Is this gamey? [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

Master Belisarius

July 25th, 2003, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
This may just be me since this tactic was used against me but is this 'gamey'? One empire is just about to lose his Last planet so an ally gifts him a planet. So of course now this empire is still alive and making a crap load of resources from his treaties with my opposition. Is this just smart team play or is it 'gamey' It seems wrong to me but like I say maybe I'm just pissed because it has been used against me.Think this kind of things should be cleared before start the game... If this is not the case, then IMO is valid and not wrong.
But I understand you. In my case, never join to multiplayer games were the surrender option is allowed.

Suicide Junkie

July 25th, 2003, 04:18 AM

Its not a surrender... Its the opposite, really. The big empire gifts a planet to the almost-dead empire in order to keep his trading partner alive.
The little guy gets the trade income from the big guy to rebuild a fleet and help out the war effort.

Its like a Terrorist Shell Game.
"This is his Last hideout! We'll bomb it to glass!"
"Oops, he's left and is hiding out in yet another neighbouring country's land"
"Now THIS is his Last hideout! We'll really bomb it to glass and then bomb it some more..."
etc.

Sounds pretty annoying for the person playing the US http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But would make an entertaining story.

Geckomlis

July 25th, 2003, 05:14 AM

Government-in-Exile?

Is it the timing of the gift that makes it gamey? What if it had been 20 turns earlier, still gamey?

Fyron

July 25th, 2003, 05:25 AM

If it had been 20 turns earlier, it is just less gamey. How realistic is it that you could just pawn of whole worlds of people at the drop of a hat? More likely, they would rebel against you and you would have to subjugate them.

Will

July 25th, 2003, 06:29 AM

You don't necessarily know that it was a gift... it *might* have been a trade. Tech in exchange for a planet or something.

As for gamey-ness... I don't really think it is unless the game is strictly everyone-for-themselves, or there is a specific house rule against it. And it definitely would not be for team games (unless the rules say first team to lose a player).

Ed Kolis

July 25th, 2003, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If it had been 20 turns earlier, it is just less gamey. How realistic is it that you could just pawn of whole worlds of people at the drop of a hat? More likely, they would rebel against you and you would have to subjugate them.Hmm... do I see two new settings in Happiness.txt?

This Planet Gifted := 200
Planet In Empire Gifted := 40

DavidG

July 25th, 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Will:
You don't necessarily know that it was a gift... it *might* have been a trade. Tech in exchange for a planet or something.
Well same thing. I think it is the purpose of the gift that bugs me.

MB is right these things should be in the games rules from the start. The problem is of course you don't figure out what these things are untill they happen once.

Gryphin

July 25th, 2003, 02:05 PM

Posted by DavidG
You forgot the BIG one. All those extra resources from the trade deals. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
If the amount of resources generated by the gifted planet
Is less than the amount of trade resourses
The gift receiver gets
Then
The gifting empire receives an �unrealistic� benefit from gifting the planet.

I feel it should not be allowed. To balance things in this case it seems like the gift receiver should break ties or abandon the planet.

I would have to say it is gamey.

Disclamer:
I don�t PBW so some would say
1) I am not qualfyed to respond
2) I am unbiased
3) Both

[ July 25, 2003, 13:07: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

geoschmo

July 25th, 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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.<hr /></blockquote>Except that the only one getting any benefit from those trade deals is the player being gifted the planet. Their economy is so small that their trade partners won't even notice if they are gone. And while the income from trade will allow the refugee player to remain in the game, it won't really allow them to be a factor in the game. So on balance I think it's really a non issue.

The only tangible benefit worth mentioning really is the extra research queue. And that I believe is not that significant. By the time this shell game is likely to be attempted the game will ahve reached the point where an empire doing research soley with research points recieved in trade is going to slow the alliance down as much as help it.

The only time I would call it gamey is if the game has some sort of specific victory conditions having to do with that player being eliminated, like the Survivor tournament or the Paranoia game. Other then that it's really not a issue for me.

