PBW ethics, opinions please.

[Arkcon]

'Kay, see it comes up once and a while. No one seems to have a specific beef -- but a nondescript problem. I made an entry in the Encyclopedia Malfadorica here: (http://invirtuo.cc/phpwiki/index.php/PBW%20ethics)

Maybe people can add to it there or post some things here.

(or edit my entry over there completely so it's more clear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

[ January 10, 2003, 15:17: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

[dogscoff]

I have to say I'm not fully in agreement with the tech sharing article. I am opposed to the use of any exploits or gamey tactics in multiplayer games with ppl who object to them, but I don't think tech sharing is either of those things; it's just a logical way of optimising your output with a neighbour. I'd be interested to see what everyone else thinks.

[ January 10, 2003, 16:29: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Ruatha]

I hadn't even reflected on it being in anyway "bad". I assumed all partnerships used tech sharing.

[Ruatha]

I didn't know "turtling" was anything common.
I had thought of doing it in a game where I'm hard pressed, to rebuild my fleet and then burst out of the shell consuming the galaxy in flames. But I think it will be too expensive so I won't be able to "turtle!" before I'm totally destroyed by my angry neighbour.

Hmm, I've used one and thought of using the other "exploit". It seems I'm a evil player using evil ethical standards! (And here I thought I was the good guy!!)

[dogscoff]

Ruatha: The thing about these "exploits" & "cheats" is that it very much depends who you're playing against. Some ppl might not mind tech sharing (I don't- I also practise it) or turtling (it would be very credible in rp games like the history of the galaxy for example). It just depends who you're up against. Maybe some of these malfadorica entries need to be altered to reflect that.

BTW, I was the one who added the turtling entry.

[ January 10, 2003, 16:30: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[geoschmo]

I have no problem with tech sharing in principle. I don't consider it cheating or gamey or unbelievable. It's just boring. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

It speeds the game up to the inevitable end game too fast IMHO. But then some people like that.

In my ideal universe noone would trade tech, and that is why we pressed Malfador for the option to disallow it at game setup. So that it can be disabled.

I prefer that the results of the game depend on my own strategy and tactics, not of the neighbors that I happen to start next to. If you happen to be starting next to Dogscoff who loves to trade tech you are going to have a huge advantage over the guy who happens to start next to me. You and the other guy could be completely equal in skill, and even in the political side of it, but if you are next to a old fuddy duddy like me that doesn't want to trade you won't be able to until you meet some others.

Geoschmo

[dogscoff]

If you happen to be starting next to Dogscoff who loves to trade tech you are going to have a huge advantage over the guy who happens to start next to me.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, it won't be that huge an advantage because I suck at multiplayer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
If you happen to be starting next to Dogscoff who loves to trade tech you are going to have a huge advantage over the guy who happens to start next to me.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, it won't be that huge an advantage because I suck at multiplayer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I didn't say you would have an advatage. I said the guy starting next to you sponging tech off of you would have the advantage. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ January 10, 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[tbontob]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by dogscoff:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
If you happen to be starting next to Dogscoff who loves to trade tech you are going to have a huge advantage over the guy who happens to start next to me.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, it won't be that huge an advantage because I suck at multiplayer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I didn't say you would have an advatage. I said the guy starting next to you sponging tech off of you would have the advantage. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh-oh! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I have to say I'm not fully in agreement with the tech sharing article. I am opposed to the use of any exploits or gamey tactics in multiplayer games with ppl who object to them, but I don't think tech sharing is either of those things; it's just a logical way of optimising your output with a neighbour. I'd be interested to see what everyone else thinks.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is not an objection of mine http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[CNCRaymond]

You want to talk about ethics at PBW huh? Well lets just say that those who know the exploits use them to their advantage. The EB exploit being the most popular. Then the TDB weapon bug, and let us not forget about those who have hacked the game.

I gave up playing PBW games back in September after being told that a player in a game I was in was using the EB exploit. Sure as ****, he was, and that just ruined the game. But instead of making big deal about it, I said nothing. Now that I know how to do it, I feel that if I play, I would be tempted to use it, so I don’t play. I’ll wait for the bug to be fixed.

Ethics, an ethical person would not use a known exploit -or- as I like to refer to them, a cheat. Not that I am accusing any one, it is just that there is no reason to play a game with people who do not have ethics.

[tesco samoa]

Yea the EB is a bad one. Trading planets every 8 turns is not a good one. But it takes two players. Other than that it all depends on the flavour of the game. If your in doubt ask the game admin.

One PBW ethic i do not like is the sneak attack when you attack the planets and declare war the same turn... And by pass mines.

[CNCRaymond]

There is a differance between ethics and tactics. That is a tactic to bypass the mines. I don't like it, but I'd do it if I felt it was needed to gain the upper hand. (Damn, I wish they would install and evil smily face.) :

[Ruatha]

The EB thing seems to to bothersome, trading planets.. I mean, my population wouldn't think fondly of me if I gave them away every now and then! And to keep track of which planet to trade and when. That exploit I consider a bug.

I agree though with Geo that it would be more fun without tech sharing, in a game I use it profoundly as all other partnerships seems to do it aswell. Otherwise I'd be hopelessly left behind.
The Homecoming 2 game that is about to start seems to be fun as it doesn't allow that or science treaties.

Btw, everyone is ethical, no one is without ethics! It's just that the ethics differs, what you might find as bad ethics someone else finds acceptable, that doesn't mean they don't have any ethics.

[ January 10, 2003, 18:21: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Arkcon]

EB

?

???

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

[CNCRaymond]

EB is an ackernim for an exploit. Many of us have been asked not to spread it around. So I will not go into detail about it. Lets just say that it has been around for a long while, and if used would allow a player an unfair advantage.

Most players do not use it, and when they do, you'll know about it. Trust me.

[gravey101]

I agree with Geo that allowing tech trades is a bore. I wont play in games which allow it any more since they just produce a mad rush to the endgame with everyone having the same techs. The one game I play in also dissallows trading of pop so that you actually have to capture some enemy to get different breathers. I like this too.

The trouble with the ethics proponants is that they dont seem to realize that what may be unethical to them is just a game exploit to others. Then someone gets called a cheat becuase they don't conform to the ethics proponants view of what is wrong and right, then everyone gets mad or upset, then the game is spolied. This has happened to me on numerous occasions. I only now play with a known group of guys. It is intense and cutthroat but there is no name calling and character sluring. I have found that the easiest resolution is for the game host to clearly state which features/expolits/whatever of the game are not allowed, and that everything is fair game.

[Fyron]

This form of "diplomacy" is badly looked upon, and debates morals and ethics of the game, and the players, who engage in such activities.

Some games ban it outright, either by convention, or by banning all tech trading through the use of the ?game options panel. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This needs to be removed/editted ASAP. Only some people look badly upon sharing technologies. Most people I have played with have not been opposed to it.

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This form of "diplomacy" is badly looked upon, and debates morals and ethics of the game, and the players, who engage in such activities.

Some games ban it outright, either by convention, or by banning all tech trading through the use of the ?game options panel. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This needs to be removed/editted ASAP. Only some people look badly upon sharing technologies. Most people I have played with have not been opposed to it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was written by someone else, Skulky I believe. He called it Tech trading. I wanted the tech trading entry to have more useful information, like how you can't trade tech without the theoretical tech,etc. So I made up the term Tech sharing and copied his text over.

I really have to agree with Geo, all it does is make the inevitable happen sooner.

Yeesh, what a can of worms I opened. And I only mentioned it because it's a topic that comes up on this board from time to time.

Oh, thanks for the EB explanation Rautha, I had heard of it before.

[ January 10, 2003, 20:17: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
[QB]I didn't know "turtling" was anything common.
[QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm . . . Why is turtling "gamey" - that's the whole point of having warp closers and system shields otherwise spending all those resources in research and building would be pointless.

I think that tactics that are used that aren't taking advantage of bugs are perfectly valid unless there is a rule in the specific game against them.

I've been backstabbed, been turtled against, and had people gang up against me by trading techs, etc. and I may have been pissed off about it, but I never thought it was cheating. It sounds like sour grapes to me when players want rules patched out because they get beat using their pet playing style when playing against humans.

BTW: What's this mysterious EB bug?

[Phoenix-D]

The EB thing seems to to bothersome, trading planets.. I mean, my population wouldn't think fondly of me if I gave them away every now and then! And to keep track of which planet to trade and when. That exploit I consider a bug"

It has been reported, right? I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about, and such a thing can't be fixed if not reported..

Phoenix-D

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by rextorres:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ruatha:
[QB]I didn't know "turtling" was anything common.
[QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm . . . Why is turtling "gamey" - that's the whole point of having warp closers and system shields otherwise spending all those resources in research and building would be pointless.

I think that tactics that are used that aren't taking advantage of bugs are perfectly valid unless there is a rule in the specific game against them.

I've been backstabbed, been turtled against, and had people gang up against me by trading techs, etc. and I may have been pissed off about it, but I never thought it was cheating. It sounds like sour grapes to me when players want rules patched out because they get beat using their pet playing style when playing against humans.

BTW: What's this mysterious EB bug?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Turtling is probably just annoying, once every 2 days you log on to PBW, download a game file, fire up SE4, enter your password and ... anything today? ...No?...oh well, fill the carriers with some more fighters and hit F12...someday...someday

A little defenciveness is no problem. You can use the warp point closers to make choke points, you can use openers to bypass natural or synthetic choke points.

I can relate to suddenly finding a favorite tactic of yours is an exploit -- I liked opening warp points in the same or next system. I was sort of building a hyperspace bypass system for my 8 movement baseships. Can't do that anymore.

EB bug, don't know why everyone is being secretive. It was posted here. See the Encyclopedia Malfadorica *Click* (http://invirtuo.cc/phpwiki/index.php/PBW%20ethics) for a little hint.

[CNCRaymond]

Let me put it this way about using exploits.

A former friend used to love to win, he would do anything to win. When he started to loose, he started to cheating. He liked this, as loosing made him feel bad. Once I discovered he was using a cheat, I started. This sparked a massive debate about ethics. It was ethical for him to cheat because he liked to win, but not ethical for me because I could win without cheating. I never understood his arguement, and stopped playing games with him. Eventually, our friendship ended because of his "Win at all cost" attitude.

So Gravey, if you think it is ok to use an exploit when no one else knows about it, then yes that is cheating. However since you never did this, you have nothing to worry about.

I would like to point out that as long as a cheater can get away with it, they will. People who cheat or violate the game rules don't like the heat that comes with getting cought. They often scamper away, and start a counter argument about why reporting cheaters is bad.

[ January 10, 2003, 21:04: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

[Phoenix-D]

"I can relate to suddenly finding a favorite tactic of yours is an exploit -- I liked opening warp points in the same or next system. I was sort of building a hyperspace bypass system for my 8 movement baseships. Can't do that anymore."

This isn't an exploit. Well, to the same system I would say it, but not to the next system over. And certainly not to building a more efficent warp network!

Phoenix-D

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"I can relate to suddenly finding a favorite tactic of yours is an exploit -- I liked opening warp points in the same or next system. I was sort of building a hyperspace bypass system for my 8 movement baseships. Can't do that anymore."

This isn't an exploit. Well, to the same system I would say it, but not to the next system over. And certainly not to building a more efficent warp network!

