Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Define 'ally'
| Define 'ally' |
Sat, 25 June 2011 16:35  |
|
 Void |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 369
Registered: January 2011
Location: California, GMT -7 | |
|
A recent beginner/low intermediate game restricted diplomacy and different players ended up with different interpretations of that restriction. The goal of this thread is not to rehash what happened in that game or to discuss why people shouldn't have misunderstood - suffice to note, they did.
The goal of this thread is to establish a clear, declarative statement (or statements) we can use in future games to ensure everyone has the same understanding. Since there were two understandings, it's probably worth coming up with a clear 'rule' for each interpretation.
The rule in question was initially posted thusly:
| Quote: |
Only one other player may be set to friend and traded tech with at any one time, all others must be set to enemy. You can change an ally after the alliance lasted for 10 years or more.
|
One interpretation, we'll call it the narrow interpretation, was that this meant you could only have one player set to friend and you could not, for example, coordinate attacks with anyone but your official ally. The second interpretation, we'll call it the wide interpretation, was that while you could only have one player set to friend, you could work with other 'enemies' towards a common goal, provided there was no violation of the setting to friend rule.
Shortly after the game started, the host was asked for a rules clarification and posted the following:
| Quote: |
"Victory conditions: Last Man/Last Team standing or consensus. Winning team mustn't exceed 2 players."
1) [applied only before the start of the game]
2) Using chaff, split-fleet dodge and the repair after gating loophole is ok, all other "cheats" are forbidden and most likely lead to your disqualification
3) "Only one other player may be set to friend and traded tech with at any one time, all others must be set to enemy. You can change an ally after the alliance lasted for 10 years or more."
Victory conditions and rule 3) allow for a loophole which, as a matter of fact, was and is intended. The rules allow to set up informal NAPs (non-aggresive-pacts) and even coordinated actions but and this is a big BUT:
a) You may still only trade tech with your ally and with none else. If I detect anybody trying to trade tech with a set enemy, this will lead to immediate disqualification. No discussion. This includes everything, including fights which are only set up as fights or conquests but in truth are meant to pass on tech.
b) Everybody except your ally needs to be set to enemy. This makes coordinated or joint battles very tricky, might even backlash esspecially with c)
c) If you use offensive battle orders, those must ALWAYS include "Attack who: enemies/neutrals". This wasn't mentioned before but I want to avoid getting typical gang-banging situation out of hand and when tried, to have the risk to backfire.
|
With that, would the following rules provide sufficient clarity for each of the two interpretations?
Narrow Interpretation
Only one other player may be set to friend and traded tech with at any one time; all others must be set to enemy. You can change an ally after the alliance lasted for 10 years or more. You may not share intelligence, coordinate attacks with anyone except your lone ally. You may converse with enemies only for the sake of forming an alliance after the 10-year mark.
Wide Interpretation
Only one other player may be set to friend and traded tech with at any one time; all others must be set to enemy. You may converse with your enemies for any purpose, including, but not limited to sharing intelligence or coordinating attacks.
Obviously, a game would have only one of those depending on the desire of the host. Would either of those rules cause confusion? Asked perhaps a better way, what's a better way to state them?
Cheers,
Void
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Define 'ally' |
Sat, 25 June 2011 20:50  |
|
|
|
Ship & mineral trading? Misinformation? Service trading?
Once upon a time CA's regularly sold OAs, SS/non-NAS races sold pen-scanner ships, JOATs sold scan intel, as AR I've bought HE mini-colonisers by the 100. As IT I've sold gated-freight services.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Define 'ally' |
Mon, 27 June 2011 16:58 |
|
| Void |
| Ensign |
Messages: 369
Registered: January 2011
Location: California, GMT -7 | |
|
| Taka Tuka wrote on Mon, 27 June 2011 11:50 |
I think you have to go strictly with the rules. If any different understanding is possible because of not exactly rules, it is within the rules. In your example it is not allowed to set more than one player to be friend and to trade tech in any kind with other players than your friend (ally).
|
Agreed.
| Quote: |
With other words it would be allowed to agree into a NAP, to agree borders, to let steal tech, to coordinate common action and to exchange intel with other players than your ally. BUT only one can win  .
|
Are you saying if the rules had other words all this would be OK, or are you saying 'in other words'?
| Quote: |
At least it is a decision of the host what is within the spirit of his rules. So I recommend to ask the host in advance, if something is within the rules, if you walk on the shape of the blade by expanding your understanding of the rules to the edge  .
|
Absolutely. And I'll be reusing the quote about expanding my understanding to the edge of the blade. Like it!