So the player is still alive in the game, they aren't a factor in the game anymore. Move on to bigger fish.

Geoschmo

DavidG

July 25th, 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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.<hr /></blockquote>Except that the only one getting any benefit from those trade deals is the player being gifted the planet. Their economy is so small that their trade partners won't even notice if they are gone. And while the income from trade will allow the refugee player to remain in the game, it won't really allow them to be a factor in the game. So on balance I think it's really a non issue.
<hr /></blockquote>Assuming the player is keeping all those resources for himself then you are quite correct. What if, however, he is gifting resources back to the player who gifted the planet?

geoschmo

July 25th, 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Assuming the player is keeping all those resources for himself then you are quite correct. What if, however, he is gifting resources back to the player who gifted the planet?Well that's kind of a convoluted method of resource procurement. If I found someone going through all that trouble in a game to get a measely 50K minerals every turn I would be more concerned about what other shenanigans they were up to. In that case the minerals themselves would be less of a problem themselves and more of a symptom of a general lack of sportsmanship. I would not like to play with them again, or their co-conspirator.

I have no trouble whatsoever with players helping each other out in games. But when one is doing so to the absolute exclusion of his own empire and getting nothing in return, as in this case of gifting away all his trade income instead of using it to rebuild his empire, then that isn't gamey. It's cheating.

Geoschmo

[ July 25, 2003, 13:51: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Slynky

July 25th, 2003, 03:14 PM

Well, actually, assuming research has been passed, it doesn't even have to stop at gifting back the resources...the person could build a ship at his shipyard and gift a built ship. Even better.

geoschmo

July 25th, 2003, 03:27 PM

Well, I still don't think the gifting of the planet itself is a problem. I think it all comes down to what the intent behind the gifting of the planet is. If it is to get around some victory condition that depends on a players elimination then obviously it is wrong. If it is to make possible some convoluted scheme to gain for the gifting player additional resources, research, ships, etc. out of ether then I think it is also clearly wrong.

If on the other hand it's merely a way to keep a friend in the game and he intends to try and legitmatly rebuild his empire, or if it's a matter of saving a weaker empire and maybe having them become a useful ally later in the game (The fable of the mouse and the lion anyone? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) AND it is not expresslly forbidden in the pre-game conditions I would not have a problem with it.

Geoschmo

[ July 25, 2003, 14:29: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Gryphin

July 25th, 2003, 03:36 PM

Geo said it first, (and better) but since I prepared it:

Seems like it comes down to
Intent
Execution
If the recieving player keeps and uses the resources then it seems fair. Yes they can using the Trade Resources create a ship every two to four turns. If this were a specialty ship such as a warp opener / star buster / mine sweeper / cloked spy ship etc� it could have a impact on the game.
Perhaps the two sides need to reach an agreement on what the recieving player can and cannot do.
Some items for consideration are:
Intel
Research
Specialty Ships

Stone Mill

July 25th, 2003, 03:54 PM

As pointed out earlier, the benefits of this move may be overestimated. The bonus produced by the arrangement is a drop in the ocean, and the empire giving the planet has foregone a chunk of resources.

It may be frustrating for you, but it is not gamey. I have seen this move many times, and mostly, I think that it is to keep a player in the game so they can continue to have some kind of impact for a bit.

For all intent and puropse, they aren't able to really do much with one planet, so it does not bother me at all. Their expansion will be at the cost of their allies. There is only so much space in the quadrant, and you have made progress in a forward direction.

DavidG

July 25th, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
As pointed out earlier, the benefits of this move may be overestimated. The bonus produced by the arrangement is a drop in the ocean, and the empire giving the planet has foregone a chunk of resources.
Actually I think it is likely the player with one planet is generating as much as 50% of the resources of my 3rd place empire due to treaties.

Slynky

July 25th, 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
As pointed out earlier, the benefits of this move may be overestimated. The bonus produced by the arrangement is a drop in the ocean, and the empire giving the planet has foregone a chunk of resources.