Phoenix-D<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, well, MM made it so you can't do it anymore, so I guess it is an exploit, innit?

[Wardad]

Banning tech trades and population trades is not as easy as it sounds. The menu check box "No Tech Trades" does not prevent trading ships or planets. There should also be a N0 TRADES box.

Having weaker neighbors to early on (capturing pop and colonizers) can unbalance the game.

Limited warfare can be used to capture population and ships. But.. If there is little risk due to prior agreements, then it is wrong for a no (tech) trade game.

[ January 10, 2003, 21:27: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[Ed Kolis]

Originally posted by Arkcon:
Yeah, well, MM made it so you can't do it anymore, so I guess it is an exploit, innit?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Really? How would they do that?

[gravey101]

>So Gravey, if you think it is ok to use an >exploit when no one else knows about it, then >yes that is cheating.

I have heard this argument time and time again. Who are you to decree what is an exploit and what isn't? The only person who can decide is the game host for the game your are playing. He decides the rules of the game, including whether any of the currently known bugs are ok or not. If you break those rules it is cheating. If you dont then it isn't. Simple as that. If you dont like his decision as to what is ok and what isn't you play something else or start your own game or whatever. What you don't do is lable evryone else who doesn't conform to your view as a cheater.

[gravey101]

and please dont bother with the mythical exploit that only 1 person knows about. The bugs in SEIV very quickly become public knowledge.

[Fyron]

Ok guys... that game is over. There is no need to continue arguing about it here on Shrapnel.

[gravey101]

But but but... he started it.

In any case. WE're not aguing about _that_ game at least to my knowledge. I'm just arguing about something I feel strongly about.

[ January 10, 2003, 21:45: Message edited by: gravey101 ]

[Phoenix-D]

"Yeah, well, MM made it so you can't do it anymore, so I guess it is an exploit, innit?"

You can still open warp points to adjactant systems, and it's still quite possible to build a more efficent warp network..so no.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

Bug exploits are bad though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I tend to include a clause whereby all known bug exploits are Banned in my games. Then, I add new ones to the list as I find out about them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[gravey101]

Right, and that's the only way to do it IMO. I woudn't play in a game again where the host didnt do that. Cuts out all the subjectiveness and leaves the nastiness and insults to the battlefield where they should be.

[couslee]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
EB is an ackernim for an exploit. Many of us have been asked not to spread it around. So I will not go into detail about it. Lets just say that it has been around for a long while, and if used would allow a player an unfair advantage.

Most players do not use it, and when they do, you'll know about it. Trust me.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gee THANKS from all the No0Bi3z. thats like saying
"Your in danger!"
"how so?"
"not telling"
"WHY?"
"Well, when you cut your thumb off, you will know why. Trust me"

[geoschmo]

couslee, it's not a matter of keeping something secret so it can be used against newbies. Bugs are often not discussed openly in the forums until they are patched out to keep unethical people from becoming aware of them and exploiting them.

It's not to keep it secret from you, it's to keep it from being used against you.

Geoschmo

[ January 10, 2003, 23:02: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[tesco samoa]

well spoken geo.

[DavidG]

As far as I am concerned all 'exploits' in PBW should be allowed unless explicitly Banned by the host. (now before you flame me please finish reading). Because who's to say what an exploit is or what is just a good legal strategy? I read an old post were a certain racial characteristic combination was called an exploit?? WTF?? As far as I am concerned if the game lets you do it it is legal. I do not know what the EB exploit is but I think I know what the TDM one is (and No I would not use this because it is an obvious bug) BUT If I happen to be a player who does not read these forms and use the TDM weapon I would be seriously pissed if I got accused of cheating. And what about non obvious bugs? Say I'm playing pre ver 1.78 (and again don't follow this forum closely) and discover that I can launch mines as long as less than 100 were in orbit. Shall I be considered unethical or a cheater if I do so? Heck I once got accused of cheating for picking the Ancient Race trait.

IMHO the bottom line is that if an 'exploit' is considered unethical it should be made clear by the host prior to the start of a PBW game. And although I can understand why keeping exploits a secret is desirable by some I think they should be made public so we could agree to ban them or at least know when they've been used against us and if allowed in the future to defend against them.

[tesco samoa]

Dg... no flames from me.

It is up to the game admin to make sure exploits / or unfair stuff do not happen.

The 8 turn Emergancy Build and trade the planets one is hard to catch. I am hoping that it is corrected in the next patch which i hear may or may not come out before MOO3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The mothball one was removed... which is good.

The TDM one is up to the game admin.
As there are patches to deal with it or a gentle mans agreement.

[Gozra]

I find this an interesting thread. I really think there are few outright cheats in this game. And they all involve hacking.
I do know one player that has a list of folks he will play and not play with. I think that is a very good Idea. I also get the impression that as a community we have managed to keep it fairly clean. My hat is off to all of us.
Exploiting the internal mechanics of the game is a much slippery issue. knowingly using an obvious bug that gives an unfair advantage should get you on the blacklist. But trading for tech, forming alliances, and the Sneak attack are all valid 'choices'.
Any one want to start a poll? On what is gamey or not gamey?
For instance
Multiple ship training faclities on several planets to reduce your training time. Gamey? or not gamey?

[Ruatha]

What is this term Gamey? Never heard of it before, it seems to be bad?

[Fyron]

Multiple ship training faclities on several planets to reduce your training time. Gamey? or not gamey?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well... the facilities do say "One Per Planet effective", and not "One Per Sector". So, there is no reason why you can't have more than one working in a sector on different planets. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I do not know if this was intentional or not on the part of MM, but that is how it is IMHO. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[spoon]

Originally posted by Gozra:
Multiple ship training faclities on several planets to reduce your training time. Gamey? or not gamey?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Define "gamey"...

[Gozra]

Issue is not that the game allows it. The issue is if it is gamey or not. Grin and I feel what gamey is just have a hard time explaining it.

[Gozra]

I will take a stab at it.

How about: you would be not to do this in the real SEIV Universe but in the SEIV game you do it to get an advantage.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Gozra:
I will take a stab at it.

How about: you would be not to do this in the real SEIV Universe but in the SEIV game you do it to get an advantage.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is astart, but in some cases you have to be able to define what could or could not be done in a hypothetical "SEIV universe". Some things in the game are limitations for game play reasons, not any kind of "laws of the alternate universe" reasons.

Training facilities on moons are one of these. The mines per sector thing is another.

Basically a lot of these are subjective, there is no way around it. "I don't know art, but I know what I like". So the idea of playing with a core group of players you know and are comfortable with is a good idea if these things bother you a lot. Of course that can make it more difficult for new players to get a game, but eventually they will get enough people to give them a chance, and then they can earn a good reputation.

Geoschmo

[Ruatha]

Good explanation, I can see that 100 mines per sector would be impossible in the SE IV universe due to the mines setting eachother off, etc.
So I think that was a good explanation, if it's the true on I don't kbnow as I hadn't heard of it before.

[ January 11, 2003, 00:07: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
Good explanation, I can see that 100 mines per sector would be impossible in the SE IV universe due to the mines setting eachother off, etc.
So I think that was a good explanation, if it's the true on I don't kbnow as I hadn't heard of it before.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, except that two empires can launch 100 miunes each in the same sector. This has always been allowed and I have never heard anyone complain about it. This fact alone is enough to demonstarte that the 100 mines per sector is not intended to be a realistic universe limit. It's a game thing to prevent people from putting thousands of mines up and bringing the game to a halt. You don't have to have an explanation for it that makes sense other than that.

Geoschmo

[Fyron]

Just bring enough to sweep 200 mines then. A little redundancy won't kill you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[spoon]

Originally posted by Gozra:

How about: you would be not to do this in the real SEIV Universe but in the SEIV game you do it to get an advantage.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Realism can be a poor measure to use to decide what you can and can't do in a game - especially for fantasy and sci-fi, since you can use magic or "high-tech" to explain most anything.

[CNCRaymond]

Gravey, I think your one of the few players who can play the game in your sleep. And if someone ever pulled this crap on you, you would still win because your that good of a player.

Your statement and comments are valid, and I would like to respond to them. So please don't think that I am attacking you, I would never do that.

I have heard this argument time and time again. Who are you to decree what is an exploit and what isn't? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Common sense often dictates this. Sometimes the line is very thin between a valid tactic and an exploit. The EB exploit for instance can look like a tactic, but is really an exploit giving the player the ability to amass a massive fleet in extremely short amount of time.

The only person who can decide is the game host for the game your are playing. He decides the rules of the game, including whether any of the currently known bugs are ok or not. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What if he doesn't know about all of the bugs, but player X does? Should Player X be an ethical player and tell the host? Or should he remain silent and use the bug to his advantage? Then in lies the dilemma.

If you break those rules it is cheating. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, only if player X is caught.

If you don’t then it isn't. Simple as that. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have heard this argument many times. If you know its an exploit, and no one else does, then when you use it, you are cheating regardless if it is listed in the rules or not.

If you don’t like his decision as to what is ok and what isn't you play something else or start your own game or whatever.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think this goes without saying. Play at your own risk.

What you don't do is label everyone else who doesn't conform to your view as a cheater. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would never do that. I have been beaten many times by brilliant players, and a few times by lucky ones. But when I find out that one or two of the players who beat me did so by using and exploit that allowed them to build massive amounts of colony ships within a fraction of the turns it should have, and did this throughout the game with other ships, then ya, I will label them cheaters, because that is exactly what they are.

[geoschmo]

If you break those rules it is cheating. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Again, only if player X is caught.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, if something is cheating, then it's cheating whether or not you get caught. Now that is not to say something is cheating jsut because one person or another says it is. But that is the reason for this topic to begin with.

I will tell everyone this, and please take me seriously. There are ways to cheat on PBW. But there is NO way to cheat that is 100% guaranteed of not getting caught. No matter how well you cover your tracks, you cannot get around the fact that all the game files are stored on the PBW server. I can, and have at times, gone through turn by turn and compared to see if it were possible to legally get form A to B.

The most you can do is make it very difficult for me to catch you. And a good rule of thumb is that the harder it is for me to catch you cheating, the harder I will come down on you when I do catch you. So if you want to continue playing on PBW, don't cheat.

Geoschmo

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by DavidG:
As far as I am concerned all 'exploits' in PBW should be allowed unless explicitly Banned by the host. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sheesh, four pages so far. Gadzooks. DavidG, I agree with this. I hope people will edit the Encyclopedia Malfadorica page here: (http://invirtuo.cc/phpwiki/index.php/PBW%20ethics) so we can have a canonical list of what we'd like to include and exclude.

And people can erase from the page what's not an exploit, back and forth until a half-assed consencus is reached. I guess. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Pax]

Originally posted by Gozra:
Any one want to start a poll? On what is gamey or not gamey?
For instance
Multiple ship training faclities on several planets to reduce your training time. Gamey? or not gamey?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not gamey. Anyone -- even an utter newbie like I was the first time I noticed this, during my first ever (solo, btw) game of SE4 *classic*, could ascertain the probable results of building a training facility on each of a planet and BOTH it's two moons, just by reading theLITERAL description.

And then, as I did, test it.

Ergo ... it might not OCCUR to you to do so, or, you mgiht nto FIND a two-moon planet.

