Standard PBEM Etiquette

[Harovan]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Unfortunately in the Create a Civ pbem the person I'm attacking knows exactly who I am.....

Could it be because you're bragging about it in the turn tracker?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Could it be because you're bragging about it in the turn tracker?

I haven't DONE anything. Well, not much of anything. I do find it funny that the Ghauls started in the wilderness north of the Romans though.

[BigFree]

Originally posted by CerberusIV


Because the mechanics of the game can be abused by doing these things.

Imagine you are negotiating and are offered what you think is the tech of Republic and then discover what you have got is a size 1 town called Republic in the middle of your opponents territory. Not nice and I would not stay in a game with someone who pulled such a stunt.

Similarly with units because you don't see your opponents units move, all you see is the stack so half a dozen medieval infantry all renamed as Warrior and covered by a pikeman looks a lot less dangerous than it is because the only information you have is the top unit you can see and what is listed when you right click on the stack.

I suspect Dominae didn't want this to be a "how to bend the rules" guide but maybe it does need to be explicit to protect those who would never think of such things.

Nice idea Dom. Certainly the way I want my PBEM games to be.

Unit stats are including in the 'right click' information, so while the may be called "Warrior's", theie stats will be that of MI's. No way to hide that. Settlers/Workers can be hidden though....

[Dominae]

Originally posted by BigFree
Unit stats are including in the 'right click' information, so while the may be called "Warrior's", theie stats will be that of MI's. No way to hide that. Settlers/Workers can be hidden though...

With modded rules (and with Conquests, but I'm not going to go into that) there will be situations when the ADM values will not be enough to distinguish between units. If the ADM is the same, what does it matter, you ask? Well, if one unit is a UU and the other is not, I bet you would want to know which is which.

The idea here is not only to remove the Settler/Worker renaming exploit, but to make things easier on your opponents. There's still plenty of room for creativity in the sysem I've proposed.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
But you titled it as a "standard" and I agree that it would be nice to establish an etiquette standard. I do not agree that combat reports should be part of that standard.

I think PBEMs would much more enjoyable if you knew what the heck was going in defensive battles. I think this outweighs the fact that I may have to do a little extra work for this to be a reality. I feel strongly enough about this (and I've thought about it enough) that I'm including combat reports in my standard. If you disagree, you can simply find opponents who agree with you.

Really, what's the big deal? Just write down a brief report of which units you defeated and which you lost, and approximately where.

Especially with modded Hidden Nationality units. The whole point is to attack other civs with them not knowing who you are. Unfortunately in the Create a Civ pbem the person I'm attacking knows exactly who I am...

Yes, that is a problem. But it's an exception. The simple solution is to agree that combat reports are not necessary for Hidden Nationality units.


Dominae

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dominae
The idea here is not only to remove the Settler/Worker renaming exploit, but to make things easier on your opponents. There's still plenty of room for creativity in the sysem I've proposed.

I disagree that it is an expolit. Now you know who thought of the idea (not really, I read it elsewhere) and who on GS did it.

The ruse of renaming units was being asked for prior to PTW. It adds uncertainty to the game. In short, it adds choices and depth.

I don't want things made easier on me. I want a game that is a challenge. When I have the advantage, I do not want everything reduced to cut and dried mathematical equations. I want my oppo to have the means to do things that could screw me up, and take me by surprise.

I am not advocating people reloading, or doing anything else that 'cheats', but surely, using a function that is built into the game (renaming units) is not cheating. If that is cheating, then so to is going into a city display and adjusting where the governor placed labour/wf; you are modifying what is set by the game. And if you cannot recognise that a 4-2-1 unit is not a warrior, or that a unit of set stats could be that persons UU, then perhaps you deserve to lose.

[notyoueither]

I agree that trading 'Chivalry' as a 1 pop berg in a jungle without your trading partner knowing that is a real dirty trick, and I would agree not to do such a thing.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I agree that trading 'Chivalry' as a 1 pop berg in a jungle without your trading partner knowing that is a real dirty trick, and I would agree not to do such a thing.

But renaming a Worker to a Settler is okay?

We could debate this point endlessly. Why not just agree not to use any of these tricks?

I hope we're not reduced to measuring the skill of a Civ3 player by how well he bluffs the contents of his stacks. I want to win by playing Civ3, not exploiting any silly little advantage I can find.

There will be two types of players: those that say "I can do whatever I want according to my own ethical code, and my opponents have to deal with it", and the others that say "I want to know up front what my opponents think is fair play, because I hate complications". This thread caters to the second type.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I disagree that it is an exploit.

Incidentally, I never said this is an exploit (by my definition of it...see above). This is why it's not listed in the exploits section (which is still empty, ahem, sorry).

Again, what's the big deal here? Does it really ruin your PBEM experience not to be able to rename a Warrior to anything outside of 'X Warrior Y'?


Dominae

[CerberusIV]

To put it bluntly I don't want to be confronted with a stack of 20 units all named "Fred" and have to try and work out what they are from the stats. I can do that, I'm just not prepared to play that way.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Dominae
Again, what's the big deal here? Does it really ruin your PBEM experience not to be able to rename a Warrior to anything outside of 'X Warrior Y'?

I don't see why someone shouldn't be allowed to rename their units, like if I wanted to rename my Galley to the "Soggy Biscuit" or "USS Driftwood".

I agree that intentionally misleading renaming should be considered bad etiquiette, as in attempts to con in trade deals or renaming Settlers to "Worker" and the what not.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I don't see why someone shouldn't be allowed to rename their units, like if I wanted to rename my Galley to the "Soggy Biscuit" or "USS Driftwood".

Or "Floundering Fish".

EDIT: On a sidenote, Ghengis, did you get my PM?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Or "Floundering Fish".

EDIT: On a sidenote, Ghengis, did you get my PM?

Did I use "Floundering Fish?" I'm pretty sure Limp Biscuit and Beached Whale are still sailing around somewhere.

Yes, I just noticed it a few minutes ago.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dominae


But renaming a Worker to a Settler is okay?

We could debate this point endlessly. Why not just agree not to use any of these tricks?

I hope we're not reduced to measuring the skill of a Civ3 player by how well he bluffs the contents of his stacks. I want to win by playing Civ3, not exploiting any silly little advantage I can find.

There will be two types of players: those that say "I can do whatever I want according to my own ethical code, and my opponents have to deal with it", and the others that say "I want to know up front what my opponents think is fair play, because I hate complications". This thread caters to the second type.


Dominae

To your first question, yes, renaming units is fine by me because you are not screwing a trade partner over.

And yes, we could debate this endlessly. If the point of this thread is to agree on etiquette which people will then be asked to abide by in certain games (like RAH rules for Civ2) then I think it is right and proper that we discuss these things. Don't you?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Renaming a Settler to a Worker in order to trick opponents into NOT attacking it doesn't seem evil.

Renaming a city to Chivalry to con an opponent into paying a large some of money definitely seems evil.

Some of the stuff you people come up with is very scary.