It may be frustrating for you, but it is not gamey. I have seen this move many times, and mostly, I think that it is to keep a player in the game so they can continue to have some kind of impact for a bit.

For all intent and puropse, they aren't able to really do much with one planet, so it does not bother me at all. Their expansion will be at the cost of their allies. There is only so much space in the quadrant, and you have made progress in a forward direction.Without knowing all the details, it's not necessarily a drop in the bucket. IF the "little player" is allied to 2 other empires who each have 200,000 in research and 400,000 in resource generation, the treaty will generate (varies according to empire settings) a chunk of research (to be put to use on SOMETHING) and a LOT more resources that could be gifted back to each empire than the gifted planet could EVER pruduce (assuming it was just a 1, 2, or 3-fac planet and not some huge breathable).

Master Belisarius

July 25th, 2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Its not a surrender... Its the opposite, really. The big empire gifts a planet to the almost-dead empire in order to keep his trading partner alive.
The little guy gets the trade income from the big guy to rebuild a fleet and help out the war effort.

Its like a Terrorist Shell Game.
"This is his Last hideout! We'll bomb it to glass!"
"Oops, he's left and is hiding out in yet another neighbouring country's land"
"Now THIS is his Last hideout! We'll really bomb it to glass and then bomb it some more..."
etc.

Sounds pretty annoying for the person playing the US http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But would make an entertaining story.It was just an example, of things that I want to clear before join a game (really make me angry when one empire surrender to their ally).
If I don't asked about questions like this, then, my opinion is that will be forced to accept anything...
For things like this, was discussed before, if would be good to have some standard "house rules" to play in PBW or not...

geoschmo

July 25th, 2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
Actually I think it is likely the player with one planet is generating as much as 50% of the resources of my 3rd place empire due to treaties. Originally posted by Slynky:
Without knowing all the details, it's not necessarily a drop in the bucket. IF the "little player" is allied to 2 other empires who each have 200,000 in research and 400,000 in resource generation, the treaty will generate (varies according to empire settings) a chunk of research (to be put to use on SOMETHING) and a LOT more resources that could be gifted back to each empire than the gifted planet could EVER pruduce (assuming it was just a 1, 2, or 3-fac planet and not some huge breathable).Well, points taken. But still I think the idea of gaminess should reflect the intention behind the planet gift and not the act of the gift itself. If the one planet empire living on the trade and generosity of his allies is going to remain an active participant in the game, and attempt to rebuild his empire, build a military, and be some kind of a factor I don't have an issue with it. If he is just acting as an offshore account creating wealth and or producing ships for the allies then it's what I would consider gamey or even outright cheating depending on the severity.

However it is an interesting point to consider. Perhaps we should seek a change in the next patch to rectify this. I am thinking a good solution would be an artificial cap on trade income. Maybe make it a percentage of your own empires income. I suggest 100% by default. So what you would get is you cannot receive more then 100% of your own empire income in trade with another empire regardless of their size and the current percentage of trade. So you could still in effect double your economy through trade with one empire, or quadrouple it with four allies etc. But you couldn't make an obscene amount of resources off you huge allies and be producing nothing of your own.

This percentage could be put in settings.txt so people could change it for mods if they want, up or down.

Geoschmo

spoon

July 25th, 2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
[I have no trouble whatsoever with players helping each other out in games. But when one is doing so to the absolute exclusion of his own empire and getting nothing in return, as in this case of gifting away all his trade income instead of using it to rebuild his empire, then that isn't gamey. It's cheating.
If team victories are allowed in that game, then you could argue that the empire is indeed getting something in return.

And I think calling it cheating is going a little too far in any case. That said, your suggestion on how to prevent it from happening (trade amount cannot surpass what you generate yourself) seems like a great idea.

geoschmo

July 25th, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by spoon:
If team victories are allowed in that game, then you could argue that the empire is indeed getting something in return.