So what?

You might also get stuck, early in a game, with nothing but small-and-tiny, mostly-domed colonies. I did, recently, on PBW. Would I call the guy who got luckier, with a couple big breathables within ready range of his HW, a cheater for it?

Hell no.

It might seem contrary to expectations WRT how the facilities work to some, but not to me. IMO, a single training facility represents "the best of the best" in naval academies (etc) on that entire PLANET (or moon).

If there's also a moon, you can have the best-of-the-best THERE, too.

Why shoud having two ultra-close-proximity "elite naval academies" do mroe good than a single academy?

One word: competition. Competitive spirit brings out the best (and worst) in people. Having two entire naval academies, able to form training squadrons and engage in wargames against each other ... each with their own cadet uniforms, own insignia-and-colors for the training vessels, and so on ... could greatly, greatly, enhance the efficacy of the efforts to train those cadets.

However, I personally think a training facility should give a ONE-time benefit to a ship, to a much higher level (say, 5x the facility level), and only upon construction, refit, or un-mothball of the ship ... representing the assignment of a NEW, well-trained crew.

However, SE4 doesn't do that ... more's the pity.

[Cheeze]

Guess I must not be just anyone, because it never occurred to me to try this multiple training centers option. It seems both counter-productive to the spirit of the training facilities design(Hey, you get an advantage in combat, but here's the catch: you have to keep your ships on hold for X turns to get it)and to gameplay itself. The 'competition' explanation can be reasonable if you (as a member of a game or a host) accept it. However, the training is done at one location by one ship/fleet....so this works only if you have a race that can split into different selves and re-incorporate every turn to incorporate the knowledge of each. By the 'competition' logic, you should be able to use multiple system robotoid facilities/time shrines or even multiple planetary factories to boost resource/research/intel generation. I'm sure it's been tried, but the game has been designed to disallow that option. If you can't build multiple training facilities on one planet to avoid this "over-training" in a sector, it seems to me that multiple planets in one sector shouldn't skirt around this stipulation, which might be murder to code in such a checking process without creating unforseen bugs.

It also never occurred to me to use training facilites and psychic training facilities together. This too seems to hedging at the edge of what's allowable, although that would seem more fair. The benefit of a training center is to boost a ship/fleet skill by 1-3% per turn. A psychic facility can do the same but anywhere in a system. Perhaps that's just how I would like to play, that any benefit comes with a cost.

[Gozra]

Well here goes stab II. I was playing a great game long ago in a c-64 galaxy far away. Lords of conquest. I the game you could trade resources for resources. Well I desperatly needed a horse to carry out an attack against an opponet. I traded a fellow player a horse for another horse the key 'Gamey" thing here was I got to pick the place where I could put the horse That I traded for anywhere on the board in any of my territories. Well I put it just right where I needed that horse and a few seconds later I had a new provence. And the player I took it from flew into a rage and accused me of cheating.
So the second definition of gamey is if you think of a clever move first that could be percived as gamey.
In Version 1.67 is it 'gamey' to put a weapons platform on a planet with the talisman with an engine destroying weapon on the platform so that when the enemy fleet attacks and one ship in the fleet has it's engine destroyed the fleet can't move until it is repaired? In other words you can only take one planet per game turn.
(I think it is clever use of your combat resources)
But that tactic can give you a big advantage in a game and it exploited a known bug.(engine destroying weapon in SEIV 1.67)

[Gryphin]

Ethics, Cheat, Exploit, Bug, Competative, Things that don't make sence, Limitations.
When all is said and done couldn't the issue be resolved by checking with the game host? I would think that if there is any doubt as to weather a given action was unethical or cheating that the final judge woudl be the game master. That is the way it always was when I played mineatures.
I have not played much PBW so I could be way off base.
Now that I think about it, perhaps I did something I should not have. I once addressed a message to an ally telling him I was doing one thing. I was actualy doing something different but the message was credidble. I then deliberately sent that message to my advesary. So without thinking I may have violated the intended purpose for ingame communications. What do you think?

[ January 11, 2003, 05:24: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

[Gozra]

Well personally I think you were doing an ok thing if you were playing like a stinking cardassian. But, and I find this true of myself, people tend to have a hard time seperating The SEIV player from the nice cuddly human outside the game. I remember reading in an old Wargaming magizine about the Avalon Hill game diplomacy about the tactics of lying. The Big lie the medium lie and the small lie. It was just part of the game.

[geoschmo]

Heck, now we aren't gonna lump lying in and call it gamey are we? I lie all the time in PBW games. I've even been known to lie in out of character email communications from time to time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Gryphin, you aren't wrong. The game owner is the final say in PBW games whether these things are cheating. THe only time we get involved is if it's a possible issue of hacking, data file manipulation or something like that. I have at times looked at game files at a game owner request to see if a player is doing a bug exploit. But if it turns out to be true, it's up to him what action to take. I won't ban someone from PBW for that.

Geoschmo

[ January 11, 2003, 05:47: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Gryphin]

Gozra I have to admit I was playing more of a "noble" race. That said, I was also fighting a loosing battle for my life. At the time I saw it as no more than a form of mis-information dissemination that you see in fiction. Sadly I don't know if it worked.
Now that I think of it. I did similar things while playing miniatures. On more than one occasion I left out false equipment list and orders to troops. I know some of those worked. I guess you could say I was exploiting a human weakness.

[Grandpa Kim]

Wow! I would really like to respond to each an every one of the Posts in this thread but even I don't have that kind of patience. I think I'll respond to just a few but let me start by quoting something I wrote many years ago:

"Any organization in need of a Code of Ethics is too far gone to be helped by it."

This community does not need a code of ethics! Just as Canada does not need a gun registry-- the law abiding will be good doobies and register and the crooks will still have their guns. For the most part we are "law-abiding citizens" and guys like Geo (with a little help from general population) will hunt down the "crooks".

Exploits. What is an exploit? I don't really agree with the definition accepted by the community, which is: "A part of the game play that does not conform precisely with the stated rules." The old 100 mine limit problem would fit this definition. The present Temporal weapon problem would not! It is a serious bug.

But as I said, I don't agree that this is the proper definition of an exploit. It is a bug! Albeit minor. I have played many games (dare I say all!) with bugs and you learn to live with them if they aren't game wreckers, and eventually, to take advantage of them. Some are never corrected. Some of them can't be avoided. One good example applying to pre-Gold games is the fact that the lower player number shoots first in any combat. By the current definition, this is an exploit and totally unavoidable until gold corrected it. And if you think thats a small thing, take a look at the remnants of my fleet in "Conquista".

To me an exploit is taking advantage of any part of the game to enhance my chances. When I design my empire, I exploit these characteristics to enhance my game style. I exploit emergency build in concert with empire stats, base design, colonizer design in a way that suits me and maximizes production. I do not leave it on for the full ten turns pumping out colonizers. That doesn't suit me, but I believe my way is better. No one here would say I am cheating in any manner by doing this. Nor would they say it is unethical. It is how you play the game... or at least one way. So if the game is poorly programmed presenting me with a problem and/or opportunity, I handle it as best I can. In fact, I often become a better player because of it. In the game "Conquista" mentioned earlier, when I was able to avoid those nasty warp point battles, I did extraordinarily well, because I was forced to plan and design around an unfortunate bug. In other words, I had to think!

Encyclopedia Malfadorica - PBW Ethics: IMHO there is not one thing in this article that has anything to do with ethics. It is merely a bunch of opinions on the "funnest" way to play the game. Excuse me, but I'll decide that on my own, and join the games that I find "funnest".

I'm still not sure what this EB "exploit" is but I'm beginning to get a glimmer. Let me let you in on a couple more bugs that I have never seen mentioned. Did you know that you can get emergency build to go beyond 10 turns? Without doubt, you can get it to go 11 turns. I found this out entirely by accident. I thought I was going to have to wait for 4 turns of slow build, but surprise, surprise, the ship was built on the 11th turn. And yes I'm quite sure it was 11 turns at E build; even the math agreed. What I'm wondering, is can it go even further? Suppose you have a ship that takes 15 turns at E build?...

The other is the upgrade facilities button. It will upgrade facilities currently under construction. This will not work with ships (it used to in the early Versions) but it still works for facilities. You can have a Monolith 2 with one turn left and upgrade it to Monoith 3 at absolutely no cost. The next turn you will have a Monolith 3 even though you started building a Monolith 2.

from Rextorres:
I've been backstabbed, been turtled against, and had people gang up against me by
trading techs, etc. and I may have been pissed off about it, but I never thought it was
cheating. It sounds like sour grapes to me when players want rules patched out because
they get beat using their pet playing style when playing against humans. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This I grok!

from Gozra:
I do know one player that has a list of folks he will play and not play with. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That might be me. There are no cheaters on my black list... yet! I haven't found any. The ones that are in there have a lack of consideration and commitment. I have no time for these sorts.

So, is it unethical to exploit a bug? No! It is not! You play the hand you are dealt. Is it unethical to exploit a bug forbidden by the host? Yes! Of course! By joining the game, you have agreed to the rules. To break them is cheating, plain and simple.

Okay, I've rambled on long enough. Who's next?

[Rambie]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Bug exploits are bad though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I tend to include a clause whereby all known bug exploits are Banned in my games. Then, I add new ones to the list as I find out about them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where is this list? I'd hate to get into a multiplayer game and use one of these on accident.

[Fyron]

Well... the list is kinda out-dated, cause I haven't started any games with the 1.78 patch (upgraded, yeah). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Everything in the list is fixed in 1.78 except Retroseries (which isn't a bug anyways http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

I add new ones when I learn of them. The list for Adamant 004 is like this:

No bug exploits allowed:

-exceeding the 100 units per sector limit (this includes satellites and mines). To account for a slight margin of error due to the fact that you cannot directly control the number of units allowed, 105 shall be the absolute limit.

-Using a colony ship as an early tech minesweeper (which will no longer be an issue after the next patch, btw).

-Using drones as early tech minesweepers (which will no longer be an issue after the next patch, btw).

-Retroseries building is not a bug, it is an intended game feature, and so is not prohibited by this rule (ie: it is allowed to be done).

[couslee]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
couslee, it's not a matter of keeping something secret so it can be used against newbies. Bugs are often not discussed openly in the forums until they are patched out to keep unethical people from becoming aware of them and exploiting them.

It's not to keep it secret from you, it's to keep it from being used against you.

Geoschmo<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was only teasing you guys. if i ever got around to becomming involved in a MP game, I am sure I could find out what that exploits are. If nothing else, I would ask the game host. After a number of 3yr SMAC PBEM games, I am still a little soured on the whole idea. Not opposed, and it's fun, yes. but I would have to make sure I like this game enough to make a long commitment. I have already read about the drop-out problems. Had that a lot in SMAC also. I think I know what the exploit is your talking about, and is I am correct, it was generally accepted in SMAC and not gamey at all. But as the original CMN and co-writer of the SMAC PBEM rules, I feel any dis-allowed or frowned-upon tactics should always be agreed upon by the host and all players before the first turn is sent.

