Gamey Tactics and Bug Exploits Thread Talk

tesco samoa · #1 July 28th, 2003, 04:17 AM

2. Building multiple training facilities on each planet in a sector (moons) to multiply the training rate.
disagree
3. Retroseries building.
disagree
7. Surrendering to the empire attacking you.
disagree ( depends on rules )
8. Intelligence projects.
disagree ( depends on rules )
9. Gifting/trading planets.
disagree ( depends on rules )
10. Gifting a planet for the primary purpose of keeping an another player alive.
disagree ( depends on rules and the eventual outcome of the agreement )
11. Tech sharing.
disagree ( depends on rules )
12. Gifting/trading population.disagree ( depends on rules )
13. Gifting/trading colony techs.
disagree ( depends on rules )
14. Min/maxing empire setup.
disagree ( depends on rules )
15. Allies laying mines in the same sector to get more than 100 mines in it.
disagree ( depends on rules )
16. Turtling yourself into a corner using Warp Point closers and System Gravitational Shields.
disagree ( depends on rules and how long they do it for)

Bah

geoschmo · #2 July 28th, 2003, 05:05 AM

Tesco, I am not sure what the point of your initial post is. Most of the items you have marked as "Depends on Rules". Does that mean you only think they are wrong to do if they are specifically mentioned by the game owner? If that is what you mean, that is exactly the reason Fyron included them in the list in the other thread. It's not intended to be a declarative list of things that are gamey. It's intended to be a list of things that are considered gamey by some people so the game owner would be advised to mention specifically at game setup if they are to be allowed. It's supposed to be a list of things to discuss prior to the game so that the game owner doesn't find himself in a situation after someone has done it in the game. New game owners may not know about all these possible issues, or anyone could simply forget one or two. Or worst of all the game owner could be aware of them but make an assumption that everyone thinks it is or isn't gamey and expect everyone else to think likewise. Using this list can help avoid those bad situations.

Geoschmo

[ July 28, 2003, 04:10: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron · #3 July 29th, 2003, 12:03 AM

PVK:

Quote:

How about ramming?

What does ramming have to do with gameyness?

tesco samoa · #4 July 29th, 2003, 03:04 AM

geo

Phoenix-D · #5 July 29th, 2003, 03:15 AM

"What does ramming have to do with gameyness?"

It has nothing to do with speed, it doesn't miss, you can ram entire -stacks- of fighters..stuff like that.

oleg · #6 July 29th, 2003, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"What does ramming have to do with gameyness?"

It has nothing to do with speed, it doesn't miss, you can ram entire -stacks- of fighters..stuff like that.

But you can not ram fighters in simultaneous turn games. And for solo games, there is no such thing as a "gamey"

PvK · #7 July 29th, 2003, 04:46 AM

Ramming can be seen as extremely gamey, depending on whether players are more interested in things making sense, or more interested in gameplay.

For competetive gameplay, it is a sort-of-balanced option for ship designs to deal with superior enemies. It's kind of buggy, though.

From a "making sense" standpoint, I'd say it's utter nonsense. It doesn't make any sense that if one fleet is incapable of hitting an enemy with a weapon at range 1 (or zero), that they should have a 100% chance to ram the enemy. This is especially true considering the ship speeds, weapon ranges, "I go, you go" movement sequencing, and the need to rely on the AI during PBEM/PBW play.

Plenty of gamey objections. It's a crude game mechanic, with many dubious results.

In these ways, it seems that some players might prefer to play with a house rule not to include ramming, so it would warrant a place on the list.

PvK

Cirvol · #8 July 29th, 2003, 04:53 AM

me and a few others have talked about the real problem with se4 gold remaining...

initiative...

currently, going first in battle is a HUGE advantage since most of the time you end up withing weapons range right away, esp in big battles

currently, there seems to be no way to predict who goes first -- it really should be based on ship speed imho and it should be 'staggered'... ie, fastest ships first, regardless of 'turn'...

ie, my speed 10 ships go first, then your 9's, then my 8's, (and your 8's, interleaved ideally), then my 7's... blah blah

consequence is that ramming tactic can really beat superior forces if they get to go first... which is just plain wrong

fix initiative and then ramming is perfectly fine imho

please get aaron to patch this, it really is the most glaring balance issue in se4gold today imho

geoschmo · #9 July 29th, 2003, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cirvol:
fix initiative and then ramming is perfectly fine imho

please get aaron to patch this, it really is the most glaring balance issue in se4gold today imho

While I can't disagree with you one bit, any sort of initiative system improvements are likely to be fairly complex changes and extremely unlikely during the remaining life of SE4. It's something that would require pretty much a rewrite, not so much a patch. However, I have high hopes that SE5 will have big improvements in that area particularly.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa · #10 July 29th, 2003, 05:44 AM

yea... i do not mind ships going first... but i think that speed along does not dictate which ship fires first.

You would think that most ships that are equal would all fire at the same time ( unless surprised )

So perhaps you have initivitive on weapons ( and then bonuses due to experience , computers )and minuses on ( surprise , damage , morale )

That way if 2 ships meet and one is destroyed ( perhaps they got their weapons off )

Hmmm oppertunity fire so if ship a moves within range of b weapons then b fires on the other players turn.... ( mind you they will not be able to fire on their turn as they used the weapon ... pretend real time )