And I think calling it cheating is going a little too far in any case.That may be true. I tend to do that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But it sure stinks. The idea of a team game I think is one in which all the players try their best and at the same time help each other out and cooperate against the other team. But this type of thing isn't that at all. It's one player who isn't even trying in the game and the only purpose they serve is as an artificial resource generator for the other players on his team. If this isn't a clear violation of the letter, it's at least one of the spirit of it.

Geoschmo

Stone Mill

July 25th, 2003, 08:06 PM

This whole "gifting resources back thing" seems like a really difficult thing to do. Gifted resources come from your storage, IIRC. So that one planet must designate a significant portion of it's precious space to storage.

And so what if they get a research bonus? It will not compare with an empire's research. Their progress will be quite slow.

As for incoming resources, what good are they when you only have one yard?

Besides, if it is an intel game, you can just crucify them with Communications mimic and other attacks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

July 25th, 2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
This whole "gifting resources back thing" seems like a really difficult thing to do. Gifted resources come from your storage, IIRC. So that one planet must designate a significant portion of it's precious space to storage.Well, you have 50K storage by default. Depending on your situation that could be considered an insignificant amount, or not.

Slynky

July 25th, 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stone Mill:
This whole "gifting resources back thing" seems like a really difficult thing to do. Gifted resources come from your storage, IIRC. So that one planet must designate a significant portion of it's precious space to storage.Well, you have 50K storage by default. Depending on your situation that could be considered an insignificant amount, or not.<hr /></blockquote>Hehe, I don't know about the rest of you, but in most of my games, I certainly have wished for another 20 or 30k of minerals (or rads or whatever) per turn... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ...to keep my fleet in the positive.

Wardad

July 25th, 2003, 08:43 PM

The incredible amount of trade income available to a single planet empire is the only thing makes this gamey.

I don't think it is gamey to make a gift and expect gifts back. That is simply the easiest way to execute a long term trade agreement. I sell you one planet and you pay me back with interest over 30 turns. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

PvK

July 25th, 2003, 09:19 PM

It's pretty telling that no one has yet mentioned the "subjugation" or "protectorate" treaty type features in this discussion.

Seems like those are interesting features which are underdeveloped to the point that no one ever considers using them, but instead use Surrender or the sort of procedure described here. If the features were better developed and enforced in the game mechanics, it could change a common and somewhat questionable situation into a more interesting one.

A trade limit feature is a good idea.

Gifting should have some more game program support for limits, too.

PvK

DavidG

July 26th, 2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
This whole "gifting resources back thing" seems like a really difficult thing to do. Gifted resources come from your storage, IIRC. So that one planet must designate a significant portion of it's precious space to storage.

And so what if they get a research bonus? It will not compare with an empire's research. Their progress will be quite slow.

As for incoming resources, what good are they when you only have one yard?

Besides, if it is an intel game, you can just crucify them with Communications mimic and other attacks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Difficult?? how so? In this particular game (which BTW I'm 100% sure this type of gifting is NOT going on) 50k on minerals per turn would be quite significant. If he chose to build a couple storage facilities on the planet I think the gifts could approach 150-200k per turn which would almost equal my entire empires output http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif . (and no Intel is not turned on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Slynky

July 26th, 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Will:
You don't necessarily know that it was a gift... it *might* have been a trade. Tech in exchange for a planet or something.
Well same thing. I think it is the purpose of the gift that bugs me.

MB is right these things should be in the games rules from the start. The problem is of course you don't figure out what these things are untill they happen once.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, everytime I hear one of these questions it seems someone says it should have been clearly stated in the game. Sheeesh! If we had to start setting up games with boilerplate conditions all the time, the next excuse would be, "Well,there was just so much 'small print', I didn't feel like reading all of it."

Personally speaking, it's one thing for someone to work within the rules and do something "gamey" (I don't care for it much but, hey, at least the rules and game permit it) but it's an entirely different thing when someone discovers a flaw in the game and uses it.