[DavidG]

Hmm I think I now know that Gamey = a bad thing. Wasn't sure before. It sounds like calling something 'gamey' is just what sore losers do when they are beaten by a tactic they did not know about. I used to play a guy were everytime I won I got accused of using a cheesy rule or tactic. The result was that every new game something else got Banned (ie Tech trade, surrender, red planets, Intel) untill finaly it was suggested that my using Ancient Race was cheating.

[couslee]

LOL @ ancient race being a cheat.

When life gives you lemmons, eat em. you could have recieved limes instead

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:
Wow! I would really like to respond to each an every one of the Posts in this thread but even I don't have that kind of patience<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Likewise.

Originally posted by Grandpa Kim:


Encyclopedia Malfadorica - PBW Ethics: IMHO there is not one thing in this article that has anything to do with ethics. It is merely a bunch of opinions on the "funnest" way to play the game. Excuse me, but I'll decide that on my own, and join the games that I find "funnest".

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Got time to edit?

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by couslee:

GAMEY: cheezy, can't believe you did that, ur an arsehole for doing that, I am pissed cause I didn't know about/think of it first.
Example: Using captured "other breathers" to colonize/re-colonize red-dot planets. (some might view this as gamey, don't flame me) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah see, I have a real problem with "gamey" -- it supposed to be a game. I suppose that means I'm not roleplaying my bloodthirsty Krill race properly by making a trade alliance. Maybe I dont feel like playing that way?

[geoschmo]

Now see Arkcon, would a true bloodthirsty race really advertise themselves as such? Wouldn't they list themselves in the Galactic Who's Who as a race of peaceful artists? That way the sucker races would all turn their back and they could pounce them. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Gozra]

Wellll It looks like:
'GAMEY' is not a situation but a state of mind.
I was a bit irritated at a friend when he revealed that upgrading a ship and not upgrading the engines left the ship with it's current fuel load. My first thought was damn I wish I knew that and I got that gamey feeling. But He just knew the game better than I and so NO ONE has come up with a truly 'GAMEY' Situation.

[Atrocities]

I think this is the first time I have seen Rambie post. I am in aw. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

-Retroseries building is not a bug, it is an intended game feature, and so is not prohibited by this rule (ie: it is allowed to be done).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Explain this please?

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">-Retroseries building is not a bug, it is an intended game feature, and so is not prohibited by this rule (ie: it is allowed to be done).<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Explain this please?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think Fyron's statement is pretty self-explanatory. What is your question about it? Do you disagree?

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Gozra:
Wellll It looks like:
'GAMEY' is not a situation but a state of mind.
I was a bit irritated at a friend when he revealed that upgrading a ship and not upgrading the engines left the ship with it's current fuel load. My first thought was damn I wish I knew that and I got that gamey feeling. But He just knew the game better than I and so NO ONE has come up with a truly 'GAMEY' Situation.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why would it not work this way? When I take my car to the shop to get an oil change or have speakers installed they don't drain the fuel tank. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[tesco samoa]

AT...

Mothballed retro fitting.

I do hope he does not take that away. As it makes sence.

[Gozra]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Gozra:
Wellll It looks like:
'GAMEY' is not a situation but a state of mind.
I was a bit irritated at a friend when he revealed that upgrading a ship and not upgrading the engines left the ship with it's current fuel load. My first thought was damn I wish I knew that and I got that gamey feeling. But He just knew the game better than I and so NO ONE has come up with a truly 'GAMEY' Situation.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why would it not work this way? When I take my car to the shop to get an oil change or have speakers installed they don't drain the fuel tank. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are right GEO it should work taht way but when I upgrade I upgrade everything and it was just something I did not notice and being out of fuel after an upgrade is a minor problem I still contend with. I guess I need to pay even closer attention to the game.

[ January 11, 2003, 18:42: Message edited by: Gozra ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
AT...

Mothballed retro fitting.

I do hope he does not take that away. As it makes sence.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is one of those few things where not only do I not think it's an exploit, I can't even understand the position of anyone that does. At least noone that objects to it has done so in amanner I could relate to. Like with the mine and training thing, I personally don't have a problem with them, but I could at least see why someone might. But allowing retrofits of mothballed ships isn't gamey. In fact NOT allowing it WOULD be gamey. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

[Gozra]

I am putting up a prize of 10 Galatic credits for anyone coming up with a "gamey" situation that the better than 70% majority can aggree that it is gamey. No rotting flesh stories either. Gold 1.78 only Bugs not allowed.

[DarkHorse]

I think the definition of 'gamey' really depends on why a person plays a given game in the first place.

Allow me to posit a hypothetical game player, one who plays a given game because they find the 'game universe' to be compelling, for varying reasons. Perhaps they enjoy science fiction-inspired settings, or maybe they have personal interest in the historical perspectives offered by a game, or maybe the fantasy elements really appeal to our hypothetical game player. This type of player will often try to stay true to a particular style of play that they feel is consistent with the spirit in which the game is intended, at least as they perceive it. This is how they enjoy the game, by trying to stay 'in character', as it where.

Let's say another hypothetical player-type is also attracted to the fictional universe in question, but maybe not to the same degree. This person gets greater enjoyment out of the strategic challenges, or empire building, and doesn't balk at the micromanagement required to get the most out of their position in the game. While this player may also have been attracted to the game by the coolness of the science fiction/fantasy/historical/etc theme of the game, what they really enjoy is the down and dirty nuts and bolts of the game system, and the challenge of outplaying their rivals and winning the game. The setting is just an added bonus, making the micromanagement tolerable. After all, who would play SEIV if all the graphics where removed, and it was distilled down to a huge spreadsheet? Not too many people, I think.

Generally speaking, these two types of game players will get along just fine. But where their philosophies overlap there is a bit of a gray area. This gray area is where the term 'gamey' comes into play. A Nuts and Bolts (NaB) player may see absolutely nothing wrong with a particular tactic (I won't get specific because it's open to interpretation), since this tactic is clearly allowed by the rules and doesn't involve obviously nefarious methods like hacking the game/exploiting bugs in the software, etc. The Spirit of the Game (SoG) player, however, may view such a tactic as 'gamey', as it clearly (to them) goes against the implied spirit of the game universe, although it is technically allowed (usually by the limitations of programming a simulation of a huge universe). (By the way, I hope no one objects to my terms, I'm not trying to stereotype anyone.) The SoG's argument would be along the lines of "Your race would never do (insert tactic here), you are playing unrealistically and exploiting the limitations of the medium!" while the NaB's response might be "What are you talking about? I'm not breaking any rules, and I can't believe you are being so anal. It's just a game!" or something to that effect.

Most times, of course, arguments like this never arise, but some tactics eventually come to be viewed with increasing suspicion over time, and will occasionally spawn the 'gamey' debate. Neither side is right or wrong, of course, because they each have their own motivations for playing the game. In a game like chess, which is already distilled down to its tactical essence, this type of debate would never arise. Can you imagine: "Why is your king hiding! That would never happen in the Middle Ages, kings always led their armies into battle!!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Anyway, that's my rambling take on the 'gamey' term. I hope it made at least a little sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[SamuraiProgrammer]

In my opinion, there are certainly exploits that should be avoided because they unbalance the game and make it less interesting and / or fun. I think a common link between 'gamey' exploits would be that the rules or game mechanics allow something that is inconsistent with what is expected.

I would like to tell of an escapade that happened in a pbem game I ran. Before I tell any more details, I would like to say that as soon as someone mentioned that this might be less than sportsmanlike, the player in question ceased this activity immediately. In our conversations, it was obvious that he would have never done it if he thought someone would dissaprove.

In one game we played, this player chose ancient race. This (in and of itself) is fine and I find nothing wrong with it. He then proceeded to trade with computer races. Again, this is fine and I find nothing wrong with it.

What happened next, however, was (IMHO) a problem. He claimed a system he had never been in (OK by itself). He traded it to a computer race for one of their HOME PLANETS! This I had a problem with. There is no way a race would trade one of their HOME planets for an undeveloped system half way across the galaxy.

I am interested in commments from others about this tactic.

I am also interested in continuing the discussion and coming to a consensus as to what is appropriate and what is not.

In my opinon...

If it is a bug that will be corrected it is wrong to exploit it.

If it is a bug that cannot be avoided, the tech should be avoided by agreement.

It it is an exploit of a 'gross inadequacy' of the AI it should be avoided. There is room for debate on what constitutes 'gross inadequacy'.

There are many other 'tactics' that may reduce the playability of the game, but they are unavoidable in many cases.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:

What happened next, however, was (IMHO) a problem. He claimed a system he had never been in (OK by itself). He traded it to a computer race for one of their HOME PLANETS! This I had a problem with. There is no way a race would trade one of their HOME planets for an undeveloped system half way across the galaxy.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">WOW!!! It is totally obvious from this that there is a bug in how the game evaluates the value of a system. I hope MM knows about this. I'll be extremely surprised if anyone thinks this is fair play.

[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
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I did not know what this was. Fyron explained it to me. And I know better than to argue with the might G. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 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

[couslee]

Oops. After reading a little more, I know what the EB bug is. It was not what I was thinking of before.

In SMAC, one of the exploits that came under scrutiny was the tech accumulation carry over. Or, Leap-froging. It was put on the CMN options list of disallowed tactics. I think something like that would be called for here (I mean the list). Acessable to all, thread debateable prior to game starts.

The rules list was set up like a check list, that was completed by the person making the challange to other players (in this case, the host). that was posted in the thread offering slots. if someone didn't like the rules, then there was no need to request a position. This eliminated the problem that seems apparent here. Most people that view a certain tactic as gamey, is because either they would not use it (so what, personal choices are not gamey), or they did not know about it and other players in the game did. In smac, we found out most things viewed as gamey were of no consequence once everyone knew about it, and if disallowed was stated prior to game start. If a tactic is not disallowed, or specifically allowed, and a player by choice decides to not use it, then any other players that do are NOT cheating.

I will give it a shot.
GAMEY: cheezy, can't believe you did that, ur an arsehole for doing that, I am pissed cause I didn't know about/think of it first.
Example: Using captured "other breathers" to colonize/re-colonize red-dot planets. (some might view this as gamey, don't flame me)

Exploit/Cheat: Using a tactic that allows something in the game to work beyond how the game was designed.
Example: (not a true example) If you figured out a way to re-order the build queue without losing accumulated construction, that would be an exploit/bug. Currently, this is not allowed in-game.
(tho I think that should be allowed/fixed)

And one more quick comment..... WHO gives a flying hoot what people do in a single player game? in SP, there are not any gamey/exploits tactics. the only person you have to please is yourself. If I choose to re-load a game 15 times until I get a combat result in my favor, that is my choice. Provided of course I am not using final scores in a MP competition. After all, in that situation, your not really just in a SP game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[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<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Rambie]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I think this is the first time I have seen Rambie post. I am in aw. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I'm more of a lurker. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

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.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Rambie:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by tesco samoa:
AT...

Mothballed retro fitting.

I do hope he does not take that away. As it makes sence.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mothball retro fitting?

Is this possible?

Or are you saying you don't want it to be possible? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

[Phoenix-D]

"What about using colonizers as scouts, not just mine sweepers/detectors? Exactly how would a colonizer sweep mines anyway?"

In an old patch mine damage wouldn't stack, and would be erased after every mine. This meant a colonizer, with that huge, damage-soaking colony component, could take an infinite amount of hits from small low tech mines and survive.

