PBW ethics, opinions please. - Page 8

Atrocities · #71 January 11th, 2003, 06:00 PM

I think this is the first time I have seen Rambie post. I am in aw.

Quote:

-Retroseries building is not a bug, it is an intended game feature, and so is not prohibited by this rule (ie: it is allowed to be done).

Explain this please?

geoschmo · #72 January 11th, 2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:

quote:
-Retroseries building is not a bug, it is an intended game feature, and so is not prohibited by this rule (ie: it is allowed to be done).

Explain this please?

I think Fyron's statement is pretty self-explanatory. What is your question about it? Do you disagree?

Geoschmo

geoschmo · #73 January 11th, 2003, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gozra:
Wellll It looks like:
'GAMEY' is not a situation but a state of mind.
I was a bit irritated at a friend when he revealed that upgrading a ship and not upgrading the engines left the ship with it's current fuel load. My first thought was damn I wish I knew that and I got that gamey feeling. But He just knew the game better than I and so NO ONE has come up with a truly 'GAMEY' Situation.

Why would it not work this way? When I take my car to the shop to get an oil change or have speakers installed they don't drain the fuel tank.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa · #74 January 11th, 2003, 07:11 PM

AT...

Mothballed retro fitting.

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

Gozra · #75 January 11th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:
Originally posted by Gozra:
Wellll It looks like:
'GAMEY' is not a situation but a state of mind.
I was a bit irritated at a friend when he revealed that upgrading a ship and not upgrading the engines left the ship with it's current fuel load. My first thought was damn I wish I knew that and I got that gamey feeling. But He just knew the game better than I and so NO ONE has come up with a truly 'GAMEY' Situation.

Why would it not work this way? When I take my car to the shop to get an oil change or have speakers installed they don't drain the fuel tank.

Geoschmo

You are right GEO it should work taht way but when I upgrade I upgrade everything and it was just something I did not notice and being out of fuel after an upgrade is a minor problem I still contend with. I guess I need to pay even closer attention to the game.

[ January 11, 2003, 18:42: Message edited by: Gozra ]

geoschmo · #76 January 11th, 2003, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
AT...

Mothballed retro fitting.

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

This is one of those few things where not only do I not think it's an exploit, I can't even understand the position of anyone that does. At least noone that objects to it has done so in amanner I could relate to. Like with the mine and training thing, I personally don't have a problem with them, but I could at least see why someone might. But allowing retrofits of mothballed ships isn't gamey. In fact NOT allowing it WOULD be gamey.

Geoschmo

Gozra · #77 January 11th, 2003, 08:46 PM

I am putting up a prize of 10 Galatic credits for anyone coming up with a "gamey" situation that the better than 70% majority can aggree that it is gamey. No rotting flesh stories either. Gold 1.78 only Bugs not allowed.

DarkHorse · #78 January 11th, 2003, 10:07 PM

I think the definition of 'gamey' really depends on why a person plays a given game in the first place.

Allow me to posit a hypothetical game player, one who plays a given game because they find the 'game universe' to be compelling, for varying reasons. Perhaps they enjoy science fiction-inspired settings, or maybe they have personal interest in the historical perspectives offered by a game, or maybe the fantasy elements really appeal to our hypothetical game player. This type of player will often try to stay true to a particular style of play that they feel is consistent with the spirit in which the game is intended, at least as they perceive it. This is how they enjoy the game, by trying to stay 'in character', as it where.

Let's say another hypothetical player-type is also attracted to the fictional universe in question, but maybe not to the same degree. This person gets greater enjoyment out of the strategic challenges, or empire building, and doesn't balk at the micromanagement required to get the most out of their position in the game. While this player may also have been attracted to the game by the coolness of the science fiction/fantasy/historical/etc theme of the game, what they really enjoy is the down and dirty nuts and bolts of the game system, and the challenge of outplaying their rivals and winning the game. The setting is just an added bonus, making the micromanagement tolerable. After all, who would play SEIV if all the graphics where removed, and it was distilled down to a huge spreadsheet? Not too many people, I think.

Generally speaking, these two types of game players will get along just fine. But where their philosophies overlap there is a bit of a gray area. This gray area is where the term 'gamey' comes into play. A Nuts and Bolts (NaB) player may see absolutely nothing wrong with a particular tactic (I won't get specific because it's open to interpretation), since this tactic is clearly allowed by the rules and doesn't involve obviously nefarious methods like hacking the game/exploiting bugs in the software, etc. The Spirit of the Game (SoG) player, however, may view such a tactic as 'gamey', as it clearly (to them) goes against the implied spirit of the game universe, although it is technically allowed (usually by the limitations of programming a simulation of a huge universe). (By the way, I hope no one objects to my terms, I'm not trying to stereotype anyone.) The SoG's argument would be along the lines of "Your race would never do (insert tactic here), you are playing unrealistically and exploiting the limitations of the medium!" while the NaB's response might be "What are you talking about? I'm not breaking any rules, and I can't believe you are being so anal. It's just a game!" or something to that effect.

Most times, of course, arguments like this never arise, but some tactics eventually come to be viewed with increasing suspicion over time, and will occasionally spawn the 'gamey' debate. Neither side is right or wrong, of course, because they each have their own motivations for playing the game. In a game like chess, which is already distilled down to its tactical essence, this type of debate would never arise. Can you imagine: "Why is your king hiding! That would never happen in the Middle Ages, kings always led their armies into battle!!"

Anyway, that's my rambling take on the 'gamey' term. I hope it made at least a little sense.

SamuraiProgrammer · #79 January 12th, 2003, 12:03 AM

In my opinion, there are certainly exploits that should be avoided because they unbalance the game and make it less interesting and / or fun. I think a common link between 'gamey' exploits would be that the rules or game mechanics allow something that is inconsistent with what is expected.

I would like to tell of an escapade that happened in a pbem game I ran. Before I tell any more details, I would like to say that as soon as someone mentioned that this might be less than sportsmanlike, the player in question ceased this activity immediately. In our conversations, it was obvious that he would have never done it if he thought someone would dissaprove.

In one game we played, this player chose ancient race. This (in and of itself) is fine and I find nothing wrong with it. He then proceeded to trade with computer races. Again, this is fine and I find nothing wrong with it.

What happened next, however, was (IMHO) a problem. He claimed a system he had never been in (OK by itself). He traded it to a computer race for one of their HOME PLANETS! This I had a problem with. There is no way a race would trade one of their HOME planets for an undeveloped system half way across the galaxy.

I am interested in commments from others about this tactic.

I am also interested in continuing the discussion and coming to a consensus as to what is appropriate and what is not.

In my opinon...

If it is a bug that will be corrected it is wrong to exploit it.

If it is a bug that cannot be avoided, the tech should be avoided by agreement.

It it is an exploit of a 'gross inadequacy' of the AI it should be avoided. There is room for debate on what constitutes 'gross inadequacy'.

There are many other 'tactics' that may reduce the playability of the game, but they are unavoidable in many cases.

DavidG · #80 January 12th, 2003, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:

What happened next, however, was (IMHO) a problem. He claimed a system he had never been in (OK by itself). He traded it to a computer race for one of their HOME PLANETS! This I had a problem with. There is no way a race would trade one of their HOME planets for an undeveloped system half way across the galaxy.

WOW!!! It is totally obvious from this that there is a bug in how the game evaluates the value of a system. I hope MM knows about this. I'll be extremely surprised if anyone thinks this is fair play.