[ July 25, 2003, 12:23: Message edited by: Slynky ]

Gryphin

July 26th, 2003, 01:32 AM

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

July 26th, 2003, 01:32 AM

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

July 26th, 2003, 01:35 AM

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

July 26th, 2003, 02:24 AM

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

July 26th, 2003, 08:03 AM

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

July 27th, 2003, 04:11 AM

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

July 27th, 2003, 04:27 PM

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

July 27th, 2003, 07:16 PM

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

July 27th, 2003, 07:19 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

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

July 27th, 2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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<hr /></blockquote>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.

geoschmo

July 27th, 2003, 07:58 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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?" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 27, 2003, 19:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

July 27th, 2003, 09:30 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif 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

July 27th, 2003, 09:44 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif 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

July 27th, 2003, 10:03 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif 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

July 27th, 2003, 10:13 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )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

July 29th, 2003, 05:48 AM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Joachim

July 29th, 2003, 07:25 AM

[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?" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

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

July 29th, 2003, 02:08 PM

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif
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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Roanon

July 29th, 2003, 03:11 PM

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

July 29th, 2003, 10:52 PM

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

Roanon

July 29th, 2003, 11:35 PM

Well maybe not much, but at least a bit. Ok, no ship trades is a good solution also http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But no tech trades allowed is what I regard as the absolut minimum standard. With only ship trading allowed, you have to build the ship, trade it, move it to a shipyard to analyse, do the analysis - more time, not the otherwise possible instant exchange. Plus, you cannot ally tech-wise with someone from the other edge of the galaxy, and are limited to those who are near to - a natural, "healthy" limitation.

Of course, total dedictation to an alliance might lead to building shipyard-colonies within the other players empire to facilitate these trades. But these kind of alliances, from start to end at all costs, are another problem - I also think alliance victories should not be enabled. I favor Last man standing, where you have to beware who you are working together with and how closely.

Alliance victories possible and tech trades allowed reduces the game to a kind of "how many friends can I get together into this game". These kind of games are team vs. team in reality and not player vs. player - whoever wants to be the lone wolf there will surely loose if there is a minimum of competence in any team.

PvK

July 29th, 2003, 11:42 PM

That would be nice, except you can gift shipyard bases easily enough, stacked with a shipyard base of your own, to allow instant analysis and building of tech example ships with no engines. All you need is diplomatic contact.

PvK

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You hit the nail on the head here Gpa. The problem as I see it is by giving the little hangers on the title of co-winner you elminate the incentive for them to eventually band together and take out the BMOC, or die trying. This severly limits the oppotunities for REAL diplomacy in the game. I don't consider the "Yes boss, whatever you say boss." stuff that goes on between the big guy and his lackeys as diplomacy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

While you say even though it's never stated everybody knows who the winner is, I honestly feel if it were stated openly the BMOC would have a much harder time recruiting his minions and keeping them loyal. Compare these two statements:

"Join me in a powerful alliance. We will defeat the other empires and rule the galaxy together."

or

"Join me in a powerful alliance. You will help me to defeat the other empires and I will rule the galaxy. As long as you don't go agasint me I won't destroy you and I will always know your assistance was an important part of my success and will think highly of you for it."

You might still get a few to join with the second, more honest statement, but likely not as many.

And the other question is would the BMOC have gotten as big as he did without the early absolute alliances and complete tech trading that goes on with the understanding of a team victory? Maybe, but it's doubtful in most cases.

Geoschmo

Roanon

July 30th, 2003, 01:41 AM

As I said: if you don't mind who is owning a shipyard within your empire. Victory condition Last (single) empire standing, where teamgaming doesn't make sense, I would say this is not really common. But that is just guessing - I have not that much experience.

DavidG

July 30th, 2003, 02:48 AM

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. Ditto. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I find this tedious too because do to this requires way more time put into a game planning the tech each will do than I want to do. (if a turn takes me more than 15 or 30 mintues I'll just end it and hell with what I forgot)
The reason I like to ban it is to prevent 2 or 3 players from allying and trading tech like crazy and forgetting that it is a "Last man standing game" I suspect if players accepted that is was actually a Last man standing game then tech trading would not really be a problem.

