Teams that are Allies.....

BigFree · October 2, 2003, 02:49

Should a team, that may have allies, allow another team to view their game?

That is, would it be ethical to let another team have access to the game save as long as that other team did not play it, move units, or change it in anyway?

Arnelos · October 2, 2003, 05:49

I am strongly against this. I feel it violates the sanctity of the game for teams to lose the ability to deceive others, even their allies, about their intentions and motivations. This includes the ability to deceive even allies about troop movements and actions not directly visible by the ally in their own save.

By forcing teams to NOT share their saves with each other (but we can still share screenshots, etc.), they are forced to trust each other on the basis of actions and words alone. They cannot see the other's private deliberations in their forum and they cannot actually see any details in the save file aside from those which the other team shares with them in tidbits... even those they cannot always trust.

This forces every team to remember that no matter how close they become with another team, it always remains POSSIBLE that the other team is in reality ploting against them and could strike at any moment.

If two teams STARTED sharing saves, what happens when one of them suddenly decides to stop on a given turn? Won't that raise suspicions? Should it even be permitted for any two or more teams to grant each other that level of vulnerability?

I'd honesly rather that every team had to continue using screenshots... as I'd rather that every team be forced to keep in the back of their minds that it is POSSIBLE, however improbable, that things are not as they seem and others may be in reality working against them. Especially for cases where that is NOT taking place, the level of caution this introduces is critical to maintain the spirit of the game.

Trust is not easy... and it shouldn't be.

Aidun · October 2, 2003, 06:11

I think this is a matter of state sovereignity. Any country is free to share as much information with another country as it likes to. It is up to teams to decide how much information they make public, how much they share with allies and how much they keep strictly secret.

Every team operates as a sovereign state and should be allowed to handle like a sovereign state, even if this means to totally abolish sovereignity of a team towards its ally. Teams should be free to do anything they like as long as they don't disadvantage other teams in an unfair way by doing so, such like cheating or making unfair use of bugs.

It should even be allowed that teams totally unite and become one centralized state or remain seperate, but together form a kind of a federal state.

Aidun

FrustratedPoet · October 2, 2003, 07:09

Quote:

I feel it violates the sanctity of the game for teams to lose the ability to deceive others, even their allies, about their intentions and motivations.

You think that lying to your friends is something sacred to be protected?

DAVOUT · October 2, 2003, 07:46

I vote NO. The save is not the property of the teams, and cannot be traded. In fact, the save exists only because our system of multiplaying is not sophisticated enough; the hot seat is played without this being possible.

vulture · October 2, 2003, 08:26

AIUI this would only be possible by a team giving their password to an ally (I may be wrong about this). Can teams change their password once an alliance changes? If not, it's a hell of a risk to take - if the alliance folds, another team still knows your password and may still be able to get access to your save. I know that we already rely on the honesty of everyone involved to avoid some forms of cheating, but this is something that one player could do withouth the knowledge of the rest of the team, and then use that knowledge to influence team decisions withouth anyone being any the wiser about it.

Aside from that, I kind of agree with Aidun, although the idea of teams merging leaves a sour taste (lets all merge our empires with Lego, so that we all become Lego members and win the game by conquest / domination - that way, everyone's a winner

). Teams should be allowed to give up however much information they want, unless an agreement is made between all teams to declare some forms of this as cheating.

Beta · October 2, 2003, 08:27

No.

This strikes me as being contrary to the spirit and intent of the game, much like screen-shot map trades prior to the acquisition of map-making (and even then.)

Donegeal · October 2, 2003, 08:51

No.

redstar1 · October 2, 2003, 08:59

I say absolutely not. I like to think of the game save as something below the level of the game itself, the mechanism by which the game is played. There is nothing to stop teams trading all information they would ever need but I beleive the save game itself should be kept 'sacred'.

