House Rules

[Deathstalker]

There is an old saying, 'let the buyer beware!', well here is a new one, 'let the player beware!'.

This is to anyone considering joining or is currently playing a game by web/email.(both of which are good systems and quite enjoyable btw). MAKE SURE YOU SET THE HOUSE RULES B4 STARTING THE GAME!!!!!

What do I mean by house rules?? Things like 'no surrender except to a player you are at war with', or 'no trading colony ships', or simply 'do not exploit current game bugs(ie fighter stack 'to hit' bug)'. This will make the enjoyment of the game better and avoid the 'hey! he should'nt be able to do _____!' that players sometimes scream. Some people (me included) get WAY to emotionally attached to their empires/own sense of 'honor'. Then someone pulls a 'fast one' and people get angry. It is just a game and if no rules have been set then you have no real justification to get upset. Even if the empire you are about to defeat surrenders to another empire it is not at war with but is at war/odds with you. Thats the game! (or even if the empire you are about to eliminate de-cloaks a star destroyer in the sector with all your fleets and detonates the star destroying everything , it happens!).

I am involved in about 4 or 5 email games, including the Tournament, PBW, PBM, and the DevnullMod play by email game. All have givin me new insight/enjoyment of the game. But people please, don't ***** because something happens that you havn't forseen, that is the true nature of the game!(now if only the AI could do the same things the players do ).

Sorry about my ranting/length of post but I had a few things I had to say. Mainly just if there are no rules set, then there are no rules. Just make it plain beforehand.

------------------
"The Empress took your name away," said Chance.
Owen smiled coldly. "It wasn't hers to take. I'm a Deathstalker until I die. And we never forget a slight or an enemy." -Owen Deathstalker.

[geoschmo]

I agree with you almost totally here D. The point of all this is to have fun. If someone uses a technique you haven't seen before, then you have learned something. The best thing to do in that case is to learn from it and apply it to your next game. Either by defending from it, or using it on some other poor soul.

One thing I might disagree with is on the surrendering point. For example in the Survivor Tourney we are both in. The tourney was very clearly laid down as an elimination format. Get rid of everybody else eventually and be the only one left.

I did neglect to specifically state up front that I would like people to not surrender when faced with insurmountable odds. But that is because it didn't occur to me to do so. There is no benefit to your race in surrendering to another under the Survivor tourney format. Even if the race you surender to ends up defeating your enemy, you are still out.

Because of this it strikes me that allowing surrender in or tourney makes it too easy to drag people into the "emotional" aspects you are talking about.

At best it would seem vindictive, at worst it could appear collusive. I am just trying to keep things level for everybody and not interfere with anybodys fun.

In a team game however where it is one group against another, instead of every person ultimatley for themself, surender may be a perfectly valid strategy if you are faced with insurmountable odds and don't feel you could efectivly contribute to the team effort any longer.

Also, say the circumstances were slightly different. Since our first round games are starting four players going till the first two are eliminated. If one player were already eliminated from your game and you were close to being knocked out and did not feel you had any hope of survival, I would not have a problem with you submitting. Since at that point the game ends and it would not affect the outcome in any way, just as a way of not prolonging the agony.

For the most part though, I agree if no rule is set down prohibiting something, and the game allows it, then go for it. Only when it goes against the predetermined purpose of that specific game would I disagree.

Geo

[Devnullicus]

I also agree. I have played a LOT of games over the years including a lot of RPGs, board games, team games, mods of various games, and the one constant in all of these is that a LOT of emotional upset and arguments can be avoided by laying down ground rules ahead of time. Granted, you may lose players up front. That's worth it to me. By far. In my current PBEM, I'm playtesting. I purposely did not lay down any ground rules. People can do anything they want because I'm testing what the mod is capable of and what the balance issues are. If this were a game I was more emotionally invested in, I would probably have laid down some rules. Then again, maybe not -- I tend to be a pretty flexible person and like to be surprised by other peoples' ingenuity =)

------------------
How's my Programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL

[Nitram Draw]

That's 90% of the fun of playing against other people, they do things you would never have thought of!
I don't think you should take advantage of known bugs/program deficiencies or use cheat codes but anything else should go.
I have learned many new tricks the hard way

[Gimboid]

I agree with Nitram,

except for using program loopholes to the detriment of other players, then anything should go.

As for surrendering... i think that should be judged on a case by case basis dont u think?
for instance a small player surrendering to another small player who are both enemies of a much larger player ( > 2 times their combined size) should be allowable. it would keep the larger player on their toes and make the game more interesting in general.

so unless the surrender results in the creation of one of these huge players then i think it should be allowed.

[geoschmo]

In general I don't have a problem with surrender. I was only mentioning it in the context of the elimination tournament we are both in.

Geo