It actually never really occured to me that players would think a game wasn't Last man standing if those were the victory conditions. I mean ganging up on one player is OK to a point. But ganging up on him and ending the game when he's done, well that's gamey (nudge nudge wink wink http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

teal

July 30th, 2003, 06:32 PM

I never really understood the idea that "if people understood that it was a Last man standing game they would be more hesitant to trade technology".

Assume there is a game with 4 players: A, B, C, and D. Further assume that in any conflict a player with superior skills and superior technology will defeat a player with inferior skill and technology (i.e. luck plays no part).

Now say A and B decide to form an alliance and trade technology. They will quickly defeat C and D who have poorer technology and then face off against each other. Since A and B have the same level of technology the one with the greater skill will win.

So the question of whether or not to trade technology with your ally boils down to one of skill. Do you think you are more skilled than your ally (or perhaps in a more favorable situation). If the answer is yes then you should trade and if the answer is no you should not. (actually you should trade anyways because C and D are going to trade anyways and you need to keep up with them, but let's not get into that). Due to some strange quirk of psychology most people feel that they are more skilled than their allies (although Garrison Kiellor might say something funny about that). So psychologically speaking most people will want to trade in this situation. Because this is so C and D are forced into trading with each other if they want to survive at all, much less be the Last one standing.

Also people who tend to think that they are unskilled (i.e. beginners) usually will not play to "win" the game via the Last man standing victory condition but rather rationalize that they are "winning" if they survive as long as possible against the others. So they will gladly trade even with an ally who is more skilled than them because it helps them survive longer than C and D even if they know they will eventually "lose" because of it.

So I don't think the Last man standing victory condition has anything to do with people's desire to tech trade or not. If tech trading is allowed a competitve player must do as much of it as they absolutely can in order to even have a shot at winning. And I agree that this aspect of the game is one that I really don't like and tend to avoid doing as much of it as I should even if I know it will mean I will lose.

[ July 30, 2003, 18:09: Message edited by: teal ]

Loser

July 30th, 2003, 06:42 PM

Garrison Kielor (http://www.mindspring.com/~celestia/keillor/)?

teal

July 30th, 2003, 06:45 PM

Back to the original question: Is gifting a planet to a doomed ally a gamey move?

I am with Geo on this. A lot depends on what the motivations and reasons for this are. If it is psychological in nature (for example if the game involves a group of friends playing who will have "bragging rights" and will relentlessly rib anyone who is eliminated then perhaps a subset of this group will act to avoid letting their ally be eliminated because they don't want to see their friend insulted outside of the game). In these sorts of cases I don't see anything wrong with the gifting of a planet.

Gifting the trade income back to the player who gifted you the planets is extremely gamey and exploiting an "unrealistic" bug and is not something that I would condone.

The whole problem here is not actually the gifting of planets, but is the way trade income works. The way it should work is the income derived should be the percentage of the smaller empires income, not each member of a trade alliance taking a percentage of their partners income. If it wasn't for the screwy way trade is implemented in SEIV then this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue. Also it is theoretically possible that someone had a wide ranging intercolonization agreement with their ally and because of this you are able to virtually wipe out an empire except for one or two planets which were deep in their allies space. Practically speaking, this is the same situation, but it is 100% not gamey.

