WKE235 Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 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 Lets say I call Pete and beg and plead to start two new positions and I want him to guarentee they are next to each other. Would that be fair to others in the game? Lets say I and a friend call Pete, each wanting to start one position, and we beg him to place them next to each other as we are best buddies and want to work together, scouts honor. Is that fair to others in the game? Lets say two players run into each other in the game. One has decided to drop for whatever reason. They've barely met by they call Pete and ask if the other player can take over the soon to be dropped spot? Is that fair to others in the game? You see the problem. Exactly how and where do you draw the line between a working, functioning alliance in your quote versus allowing player "X" to have two positions next to each other with all of the advantages that entails. How do you define such a line? An exhange of diplomats? Maybe an exchange of signifcant amounts of materials and goods? Or perhaps each player needs to take the time and effort to build a colony of over 10000 POP in each others home system? Your statement about being at a complete disadvantage also makes no sense. If not working with an ally means you are at a complete disadvantage, then you must be advocating that anyone who doesn't have an ally should consider dropping the game. Why go on when you can't take full advantage of the game mechanics. If you wanted to play as a single player and stay withing a small area around your homeworld, well, I guess those players might as well drop right now. Also, the key difference between two people allying and playing together versus one player owning both is the number of players. Two players mean occasional conflict and disagreements. They each have their own areas to explore and decisions to make. Unless one of the players is a mindless zombie obeying the will of their master, 100% agreement is very rare (heck, 70% agreement is not to common as well). Yes they gain advantages working together. But it's not perfection. And remember alliances do not last forever. People have falling outs. They each need to head their own way or form other alliances from time to time. On the other hand, one player running both positions effectively doubles his power without having to fight for the benefit. As a matter of fact, such a player is WAY better off than someone who fought hard and eventually takes another homeworld. The fighter gets a new industrial base with unhappy citizens he must build structures for to placate and keeped with troops to prevent uprisings and other trouble. The "hand it to me" player gets a happy population. He has two differing lifeforms to use in colonizations and can now spread more easily. He has two sets of research queues. And while they are distinct, he can concentrate more on differing higher level techs and achieve them sooner. No need to coordinate with another player. No need to worry about person "X" not agreeing with a plan or turning on him. Just happy, blissful, production and research. Sorry, allowing someone to take over a neighboring position for ANY reason is blatently unfair to all the other players in the game. Anyone else wish to chime in here? I think this is a good topic and everyone should join in and argue for or against their beliefs. The more the merrier! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMartinB Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 We are the NSI. The NSI are us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 :lol: Glad to see your still watching the boards MM. Ya know, maybe I'm wrong about all this. What I should be doing is asking Pete if I can take over the dropped NSI position. I've certainly put enough time and effort into this so far. I mean, if you can take over an allies position when they need to drop, it would be entirely fair to take over a neighboring dropped position once you have spent a functional amount of time doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurassier Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 After much thought, it is my humble opinion that a person should not be allowed to have more than one empire, period. Of course that's not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krelnett_of_Kraan Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 Anyone who gets to the Zdebor system is perfectly welcome to take over the (dropped) Thamian homeworld. They just have to get past the defensive installations first. Oh, btw, those defenses are queued up for the next 37 turns, so the sooner you get there, the easier it'll be. };-)> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhaseDragon Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 Kurassier has the easiest solution of all....one empire each. While that seems to relieve most of the problems there are still ways to "cheat" even with this rule. The real truth is that you can't legislate honesty. People are either honest or they aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurassier Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 In a brief follow up to my response, I said it won't happen (1 person/1 empire) mainly because multiple positions are money for RTG (which I clearly understand, they do have to make a living!! ) However, I hope, and certainly suspect that if a player has more than one empire, Pete has placed the 2 empires sufficiently apart that if they ever do meet, it would take many, many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 Dearest Ken, Whilst I don't want to get quite as vehement..... I would like to draw here a complete distinction between picking up a dropped position to either: a) Make life even more difficult for the person who's just discovered it Gain an extra industrial base with no effort at all by either using it directly, or dismantling the defences or c) Picking up an empire in part of a conflict situation to gain an 'unfair' advantage AND Where two players have been co-operating in a firm alliance and so intermeshed their research and subsequent production that they are now inter-dependant (which this game absolutely encourages) and one of them has to drop (perhaps temporarily), where it would be perfectly reasonable for the empire to be taken over...... If this isn't the case, then the entire game is flawed, trade becomes meaningless and research co-ordination impossible - and I for one would like to know the answer to that one pretty soon.... And on the other things mentioned... There are already several instances where buddies have joined up together and met in game, let alone those who started more than one empire and have also met up. I for one would rather be limited to only one empire, but that would also spell the end of research and trade alliances, which would be a bad thing. But that horse has long bolted. Two empires in a firm alliance (something else in the rules to still be brought out) should be allowed to continue, which is good for the player (indeed), but also good for the game and RTG! There is a single caveat that I believe should be applied, however - that 'picked up' empire must continue to be paid for and played..... Ur-Lord Tedric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuth Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 