The tournament and a question of ethics - newbie question

tbontob · #1 August 23rd, 2002, 07:17 PM

Let's define some terms first insofar as they may apply to the tournament:

1) Illegal - an action or non-action that contravenes the rules of the game.
2) Unethical - an action or non-action which is not illegal (i.e. there is no specific rule against it), but it is something which is generally frowned upon.

I went to the game site and found little to guide a players conduct.

For example: Communication...what is permitted?
a) Only Messages which are allowed through the game interface.
b) Any kind including e-mail, telephone, face to face etc.

a) above would seem to be the fairest but there is the question of discovering the infraction (very difficult), and enforcement.

So b) would seem to be the applicable standard to be applied...that is any and all kind of communication is permitted.

I have a whole bunch of additional questions, but want to take this step by step...in case I take a wrong turning along the way

geoschmo · #2 August 23rd, 2002, 07:22 PM

Typically for games I ask that there be no specfifc game information (loactions, plans, etc.) sharing prior to making contact in the game. The exception to this might be a team game with predefined teams.

After contact I almost never have problem with email or any other sort of out of game communication. Unless it is some type of special role play game.

The nature of this tournament is quite different than the typical game however. I am inclined to allow email communication even prior to in game contact for these games. Some players may want to cooperate for several rounds in a row in an effort to assist each other late into the tournament. This will be difficult to do if out of game communication prior to in game contact is restricted.

Geoschmo

EDIT: Sorry if I did not definativly answer your question. I will do so beofre the start of the first round so there is no doubt about where everybody stands. If anyone cares to make their opinion known one way or the other please do so.

[ August 23, 2002, 18:25: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

capnq · #3 August 23rd, 2002, 07:30 PM

Geo once posted a fairly long set of guidelines to consider when setting up a PBW game, but darned if I can coax the thread out of the search engine.

tbontob · #4 August 23rd, 2002, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Sorry if I did not definativly answer your question. I will do so beofre the start of the first round so there is no doubt about where everybody stands. If anyone cares to make their opinion known one way or the other please do so.

Unfortunately, the damage may [edit "have"] already been done.

For example...alliances. They may have already formed. Simple ones, like 1) We will not attack each other in this game or 2) when we meet, we immediately enter into a treaty to share resources & research etc. and trade our discoveries. 3) Or worse, you research this area and I'll research another and then immediately give the other our discovery.

And some players may not even have to verbalize the alliance they intend to use...there is just a "understanding" to continue with the type of alliance they used in the past...

[ August 23, 2002, 18:38: Message edited by: tbontob ]

geoschmo · #5 August 23rd, 2002, 07:53 PM

Exacltly. And that's the kind of thing I want to encourage in this tournament. Normally I try to discourage it, but I think it will add a lot to the cutthroat nature of this format.

So I guess I will go ahead and say there is no problem with doing these sorts of things in this game. However no one should assume since I am allowing it and encouraging it here that I support it for all games. You should always defer to the game owner on those sorts of things. And you should ask before you make any of these kinds of pre-arangments in a game.

But for this tournament, it's ok.

Geoschmo

tbontob · #6 August 23rd, 2002, 07:58 PM

So, it would appear to this newbie (i.e. me) that the person's odds to win increase with the size of the alliance he enters into.

The one who either goes it alone or enters one with [edit] only a few members is likely to be a prime target.

[ August 23, 2002, 19:02: Message edited by: tbontob ]

geoschmo · #7 August 23rd, 2002, 08:09 PM

Possibly. But a wise player will not advertise his alliances. So you will not really know who has alliances and who doesn't.

In fact a group that has an known alliance could be come targets themselves of the other players as a whole, rather than allow the alliance to pick off all the single players one at a time they will possibly band together and try to break them up.

Plus, an alliance may not nessecarily help you. Cause the single player facing an alliance doesn't have to beat everybody, only one person. Or they can survive by beating no one and just surviving long enough that some other poor sap on the other side of the quadrant gets it first.

EDIT: Not to mention, you could make an alliance before the game, and when the game starts you aren't anywhere near your allies in the galaxy. That would be an uncomfortable position to be in, especially if your alliance is well known to everyone.

Geoschmo

[ August 23, 2002, 19:19: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

tbontob · #8 August 23rd, 2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Possibly. But a wise player will not advertise his alliances. So you will not really know who has alliances and who doesn't.

Yes...

But the alliance which numbers approach 10 members (50%), has nothing to lose and everything to gain to encourage the few "holdouts" to join. Better to join a 10 member group than a 4 or 6.

Quote:

In fact a group that has an known alliance could be come targets themselves of the other players as a whole, rather than allow the alliance to pick off all the single players one at a time they will possibly band together and try to break them up.

My point exactly, the single players know they have to join an alliance. So the choice is the larger one. And you end up with an imbalance of alliances with the the smaller one having the greater probability of losing one of its members in combat.

Quote:

Plus, an alliance may not nessecarily help you. Cause the single player facing an alliance doesn't have to beat everybody, only one person. Or they can survive by beating no one and just surviving long enough that some other poor sap on the other side of the quadrant gets it first.

I disagree...try fighting off a simultaneous attack by 2 or more empires alone... The larger alliance has more empires and all things being equal, can afford to throw more empires into the conflict.

Quote:

EDIT: Not to mention, you could make an alliance before the game, and when the game starts you aren't anywhere near your allies in the galaxy. That would be an uncomfortable position to be in, especially if your alliance is well known to everyone.

True and that is the risk you take. However, if your alliance is smaller, then the probability escalates that you will find yourself alone and with the consequence of becoming a prime target. Better then to ally yourself with the larger alliance.

What I am trying to say is the "lone" member is likely to be a sure loser. Therefore, if he wants to stay in the game, he needs to join an alliance. If he picks the wrong one (ie a small one), the odds are greater that he will end up dead than if he had selected the larger one.

So, this may well end up to be a battle of alliances. And when an alliance does beats all the competition, it will then have to breakup and new alliances will have to be formed...and the process starts over again.

tbontob · #9 August 23rd, 2002, 08:58 PM

Also, the larger alliance has greater resources through trade and sharing technology. Eventually its technology will seriously outstrip the smaller alliance

As I see it, the best chance a small alliance has in beating a larger one is to attack early and hard.

geoschmo · #10 August 23rd, 2002, 09:09 PM

I have no doubt it will be a battle of who can do the best job of making alliances and playing them off of one another. That's the whole point of the format. It's what I inteded to begin with. I am not sure if you are saying this is a bad thing or what?

If you think that by being in a 10 player alliance you are guaranteeing yourself success, by all means go for it. There will be others that will feel more comfortable with a small alliance of skilled players. Or no pregame alliance at all, prefering to form alliances with those that are close to them in the game and threfore more able to help them effectively. There are different ways to look at the problem. The only way to know for sure is to play. And even then what works in one game will not neccesarily work in another.

Geoschmo