FG: Go 16: Sign up thread

[James]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
I think baseless players are penalized enough. Attacking should be encouraged, hence homebaseless players should be allowed to build specials. Players without any bases, on the other hand, still have to gain a base to survive.

Give them the chance to suceed.

[Skanky Burns]

Someone with a homebase is a legitimate threat.
Someone without a homebase can not win and can only be a nuisance.

Therein lies the difference.

[snoopy369]

But there's no difference given the intent of the player whether they have a homebase or not.

If you intend to be a spyfarm, you can do so with a single homebase the same as without. This rule doesn't prevent them from being a spyfarm - it simply requires them to build a homebase.

Until you get to the point where you CAN build a homebase, you're not penalizing the VERY FEW people who might ever be the intended targets of this rule. You're penalizing the majority of the HONEST people who want to win, and need 3 more turns to get to 8bp (if they're at 1 cap base), and hope to do that by spying on others to remain safe.

Once you get to 8bp, then your rule will accomplish nothing other than force them to build a home base, which doesn't make them any worse at spying on other people...

[Spaced Cowboy]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Someone with a homebase is a legitimate threat.
Someone without a homebase can not win and can only be a nuisance.

Therein lies the difference.

So last game when I lost my homebase, I should have quit, because I was doomed to lose?

Are you saying if you lose your home base, it's game over?

[James]

I not looked to closely at the spy base issue before, but if it is so bad, then why have spies? They do add an interesting element, and as in life, it is the manipulation of the elements that causes us the most grief.

/me looks around to see if the master manipulator is here

[Skanky Burns]

If you remain without a homebase, yes, it is game over. You have essentially quit, and remain in the game only to help someone else win (or prevent another player from winning). If someone takes your bases, you won't have helped them any by building another base for them to capture.

By building a homebase, you make yourself a slightly more profitable target. You are also in a position to build more ships and exert some influence on the game again. You are back in the game, in other words.

Besides that, how can building spies keep you alive if you only have one captured base? Either you have only one enemy (who will be producing more ships every round while you can build none) and will certainly die, or you have multiple enemies and have to take a pot-shot on who is going to attack you this round. And hope that not only do you pick the right one, but only one does attack you that round. A shield otoh (which I think homeless should still have) will block all attacks.

[Ljube]

It really depends on the actual situation. Also, this spy farm thing never happened so why talk about something which is not a problem? The way I see it, the only people who would stoop to that level are Events. But you're the ones advocating for this rule change.

I think we should let it be like it is and if that produces a problem at any time in the future, discuss the issue once again. There is no point in making the position of a player with no home bases any more difficult than it already is without good reason.

[Ljube]

Skanky and joncha, I remember a situation in GO5 where you two acted like spy farms for GeneralTacticus. You had home bases, you had sizeable fleet, yet you built spies and used them to GT's gain ignoring your own interests. Now tell me, how do you account for that? Did possession of home bases prevent you from becoming somebody's servants and spy farms? No.

Just like snoopy said, I see no connection between possession of homebases and susceptibility to becoming spy farm for somebody else. It really only comes down to one's personality and one's intent, just like snoopy explained so expertly.

Or in other words, I would never become somebody else's spy farm. Skanky and joncha, you were spy farms before. Would you do it again?

[Kassiopeia]

Who here is surprised by the turn this discussion has made?

Anyone...?

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Ljube
The way I see it, the only people who would stoop to that level are Events.

But seriously, non-Events can do it too. Blondie's suicide last game was just as bad as spyfarming.

[Spaced Cowboy]

The situation in the last game:

I lost my homebase in a baseswap.

I still had my fleet, but the Aussies were coming.

I did not have enought BP to build a base, so I built a spy. I used the spy next turn to break up the gang tackle that was soming from the Aussies.

Hence last game is a concrete example of how building a spy when baseless can turn the tide of the game in you favor.

I was not a homebaseless "spy" factory as I was able to build another homebase on the next turn and get back in the game.

Bottom line is that once you lose your homebase, you are somewhat crippled and even if it was a baseswap, you'll be building a homebase ASAP. In the interim, why penalize that player. It is bad enough that he cannot build ships (even if he captured a insane amount of bases in the swap) He attacked (to get the baseswap) which is to be encouraged.

[snoopy369]

Building one home base doesn't make a significant difference in likelihood to be attacked... and if you are a spy farm against me, trust you me that I'll be paying a single frigate visit the first turn that I can One base or two makes NO difference; the spies make far more of a difference than the single base.

What it comes down to, is you don't make a rule to counter a single, minor exploit, that has a much more significant effect on legitimate players. You don't even do it if it has a comparable effect on legit players ...

[joncha]

I was trying not to bring names into it Spaced, because you were not the only one in that position last game. A certain homebaseless member of the Hordes built specials more than once.

[snoopy369]

I just don't see that as a problem. If you want to gimp your chances to win in the name of helping someone else winning ... that's your call. That is ALWAYS going to be a possibility, until and unless we figure out how to play this game anonymously and cut off all communication in and out of game between players.

And yes, keep the name-calling out of this, please.

[joncha]

I think we should probably just put it to a vote and get on with the game:

1. the homebaseless

A. can build everything but ships (status quo)
B. can only build a homebase
C. can build bases and shields, but not spies or ships

2. defaults

A. 1 default OoB and 1 set of default orders
B. default OoB only
C. no defaults (you snooze you lose)
D. the same generic default for all (LLF-FTT, for example)