Lastly to anyone who is listening... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif A game is certainly Last man standing unless explicitly discribed otherwise. However, I do wish that there was a way to end a game with a mutually agreed upon single winner say when one empire takes over 3/4 of the known galaxy and it is only a matter of time before the others fall.

teal

July 30th, 2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Garrison Kielor (http://www.mindspring.com/~celestia/keillor/)?I shouldn't refer to cultural icons since this is a worldwide forum. My apologies. I might have spelled his name wrong. He is the host of "A Prarie Home Companion" on National Public Radio in the U.S. where "All the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average"

Fyron

July 30th, 2003, 07:43 PM

A game is certainly Last man standing unless explicitly discribed otherwise. In your opinion, yes. That opinion is not shared by a very large portion of PBW players (perhaps 50/50). So, this is why things like this MUST be stated at game creation.

teal

July 30th, 2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> A game is certainly Last man standing unless explicitly discribed otherwise. In your opinion, yes. That opinion is not shared by a very large portion of PBW players (perhaps 50/50). So, this is why things like this MUST be stated at game creation.<hr /></blockquote>Actually if it is not stated in the game description then the default position is what the game itself describes. If you do not put in another victory condition then Last man standing is when the SEIV program will declare one person to have won. The fact that the majority of the PBW community (myself included by the way) would rather call a game a draw than drag it out to its inevitable conclusion and waste hours and hours of their life on the game does not change the fact that, unless stated otherwise, the rules of the game are the default rules for basic SEIV, and those are Last man standing.

[ July 30, 2003, 19:06: Message edited by: teal ]

Fyron

July 30th, 2003, 08:09 PM

In your opinion, yes. When a game ends is a matter of choice. It is certainly not dependant simply on just when the game says it is over. It is a subjective issue, and so needs to be discussed and declared before the game starts.

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 08:20 PM

Teal, you will learn that it is neccesary to consult with Fyron first on which parts of the game are to be taken literally and which parts are subjective and open to interpretation. Once you get to that point your life will be much simpleler.

[ July 30, 2003, 21:30: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

July 30th, 2003, 08:24 PM

bah
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

teal

July 30th, 2003, 08:28 PM

Yes. What happened was I saw a post and said, "oh look a message by Fyron I bet I'll be extremely ticked off by it" and sure enough I was... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I probably would not have been ticked off if any one else had said the same thing.

I suppose I object to the use of the word "opinion". It is not actually my opinion, but the way the game is set up (i.e. it IS the default position of the game that Last man standing determines the winner. It is clearly written in the code for all to read... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And furthermore I 100% agree that victory conditions should be declared before game start. The question was what should be the default position if regretably they are not... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

And yes Fyron. People can stop playing whenever they want to. That does not mean that according the rules of the game they have determined a winner (they have not), but it does mean that according to the rules of society they have determined a winner. In this situation I personally would prefer to follow the rules of society, but it is not my "opinion" that the rules of the game are different. It is fact... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ July 30, 2003, 19:30: Message edited by: teal ]

DavidG

July 30th, 2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by teal:
However, I do wish that there was a way to end a game with a mutually agreed upon single winner say when one empire takes over 3/4 of the known galaxy and it is only a matter of time before the others fall.I would say there is. Tell the host to declare the game over. I don't think most hosts (me included) expect the eventualy winner to hunt down every Last ship and mine.

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by DavidG:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by teal:
However, I do wish that there was a way to end a game with a mutually agreed upon single winner say when one empire takes over 3/4 of the known galaxy and it is only a matter of time before the others fall.I would say there is. Tell the host to declare the game over. I don't think most hosts (me included) expect the eventualy winner to hunt down every Last ship and mine.<hr /></blockquote>I cannot recall ever having a game where an obviously defeated foe would not conceed the game if asked. Very few people enjoy dragging out a game which they serve no purpose in. I have stayed in a few sometimes beyond when I had a chance, but there were still viable empires and the issue of the winner was very much in doubt. So in that case I wasn't holding up the end of the game or anything.

There are also victory conditions other then LMS. I don't particulaly like score as a determining factor between empires that are close in power, but the "Quadrant at peace" victory condition is a good one. Because if anyone still thinks they have a shot at winning and aren't in first place they can simply declare war on someone and the game continues.

Geoschmo

Fyron

July 30th, 2003, 09:11 PM

I probably would not have been ticked off if any one else had said the same thing.
That is rather offensive.

