PBW ethics, opinions please.

[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

I did not know what this was. Fyron explained it to me. And I know better than to argue with the might G. 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.

[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

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

[Rambie]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I think this is the first time I have seen Rambie post. I am in aw.

Yeah, I'm more of a lurker.

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.

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:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
AT...

Mothballed retro fitting.

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

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.

---

Mothball retro fitting?

Is this possible?

Or are you saying you don't want it to be possible?

[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