|
Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Hello I was just wondering what you guys think of this move my opponent in a PBW game just did. He is in 1st place and his partner in 2nd place is an open slot. So he surrenders to his partner and then next turn gets approved to take over his partners empire. Frankly I think this is basically cheating or at the very least extremly unethical.
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Yeech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
PBW makes no official policy on this sort of thing, as long as it happens in the clear and open. The only behavior will step into and stop is actual cheating where a player is manipulating data files, or playing two empires simultaneously unknown to the other players. It is the game owners responsibility and say as to whether this sort of thing is allowed. There may be some sort of logical game reason for it. For exapmple if it's a team game. However, personally I wouldn't like it either if the game owner allowed something like this without making it perfectly clear to the other players what the deal was beforehand. My suggestion is you take it up with him. If you don't get an answer you like you are free to vote with your feet and find a game with an owner mroe receptive to player input. There are plenty of games to chose from on PBW. Geoschmo PBW Admin Team |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Yep, the surrender thing is pretty yucky. I can see it if discussed ahead of time and the two empires had been allies for a long time anyway, but otherwise, it is dubious. Geo has a good point. This is for fun, so do not stay if they are doing dodgy things in the game.
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Surely there is some background info that explains this. Otherwise this is not a good decision by the game owner at all. Unless, of coarse, he's "on the take"... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Well yea there is some background. After discussing with the game owner and player it seems there was no ill intent so case closed. I'm curious however what everyone thinks of players losing ground in a war and then surrendering to an ally? They friends I play with (not the PBW games) always do this and seem to think it's OK. It bugs the H$%# out of me though especialy if I'm also allied with the player he surrenders to. I think a player should either just quit and let the AI take over or surrender to the player who defeated them. It just seems so unrealistic to me. It would be like the Nazis surrendering to Canada in 1944. All of sudden the Brits, Americans and Russians have to ceasefire or declare war on Canada.
Quote:
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Well, I think that if you have a problem with this, you need to set up either a house rule or withdraw when it happens with one of your games.
If you think about it, it is too unrealistic for a race/nation being beaten badly in a war to 'surrender' (read cry for protection) to a much stronger race - if you then have to fight both combined, isn't this galactic machtpolitick at work? |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
I can understand your not liking it from a game play perspective, but your analogy is flawed. It's actually more like the Nazi's surrendering to Italy, an ally, or at least to Switzerland, a non-alligned nation. Canada was part of the allies in WWII, so the Nazi's surrendering to Canada, would in effect be the same as surrendering to any Allied power, including the US.
Part of the problem is you can't refuse the surrender of an empire. Which would be a good thing to add to the game. If you think about it from a non-game play perspective, it makes sense for a race to surrender to an ally and possibly avoid anialation rather than fight to the death, or surrender to an enemy that is likely to treat the population harshly. It all depends on whether you are looking at the game from a game play perspective, or a role play perspective I guess. That's one of the reaons I highly recomend that the surrender option be turned off for all multiplayer games. It just leave too many doors open for trouble. Geoschmo |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Ya, sounds like the situation is better handled by Protectorate or Subjugation treaties, except that if one player is leaving, he would then have to submit two turns, whereas Surrender allows combining empires.
I agree surrender should require acceptance. (I don't expect the Swiss would have accepted surrender by Nazi Germany.) Surrender of course turns two empires into one, which has both advantages and disadvantages for the new empire formed. It only has one set of traits and characteristics, one research queue, one intel queue, one diplomatic channel, one treaty column, one set of trade relationships, one ship set (except for old ships), and I think fleet experience may be lost. If the empires had trade going between them before, that's lost, so a potential 20% production and resource loss there. On the other hand, the points are all pooled, which can be helpful for some things - mainly it requires less management. PvK |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Ok agreed it is more like the Nazis surrendering to the Swiss but surely this is insanely unrealisitc. Like the Allies would sudenly say 'Woah the Swiss are our friends, let's back off.'
