Is this gamey?

geoschmo · #1 July 27th, 2003, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalph:
And how guilty is Player B for accepting (ie not reporting the incident, but just playing on)?

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 ]

SamuraiProgrammer · #2 July 27th, 2003, 07:19 PM

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.

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!

DavidG · #3 July 27th, 2003, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:
Originally posted by Gandalph:
And how guilty is Player B for accepting (ie not reporting the incident, but just playing on)?

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

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.

geoschmo · #4 July 27th, 2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:
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 so totally liked this point that I quoted it just to make sure everyone read it.

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?"

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.

Geoschmo

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

Fyron · #5 July 27th, 2003, 09:30 PM

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.

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 ]

Slynky · #6 July 27th, 2003, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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. 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.

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.

geoschmo · #7 July 27th, 2003, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
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. 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.

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