Is this gamey?

[geoschmo]

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]

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]

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]

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

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Slynky:
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.

This is how I treat it as well. Personally for me a non-team game is a waste of time if there is no winner. That doesn't mean I have a compulsion to always be the winner. Quite the opposite actually. To me a person who insists on team victory is one that cannot abide the thought of not being able to win and therefore must change the rules and declare themselves "co-winners". I myself have no problem coming in second, or third, or even Last. (It's a good thing too considering my record. )But I want to know where I place.

What I have done in several games that have seemed to drag on is agree to stage an artifical ending. Like a showdown at the OK corral my allies and I will gather our remaining forces in a central location and have at one another until only one is remaining. Other times we have simply called the game and declared one person the winner. Of course in those cases my allies are like-minded individuals not obsesed with not losing. But almost without exception it is at a point in the game when the eventual winner is pretty much understood. The only question remaining is how long till they can erradicate the others in the game.

Geoschmo

[Grandpa Kim]

Posted by Geoschmo:

...a point in the game when the eventual winner is pretty much understood...

And therein lies the truth about "team" victories. I have never seen a partnership where the partners are reasonably equal in strength. One member always seem to be way out in front of the rest, and he is the true victor. Even though its never stated, everyone knows this and its just the BMOC being gracious (and he probably has a monster empire that is a b**** to manage and doesn't want to go through the laborious end game.

[Joachim]

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:
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?"

Is this gamey? As a Newb it seems to be the very standard must do early strategy (unless specifically ruled out). If you dont trade someone else will - but I guess that is not much of a justification. But it is hard seeing two other empires obviously doing a research plan and trade and hence getting double (or triple for the tri-partite pacts) your tech.

Oops - sorry Geo about the quote thing - thought i did it right... just doesn't look like the others.

[ July 29, 2003, 06:32: Message edited by: Joachim ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Joachim:
Is this gamey? As a Newb it seems to be the very standard must do early strategy (unless specifically ruled out). If you dont trade someone else will - but I guess that is not much of a justification. But it is hard seeing two other empires obviously doing a research plan and trade and hence getting double (or triple for the tri-partite pacts) your tech.

I don't have a problem with a little wheeling and dealing. But when it gets to the point where you have two or three empires and one is researching ships, one is researching weapons and one is researching shields and all trading what each of them gets, I have a problem.

First of all it's incredibly tedious and boring to me to do this. Secondly as I said before it takes the real diplomacy out of the game for me, which is one of my favorite parts. Of course I pay a price for my lack of conformity. It is not uncommon at all for me to be seriously behind in tech by turn 40 in a game. But that is my "reward" for playing the game on my terms.

One option, and one that has become fairly common, is to outright ban tech gifts and trading. This to me is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As I do think a little trading can add spice to the game. It's just taken to the extreme it gets to be what I would call gamey. Of course that's a totaly subjective definition and not much use to anyone.

Geoschmo

[Roanon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I don't have a problem with a little wheeling and dealing. But when it gets to the point where you have two or three empires and one is researching ships, one is researching weapons and one is researching shields and all trading what each of them gets, I have a problem.

First of all it's incredibly tedious and boring to me to do this. Secondly as I said before it takes the real diplomacy out of the game for me, which is one of my favorite parts.

I totally agree. And not only takes diplomacy out of the game, but also strategy and variety - no need to ponder what to research next if you have everything covered by your allies.

Of course I pay a price for my lack of conformity. It is not uncommon at all for me to be seriously behind in tech by turn 40 in a game.

Other method: I don't join any game with tech trading enabled. Ship tech trading is worse enough, but at least not that easy. I don't think that is limiting the game too much.

[ July 29, 2003, 14:15: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[PvK]

The problem is, analysis is so powerful and easy that limiting to ship trading doesn't slow it down all that much, except for the techs which can't be put on a ship.

PvK