It worked like so:
Small mine, two 100-damage wareads.
Colony component, 200kt resistance.

Mine warhead one explodes, does 100 damage to colony component. Since the component is still inact, the damage is lost. Mine warheads #2, 3,4,5,6,7..n do the same thing. The colony component absorbs 100n damage, when really it should have been taken out with the second warhead.

Phoenix-D

[tesco samoa]

IT is possible. and used by many players.

I do not think it is a 'gamy thing'

I like it

[Fyron]

What I do not like about retrofitting mothballed ships is that some people exploit it with retroseries builds to avoid part of their costs (the maintenance). Retroseries building should be really expensive, and mothballing can cut down the costs paid if the series is a long one.

[rextorres]

Well, one of the advantages to retroseries bldg is that your ship can collect experience while in the retroseries process instead of the ship being in the build que - so strategically it probably wouldn't make sense to mothball anyway.

[ January 12, 2003, 23:00: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[tbontob]

Tesco Samoa and Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So, it is possible. And exploitable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Your comments seem to imply that this may be one of the 'grey' areas which may be improper to exploit.

I am just a newbie on this, but my thoughts are there is a difference between unethical conduct and an aspect of the game that may not be possible or practical in real life but is possible in the game.

Like hacking the code or playing two empires in the same game is clearly unethical.

In real life a mothballed ship cannot be upgraded. If you upgrade it, it can no longer be mothballed.

Yet the game allows both to co-exist.

Personally, I do not think it is unethical to exploit something in a game that is impossible in real life.

If we do not like it, we can ask for a code change or declare it illegal for use in a game.

The latter clearly presents some problems as discovery of the infraction will take some time if ever, and the damage has been done to some of the empires.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by tbontob:
In real life a mothballed ship cannot be upgraded. If you upgrade it, it can no longer be mothballed.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why exactly? There is absolutely no reason to why it would be necessary to pay a full crew to man a ship at combat readiness while you are ripping out its guts and entirely replacing.

Personally, I do not think it is unethical to exploit something in a game that is impossible in real life.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then we should also not be flying around between star systems in the game, and should never build a single starship.

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
[QB] </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by tbontob:
In real life a mothballed ship cannot be upgraded. If you upgrade it, it can no longer be mothballed.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why exactly? There is absolutely no reason to why it would be necessary to pay a full crew to man a ship at combat readiness while you are ripping out its guts and entirely replacing.
QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hi Graeme http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Mothball is defined in my dictionary as
1. a ball made formerly of camphor---Oops wrong mothball http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Let's try again
1. To deactivate (as a ship) and prevent deterioration chiefly by dehumidification.
2. To withdraw from use or service and keep in reserve.

My understanding of mothballing is that basically the ship is sealed off. If so, you cannot upgrade a ship and still have it sealed off.

As to paying a crew for being in combat readiness, take the Bismark as an example. It was built, and then IIRC went on sea trials in the Baltic for about a year to train its crew. Only then did it venture into the Atlantic.

The sea trials were important because in its first battle, it sunk the battleship Hood which was the pride of the British fleet and damaged the Prince of Wales.

Pretty good for a novice ship. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

So, if we want to be really accurate, I guess we could build the spaceship, and then have the ship hang around the planet for a year while its crew are being trained (to the basic minimum) and only then venture out into deep space.

[tesco samoa]

I agree. The ship is mothballed and not crewed.

It still takes a turn to unmothball the ship and costs resources.

I just feel it is logical to build tons and tons of ships and if you cannot afford to keep them around mothball them.

A classic example of this would be fighting two different types of races.

Race a is organic and constantly builds ships with organic armor maxed out
Race b is a missle / fighter / psychic race.

You build BB ships with crews and Armor skipping weapons to fight Race A.

You build PDC and Master computer and quick fire DF weapons ships to fight Race B

Your At war with Race A so you moth ball your Race B attack ships and build ships to Race A.

Mean while you have just researched MC 2 so you upgrade your mothballed ships... ANd every time you get an up grade you upgrade those ships.

After a while Race A and you agree on a treaty so you mothball about 75% of your fleet and unmothball 25% of your Race B fleet.

Then you just keep building ships for both fleets, mothballing those you cannot afford to keep around and upgrading them when you need to.

That my friend is how to use the mothball and retrofit to its proper use.

It also allows you to max out your spending.

Warning.

Make sure you have enough resources stored to unmothball ships when you need them. And then some extras to have them go about 4 to 5 turns while continueing to build at current rates.

[Fyron]

Yes Tesco, I already knew that. That use of retrofitting mothballed ships is not a problem. The problem is when people abuse it with retroseries builds to avoid a big chunk of the costs of the retroseries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[tbontob]

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

I can see your point although I have never tried it.

If you want an instant fleet (well, as instant as is possible), unmothballing and retrofitting will get you a fleet faster than any other method. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

All you need is a lot of ships with repair facilities hanging about and the resources to absorb the additional 50% cost (30% to gut the old component plus 20% to install the new components) as well as the cost of the components themselves.

Very expensive as you say. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But then it may be cheaper than having a smaller fleet hanging around doing nothing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[tbontob]

T.S. I think I may have missed the main thrust of your point.

And that is retrofitting while the ship is mothballed, thus avoiding maintenance costs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes Tesco, I already knew that. That use of retrofitting mothballed ships is not a problem. The problem is when people abuse it with retroseries builds to avoid a big chunk of the costs of the retroseries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, why is it a problem? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The game allows the retrofitting an existing ship in mothball status.

It also allows the construction of a new ship in mothball status.

Both are unrealistic, although the latter much more so (which may be your issue). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But the game does allows both although both are not factually based in real life.

If we do not like it, it is the coding which should be changed.

[Wanderer]

Originally posted by tbontob:
My understanding of mothballing is that basically the ship is sealed off. If so, you cannot upgrade a ship and still have it sealed off.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not so much sealing off as putting it in a port with a skeleton crew so as to avoid paying for a full crew, provisions, ammunition and fuel. I believe the Last Turkish battleship had a crew of 2 for several years (an old captain and his dog!) before the government decided to scrap it. Generally ships in mothball are cheap to maintain but deteriorate rapidly. Perhaps SE4's unmothball cost should be higher to represent the huge amount of work required to turn a decaying hulk into a battleworthy ship once more.

I can't see how this would prevent modifications to the vessel being made, though. There's no crew/ammo/fuel on board. Old parts that are rusting away can be replaced etc. Generally though, in real life mothballed ships are put in mothballs prior to being scrapped (the only exception I can think of is the American battleships mothballed then put back into action for the Gulf War), so it's hard to judge how this should be handled.

As to paying a crew for being in combat readiness, take the Bismark as an example. It was built, and then IIRC went on sea trials in the Baltic for about a year to train its crew. Only then did it venture into the Atlantic.

The sea trials were important because in its first battle, it sunk the battleship Hood which was the pride of the British fleet and damaged the Prince of Wales.

Pretty good for a novice ship. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Indeed, and the Prince of Wales was only recently built (when she left port to intercept the Bismarck she still had civilian contractors on board trying to get the main armament fully operational. During the Denmark Strait battle she was rarely able to fire more than 7 of her 10 main guns due to mechanical failures. Despite this she did manage to hit the Bismarck, rupturing a fuel tank and causing her to run for St. Nazaire. Several British ships were rushed into combat too quickly - I believe the record was a destroyer crippled/sunk just a week after being completed.

An interesting point is that the Tirpitz (sister ship of the Bismarck) was also recently built and was still working up when Bismarck sailed - hence she wasn't allowed to join the sortie (thank goodness - one battleship proved hard enough to stop).

The thing is that there are two issues that are lumped together in SE4:

1) Crew experience/training. This can be got round in real life by assigning crew from other ships to your new ship, or indeed, by training crew whilst their ship is being built. This is especially true if you have several ships of the same design on which to gain experience.

2) Vessel shakedown. No ship comes off the stocks fully operational, especially if the design is a new one. Generally weeks/months of sailing are required to shake out all the little niggling problems and make the ship fully battleworthy.

So, if we want to be really accurate, I guess we could build the spaceship, and then have the ship hang around the planet for a year while its crew are being trained (to the basic minimum) and only then venture out into deep space.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd like the training to be more important, perhaps by raising the amount of experience you can get, raising the amount you can get from training etc. This would mean ships raced into combat would be at a great disadvantage against those carefully brought up to full battle readiness. It would probably really hurt the AI, though.

Anyway, I've rambled on for enough.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by tbontob:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes Tesco, I already knew that. That use of retrofitting mothballed ships is not a problem. The problem is when people abuse it with retroseries builds to avoid a big chunk of the costs of the retroseries. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fyron, why is it a problem? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The game allows the retrofitting an existing ship in mothball status.

It also allows the construction of a new ship in mothball status.

Both are unrealistic, although the latter much more so (which may be your issue). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But the game does allows both although both are not factually based in real life.

If we do not like it, it is the coding which should be changed.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is where the issue becomes gamey, really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I have already stated why I consider it a problem several times. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 13, 2003, 01:40: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[tbontob]

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

A part of your posting...
----------------------------------------------
I believe the Last Turkish battleship had a crew of 2 for several years (an old captain and his dog!) before the government decided to scrap it.
----------------------------------------------

What rank did the dog have? And did it have a salary? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

I'd like the training to be more important, perhaps by raising the amount of experience you can get, raising the amount you can get from training etc. This would mean ships raced into combat would be at a great disadvantage against those carefully brought up to full battle readiness. It would probably really hurt the AI, though.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm... training is of extreme importance as it is. Untrained ships get 40% penalties against trained ships. That is a huge gap to overcome. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[tbontob]

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

Another part of your posting.....
-----------------------------------
Generally though, in real life mothballed ships are put in mothballs prior to being scrapped (the only exception I can think of is the American battleships mothballed then put back into action for the Gulf War), so it's hard to judge how this should be handled.
-----------------------------------
The Americans mothballed a number of WWII battleships. Some were used for the VietNam War and as you say in the Gulf war. They would be 50 years old at the time of the Gulf War.

I may be wrong about this, but if the ships were not sealed, I would think they would be too rusted to be unmothballed for the Gulf War.

Could it be that the situation you are describing is of ships being put into reserve and then when they have deteriorated, they are scrapped?

[Slynky]

I guess I've learned a bit about "bending" the rules a bit in this thread. I guess all I knew about was the ability to put more than 100 mines in a sector...learned accidently, of course. Also, I guess that limit can be edited in a file since I've seen the setting.

But now I see the "triple training trick" (planet and 2 moons), the "EB planet trading trick", and something called the TDM weapon cheat.

So, just what is the TDM weapon cheat?

And finally, how likely is one to get a game filled if one spends 100 words on "tactics" not allowed?

[tesco samoa]

right now tdm's do too much damage.

There costly little weapons that used to just do 4x damage to shields and 1x damage to everything else.

right now they do 4x damage to everything.

ALso in reply to this quote eariler
If we do not like it, it is the coding which should be changed.

Never suggest that. Hard Coded changes cannot be modded.