Aggie · October 2, 2003, 09:58

No!! All data that can be shared is easily shared other ways. This just adds a potential to abuse. All this really does is damage sovereignity without increasing the ability to cooperate.
Aggie

ZargonX · October 2, 2003, 11:27

No. Especially since that just means turns would be delayed even longer

Beta · October 2, 2003, 12:02

Quote:

Originally posted by redstar1
I say absolutely not. I like to think of the game save as something below the level of the game itself, the mechanism by which the game is played. There is nothing to stop teams trading all information they would ever need but I beleive the save game itself should be kept 'sacred'.

Well said!

Zayxus · October 2, 2003, 13:13

No.
One Reason:
Irreversible giving of password.

Kloreep · October 2, 2003, 13:18

What redstar said.

vondrack · October 2, 2003, 13:43

I do not like the idea either... it gets very close to having one team play two civs, which is something against the spirit of this game.

It would actually be the same as if someone was a member of two teams at the same time. Not acceptable either...

asleepathewheel · October 2, 2003, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by ZargonX
No. Especially since that just means turns would be delayed even longer

Disagree. with the above point.

Think how much faster it would move if, say, Bigfree played RP and GS's turn, MZ played GoW and ND and you Zargon get Lego and Vox.

We could have this thing wrapped up by the end of the month.

ZargonX · October 2, 2003, 14:27

Quote:

Think how much faster it would move if, say, Bigfree played RP and GS's turn, MZ played GoW and ND and you Zargon get Lego and Vox.

We could have this thing wrapped up by the end of the month.

I stand corrected.

GhengisFarb™ · October 2, 2003, 18:03

The only way I see it possible that a team could have access to another's save and be 100% sure that the other team didn't deceive them in some way would be for the OTHER team to play the team's turn AND send on the save.

Just because they send you their turn with all the troops moved, doesn't mean they didn;t play the turn twice, then sent you one with everything done the way you would like it, but then sent a completely differently played turn to the next team in line.

Even as close as ND and GoW have worked, neither has EVER allowed members from the other team access to their save other than screenshots etc.

Is GS demanding to play Roleplay's turns or what?

BigFree · October 2, 2003, 18:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Zayxus
No.
One Reason:
Irreversible giving of password.

It is not irreversable. The Admin password can be used by a third party top rest a password to something entirely different and many times as you want.

What I don't like reading in this thread is all the posts that indicate something fishy could be going on. I trust all teams to the maximum extent that they woudl not cheat. It cheapens the game if they would happen to win or not.

To prevent cheating is not a good reason to oppose this IMO.

Hot_Enamel · October 2, 2003, 19:36

No, it is not in the spirit of the game.
It sounds like lazyness.

GhengisFarb™ · October 2, 2003, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
It sounds like lazyness.

Why does someone ALWAYS have to mention Americans?

Not everything is our fault..............

BigFree · October 2, 2003, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
No, it is not in the spirit of the game.
It sounds like lazyness.

I call it not enough hours in a day/week/month/year.

But I do not call it cheating or agianst any sort of "code".

I do not hear any arguments against this other than it doesn't sit right with someone or that someone can cheat.

Tell me, what can any team gleen from looking at another teams save that cannot be passed through the forums? Nothing.

What is does do is save time and possibly let this game move a little quicker which gives the teams more time to do other things; like enjoy RL for a change.

Someone said what would stop one team from sending another teams save to the next. Sheesh. Well, nothing would stop it from happening if they wanted to do it. But, the team that recieved it, would know where it came from, wouldn't they? Then the offending team would be "busted" for even trying such a move.

There are no logistical questions about this. Cheating is not an issue, at least not for me.

GhengisFarb™ · October 2, 2003, 20:18

The BIGGEST factor that has slowed down GoW's time is that ND only sends the save to ONE person now. Aggie

If Aggie ain't on line there is ABSOLUTELY nothing the team can do. We can't post orders, talk about it, or even prepare to play it if something happened to Aggies ability to access his internet account or Civ.

I do think it would be nice to forward the save to several people on the team to cover bases.