Cheers,
Void
[Edit: fixed quote markup]
[Updated on: Mon, 27 June 2011 16:58] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Define 'ally' |
Tue, 28 June 2011 09:09 |
|
| Void |
| Ensign |
Messages: 369
Registered: January 2011
Location: California, GMT -7 | |
|
| BeeKeeper wrote on Tue, 28 June 2011 03:04 |
I think another factor, is not just the interpretation of the rules of but having rules that are practical, in the sense they must be easily enforceable.
How would you police a game where you were not allowed to contact enemies by e-mail to coordinate attacks?
|
At some point you have to trust the integrity of the players. No pre-game alliances, for instance. It's one of the most common rules I see on posted games, and there's no way for the host to prevent a player from PMing another, agreeing on complementary hab and tech settings, then working together right from the start.
So I like the thought, but wonder how practical the 'easily enforceable' part really is.
Cheers,
Void
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Define 'ally' |
Fri, 01 July 2011 14:40 |
|
|
|
The ally-rules are the thing which I change from time to time in the FA-series. And I am always surprised what an effect even the slightest change can have.
Let's say it this way:
a) For the purpose of clarity the above ally-rules suck and I was surprised with how many loopholes and ideas the players came up with.
b) For the purpose of a steep learning curve in a beginner game plus not to frustrate players too soon because they get quite beaten around but with the intention that they get a chance to stay within the game as a helping hand for another alliance and to even the playing field a bit against the stronger alliances... the rules worked quite well. It's 2470 in this game and only now it seems that we have the first dropout which is VERY good in a beginner game.
For non-beginner games I'd certainly recommend a very clear rule set.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Define 'ally' |
Sun, 03 July 2011 12:15 |
|
| Void |
| Ensign |
Messages: 369
Registered: January 2011
Location: California, GMT -7 | |
|
| Altruist wrote on Fri, 01 July 2011 11:40 |
a) For the purpose of clarity the above ally-rules suck and I was surprised with how many loopholes and ideas the players came up with.
|
I agree with the second part, but not the first. I thought the rules were pretty good and was also surprised at the varying interpretations, so I grant there's a way to make them less ambiguous (the point of this thread), but I wouldn't say they sucked. 
| Quote: |
b) For the purpose of a steep learning curve in a beginner game plus not to frustrate players too soon because they get quite beaten around but with the intention that they get a chance to stay within the game as a helping hand for another alliance and to even the playing field a bit against the stronger alliances...
|
That's a great point. This is a beginner game/series, and I like the fact you're trying to make the game digestible for new players. There's a lot to learn. Game mechanics, maximizing economy, warfighting, and diplomacy. Adding a legal document for all the rules may do more harm than good.
| Quote: |
The rules worked quite well. It's 2470 in this game and only now it seems that we have the first dropout which is VERY good in a beginner game.
|
We did have someone leave around 2440 (not sure what the definition of 'drop' is) and, to be perfectly honest, as the lone wolf in a game of alliances, my turn submissions have been superficial at best. I'm dead and it's just a matter of time, but I figure I owe it to the other players to slow down my conqueror at least a little.
I don't have a frame of reference for what's a good dropout rate, but I certainly have no complaints about that aspect of the game. The one area I have struggled with is that the level of diplomacy in this game has not been at what I would call the beginner level. Not even close. Also, if the goal is to give beginners a helping hand, then having an odd number of players in max-two person alliance is going to leave a beginner - likely without the diplomatic tools to affect his situation - all alone in the galaxy and surrounded by alliances.
Not a complaint, just a direct observation.  To be sure, as that lone player, there were many diplomatic avenues I could have taken, but as a beginner, I just never thought of them.
Cheers,
Void
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Define 'ally' |
Fri, 12 August 2011 10:15 |
|
|
|
Ally = F7 relation status.
There's nothing that can be done to stop 2 non-F7-allied players attacking a third player, without spoiling the game dynamics or giving an overpowered shield to players, which saves them from being attacked by more than one alliance at a time.
Sucks and most definitely unfair, but that's the ground reality.
I'm speaking from my experience in FA7 btw, with an opportunistic 5 player coordination (2+2+1) against 2 players with 2 other players on the sidelines.
If you bring in honor code and if you believe in it, then perhaps you could say no coordination or intel sharing or joint operations against a third party, but that's unenforceable for a host.
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 01 21:11:39 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
