| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Tue, 06 June 2006 19:05   |
|
|
|
| DenHam wrote on Wed, 07 June 2006 07:29 |
Having no alliances and setting everyone to enemy is not as fair but it is OK. In that case it is very important to me that we at least allow certain "in game" communication. Although setting everyone to enemy creates a "free-for-all" fight, the tendency isn't to fight everyone at once. A center race could find itself attacked on several sides. If "enemy" discussions are allowed, then that race has a chance to threaten or otherwise negotiate a peace with at least one of the races attacking it. Otherwise it may not matter how strong your race is but rather its location. Without discussions a center location could be worth 200 points less than edge locations to any PRT with the possible exception of an HE race.
|
Bottom line, negotiating peace or even just a cease fire, is functionally equivalent to forming a non-aggression pact which is a big no no in a no diplomacy game.
There's essentially four practical diplomatic 'levels' that I can imagine in any game:
1) Team games
2) Normal - no pre game alliances, but once in the game anything goes (be aware of victory conditions...)
3) All set enemies. No tech trading. Other diplomacy permitted.
4) All set enemies. No tech trading. No dipomacy (neccessitates no communication.)
Any of (2), (3), (4) would be fine by me. I'm suggesting we go with (2) because it's kinder to new players. Closest of these to the original post would be (4).
[Updated on: Tue, 06 June 2006 19:07] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Wed, 07 June 2006 13:48 |
|
 Marduk |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
| DenHam wrote on Tue, 06 June 2006 17:29 |
Penalties for Violations:
| Quote: |
Marduk Writes: Any penalties would of course depend on what rules you use. If there is a ban on tech trading, what would be appropriate punishment for violators? A one-year ban, perhaps? Naturally there will be loopholes that can be exploited in a limited way - is it tech trading if one player sends a scout each year to one or two enemy systems? I've done this to keep an up-to-date count on defending ships, and didn't realize I was feeding my enemy tech until he thanked me for my gifts. Who knew he'd totally neglected propulsion research for 60 years?
|
The trouble I have with this is that it suggests that a player can feel free to violate the rule if he thinks it is worth the penatly of occassionally being caught. I think it important to be clear that rules aren't to be broken or circumvented. Single violations where it could be a mistake or violation should be treated with some lenancy but a repeated violator who violates rules because he thinks it is worth the penalty cost, should be dealt with harshly even if that means his expulsion from the game.
|
If the rules are clear (and normal - I suppose you could make rules bizarre enough this wouldn't be true), the effects of all violations would be seen in each player's messages. My offer to host is contingent on being able to spend a small amount of time on it - with clear rules and strictly defined penalties, there are no judgement calls to make and enforcing the rules would require little time.
What those penalties are is the question. If you people agree on a sliding scale with say, no penalty for the first instance of tech trading, being banned from submitting a turn for the second offence and being banned from the game for a third offence, that is a strictly defined penalty.
Any system of rules allows players to feel free to violate said rules if they think it's worth the penalty of getting caught. The only differences in having strictly defined penalties are that everyone knows what the penalties will be, they'll be the same for everyone, and no one has to worry about enforcement changing if the host is in a good mood or a bad mood.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Wed, 07 June 2006 18:48 |
|
|
|
| Marduk wrote on Thu, 08 June 2006 03:48 |
If the rules are clear (and normal - I suppose you could make rules bizarre enough this wouldn't be true), the effects of all violations would be seen in each player's messages. My offer to host is contingent on being able to spend a small amount of time on it - with clear rules and strictly defined penalties, there are no judgement calls to make and enforcing the rules would require little time.
What those penalties are is the question. If you people agree on a sliding scale with say, no penalty for the first instance of tech trading, being banned from submitting a turn for the second offence and being banned from the game for a third offence, that is a strictly defined penalty.
Any system of rules allows players to feel free to violate said rules if they think it's worth the penalty of getting caught. The only differences in having strictly defined penalties are that everyone knows what the penalties will be, they'll be the same for everyone, and no one has to worry about enforcement changing if the host is in a good mood or a bad mood.
|
I think you'll find situations where the host needs to make a ruling very rare, except in games with complex special in-game rules (this isn't one of those.)
Here's my general opinion on penalties:
If host judges infraction to be intentional, ban the player.
If host judges infraction to be accidental and 'no harm done', then let the player off without penalty.
If host judges infraction to be accidental and 'harm done' and occurred on current gen, then regen with the problem removed.
If host judges infraction to be accidental and 'harm done' and occurred on an older gen, then a judgement call will have to be made depending on the severity of the issue. Reparations being my preference, or a short turn ban being easier to enforce.
To take an example - tech trading is an easy one (assuming it is against the rules.) If it's clearly intentional then ban the player sending the tech. If it's accidental, for example scouts getting eaten, then I'd say that isn't actually an infraction as they weren't actually trading, but scouting... If a player intentionally traded but claimed ignorance/forgetfullness of the rules then ban them - the rules are upfront...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Fri, 09 June 2006 18:56 |
|
|
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 06 June 2006 19:05 |
There's essentially four practical diplomatic 'levels' that I can imagine in any game:
1) Team games
2) Normal - no pre game alliances, but once in the game anything goes (be aware of victory conditions...)
3) All set enemies. No tech trading. Other diplomacy permitted.
4) All set enemies. No tech trading. No dipomacy (neccessitates no communication.)
Any of (2), (3), (4) would be fine by me. I'm suggesting we go with (2) because it's kinder to new players. Closest of these to the original post would be (4).
|
Well presented. There could be, of course, some in between levels. I would have no problem with [2] or [3]. [4], in my opion, is overly harsh. I have no problem with a 3.5 allowing limited in game communication with no exchange of information or cooperation beyond agreeing to stop fighting. I agree that [2] is the fairest for new players.
I also have no problem with a non-playing host providing general information to newbie players before the game on race design.
The Universe is usually not fair.
That would be too easy.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game: bidding for PRTs |
Thu, 13 July 2006 02:37 |
|
|
|
I think this topic should be locked now. We've got a new thread with a fixed ruleset.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
