Picking up player dropped positions

[Lord SaHeru]

What are the exact rules for picking up a player dropped position? I only ask given the "Who is .. The Bashkar Empire, Seeking Information" thread in the galactic forum.

 

I was under the assumption that only the origional player could restart an empire and empire trading was not being done.

 

If it is what do we have to do to buy an dropped empire when we find it?

 

Lord SaHeru

[ShadowKitsune]

I believe there was a time, near the start of the game, that one could 'give' their empire up for adoption by another, if you informed RTG that you were doing so. Basically, you told RTG that Player X would like to take over the running of your Empire and you agreed. Since then, to the best of my knowledge, RTG has discontinued that policy.

 

-SK

[RTGRuss]

Some notes on our policy...

 

1) A dropped position may be picked up by the former owner at any time.

 

2) A position may be transferred by the current owner either in lieu of dropping the position or at the time the position is dropped.

 

Those are the basics. We adjudicate any special circumstances/requests that may come up from time to time and we work to prevent obvious abuse. We do our best to ensure that pickups and transfers will actually be run by the new owner. Active positions are generally better for the game than inactive ones but positions are never handed out simply to anyone who requests them and we are always alert to the possibility of game abuse when a position does change hands. We keep track of such activities and we tend to keep our eye on such positions more so than normal (Pete and I have about 20 years each on the business side of PBM so we've seen more tricks than we care to discuss in public - no sense giving folks ideas ).

 

Once a position has been inactive for a period of time the former owner must be involved for the position to become active once again. There is no rule prohibiting a position from reactivating once there is contact with another empire so it should never be assumed that a position that is currently inactive will remain so – the former owner could come back at any time, etc.

 

We do not confirm whether or not a position is active except in special situations (inquiry by original owner for example) and we do not automatically allow reactivations and/or transfers. We evaluate every situation and do what we think is best.

 

Russ

[EternusIV]

Russ-

 

Thanks for presenting the policy. I'm curious as to what is considerd "obvious abuse"

 

So, in essence...would this be allowed?

 

Player A's first position (A1) finds Player B's second position (B2)

 

Player B's first position (B1) finds Player A's second position (A2)

 

Player A and B both agree that running two neighboring empires would be in their best interests and swap positions A2 and B2.

 

Allowed?

 

 

 

or how about this.....

 

 

Player A finds player B. Player A is sick of running his position and offers his position to Player B for nothing in exchange.

 

Allowed?

 

 

In either hypothetical instance, a tremendous windfall takes place and neighbors to Players A or B and neighbors are suddenly at a distinct strategic disadvantage.

 

I'm a tad bit concerend about long-term implications.

 

Like so:

 

 

 

Player A and Player B have been fighitng for two years real time. Player C neighbors Player B and decides to drop. Player C offers his position to Player B. Player B then employs two positions v. Player A's single position and wins the war.

 

Hooray?

[Ur Lord Tedric]

Certainly I cannot see why if both players are in agreement, whatever the situation, then the pick up shouldn't be allowed.

 

But Russ has already stated that they would look at every situation and assess it on its merits.

 

Take this one...

 

Player A and Player B are allied in game and have a lot of trade going on. Player B has to tone down his playing committments and has to drop. Because they are so tied up together, is it not unreasonable that Player A could take up the position?

 

The only pick up I personally would be really against is the one where a dropped position is taken up just to stymie the efforts of another, with the caveat that any position can still be picked up by it's original player.

 

Mx

[EternusIV]

Player A and Player B are allied in game and have a lot of trade going on. Player B has to tone down his playing committments and has to drop. Because they are so tied up together, is it not unreasonable that Player A could take up the position?

 

Hmmmm. This doesn't appear to "abusive" the way you state it. I suppose it will be a case-by-case type of thing.

 

I could argue both sides but it really doesn't matter what I think.

 

But something just sorta feels instinctively unfair about it.

 

/shrug

 

Conquest through position bartering.

 

Simply looking for some clarity on what "abuse" really means under the policy.

 

Certainly I cannot see why if both players are in agreement, whatever the situation, then the pick up shouldn't be allowed.

 

I certinaly hope this is NOT the policy in every instance. If so, I think I might make a small investment in generating dozens of empires to auction off on the boards once people bump into them. (Just kidding but you might see what I mean )

[Pig Skin]

Simply looking for some clarity on what "abuse" really means under the policy.

I would say abuse would be either picking up the position to gain game information and then dropping it a year or two later, using it to kamikazee on someone else, or turning it into an empire to give its production to another one you own, or having an ally conquer it to pick up its economic power.

 

Time will tell if this empire used in an abusive way.

 

Anyhow, if you really don't like this situation, then destroy the empire in question.