Might as well chime in. IMO, I believe players can pay to have as many set-up positions/empires that they want. This help generate revenue for RTG and places more resources out there available for capture. However, I don't believe anyone should be able to pick up anyone's dropped positon. Just make the dropped position a Super Advanced Neutral and be done with it. If a player sets up a queue to build defense ships and the like, that's fine. Makes capturing that more challenging. Of course, no one ever want to lose time and material attacking and capturing a homeworld, but it shouldn't be a cakewalk either. They should have to EARN it. I have every confidence that RTG monitors when players setup new empires when that player already has empires and hopefully RTG disperses them in a fair and consistant manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laserwolf Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 There are already several instances where buddies have joined up together and met in game, let alone those who started more than one empire and have also met up. So how does one play if they started 2 empires that found each other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 It's your money so play anyway you feel like. If you piss off enough players who think you are taking advantage of the game they will do something to relieve you of one or both of the positions. It should hardly matter to anybody except your immediate neighbor since you won't actually make contact with 90% of the postions in play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted May 19, 2004 Report Share Posted May 19, 2004 Dearest Ken, Whilst I don't want to get quite as vehement..... Ur Lord, My apologies. Yes, this has touched on a subject on which I can get rather passionate trying to support my views. I've been burned in a few games where players played position games (as RTG refers to them) and the company had no policies. Being that RTG does have policies and do a great job with the game, I just wanted to get those policies out in the open and clarify things now (before all the real action and contact starts in the game). I'll try to remember to turn down the volume on my bull horn while standing on my soap box. :lol: Anyway, in response to your points, RTG I believe is trying to do what is right. I've been trading a mail (from RTG) back and forth with some associates. Russ tried to answer some of my questions, and even responded to this thread as I and others started asking a lot of questions. According to Russ, "...we adjudicate any special circumstances that may come up from time to time and to prevent obvious abuse." Like life, rules must be tempered by judgement. And from that statment from Russ, I believe situations like the one you mention, where someone temporarily takes over anothers position in an alliance (as you mention) for some good reason, RTG could allow it. I do not believe Pete and Russ are draconian. They would apply some common sense plus years of experience to any request and try to be fair. (Note -- fair also means that the other position is payed for as well. They're fair, and they're running a business of course $$ $$). Also mentioned in the mail was "We keep track of such activities and we tend to keep our eye on such positions more so than normal ". Which I was glad to hear. This means that when they do allow something (picking up a dropped spot, giving a position to another player so you can drop, etc...), they keep an eye out for abuses (like stripping the positions defenses). I guess what I'm looking for here is a little more definiton of what RTG considers abuse (and hence not allowed). Transfers to get info from an empire to benefit yours, or to strip defenses so you can attack and take it over, those are easy ones to ID as abuses. But what about other items like the types of transfers discussed. This game is geared towards alliances and races working together. It is encouraged in the rules and is probably one reason the game is attracting many of us to play. But when does allies working together and taking over positions cross over into abuse. Maybe I'm asking for to much as every situation is different. And it's definately a tricky balancing act for RTG to watch over (Enhance the game play by keeping positions active which is better than a dropped spot -versus- encourage alliances and other game play aspects that make the game special -versus- prevent abuses). I guess I have to just trust in Pete and Russ . Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonshadow Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 I also dropped an empire, and set all fleets to attack, and HW to build defenses, but if I see it blow up someone, I would pick it up, just to have the fun of blowing up things, NSI like. I am sure if the AI did not change the settings, it would have the biggest oldest fleet in the game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternusIV Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 Its all fine and good - what has been said so far - but position trading IS happening apparently, allowing players to trade multiple positions in the same proximity for what seems a harmless advantage at THIS stage of the game...but what might prove to be a tremendous advantage years down the line. Personally, I think the empires that are "trading" their multiple positions between each other know damn well they are being "wormy" and nobody would be shocked as to who their identities are in the least (Hint: wormy, as in playstyle, and according to my brother, reminiscent of the SN II days) No matter. Such maneuvers simplify politics. I suppose we could roleplay it out -- a Borg-type alliance that assimilates its neighbors through an unseen symbiotic process creating a threat to all neighboring sovereign empires. What the heck - at least we'd add some spice to the game (in addition to the Bene Gesserit Spice floating around out there ) I challenge the players who have traded positions to admit so openly, so that the few of us who feel strongly against it may choose sides, draw lines in the interstellar dust and in the immortal words of Most Extreme Elimination Challenge: "Gid id own!" :lol: Brewmasters, get cranking....things are about to heat up and many may need to drown their wartime sorrows with BOOZE, BEER, LIQUOR, SPIRITS, ALCOHOL, HOPS and whatever other synonym for JUICE that fits your species Sincerely, No More Mr. Niceguy Edit: In response to some emails I've received. I'm not really mad. Irritated more like it. I also don't think there should be a policy change from trading empires. If some of you think you need the advantage, go for it. Its nothing personal, believe me. I actually have enjoyed communicating with the parties who engage in it. No vendettas. Just good ol fashioned sabre-rattling and roleplayin. Gots to have a target eventually. Might as welll be the 'worms' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurassier Posted May 21, 2004 Report Share Posted May 21, 2004 Brewmasters, get cranking....things are about to heat up and many may need to drown their wartime sorrows with BOOZE, BEER, LIQUOR, SPIRITS, ALCOHOL, HOPS and whatever other synonym for JUICE that fits your species This is what we've been waiting for!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.