrender. There are too many ways to pump up your score and make them surrender. Also, we play with an agreement that you may not offer a trade to the AI other than technology.

I have seen some rather spectacular AI exploits involving claiming a system you can't control and trading the rights to that systme for an AI homeworld. In defense of the person who did this, their opinion was 'everyone can do this, I might as well also'. I believe that person honestly felt that way and I am not sure I can argue with it. This is at the root of having these discussions. We want to define what is right and wrong so we will do everything everyone else will do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE

I have tried to have an opinion about the 'gaminess' of something by asking myself 'Would an empire do this if this were reality?' Again, this quickly gets into a real gray area. One simple way of accomplishing this is to play with the rule that there can only be one winner. This means that there are no shared victories and no points for second place.

I'LL SHOW YOU

I have played games (this and others) in which someone always felt it was their duty to 'even the field' as they were drummed out of the game. If you are about to be conquered by a player and you try to give what is left of your empire to someone else, you have to ask yourself if this is realistic. Would an empire gift its possessions to someone else when there was any hope? If there is value to the gift, is there truly no hope?

Hope I didn't bore you.

Have a great day!

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, like so much else in this discussion it totally depends on the situation. If B has been in a conflict with A and once B gets a clear advantage surenders rather then fight to the death, I don't think B has any responsibility to notify anyone and wouldn't think negativly of them if they simply played on.

If A has a viable empire and is simply tired of playing the game though that's different.

Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd agree with this. I thing the reason so many games ban surrender (at least it is the reason I'li ban it in my games) is to stop a player from surrendering to an ally. I find that really gamey. And yea I've heard the arguments suggesting this is OK and realistic but I don't buy them.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I so totally liked this point that I quoted it just to make sure everyone read it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I am a pretty laid back person and am not quick to jump to conclusions that someone is cheating or define something they are doing as gamey. I love the interaction between empires in SE4 and the political side fo the game is one of my favorite parts of it. But to me that TOTALLY depends on there only being ultimatly one winner. Everytime I get in a game and first person I meet wants to set up a cooperative tech trading schedule the only thing that is going through my mind is, "But I am going to have to kill you eventually. Why do I want to make you stronger?" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I have had more games ruined over a couple of the players deciding after the start that team victory is acceptable just because I didn't specifically mark it as forbidden. To me it was always assumed that a game with Last man standing as the in game victory condition did not have a team victroy as an option unless it was specifically mentioned. I have come to the realization I am not neccesarily in the majority on that however and always specifically mention it now in the game settings.

But still so much of the exploits and what we call gamey would be eliminated if people would play under the assumption that anything they give up in a trade can and will be used against them in the game eventually. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 27, 2003, 19:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Geo, if the Last remaining players want a team victory, there is nothing you can do to stop them. They just have to say "we won" and quit the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Why would you want to have to turn on your ally that you have been working with closely for the whole game? It makes no sense to force that unless the game is specifically set up that way. Otherwise, there is no reason to ever think you will have to turn on your ally.

[ July 27, 2003, 20:32: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If the game is "Last man standing", I will form alliances and make sure everyone understands that when I make agreements with them. I also realize that, perhaps, if one of "us" makes it to be the Last man standing, and we have to "part our ways" and duke it out, I know I (all of us) contributed to the winner...enabling him to beat us. To me, I feel a part of his victory. In the 1st round of the Tourney, I gave credit to Mark Pash for helping me be the Last man standing. I'd hope I'd get some mention if a partnership I was in helped someone else become the Last man standing.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, I am not going to waste more time going around and around on this issue with you. You and I have done so for this particualr one ad nauseum in the forum and offline conversations. You and I will never agree on it, but whether or not we do is totally irrelevant.

I have acknowledged that everyone else does not necesarily hold the same assumption about the issue that I do and will make it explicitly clear in the game settings in my future games, and will recomend everyone else do that too. If someone in one of my games disregards it, there is I can do the same thing we all can for anyone that breaks any sort of "gentleman's agreement" rules. I can refuse to play with them or allow them in any of my future games.

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is how I treat it as well. Personally for me a non-team game is a waste of time if there is no winner. That doesn't mean I have a compulsion to always be the winner. Quite the opposite actually. To me a person who insists on team victory is one that cannot abide the thought of not being able to win and therefore must change the rules and declare themselves "co-winners". I myself have no problem coming in second, or third, or even Last. (It's a good thing too considering my record. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )But I want to know where I place.

What I have done in several games that have seemed to drag on is agree to stage an artifical ending. Like a showdown at the OK corral my allies and I will gather our remaining forces in a central location and have at one another until only one is remaining. Other times we have simply called the game and declared one person the winner. Of course in those cases my allies are like-minded individuals not obsesed with not losing. But almost without exception it is at a point in the game when the eventual winner is pretty much understood. The only question remaining is how long till they can erradicate the others in the game.

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

Posted by Geoschmo:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And therein lies the truth about "team" victories. I have never seen a partnership where the partners are reasonably equal in strength. One member always seem to be way out in front of the rest, and he is the true victor. Even though its never stated, everyone knows this and its just the BMOC being gracious (and he probably has a monster empire that is a b**** to manage and doesn't want to go through the laborious end game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Is this gamey?
 

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:
Everytime I get in a game and first person I meet wants to set up a cooperative tech trading schedule the only thing that is going through my mind is, "But I am going to have to kill you eventually. Why do I want to make you stronger?" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Is this gamey? As a Newb it seems to be the very standard must do early strategy (unless specifically ruled out). If you dont trade someone else will - but I guess that is not much of a justification. But it is hard seeing two other empires obviously doing a research plan and trade and hence getting double (or triple for the tri-partite pacts) your tech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Oops - sorry Geo about the quote thing - thought i did it right... just doesn't look like the others.

[ July 29, 2003, 06:32: Message edited by: Joachim ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't have a problem with a little wheeling and dealing. But when it gets to the point where you have two or three empires and one is researching ships, one is researching weapons and one is researching shields and all trading what each of them gets, I have a problem.

First of all it's incredibly tedious and boring to me to do this. Secondly as I said before it takes the real diplomacy out of the game for me, which is one of my favorite parts. Of course I pay a price for my lack of conformity. It is not uncommon at all for me to be seriously behind in tech by turn 40 in a game. But that is my "reward" for playing the game on my terms. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

One option, and one that has become fairly common, is to outright ban tech gifts and trading. This to me is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As I do think a little trading can add spice to the game. It's just taken to the extreme it gets to be what I would call gamey. Of course that's a totaly subjective definition and not much use to anyone. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I totally agree. And not only takes diplomacy out of the game, but also strategy and variety - no need to ponder what to research next if you have everything covered by your allies.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Other method: I don't join any game with tech trading enabled. Ship tech trading is worse enough, but at least not that easy. I don't think that is limiting the game too much.

[ July 29, 2003, 14:15: Message edited by: Roanon ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

The problem is, analysis is so powerful and easy that limiting to ship trading doesn't slow it down all that much, except for the techs which can't be put on a ship.

PvK