[Gozra]

I have read this thread from stem to stern and I have yet to hear of anything as Gamey. Therefore I am doubling the prize to 20 Galatic Credits. And as for 'mothballing' ships. In space things don't rust. And IN my opinion the build and mothball situation works just fine. The game has a sloution to that problem just limit the amount of ships to around 500.
And it's looking like 'Gamey' is in direct proportion to games played.
And I must point out with the way this game can be modified and the setup choices you have you can make a level playing field for any group of players. ( you may have to play a few games but a fair start can be achieved.) And I strongly suspect that some players are unwilling to do the hard work involved to achieve complete dominance in a game.
(I finshed a game recently in which a player built 3 or more ringworlds just to stay competetive)
BTW I liked the more than 100 accidental mines per sector it really put a risk element into the game. In 1.78 you just have to plan for about 200 mines max. (I miss the old minelaying/minesweeps Baseships)

Maybe we should start a nasty trick thread.

[Gryphin]

Gamey?
Ok, nobody thought "acidentaly on purpose" sending mis information to my advesary or his partner was Gamey.
How about asking his Partner with whom I had a trade agreement with for,
Tech I alwready had in exchange for tech I did not have.
This was via emial not the in game trade system.
It was my hope that this information would get back to his Partner, (my advesary). In theory my advesary would then design his ships on what he eroniously thought I had.
Was this espionage, a waste of email or a Gamey tactic?

[Slynky]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
right now tdm's do too much damage.

There costly little weapons that used to just do 4x damage to shields and 1x damage to everything else.

right now they do 4x damage to everything.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But, didn't I read that someone mentioned a TDM cheat? I wouldn't call it a cheat if it's cleary a weapon the game offers. Or am I misunderstanding something?

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by Slynky:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by tesco samoa:
right now tdm's do too much damage.

There costly little weapons that used to just do 4x damage to shields and 1x damage to everything else.

right now they do 4x damage to everything.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But, didn't I read that someone mentioned a TDM cheat? I wouldn't call it a cheat if it's cleary a weapon the game offers. Or am I misunderstanding something?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's a bug that was introduced in the Last patch. It will be fixed in the next patch. If you play a temporal race on PBW, you're often asked not to use that weapon until the patch is in effect.

[Slynky]

Tks, Arkon.

I hardly ever play other race types so about all I know of them is what I run into... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by tbontob:
Let's try again
1. To deactivate (as a ship) and prevent deterioration chiefly by dehumidification.
2. To withdraw from use or service and keep in reserve.

My understanding of mothballing is that basically the ship is sealed off. If so, you cannot upgrade a ship and still have it sealed off.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course you could do so. It's not as though opening a ship to space is going to let any moisture or oxygen in to cause deterioration.

So, if we want to be really accurate, I guess we could build the spaceship, and then have the ship hang around the planet for a year while its crew are being trained (to the basic minimum) and only then venture out into deep space.[/QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Which is what happens, because mothballing removes crew experience.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
Was this espionage, a waste of email or a Gamey tactic?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Espionage of course. There is no reason why a player must be honest in their political dealings.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
Was this espionage, a waste of email or a Gamey tactic?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">a waste of email

[Fyron]

You guys, it is the TDB, for Time Distortion Burst. TDM = Tampa Gamer, Daynarr and Mephisto Mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[capnq]

I can't take this any more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

TDM is the TampaGamer-Daynarr-Mephisto-ModPack, and has nothing to do with this thread.

TDB is a bug in the Time Distortion Burst temporal weapon, which will be fixed in the next patch.

Deliberately misusing terms to confuse an argument is gamey. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Edit] And IF types much faster than I do.

[ January 13, 2003, 20:05: Message edited by: capnq ]

[Gryphin]

Rollo,Graeme Dice , Thanks for the input, I may be unorthodoxed but I'm not deliberately a "gamey" person.
Note to self: Find betterway to bluff.

[Mephisto]

Actually, I loved the TDM/TDB thing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Wanderer]

Whoa. Did the Shrapnel Games site fall over yesterday or something? I couldn't get on the forum. Two days of thinking coalesced into one post - sorry if it's a bit of a large one.

Gryphin said:
Gamey?
Ok, nobody thought "acidentaly on purpose" sending mis information to my advesary or his partner was Gamey.
How about asking his Partner with whom I had a trade agreement with for,
Tech I alwready had in exchange for tech I did not have.
This was via emial not the in game trade system.
It was my hope that this information would get back to his Partner, (my advesary). In theory my advesary would then design his ships on what he eroniously thought I had.
Was this espionage, a waste of email or a Gamey tactic?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No - that's sneaky, devious and a bit of a long shot! Nice idea.

In my view 'gamey' is playing the game to maximum efficiency rather than maximum reality, without exploiting a bug (ooh, where to draw the line?). In Counter-Strike (duh, why am I bringing this up?) running around jumping up and down like a fool is 'gamey' - it's unrealistic but it makes you harder to hit. Plus it annoys people (me included) like crazy. The simple fact is that people learn how to play the game rather than how to do the thing the game simulates (could I fly a plane after several hours of playing some years-old flight sim?).

If you were a real leader of a race that's just discovered how to colonise other worlds, would you really order your scientists to research 'physics' up to 'level 2' in order to be able to research 'phased polaron beams' (imagine I've crooked my little finger to my mouth a la Dr Evil from Austin Powers)???

Originally posted by tbontob:
Wanderer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Another part of your posting.....
-----------------------------------
Generally though, in real life mothballed ships are put in mothballs prior to being scrapped (the only exception I can think of is the American battleships mothballed then put back into action for the Gulf War), so it's hard to judge how this should be handled.
-----------------------------------
The Americans mothballed a number of WWII battleships. Some were used for the VietNam War and as you say in the Gulf war. They would be 50 years old at the time of the Gulf War.

I may be wrong about this, but if the ships were not sealed, I would think they would be too rusted to be unmothballed for the Gulf War.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, they would surely have to have received occasional maintenance to keep them from decaying beyond use. Not necessarily 'sealed off' though - the outer hull would eventually rust if not cared for (replacing the zinc blocks every now and again???).

A fairly simple example: One of my housemates has gone on a long holiday to Australia. One of my other housemates has his car keys and occasionally runs the engine for a few minutes to keep it in order (and to prevent the pipes from freezing in the recent Arctic weather we've been having). You could say the car was mothballed, but not sealed off!

Perhaps you should still pay maintenance on mothballed ships, but at a much reduced rate.

Could it be that the situation you are describing is of ships being put into reserve and then when they have deteriorated, they are scrapped?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Probably. The British put large chunks of their navy into reserve/training formations/mothballs prior to scrapping them post-WWII. Irritatingly, we've preserved The Victory (Nelson's flagship at Trafalgar) and The Warrior (the first ironclad [that wasn't French http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ]) but the only ship to survive WWII was the Belfast (only a light cruiser, now moored on The Thames). I understand the Americans have kept a lot more, partly as floating monuments. Why we couldn't have kept the Warspite (fought in both world wars, excellent service record) I don't know. Actually, I do know. Money. *!€%$£ds.

To return to the point, were the American battleships retro-fitted with Tomahawk missile launchers to fight in the Gulf? I can't remember.

Originally posted by tbontob:
Wanderer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

A part of your posting...
----------------------------------------------
I believe the Last Turkish battleship had a crew of 2 for several years (an old captain and his dog!) before the government decided to scrap it.
----------------------------------------------

What rank did the dog have? And did it have a salary? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Damn. Just found the right book and it turns out the 'captain' was no more than a petty officer. I doubt his mate was ranked any higher than an able seadog...

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd like the training to be more important, perhaps by raising the amount of experience you can get, raising the amount you can get from training etc. This would mean ships raced into combat would be at a great disadvantage against those carefully brought up to full battle readiness. It would probably really hurt the AI, though.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm... training is of extreme importance as it is. Untrained ships get 40% penalties against trained ships. That is a huge gap to overcome. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aye, I guess so. I ought to put my strategies back to maximum range rather than point blank to fight the AI shouldn't I? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I always think 20% is too little, forgetting it's actually a 40% effect when you combine attack and defence bonuses.

But then the number of times an AI attack has been foiled by my construction of a new ship on the turn they've attacked... it seems wrong for a ship to go straight from the yard to beating off an enemy attack without much sweat.

I just think there should be more (yes more) emphasis on creating, moulding and husbanding a fleet. I'd also love it if the fleet experience had some bearing on how ships manoevered during strategic combat...

<hr>
"it takes the Navy three years to build a ship but three centuries to build a tradition"

"You want the moon on a stick"

[Fyron]

Aye, I guess so. I ought to put my strategies back to maximum range rather than point blank to fight the AI shouldn't I? I always think 20% is too little, forgetting it's actually a 40% effect when you combine attack and defence bonuses<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it is +40% attack and +40% defense because you train ships and fleets to 20%. So, it is an 80% bonus against an untrained fleet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[tesco samoa]

what do they say

Great minds think alike....

or is it

idiots never differ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Sorry

Ment to say TDB than TDM

[Cheeze]

Wanderer, just to add to your post.

Even if the Turkish guy was a petty officer, as long as he was in command of the ship he is "the Captain". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

When the old WWII battleships were brought out of mothballs (the New Jersey was one), they were refit with superior combat radar and targeting systems, communications, the engineering was upgraded somewhat, the Phoenix CIWS was installed, and yes Tomahawks were added in time to the weapon complement. Someone found out that those 16-inch guns were quite useful in the age of missile weaponry. This is a good example of mothballing old warships and bringing them back in with retrofitting.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Cheeze:
Wanderer, just to add to your post.

Even if the Turkish guy was a petty officer, as long as he was in command of the ship he is "the Captain". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When on a ship you command, as a Naval officer, you are indeed "Captain _____".

When going aboard another vessel, or being introduced while at an offshore place (say, an officer's club, or an Embassy, or whatever), youw ould be (for example) "Lieutenant _____, commanding the _______".

If you hold the ACTUAL, direct, rnak of captain, and go aboard a ship you do NOT command, you are given a "courtesy promotion" to the rank of Commodore. Why?

So that when, in a crisis, someone shouts out "Captain!" ... everyone knows who's being spoken to. The captain of THAT ship, and not the guest who happens to hold the -rank- of captain. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Or so this landlubber has been given to understand things, at any rate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ January 15, 2003, 07:03: Message edited by: Pax ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Gozra:
I have read this thread from stem to stern and I have yet to hear of anything as Gamey. Therefore I am doubling the prize to 20 Galatic Credits. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You might as well raise it to a couple billion. Because if you see nothing wrong with the tactic SumariaProgrammer mentioned then clearly you are someone who thinks anything and everything is OK in the game.

[Gozra]

Originally posted by DavidG:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Gozra:
I have read this thread from stem to stern and I have yet to hear of anything as Gamey. Therefore I am doubling the prize to 20 Galatic Credits. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You might as well raise it to a couple billion. Because if you see nothing wrong with the tactic SumariaProgrammer mentioned then clearly you are someone who thinks anything and everything is OK in the game.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am unable to find this reference.
And I do think if its allowed by the game you can do it. But I also think Gentlebeings rules for playing the game should be followed. For instance I agree with GEO that no trading should limited so as to make the game more interesting.

[couslee]

I believe he is refrencing the post made, where a player traded an un visited system for an AI home planet. That was very gamey imo. I also think retro-series building is gamey. the 50% max is there for game balance reasons, and to prevent abuse (retro-series sphereworlds). Doing a retro-series bypasses a game design. retro fitting while in mothball does not. big difference. retro-series building is gamey imo.