 

-Pig Skin

[WKE235]

Well, in trading some mails with Russ, he indicated that they are on the lookout for position transfer schemes and the like. In other words, they keep an eye out to make sure such changes are not just a plan to strip defenses (make to position easy to take), gain info, acquire resources (I think this fits into B getting C's position to help in the war .. he aqcuired C only to get the resources to fight and win the war).

 

While it was not stated in the mails, I get the feeling RTG would not allow a player to take over an empire they border on. So when A runs into B and B wants to drop, A can't take over B's position. B can drop the spot, and send A all of his emails / turn results which RTG can't stop. But A would have to at least work a little to take out B. I also get the feeling that RTG would review B's last turns to make sure B did not strip defeneses before dropping (like scrapping the fortress and ships and doing something to the troops).

 

Remember, Russ said "We adjudicate any special circumstances/requests that may come up from time to time and we work to prevent obvious abuse". In other words, Russ and Pete will look over what is going on and decide. And since they have lots of time and experience in the game and have taken great pains to ensure a balanced game, I doubt they would allow any such A/B/C trades as you mentioned. It's too obvious that it gives those players and advantage and unbalances the game.

[EternusIV]

I trust the judgment of Pete and Russ entirely.

 

But its still nice to have a more concise standard.

 

I certainly hope that what Ken implies indeed is the case.....that the examples of abuse I cited would be thwarted and that its not a free-range policy of "if both players want to trade positions then they should be able to."

 

On the flip side, I do see where more active positions = better bottom line for the game and the community.

[ShadowKitsune]

More happy player positions = better bottom line.

 

-SK

[EternusIV]

SK-

 

True, true.

 

Its just sort of odd that exchanging positions to create active/friendly neighbors is one of the prime solutions for the pace/spacing issues inherent in the game thus far.

 

Face it: those of us who are left have been a pretty patient bunch.

 

If exchanging for a position to create a more active game translates to less drops, I suppose I have no objection at this stage.....but I would still be a bit wary at exchanging active positions a couple of years from now when it could create a distinct strategic disadvantage for an unsuspecting party.

[WKE235]

I trust the judgment of Pete and Russ entirely.

 

But its still nice to have a more concise standard.

 

I certainly hope that what Ken implies indeed is the case.....that the examples of abuse I cited would be thwarted and that its not a free-range policy of "if both players want to trade positions then they should be able to."

 

On the flip side, I do see where more active positions = better bottom line for the game and the community.

It would be nice to see Pete or Russ confirm this. I would hate to see it where Player "A" can drop their position so Player "B" picks it up, and "B" just happens to have another empire "C" right next to "B" already. I consider such manuvers not only lacking in honor, but cheating.

 

At least if someone offers to strip the defenses of a position so you can take, for the small price of selling out your allies, we belive that can't happen (if RTG is watching). And if my mails were right, RTG is watching to make sure players can't follow through on an offer to drop a position next to you and let you take it over if only you'll sell out your allies as well. Good thing to. You have to question the moral values of anyone who would make such an offer. They are probably not the type of people that should be playing a game like this. Instead they should enter politics where such behavior would seem tame.

[Ur Lord Tedric]

 

Hang on a minute there...!

 

What's wrong with two allied players/empires, who have an established trading and research relationship, being played by one empire if the other player has to drop for any reason?

 

There is a working, functioning, alliance in place and the empires are being played to their mutual advantage.

 

Because of many of the game mechanics, this is one of the best things to do. If the remaining player is NOT allowed to pick up the 'drop', then that's what would be unfair! In fact, the remaining player would be at such a complete disadvantage that they would probably drop too!

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see any cheating going on there........

 

Ur-Lord Tedric

[PhaseDragon]

Seems we hit another hot topic for discussion.

 

After reading the "Hot Topics" here and in other threads it almost seems like people are just agressive and want to fight someone even if the target is a puppet world. If you start knocking down your warp points then maybe we can get some action going. It will take meticulous planning for any attacker who wants to capture someone's homeworld and any decent defensive player should not be worried about losing theirs. The game obviously favors the defender. Besides, the way some people complain about the rules that might be a welcome relief if someone was to attack you. Then you could be wiped out instead of dropping...going out in a blaze of glory. A fight with a real player would justify losing ships much better than losing ships to a neutral. If you lost half of your fleet to a supposedly "easy" world then you would probably complain that the game is unfair and drop. If the same thing happened when you attack a player who is actively trying to resist then you would welcome the challenge and attack again...and again...and again.

 

Of course I don't know everyone's mindset. This is just an attempt to hopefully help out with a different perspective.

[EternusIV]

I don't think requesting a policy clarification is an attempt to dodge a good fight.

 

I can't speak for others -- but make no mistake -- I'm not afraid of a fight. Far from it.