Is this gamey?

[Gryphin]

Gamey – Seems that way but is it a “ bad gamey”
The net results are:
1) It keeps what may be a personal friend in the game
2) Allows an extra research que for the alliance

What are the other results?

[Narf'scompatshop]

ok, theoretical situation:

with just three allies, that could be 60% of there average resources.

with trade-back, an increase for each of them of 20%, without adding a trading partner. so the resources each would get would be equal to having a funtioning trading partner. 20% sounds small, but i don't think it is.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
Gamey – Seems that way but is it a “ bad gamey”
The net results are:
1) It keeps what may be a personal friend in the game
2) Allows an extra research que for the alliance

What are the other results?

You forgot the BIG one. All those extra resources from the trade deals.

[PvK]

One counter-argument is that this could represent the effect of refugees, dissidents and underground resistance - things which aren't directly represented, but could abstractly be through this trade mechanic.

PvK

[Grandpa Kim]

Gamey? My goodness people, I do believe I could make a case for every feature of the game to be gamey.

It is gamey to:

use emergency build when there is no emergency
use retro-series building
NOT continue moving into a new and unknown system
be able to move the same number of sectors on the diagonal as on the horizontal or vertical
only be able to have 12 intel projects at one time (research too!)
bump up pop. on a planet by continually taking pop. from its moons
be able to move a freshly captured planet to jubilant on the turn

Well, you get the idea.

Until these types of games are so smoothed out as to be indistinguishable from analog, they will always be gamey.

I'm currently in a game where I am doing quite well. Two of my opponents have been so trod upon by my forces, that most of their planets must be rioting, but they continue to pour intel attacks on me simply because they still have viable partners. And its impossible to end this annoyance. Their planets are spread all over creation; borders are non-existant within their partnership. Whether by design or brotherly love, I don't know... and really don't care. Not because I think I can beat them anyway, but because I always go into a game expecting the worst and expecting some new wrinkle I never thought of. If it was the SOS every game, I wouldn't bother playing. Its things like this that keep the game fresh and new to me.

In-game rules are great; they can add a new wrinkle to game all by themselves. But if it ain't in those rules and isn't a cheat, its fine with me.

[Roanon]

Using normal game rules to your advantage is not gamey, unless you are exploiting an obvious bug. A few things are widely considered unwanted, and should be regulated in the game setup - easiest way to do to avoid misunderstandings and discussions like this.

But there is a clear line crossed if you totally stop playing for yourself, and only participate to give everything you have to another player. This is nearly the same as if someone would join a game twice unter two different names, and THIS is clearly not "gamey" but plain and simple cheating.

[Gandalph]

And on a similar note, something I have seen too much of recently. Player A decides they don't want to play anymore, so they surrender to Player B. I think this is why many game owners disallow surrender in their games. Player A just does not seem to understand, or they don't care, that the immediate doubling of one empire in the game is a total disadvantage to the rest of the players who are working hard to better their empires legally. And how guilty is Player B for accepting (ie not reporting the incident, but just playing on)?

[geoschmo]

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]

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]

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.