PBW ethics, opinions please.

[DarkHorse]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

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

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

[Rambie]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I think this is the first time I have seen Rambie post. I am in aw.

Yeah, I'm more of a lurker.

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?

[Rambie]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
AT...

Mothballed retro fitting.

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

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.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Rambie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
AT...

Mothballed retro fitting.

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

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.

---

Mothball retro fitting?

Is this possible?

Or are you saying you don't want it to be possible?

[Phoenix-D]

"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

[tesco samoa]

IT is possible. and used by many players.

I do not think it is a 'gamy thing'

I like it

[Fyron]

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.