FG: Go 16: Sign up thread

[Ljube]

Totally unacceptable as it almost prevents people from coming back. By not being able to build specials they are at the mercy of those still possessing home bases since their next move in these cases is forced - build home base or perish.

[Skanky Burns]

Allowing them to build / raise shields seems unlikely to be abused. Disallowing them to build and use spies gets my support, though.

In again, Zol Ventis.

[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.

[Ljube]

Originally posted by joncha
The rules currently allow for players without a home base to build specials (as was pointed out to me by several irate players). I think this goes against the spirit of the rules, however, and has the potential of turning the homebaseless into spy farms. Everything else in the rules would seem to point to encouraging players to build that first base (the low cost, inability to build ships, etc).

From the very beginning of this game, the only thing that home bases were prerequisite for were ships. One home base for frigates, two home bases for cruisers and so on.

The "low cost" was added by Spaced Cowboy to the rules in GO11 to facilitate comeback of people who suffered base swap. Removing their ability to build specials would have the exact opposite effect.

[civman2000]

I don't care either way about spies, but homebaseless players should definitely be able to build and use shields.

[snoopy369]

I agree, homebaseless players should be able to build specials, or they're toasted even more than they already are.

In, Polly Siffan

[Paddy]

In.

[Kassiopeia]

<- General Ordin

[Spaced Cowboy]

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
<- General Ordin

:shock:

[Ljube]

I thought Finns were Christians, but now I see they are evil Satanists!!!!

[Kassiopeia]

* diabolical laughter *

[joncha]

If someone who loses their homebases doesn't build a new one soon, they're toast anyway.

I really don't like the idea of someone with one or two captured bases lingering on as a spy-factory for someone else. Skanky's compromise would be fine for me.

Another point that came up last time is the default orders/OoB issue. I'm sure you can guess that I'd prefer that we do away with them altogether. For the record, last game I didn't actually have to apply any, and only a handful of people even bothered to send them in.

A GM-friendly option that would allow for an OoB default would be to have a set one for everybody (either "use last OoB" or something generic like "LLF-FTT, normal, normal").

I'd still rather have none, though.

Anyway, at some point soon we should do the traditional thing and put it all to a vote.

[Skanky Burns]

I don't want to see homeless players turned into spy farms. Prevent them from sending out spies and this crisis will be averted.

[snoopy369]

You can be a spy farm with a single homebase just as easily as with a single nonhomebase. The lack of homebase doesn't increase your ability to do so ... it decreases it, as it makes it easier to eliminate you.

Therefore there's essentially NO risk of that happening, and even if it did, your solution wouldn't help any.

[snoopy369]

Default OOB should be permitted (as should default orders, IMO, but that's a seperate issue).

They're not GM unfriendly. You can put them in the private portion of your spreadsheet with no difficulty.

The GM should have little to no effect on the game, and by that I mean that the hope is for the game to play out per the intentions of the players. Although we don't tell players when they're idiots and give legitimate but dumb orders, there's no reason not to allow players to give a fallback position if they stupidly forget to send in an OOB. It's less harmful to the game if you allow this, than if you force a player who makes one technical mistake to die without opposing the enemy as a result.