I would say there is. Tell the host to declare the game over. I don't think most hosts (me included) expect the eventualy winner to hunt down every Last ship and mine. Exactly. It is silly to expect the winner to have to go crush every Last ship and planet on the map.

DavidG

July 30th, 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by teal:
I never really understood the idea that "if people understood that it was a Last man standing game they would be more hesitant to trade technology".
Well I think many (such as myself) might be a bit hesitant to trade or give away that really expensive tech when you know it will eventually be used against you.

Wardad

July 30th, 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by teal:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Loser:
Garrison Kielor (http://www.mindspring.com/~celestia/keillor/)?I shouldn't refer to cultural icons since this is a worldwide forum. My apologies. I might have spelled his name wrong. He is the host of "A Prarie Home Companion" on National Public Radio in the U.S. where "All the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average"<hr /></blockquote>LOL!
Isn't that supposed to be "All the men are strong, all the women are good looking, and all the children are above average"

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 10:01 PM

I think that we all will never agree on whether one winner or team winners is better, but we don't need to. What we can all agree on is that it should be stated up fron if team winners will be allowed. Because if one person is playing on the assumption that there will be only one winner, and two people are playing with the assumption that they will be team winners, the single person is going to get stomped almost every time. It's not fair to simply say that "Well he should have got an ally then" because many people don't like playing that way. If you tell them up front there will be team winners they will probably pick another game. If you tell them up front that there will me only one winner the two people can still ally, but they will probably not cooperate quite as closely. They will only help the other guy as much as is neccesary to remove the other empires. Which gives the guy more or less going it alone a more level playing field.

So the moral is state the objectives up front and stick to it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

teal

July 30th, 2003, 11:50 PM

Erax

July 31st, 2003, 02:25 PM

Well I think many (such as myself) might be a bit hesitant to trade or give away that really expensive tech when you know it will eventually be used against you. And you will use his tech against him. And you will use your tech and his tech against everyone else. As long as the trade is fair, both of you are better off than if you had not traded.

This point is completely independent from whether team wins are allowed or not. Players who trade will have an advantage over those who do not. Players who trade as much as they can will have an advantage over those who trade in a limited way.

Which means everyone should get into an alliance right away, correct ? Yes, however :

- Alliance-type players assume their alliance will hold until everyone else is eliminated. A clever player may turn on his allies (or create an 'alliance within the alliance') when the non-allied players are almost, but not quite, beaten. Ironically, this tactic is often called 'gamey' by alliance-type players.

- Trades are not always fair. If you are receiving less than you give then it might be better not to trade at all, or at least to find another partner.

My opinion is that full cooperation with my partners, in the long run, beats isolationism and/or backstabbing. But that's just IMO.

geoschmo

July 31st, 2003, 02:50 PM

True Erax. I can't disagree with that one bit. The players working together will be at an advantage. Probably not quite as big of an advantage, but still an advantage. But if the allies are not allowed to declare themselves co-winners, you can use that possibility of breaking the alliance early against them as a wedge to try and break up the alliance. It's the classic weapon that small empires can use to survive in a game with larger empires. One of my favorite ways to play actually. My empire stays small so less MM, but I get to feel like I am still a factor in the game and manipulating the other players. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Of course you can't always do it succesfully. It's a skill that takes practice and talent, just like straight up empire building does. But with co-winners it's not even an option. Give me the option of at least trying it and I can deal with being a small empire among big guys. If I only wanted to be the biggest I would make alliances and trade tech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

DavidG

July 31st, 2003, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Erax:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Well I think many (such as myself) might be a bit hesitant to trade or give away that really expensive tech when you know it will eventually be used against you. And you will use his tech against him. And you will use your tech and his tech against everyone else. As long as the trade is fair, both of you are better off than if you had not traded.
<hr /></blockquote>True, however, in an alliance game you would benefit from making one sided trades or just gifting tech to your ally. that's the kind of trading I think would stop in a Last man standing game.

[ July 31, 2003, 22:56: Message edited by: DavidG ]