PBW ethics, opinions please.

[couslee]

Well put Darkhorse.

But one thing, "gamey" can show up in chess. Imagine my irritation
When I was a child, and first learning the game, the first time I learned of "casteling" I got mad because the rules said you only can move one piece per turn, not two! So I called my friend on it, and he explained how that was part of the game. Now, I really got indignant with him when I went to apply the move and was told I couldn't because I had previously moved my King. The conversation really got heated the next game when after I had pieces in place for this "gamey" tactic, he casteled on the queen side, which does not go all the way to the edge, negating my previous piece strategy placement.

Of course, I have since learned to love the move, and the game. (And it didn't ruin our friendship) But it does provide a good example of different views on "gamey"

[Atrocities]

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

Geoschmo

I did not know what this was. Fyron explained it to me. And I know better than to argue with the might G. So not comment.

[geoschmo]

Atrocities. ROFL! Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. I had no idea you didn't understand the term. I thought you were objecting to it on some principle.

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

[Gryphin]

DarkHorse, The "Nuts and Bolts vs Spirit of the Game", Reminds me of the "Letter of the Law vs the Spirit of the Law" debates.
There are times I support "Letter" and times I support "Spirit".
In SEIV terms I guess it means checking with the Game Master / host. There is a drawback to checking with the Host if they are playing. It may reveal a clever tactic / strategy that is not found to be unacceptable. Now you have shown your hand. An example would be when I "accidentaly on purpose" sent misinformaiton to my adversary.

/Ramble
Jay walking is against the law. I do it at 6:30 AM because there is no danger to myself or others. That law is to protect not only me but drivers who could get hurt swerving to avoid me. I don't do it at 8:30 AM on a work day morning because it would likely cause an accident, (and get me injured in the process).
(hope that is a good metaphor / analgy)
/End Ramble

[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.