PBW ethics, opinions please.

DavidG · #1 January 16th, 2003, 01:44 AM

To Gozra:

Are you saying you would actually trade your home planet for an empty system???
It sort of sounds like maybe you didn't realize what SamuriProgrammers friend did. He selected Ancient Race, claimed a system he have NEVER been to and then traded it to the AI for his home planet!! Clearly there is a bug on how the AI evaluates the trade value of a system

Generaly I'm of the opinion that if the game allows it it's fair play (the opposition to retro series building really baffles me!) but I think we should avoid taking advantage of really obvious bugs like this. Of course this is just one reason to play PBW all human games.

DavidG · #2 January 16th, 2003, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by capnq:
That was one of my favorite things about the 'blind research' option in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. You only specified the general area of tech you wanted your scientists to focus on, but had no control over what specific tech they'd discover.

Yea that was a really cool feature. Make a nice addition for SEV

MOO2's occasional research breakthrough was neat too.

[ January 15, 2003, 23:46: Message edited by: DavidG ]

geoschmo · #3 January 16th, 2003, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:

quote:
Originally posted by capnq:
That was one of my favorite things about the 'blind research' option in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. You only specified the general area of tech you wanted your scientists to focus on, but had no control over what specific tech they'd discover.

Yea that was a really cool feature. Make a nice addition for SEV

MOO2's occasional research breakthrough was neat too.

That would be cool, but tough to implement I would think without losing much of the modability of SEIV.

Geoschmo

DavidG · #4 January 16th, 2003, 01:53 AM

Now that I've had some time to think about it here is my definition of "gamey"

Taking advantage of an obvious bug in a game that you suspect your opponents are not aware off.

Of course this would then lead to a discussion on what an "obvious bug" is and how you should know what your opponents do or do not know.

DavidG · #5 January 16th, 2003, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
That would be cool, but tough to implement I would think without losing much of the modability of SEIV.

Geoschmo

Do you think?? I would think it would be a 'simple' thing like adding a field to each tech specifying what Category it falls into. Definatly something that would be more an SEV feature rather than a patch I would think

Wardad · #6 January 16th, 2003, 02:04 AM

Is this the Troll thread? Who's winning?

couslee · #7 January 16th, 2003, 03:40 AM

There are already 3 fields. The reason it would not work, is the difference in cost in each tech in that field. In SCAM, the cost of the next tech was based on the number of techs you had previously discovered. Gas giant colonization would have to be the same cost as the armor, or any other in that field, and every turn the cost for every tech in that field would go up. You then would run into level problems. you would have to get all the level 0 techs out of the way before a random level 1 could be chosen as the next tech. Other wise, you might never get troops-0 and have level 5 armor. Blind research was one of the SMAC options I didn't use. It did not always stick to the field of choice either.