Taking advantage of a stupid AI is also gamey, IE trading an unvisited system for a homeworld. The gamey part is in the thought of even attempting this, not in the fact the AI was stupid enough to agree to it.

Those that think it is not gamey, are of the same class of people that think nothing is a crime if you don't get caught. All I say to that, is know who your entering into a MP game with. If you accept a game challange from people that feel anything goes, then don't complain later that they lived up to their reputation. or, try and be more cheezy than they are. Hacking game files is blantant cheating, and if done will suceed in noone playing a game with you again. I am talking about questionable tactics, not outright cheating.

send the credits to realpissed_2000@yahoo.com. thank you.

[Fyron]

Retro-series building can possibly double the cost of building the ship. It is balanced already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Retro-series building can possibly double the cost of building the ship. It is balanced already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very true.

Also in war when maximum effort is needed, are the guys in the repair garages and shops allowed to sit idle for lack of repair work?
No Way!!! They and their tools will be put to work somehow on the new stuff even if the ineffiency raise the costs.

[Wanderer]

Originally posted by couslee:
I also think retro-series building is gamey. the 50% max is there for game balance reasons, and to prevent abuse<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Personally I've never understood the need for an arbitrary limit. Well this post got me thinking and I think I've worked out how to abuse the retrofit system (took me a while as I'm not sneaky enough!) What I'm thinking of would probably be time-effective but very costly.

On a similar note, I'd submit that my refitting of entire fleets in one turn whilst sitting deep in enemy territory (I tend to pack a lot of repair bays on fleet support ships, plus the odd one with a space yard) is another gamey way of using the retro-fitting system, although I'd not thought of it in that way before. It doesn't seem right that ships could perform major overhauls on eachother whilst sitting in a storm close to an enemy homeworld http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

The emphasis should be on making major reconstructions slow, not outlawing them altogether, especially as long as there's a simple way around any limit. I quite like the way MOO2 does it (assigns the refit to the planet as a construction queue item) - although the fact that the ship disappears for the duration of the refit is a little strange.
<hr>
Ch-ching! That'll be two pence, please. Take away or eat in?

[geoschmo]

Retroseries not only can double, it almost assuradly will come close to doubling the cost of the ship. When you factor in the 20% extra for the new comps, the 30% disposal fee for the old comps, and the maintenance you pay for each turn the ship is sitting while being worked on. You can save some if your base maint is lower, and some if you set up the retroseries so that you remove as few components as possible. And as far as speed it it pretty much equivalent to the speed you would get by building the ship on Emergency build.

So you can build a ship on emergency build in two thirds the time and for the same cost, but are penalized by reduced ship yard effectivenss afterwards. Or you can build the ship in two thirds the time with no reduced effectivness afterwards, by spending twice the resources to build it. And by a considerable amount of added micromanagment which doesn't really translate into game terms. It's actually quite an elegant balance IMHO when building a single ship.

Where it becomes sort of gamey however is when you consider constructing a bunch of ships. By doing retroseries on all of them you can free up your space yard to pump out another ship every turn. Your first ship isn't built any faster than emergency build, and only a few turns faster than normal build, but you get another the next turn, and another the next turn after that, on and on forever until you run out of resources or don't have enough repair capacity in sector to fix all the ships you retrofit in each turn.

Because of this, and the little trick Wanderer mentioned about retrofitting while you move your fleet, I have no problem not doing it in games if playing with people that object to it's use. And I prefer that the game owner specify if it is allowed or not, so I know noone else is doing it either. But if everyone understands it and agrees it's ok, I have no problem with it.

Geoschmo

[Gozra]

Originally posted by couslee:
I believe he is refrencing the post made, where a player traded an un visited system for an AI home planet. That was very gamey imo.

Taking advantage of a stupid AI is also gamey, IE trading an unvisited system for a homeworld. The gamey part is in the thought of even attempting this, not in the fact the AI was stupid enough to agree to it.

Those that think it is not gamey, are of the same class of people that think nothing is a crime if you don't get caught.

GOZRA: I resent being lumped in with the "same class of people" That trade seems interesting to say the least. A fully developed homeworld for an entire system? I might make that trade with a human.

All I say to that, is know who your entering into a MP game with. If you accept a game challange from people that feel anything goes, then don't complain later that they lived up to their reputation. or, try and be more cheezy than they are. Hacking game files is blantant cheating, and if done will suceed in noone playing a game with you again. I am talking about questionable tactics, not outright cheating.

GOZRA: I will award the 20 galtic credits to you if you can get 3 others to agree that trading with the AI is Gamey.

send the credits to realpissed_2000@yahoo.com. thank you.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[ January 15, 2003, 21:13: Message edited by: Gozra ]

[Ruatha]

I found something I think is Gamey ( A new term for me, I'd rather think of it as cheating).

Using my Invisible shipset, with invisible ships in a game were the others don't know you are using it.

[ January 15, 2003, 21:30: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Gryphin]

Ruatha
How would you be able to do that other than in a hot seat game?

[Fyron]

Well... you have to download the ship sets used by other players in the game, or you'll get randomly changing sets. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Gryphin]

EDIT: was not intended to be ironic. "can" should have been "can't".
Fyron, right, I guess I can't imagine someone down loading a ship set and not looking at a few of the ships.
what am I missing here?

Is this gamey?
Start a series of "Play Style" or "Play Preferances" thread to see if your advesarys will give away their play style.

[ January 15, 2003, 23:53: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

[capnq]

If you were a real leader of a race that's just discovered how to colonise other worlds, would you really order your scientists to research 'physics' up to 'level 2' in order to be able to research 'phased polaron beams'? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That was one of my favorite things about the 'blind research' option in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. You only specified the general area of tech you wanted your scientists to focus on, but had no control over what specific tech they'd discover.

[DavidG]

To Gozra:

Are you saying you would actually trade your home planet for an empty system???
It sort of sounds like maybe you didn't realize what SamuriProgrammers friend did. He selected Ancient Race, claimed a system he have NEVER been to and then traded it to the AI for his home planet!! Clearly there is a bug on how the AI evaluates the trade value of a system

Generaly I'm of the opinion that if the game allows it it's fair play (the opposition to retro series building really baffles me!) but I think we should avoid taking advantage of really obvious bugs like this. Of course this is just one reason to play PBW all human games.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by capnq:
That was one of my favorite things about the 'blind research' option in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. You only specified the general area of tech you wanted your scientists to focus on, but had no control over what specific tech they'd discover.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yea that was a really cool feature. Make a nice addition for SEV

MOO2's occasional research breakthrough was neat too.

[ January 15, 2003, 23:46: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by DavidG:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by capnq:
That was one of my favorite things about the 'blind research' option in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. You only specified the general area of tech you wanted your scientists to focus on, but had no control over what specific tech they'd discover.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yea that was a really cool feature. Make a nice addition for SEV

MOO2's occasional research breakthrough was neat too.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be cool, but tough to implement I would think without losing much of the modability of SEIV.

Geoschmo

[DavidG]

Now that I've had some time to think about it here is my definition of "gamey"

Taking advantage of an obvious bug in a game that you suspect your opponents are not aware off.

Of course this would then lead to a discussion on what an "obvious bug" is and how you should know what your opponents do or do not know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[DavidG]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
That would be cool, but tough to implement I would think without losing much of the modability of SEIV.

Geoschmo<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you think?? I would think it would be a 'simple' thing like adding a field to each tech specifying what Category it falls into. Definatly something that would be more an SEV feature rather than a patch I would think

[dogscoff]

"You want the moon on a stick" <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You could mod that quite easily in planetsize.txt

[Wardad]

Is this the Troll thread? Who's winning?

[couslee]

There are already 3 fields. The reason it would not work, is the difference in cost in each tech in that field. In SCAM, the cost of the next tech was based on the number of techs you had previously discovered. Gas giant colonization would have to be the same cost as the armor, or any other in that field, and every turn the cost for every tech in that field would go up. You then would run into level problems. you would have to get all the level 0 techs out of the way before a random level 1 could be chosen as the next tech. Other wise, you might never get troops-0 and have level 5 armor. Blind research was one of the SMAC options I didn't use. It did not always stick to the field of choice either.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by couslee:
There are already 3 fields. The reason it would not work, is the difference in cost in each tech in that field.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well clearly the current 3 fields are not sufficient for this purpose. Also clearly it could be done. OK granted maybe not simple or even desireable by the majority. (I did say it would be more of an SE5 thing than an SE4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Edit: And assuming a logical grouping of the techs it might actually be interesting to have a game where you had to get all level 0 techs in a field before moving to level 1.

[ January 16, 2003, 02:51: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Well... you have to download the ship sets used by other players in the game, or you'll get randomly changing sets. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Didn't think about that, doh

[Wardad]

I played against a nearly invisible ship set.
I quickly replaced it with another one. I just had to rename the replacement set.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Wardad:
I played against a nearly invisible ship set.
I quickly replaced it with another one. I just had to rename the replacement set.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yep, exactly. The way things are displayed in the game depends on what you have installed on your machine. Some shipsets have really awful colors and some are hard to tell apart. In these cases I have often changed the color of the race_main.bmp to make it easier for me to view.
The invisible or hard to see ships are easily replaced with generic ones.
Rollo

[Rollo]

Hmm, back to topic (somewhat).

Apart for ethics how about some etiquette? Have you had bad experience with that? Well, I have.

In one game after attacking a player and mopping up his planets. I got a series of insults for several months. (while the first one or two might have still be in character, he went truly lost it and went overboard with the Last one(s))
In another game a player gives his ships offensive names which are particularly aimed at me.
I don't really care for that. Needless to say that these players go on a black list and I won't play with them anymore.

Rollo

[Wardad]

So far no one has objected to ships named Awfrigit and OFU.

[tesco samoa]

How about players reading these forums and telling other players in game that a player is not to be trusted due to his/her Posts in Shrapnel Forums

[geoschmo]

Hehe, I love insulting people. Although is anyone ever objected to it I would stop doing it to them.

I also like doing ship names as a way of sending a message. LIke naming a ship "Insecticide" when plying the Xi'Chung. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geocshmo

[tbontob]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Hehe, I love insulting people. Although is anyone ever objected to it I would stop doing it to them.

I also like doing ship names as a way of sending a message. LIke naming a ship "Insecticide" when plying the Xi'Chung. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geocshmo<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ROFLOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Wardad:
So far no one has objected to ships named Awfrigit and OFU.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, I have nothing against that and wouldn't object to that...
Originally posted by geoschmo:
Hehe, I love insulting people. Although is anyone ever objected to it I would stop doing it to them.

I also like doing ship names as a way of sending a message. LIke naming a ship "Insecticide" when plying the Xi'Chung. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geocshmo<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I also have nothing against a good in-character insult or some form a jest/banter/or whatever...

But quite frankly, when a player starts to send "F*** you [name]!" Messages by what ever means, the fun stops for me.

Rollo

[ January 16, 2003, 21:07: Message edited by: Rollo ]

[Rollo]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
How about players reading these forums and telling other players in game that a player is not to be trusted due to his/her Posts in Shrapnel Forums<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's absolutely ridiculous http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif .
I guess some people don't get the idea of roleplaying or in-character Messages. Surely Posts on this board have nothing to do with in-game diplomacy.