Actaully I guess maybe it just bugs me cause when it's happened it past If I continue the assullt against what is now an ally they complain and whine that I'm too agressive and broke a treaty and no fun to play with. (boo hoo hoo hoo whine whine) :-) I like the idea of having a player have to accept the surrender. I think also it would be good to have the new merged empire 'aquire' all the current treaties of the larger empire. ie if Germany surrenders to the Swiss in 1944 then new empire is still basically Germany with all the existing conflicts still in place. [ May 20, 2002, 18:49: Message edited by: DavidG ] |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Be careful of selective application of your realism criteria. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
The Allies would have been tickled pink to have Germany surrender to the Swiss in WWII. Anything to end the reign of terror of the Nazi's and eliminate them as a military force. Now of course if it weren't really surrender, but just a political manuver to stop the war yet allow them to maintain power over the European nations they conquered, then of course the allies wouldn't have stood for it. But if the Swiss had agreed to something like that it would have demostrated a distinct lack of neutrality and would have been more than enough justification for a declaration of war. It doesn't translate directly into SEIV terms, and trying to force it to doesn't help. I hate discussions of what is or isn't "realistic" in terms of a game like SEIV, but if you insist don't try to apply historical situations to future events when they don't corellate. The Allies in WWII had no desire to "conquer" Germany in the sense that you are trying to conquer your opponent. They were fighting to repel the Nazi's from conquered Europe. The invasion of Germany was to remove the Nazi's from power and to punish them for their actions, and partly to prevent the Soviet Union from occupying Germany. The allies did not intend to keep Germany as part of their "empire" as you are intending. The only way the metaphor is appropriate is if you intend to conquer the enemy, and then allow another player to take over the empire and run it as a peaceful one. Since that's not really the object of the game (And for that matter it's not even possible under the current system) it doesnt' fit the situation. If you think of it from the point of view of the race trying to avoid slavery or anialation as I said in my other post, it's quite "realistic" to assume they would surrender to an ally first. It would actually be suprising if they didn't. If the empire they surendered to is an ally of yours, then insist they turn over the planets and technology that you rightfully earned in battle. If they don't, or if they aren't an ally, then you need to decide if you continue the war against them. If they don't like it or whine that you are too aggresive remind them what the 4X's in "4X Game" stand for. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Geoschmo [ May 20, 2002, 19:33: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Quote:
I think the other players should vote with their feet... and quit. ------------------------------------------------ We live for the WALK, we die for the WALK. Woof! |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Gee I didn't this would turn into an historical discussion. Forget the analogy. My point was that this type of surrender is not really a surrender at all since no miltary force is eliminated. (in fact it becomes stronger) It is just a political manouver. One in which can often unbalance the game.
And yea, hehe, I have remineded by freinds what 4X stands for. Guess the just prefer 3X games. |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
DavidG: I had the same experience that you have... then, never joined again to any PBW game, before be sure that the option to surrender was dissabled.
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
I would like to reply but with a grim demeanor. If the game allows you to do it it's ok. That Tactic can only work once in a game. then you just inform all the other players what happned and The alliance aganist clever tactics is born. As for players who quit and run that bites but, in talking with a new player they were forming up a list of players they liked to play games with and those who are not fun to play with. And I am sure that it coud be arranged to publish it. I personally think it would be not a good thing to do.
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
I would like to reply but with a grim demeanor. If the game allows you to do it it's ok. That Tactic can only work once in a game. then you just inform all the other players what happned and The alliance aganist clever tactics is born. As for players who quit and run that bites but, in talking with a new player they were forming up a list of players they liked to play games with and those who are not fun to play with. And I am sure that it coud be arranged to publish it. I personally think it would be not a good thing to do.
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
I would like to reply but with a grim demeanor. If the game allows you to do it it's ok. That Tactic can only work once in a game. then you just inform all the other players what happned and The alliance aganist clever tactics is born. As for players who quit and run that bites but, in talking with a new player they were forming up a list of players they liked to play games with and those who are not fun to play with. And I am sure that it coud be arranged to publish it. I personally think it would be not a good thing to do.
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
ask them to divy up the spoils amongst the other players, or take and make the defunct empire a computer controled one, OR.... My favorite, Build lots of cloaked Star Destroyers and send them to make diplomatic calls on his most important systems...
That is why it is important to have all rules down before play starts saves hard feelings and other problems. Have you asked or explained your concern to the other player? If so and he says tough, then after I bashed his stars, I'd walk... just some ideas mac |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Well as I mentioned somewhere in this thread the players in the game that prompted my original post agree there was NO evil plot intended (just perhaps a poor desision and a host up too early in the morning :-) ) I'm now just curious what people think of the rule that allows a player to surrender to an ally. Personally I don't like it. I'm thinking perhaps a better way to deal with surrender would be simply remove the surrender button and make it such that a player could only surrender by accepting the demand of another player.
Edited to read 'NO evil plot' Oops. didn't make sense before. Quote:
[ May 21, 2002, 01:13: Message edited by: DavidG ] |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
I also think it is very funny when you do something in a game that no one has thought of before. I have done this and been called a Bas---d, cheat, and other discriptive terms. And caused players to quit and end the game on more than one occasion. So what is ethical and what is not? Would you use that surrender tactic? I had some one in one game sign a partnership aggrement with me with the intent it was a game winning partnership. they broke it and started a suprise war. The only reason they used that tactic was it was tried on them and they collapsed in 4 turns. ( the war continues at this very moment.) So again I believe if the Game allows you to do it then its OK. Note: I did not say it that it is the right or ethical Thing to do. I am for Gentle Beings rules before a game starts.
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
I guess to me, the goal is to play the best game I can. I don't really care if I win or lose. My victory conditions in every game I have played in the past 2 decades has been: "To Have Phun" I look forward to shreading GrowTigga him with my torps. If he surrenders to Mac and his GTW Crusiers, well, "It Suc**s to be me".
