Is this gamey?

[teal]

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

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

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

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

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

[teal]

Originally posted by Loser:
Garrison Kielor?

I shouldn't refer to cultural icons since this is a worldwide forum. My apologies. I might have spelled his name wrong. He is the host of "A Prarie Home Companion" on National Public Radio in the U.S. where "All the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average"

[Fyron]

A game is certainly Last man standing unless explicitly discribed otherwise.

In your opinion, yes. That opinion is not shared by a very large portion of PBW players (perhaps 50/50). So, this is why things like this MUST be stated at game creation.

[teal]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

A game is certainly Last man standing unless explicitly discribed otherwise.

In your opinion, yes. That opinion is not shared by a very large portion of PBW players (perhaps 50/50). So, this is why things like this MUST be stated at game creation.

---

Actually if it is not stated in the game description then the default position is what the game itself describes. If you do not put in another victory condition then Last man standing is when the SEIV program will declare one person to have won. The fact that the majority of the PBW community (myself included by the way) would rather call a game a draw than drag it out to its inevitable conclusion and waste hours and hours of their life on the game does not change the fact that, unless stated otherwise, the rules of the game are the default rules for basic SEIV, and those are Last man standing.

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

[Fyron]

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

[geoschmo]

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

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

[Fyron]

bah