Tweet
Deity Dude,
I concede that if a feature makes a game getter and all players agree to it, it should be used. I also grudgingly admit that it's a bit priggish to call these consenting players "cheaters".
And ultimately it's pretty irrelevant what comes of this argument ('though I'm certainly enjoying it
). As you noted:
Incremental buying is unenforceable and it's left up to the players to decide if it makes their game more fun. As I stated in my first post, I think the reason I no longer use incremental buying is not so much that it's "cheating", but more because 1) it makes the game against the AI more challenging for me and 2) I play single player, so I'm not put at a disadvantage because of it. Here, for me, it does not meet the criteria of a feature that "makes the game better".
A parting argument. I think one's view on rules (whether or not they actually come out and say something is cheating) can be determined by how they would have the game work if they could redesign it.
1) Right now (without the patch) I think you can avoid having a fighter crash ("run out of fuel") by hitting "Wait" at the end of that unit's turn. Would you prefer that:
a) You shouldn't have to hit "Wait". Your fighter should always be able to hang in the air at the end of your turn.
You disagree with the rule that fighters need to land at the end of their turn. If you use the Wait trick, it's a form of civil disobedience to make the game work the way you want it to.
b) The game is fine as it is. The plane crashes if you don't hit wait, but hangs if you do hit wait.
You think hitting Wait is some clever tactic - like remembering to refuel. It somehow adds some element of management and strategy to the game.
c) Fighters not ending their turn in a city/airbase/carrier should always crash.
Whether or not you admit it, you think that Waiting fighters is an unrealistic cheat.
2) Right now, according to Scouse Gits (SG(2)), you can switch your workers to high-arrow squares, lock a city into celebrating, then switch back to food/shield squares the same turn. After doing this, you get the benefit of both the celebration and the food/shields from working the low arrow squares for the turn. Would you prefer that:
a) You get the production from squares you work. The game looks at all the possible combinations of worked squares in a city to see which would result in the greatest arrows. This check (not what squares you actually work) determines whether or not a city celebrates.
You think that being near the arrows is good enough to make the people happy. Players shouldn't have to work them. If you use SG(2)'s trick, it's a form of civil disobedience where you try to get the game to work "correctly" or "realistically".
b) The game is fine as is.
You think that switching squares to gain the benefit of both the arrows and the food/shield production is a form of management. The act of temporarily switching to arrowed squares "exposes" your citizens to that trade and makes them happy. If other players don't do this, they're just being lazy or stupid and not taking advantage of the game's "manual exposure" element.
c) Celebration should be based on the squares you actually work.
You think temporarily switching to arrows is an unrealistic cheat ('though you might do it in a multi-player game depending on the agreed upon rules).
3) Right now you can avoid the increased coin per shield cost on units by incremental buying. You think it should work like:
a) The game has a fixed price for unit shields. Forget this increasing cost junk.
You think the creators were wrong in changing the price per unit shield based on the number you buy all at once. If you use incremental buying, it's a form of civil disobedience to make the game work the way it should.
b) The game's fine as it is. In order to reduce rush-buy costs, players should be forced to go through the tedium of switching and buying 5 things they don't really want.
You think incremental buying is a strategy, some form of micromanagement. Perhaps rapidly changing your production orders reflects greater recruiting efforts or more efficient training. Players should be rewarded for putting this much effort into production management.
c) The game should base your price per unit shield on the shields you had in your box at the beginning of the turn. This way changing production midturn will never reduce your per shield cost.
You agree with the increased unit cost per shield and see incremental buying as a sneaky, illogical, unrealistic workaround (a "cheat"). If you use incremental buying, it's to keep pace with other players in a multiplayer game, or to make it easier for yourself against the AI.
And as far as spirit of the game goes ... if you could objectively define it, should it stop players from doing something they all want and agree to do?
And ultimately it's pretty irrelevant what comes of this argument ('though I'm certainly enjoying it
). As you noted:
I think it is more of a pandora's box issue.
...making a rule against it would be like telling coaches they couldn't discuss strategy during the 2 minute warning because the break was intended to inform coaches about the clock. How would you enforce it?
A parting argument. I think one's view on rules (whether or not they actually come out and say something is cheating) can be determined by how they would have the game work if they could redesign it.
1) Right now (without the patch) I think you can avoid having a fighter crash ("run out of fuel") by hitting "Wait" at the end of that unit's turn. Would you prefer that:
a) You shouldn't have to hit "Wait". Your fighter should always be able to hang in the air at the end of your turn.
You disagree with the rule that fighters need to land at the end of their turn. If you use the Wait trick, it's a form of civil disobedience to make the game work the way you want it to.
b) The game is fine as it is. The plane crashes if you don't hit wait, but hangs if you do hit wait.
You think hitting Wait is some clever tactic - like remembering to refuel. It somehow adds some element of management and strategy to the game.
c) Fighters not ending their turn in a city/airbase/carrier should always crash.
Whether or not you admit it, you think that Waiting fighters is an unrealistic cheat.
2) Right now, according to Scouse Gits (SG(2)), you can switch your workers to high-arrow squares, lock a city into celebrating, then switch back to food/shield squares the same turn. After doing this, you get the benefit of both the celebration and the food/shields from working the low arrow squares for the turn. Would you prefer that:
a) You get the production from squares you work. The game looks at all the possible combinations of worked squares in a city to see which would result in the greatest arrows. This check (not what squares you actually work) determines whether or not a city celebrates.
You think that being near the arrows is good enough to make the people happy. Players shouldn't have to work them. If you use SG(2)'s trick, it's a form of civil disobedience where you try to get the game to work "correctly" or "realistically".
b) The game is fine as is.
You think that switching squares to gain the benefit of both the arrows and the food/shield production is a form of management. The act of temporarily switching to arrowed squares "exposes" your citizens to that trade and makes them happy. If other players don't do this, they're just being lazy or stupid and not taking advantage of the game's "manual exposure" element.
c) Celebration should be based on the squares you actually work.
You think temporarily switching to arrows is an unrealistic cheat ('though you might do it in a multi-player game depending on the agreed upon rules).
3) Right now you can avoid the increased coin per shield cost on units by incremental buying. You think it should work like:
a) The game has a fixed price for unit shields. Forget this increasing cost junk.
You think the creators were wrong in changing the price per unit shield based on the number you buy all at once. If you use incremental buying, it's a form of civil disobedience to make the game work the way it should.
b) The game's fine as it is. In order to reduce rush-buy costs, players should be forced to go through the tedium of switching and buying 5 things they don't really want.
You think incremental buying is a strategy, some form of micromanagement. Perhaps rapidly changing your production orders reflects greater recruiting efforts or more efficient training. Players should be rewarded for putting this much effort into production management.
c) The game should base your price per unit shield on the shields you had in your box at the beginning of the turn. This way changing production midturn will never reduce your per shield cost.
You agree with the increased unit cost per shield and see incremental buying as a sneaky, illogical, unrealistic workaround (a "cheat"). If you use incremental buying, it's to keep pace with other players in a multiplayer game, or to make it easier for yourself against the AI.
Comment