Ethics? That is the other guys problem. He has to look himself in the mirror when he shaves. Who does he see? Is he proud of his core values and does he live up to them? |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Quote:
Had the 2nd empire surrendered to the host, it would be tough luck Chuck. OT: From a short story: Young crippled boy enters a game and his computer aids him. Computer "discovers" players have aliases and a hidden resource called money. When a player drops from the game and appears in the obituary, the plot thickens... ------------------------------------------------- We live for the WALK, we die for the WALK. Woof! |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
I amend my quote to say "with in the game evironment." That includes the real world. Is it OK to e-mail outside a game and talk about the game and make deals that affect the game? I know several folk that do with out a second thought. I would also like to point out that surrender is a two edge sword. Some one surrendered to me in a game once and all thos worlds in the empire imediatly(sic) rioted. And a few turns later I my empire went down the tubes because the other empire Cost too much to take over. In a situation like that as host I would ask all the game players if such a manuver(sic) was OK or not. I believe that the hosts main job is to insure all players have fun with a level playing field to start on.
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Surrender should require acceptance from the recipient, and is worth considering to disallow it at all when setting up games.
However, in the case described, where two empires who were both partners use surrender to become one, it's not necessarily an advantage, depending on the circumstances. I already wrote about this earlier today, but a few points: 1. The union empire will be more likely to trigger and stay in MEE status. 2. The union can now only do 12 intel projects instead of 24. 3. The union can't trade with itself anymore, reducing production, research, and intel by up to 20%. 4. The union can only send one diplomatic message to each other empire per turn, instead of two. It also has to have one treaty state with each other empire, instead of being able to have multiple treaty states, which can be taken advantage of in several ways. 5. The union now has half the limit on max ships and units in space for the scenario, compared to what it had as two empires. PvK |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
I had that happen in a pbem game. I was beating a human player and he surrendered to a computer player. I was pissed and told him that it was crap. Since he was not even at war with the computer player. It is a spiteful move. I asked the guy why he did that and the resonse was that it would make the computer harder. So I informed the player that that was the Last PBEM game he plays with me until he cuts that crap out. Hey 100 hours invested into a game.... and it is one of the unwritten rules of any stag. pbem game. Always surrender to those that attack you. If you wish to play another game.
|
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
The question I believe is one of ethics. However, several points need to be addressed before various judgements are made (in my opinion only)
1st, what, if any, were the rules or restrictions upon which the game was originaly set up? a. was this situation addressed prior in anyway 2nd Did the person in question do it maliciously or innocently as part of trying to win the game without meaning any harm? 3Rd What was the reason for the surrender to the other player. Was there something else other then a way to win?? 4th As a host, (in my opinion only) it appears on the surface that he should have at least explained to the other players as to why and what for, as otherwise, no matter how you look at it and whether it was allowed or not, was in poor taste. Was it cheating? If it was not addressed or restricted prior to play, then whether one likes the results or not, it is legal in game turns. If no one said it can't be done then there was no restriction on its usage, tho again it was in poor taste unless there is mitigating circumstances. Therefore, if it was not discussed, restricted, or specifically not allowed prior to starting the game, then its use is legal during the game, again whether one likes or not.. I would discuss it with him and see what his explaination is. If its just his way of trying to win then you learned a lesson in game play...discuss aspects of game prior to playing.. just some ideas mac |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
I think that the real problem here is not that the player surrendered to someone other that than his aggressor, which is a valid tactic depending on the situation, the problem seems to be that he essentially surrendered to himself.
He surrendered to the number two player and then took over that player, possibly controlling more power than he did previously. What should have been a selfless act to preserve the Last vestige of his population was turned into a cheesy manuver to get more power and a fresh start without having to work for it. Surrender is itself an act of defeat, whether it is a reward to a conquoring empire or as a Last ditch attempt to preserve some of your accomplishments by entrusting them to those you would consider a kindred spirit. Whatever form it takes it is an acknowledgement of the fact that you were not strong enough to survive on your own. When this is 'faked' in a craven bid for power it cheapens us all. My melodramatic ramble now comes to an end. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
The main problems I see are if this was a game where victory was based on score (which is a problem in itself); then the issue that the receiving empire does not have to agree; and that it can cause a period of at least one turn of unexpected peace for the enemy, who if he had a state of peace with the recipient, will suddenly not be able to intercept or follow through on attacks, at least for a turn (after which he can choose to declare war on the recipient or not).
AFAIK however, none of these were the case in the example this thread started out about. In which case, as I've explained twice, I don't see this as much of an advantage in general, and I do see it as disadvantageous in several ways. The other cases can cause some problems, like in the "surrendering to the AI" part. Really the attacker should be allowed to keep attacking the target worlds, at least until given a chance to decide whether to declare war on the "new enemy" or not. Having said all that though, there are a couple of related tactics that players should decide whether they are clever and legal or inappropriate (I could go either way, myself): 1) When another empire is mopping up a defeated empire, getting it to surrender to you, even though you weren't really attacking it. 2) When some of your ships or colonies are in danger, gifting them to other empires, to protect them from your enemies. (At least the recipient gets to choose whether to accept or not.) Of course, surrender can simply be disabled during scenario setup. PvK |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
I think some problems might be solved if a surrender proposal had to be accepted by the other empire. Anyway, it would be then identical to a gift/tribute...
Another thing I think could be useful would be allowing the game creator to disable ship trading as well as tech trading. |
Re: Opinions on ethics of this PBW move
Guess its not a question of ethics but a question of how much do you value the time and effort that everyone put into the game?
perhaps? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.