Another thing is sometimes players that carry grudges from one game to another. While it is perfectly understandable, they should really keep them to themselves and/or avoid them as much as possible (yeah, I know that can be hard...). But by no means can they use it as argument: "Hey, (Player A) killed me in game (X). Therefore my attack on him is a just cause."
Or even worse is 'crosstrading'. Something like: If you give me planet A in game X, I'll give you tech B in game Y...[/rant off]

Rollo

[ January 16, 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: Rollo ]

[geoschmo]

Oh yeah. That's bad. I always aim my insults at the empire, not at the player. Gotta keep it in character.

[Gozra]

I made some one disgusted because I had 10 mines left over from the remains of my empire. And still claimed that the game was not over because I "have units in the field" and we can still resist. (no planets or ships left but I still had 10 mines).
Nothing wrong with insults but if you need to revert to profanity... well I think one should and could do better.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Gozra:
I made some one disgusted because I had 10 mines left over from the remains of my empire. And still claimed that the game was not over because I "have units in the field" and we can still resist. (no planets or ships left but I still had 10 mines).
Nothing wrong with insults but if you need to revert to profanity... well I think one should and could do better.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heh, if you made me scour the quadrant looking for your Last minefield I might swear at you a little myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

[spoon]

Originally posted by Rollo:

I guess some people don't get the idea of roleplaying or in-character Messages. Surely Posts on this board have nothing to do with in-game diplomacy.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Though not everyone considers se4 to be a role-playing game. Whereas roleplaying can make the game more fun for some people, others may find it an unncessarry distraction - esp. if you don't have the time for it. Personally, I enjoy a moderate amount of rping, but wouldn't begrudge someone who sent OOC Messages or used Real World contexts for in-game decisions (eg, If you know Player A backstabbed Player B in game Y, I wouldn't think it necesarrily bad to inform player C about it in Game Z).


Something like: If you give me planet A in game X, I'll give you tech B in game Y...[/rant off]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That I would consider unethical...

[One Eyed Jack]

That depends on what you posted tesco samoa. If you posted something regarding the way in which you play the game that could be used fairly against you such as favored tactics or diplomacy methods it might well be fair game for use against you.

Role Play is another matter entirely and as spoon notes not everyone thinks SEIV Gold should always be role played and he provides a good example situation with real world context.

Well role played diplomatic insults can be fun in a game if good spirited and the people you are playing with get it.

What Rollo describes is disgusting. I hope I never encounter such behavior in a game. I am surprised the game owner did not kick the player in question. People play games to have fun and player conduct of such nature that is detrimental to that objective should not be tolerated.

[DavidG]

Well I love to dish out a good insult in game. But personally I would avoid using profanity against players I do not know. In a recent PBEM game with a friend I used every foul word in the book and then when his character complained I blamed it on his universal translater. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif In PBW against players I do not know I would use something more in Sc-Fi character such as "You're sire mates with Denebian Slime Devils"

[ January 17, 2003, 02:41: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[Gryphin]

Rollo, < snip unessasary comment > I have always used vulgarity while gaming. Sometimes tone inflection and body language did not come across. If I have ever wondered where someone was coming from I asked them. Did you mention it to them?
If someone has been offensive to you, bring it up with them. Perhaps it was un intended. Tell us, is it consistent with the balance of their post here to be deliberately obnoxious / instulting?
Edit:
Clearly there are venues where it should not be used. I apologiesto any I have offended in any game I have played. I will change my ways.

[ January 17, 2003, 01:05: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

[Puke]

i definitly side with Rollo, here.

[Puke]

even though im often delibratly obnoxious.

[couslee]

If you were down to 10 mines, you were out of it. The ability to resist is not enough to stay in a game, you must also have the ability to recover from a good wuppin. I would not care if you had a million mines floating around, with no planets, no ships, and no ability to get any planets or ships, you gone. If the game host allowed this, your both ****ters.

If you only told him that to provoke a piss, but then conceeded, that is another story. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Pax]

Originally posted by Gozra:
ut if you need to revert to profanity... well I think one should and could do better.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That depends entirely on teh race.

In the Stars! community, there is a race -- (in)famous throughout the community ... known as "Da Furries"; they are among THE singularly most foul-mouthed, non-house-broken, IRRITATING lil' bastards in the known multiverse.

And playing against them is an absolute BLAST, 'cause their owner/player (whose name escapes me ATM) role-plays them TO THE HILT.

My Last game of Stars! included the Furries (much to my dismay and trepidation; their player isn't a "dim bulb" WRT that game ...). The race is played to make you truly ENJOY trying your damnedest to exterminate every Last foul-mouthed, sub-sentient, filth-covered ONE of the runty bastards. Heh!!!

[tesco samoa]

Rollo... One game against a good friend I named all the big ships after his failed relation ships http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Gozra]

If you only told him that to provoke a piss, but then conceeded, that is another story.

Yes, that is what I did.

May I sum up?
It appears that we have Cheating issues and Gamey issues.
NO one likes cheating. Cheating in PBW and SEIV appears to mainly be hacking for an advantage. And a subset would be Player inter-action between games.
GAMEY it appears would be to take advantage of the AI's otherwise If the computer allowes you to do it then let the games begin.
SEIV is after all a state of the art space Empire simulation.

[couslee]

Ahhhh. Stars! the fun. I never got into the MP aspect of it, but have a fairly decent claims adjuster race. HAD actually, I lost all the balancing work when my other computer died.

[Gryphin]

Rollo is right.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
Rollo is right.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Originally posted by Puke:
i definitly side with Rollo, here.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for your support. There aren't any sides to take really.
I have gotten an apology from the player by email. That is settled for me.

Rollo

[ January 17, 2003, 12:03: Message edited by: Rollo ]

[Pax]

Originally posted by couslee:
Ahhhh. Stars! the fun. I never got into the MP aspect of it, but have a fairly decent claims adjuster race. HAD actually, I lost all the balancing work when my other computer died.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Funny, I always preferred Inner Strength as a PRT. Overpopulated all my worlds regularly, through the Flying SuperOrgy of Doooom(tm) .... hehehe.

Bombers? Who need's 'em, just drop 6,000,000 storm troopers from orbit; the 1.5M that survive the orbital defenses will take the planet with ease -- with all mines and factories intact!

Detach a freighter or two from the SuperOrgy to keep yoru shiny new colony fully overpopulated, move the SuperOrgy to your next target ... lather, rinse, repeat.

Heh. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Rambie]

Originally posted by Rollo:

In one game after attacking a player and mopping up his planets. I got a series of insults for several months...

In another game a player gives his ships offensive names which are particularly aimed at me.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, that's not gamey, that's just childish. If they're that immature, I wouldn't play with them either.

[couslee]

Pax, yea, all the different PR traits is Stars! have very stong points. Claims adjuster don't need to spend anything to optimize a planet, opens up a LOT for colonization. You super-fockers die off every turn trying to colonize that -12 to +5 planet until they get it to the + side. in the same time period, I have built mines and defenses, and orbitals, ect...
Thats what makes it so nice. it is one of the more balanced 4x games I have played. not to mention, the AI can give you some grief from time to time. try playing stars and turn the scanner view down to 10%. lol

[Fyron]

Here is something that is gamey:

Joining a non-team PBW game (that is not like the Survivor tournament) where you and several friends plan out a massive alliance and all research and such to guarantee your victory.

[Pax]

Originally posted by couslee:
Pax, yea, all the different PR traits is Stars! have very stong points. Claims adjuster don't need to spend anything to optimize a planet, opens up a LOT for colonization. You super-fockers die off every turn trying to colonize that -12 to +5 planet until they get it to the + side. in the same time period, I have built mines and defenses, and orbitals, ect...
Thats what makes it so nice. it is one of the more balanced 4x games I have played. not to mention, the AI can give you some grief from time to time. try playing stars and turn the scanner view down to 10%. lol<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The trick is, any lanet -- even a 100% -- gets colonised with a small seed of people (to 1/4 local max-population levels), while one or more privateer-hull ships park in orbit, full of population -- to rain babies down on the colony below.

People die on the surface, true ... but thatd oesn't matter to an IS; more people are born in orbit and beamed down, than die on the surface, until around 400% population levels (if you keep the orbital fleet growing proportional to the planet's habitation range; 1 privateer for every 5%, or one superfreighter per 20%, is usually fine. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

As for building mines, etc ... never EVER, with a non-CA, terraform until you have enough points to do so AND build 1+ factories, per turn. Then, put the terra (the most you can finish 100% in a given turn) into the top of the queue as an auto-build line.

Lastly, the AI in Stars! -- is a joke. Seriously. I regularly played with the scanner pane turned down to TWO percent -- the better to make sure no 98%-cloaked SS ships can slip through into "my" space.

Given an IS/NAS combination, with TD's installed, I could turn it up as high as 10%, but still usually went for 5% "just in case". And that's still a good hundred to hundred-fifty fleets in space.

Try playing against a set of good, solidly-skileld humans ... you too will come to agree the AI is nothing but a pest to be brushed aside with the other mosquitos.

[Wardad]

Yea, what he said.

The Claim Adjuster race trait is considered so powerfull that it is often Banned from most multiplayer games.

The Alternate Reality trait is considered the weakest. The population lives on star bases, not the planet below. Starbases are vulnerable sitting ducks from the mid game on.

I had wondered about the quickest way to terraform. Your correct, but did not mention why. On a hostile Yellow or RED (not native Green) planet there is a CAP on the amount of population that can produce resource points. The CAP also applies to the amount of population that can run factories. Terraforming is somewhat expensive for a new colony so it makes sense to reach the CAP for population and factories first. Once the planet goes green you may have a problem with overcrowding killing more colonist per turn then if it were hostile. So you want to be able to work up your new greens quickly, and factories help with that too.
If you do choose the Total Terraform minor trait, the teraforming is cheaper. My current race can terraform 2+ click a year, once the factories are built.

[Dralasite]

I read on another post (aplogies to whomever wrote it author, I can't find it now) that the first troops you load are the first off to your advantage?

So by loading up a bunch of all defense troops first followed by all weapon troops, you get to fire at full power until all the defense troops are gone.

This seems to qualify as gamey, but maybe the advantage is not so huge that people really get upset about it.

[Fyron]

That isn't gamey at all. It is called using tactics. There is so little you can do with ground combat, and that is one of the few things you can do.

[Wanderer]

Originally posted by Dralasite:
So by loading up a bunch of all defense troops first followed by all weapon troops, you get to fire at full power until all the defense troops are gone.

This seems to qualify as gamey, but maybe the advantage is not so huge that people really get upset about it.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. The first troops you send down to an occupied planet would be infantry cannon fodder to set up and hold a beach-head. Only then can you land the heavy stuff and start kicking ***. It's no good landing heavy artillery pieces if they all get shot up on arrival.

Consider the use of lightly-armed paratroopers (and airborne troops in gliders) to capture important bridges ahead of D-Day and Operation Market Garden. Although some tanks were equipped to land with the first waves on D-Day, the vast majority of heavy gear didn't arrive until the beaches had been taken, held & cleared by the 'grunts'.

It might seem gamey at first (especially if the assault troops have no weapons!) but it's fairly realistic.