Aggie · October 2, 2003, 21:12

In that case I'll have ND sent it to several of us. Yes the truth comes out, I've been a ruthless maniacal dictator. All true sadly.
Aggie

Hot_Enamel · October 2, 2003, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree

I call it not enough hours in a day/week/month/year.

But I do not call it cheating or agianst any sort of "code".

RP can always "retire" if it gets too much

I agree, it is not exactly cheating, but....

I assume, every team, still has the goal of winning this game. These teams may share intel, ally and co-ordinate moves, but they are still individual teams.
The PBEM format is designed to be played by individual teams.

To allow another team to have your save, simply blurs this distinction. You are saying it doesnt, but I think the bulk of the above posters will agree with me.

Handing over your save will be seen by most of us, to be handing over some control of RP's decision making process to GS. ie One team playing two teams....which is cheating.

Theseus · October 2, 2003, 21:58

No from me, period (for now).

In a broad sense, we are participating in a new style of gaming, and we have not yet developed all of the necessary mechanisms. What is an ally / most favored nation / possession / vassal, etc., in the context of this kind of game? Who is the judge? What rights do other teams / nations have in judging the relationship and validity of official relationship on the 'international' scene?

To paraphrase the chief of the Indian tribe in 'Dances with Wolves':

We will smoke a while, and think on these things.

In the meantime, we need to be, I think, conservative in our approach. That said, I need to bring a new subject to light.

/me thinks, hmmm, this is going to be sensitive...

* Firaxis delivered an MP/PBEM product that has flaws. I don;t mean the much-discussed technical problems... I mean stuff that no one really thought of in terms of gameplay, providing opportunities for exploits.

* Some of the PTWDG teams have already taken advantage of the technical opportunites of PTW MP... I hope my teammates won't kill me, but GS has done so, to a limited extent. To date, this has not been a major point of contention as the applications have been limited and more or less in line with how SP, the 'standard', works.

* It is my belief that a line may have been crossed in terms of MP exploits. It is possible to use bombard units twice or more in a given series of MP/PBEM turns, through an "in-turn-cycle" series of ++bombard-next civ declares war-captures bombard units-bombard again-settle for peace++ actions. If this has in fact taken place (by ND/GoW), it must stop NOW. If I am right... in my mind, this contravenes the way that Civ3 MP is supposed to work.

If I am wrong, my sincere apologies to ND and GoW.

Arnelos · October 2, 2003, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

Quote:

I feel it violates the sanctity of the game for teams to lose the ability to deceive others, even their allies, about their intentions and motivations.

You think that lying to your friends is something sacred to be protected?

No, I think the ability to lie to your friends is something to be protected. My point is that the trust built by having the ability to lie to someone and then telling the truth is an important aspect of the game, as is the continued ability to lie. Giving teams the ability to simply check for themselves rather than forcing them to trust one another I feel violates the sanctity of the game.

Aggie · October 2, 2003, 23:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus

* It is my belief that a line may have been crossed in terms of MP exploits. It is possible to use bombard units twice or more in a given series of MP/PBEM turns, through an "in-turn-cycle" series of ++bombard-next civ declares war-captures bombard units-bombard again-settle for peace++ actions. If this has in fact taken place (by ND/GoW), it must stop NOW. If I am right... in my mind, this contravenes the way that Civ3 MP is supposed to work.

If I am wrong, my sincere apologies to ND and GoW.

Has not happened. Period. What concerns me is there is absolutely NO place in the theatre of combat that any RP/GS have been damaged in such a way to indicate this in ANY way.

This being the case I am slightly offended. If there was evidence of this I would understand, but there is none. All this being said, if it was to be done in the future(and yes we realized the possibility) it is no more an exploit than magically teleporting large forces by a move that could not be detected by the other waring parties(since RP and GS go between us and ND's turn). That was truly an exploit and has affected the war in a way that this use of catapult could not.

I've only know you in passing in this forum, and you seem very nice and decent. I don't believe you meant this as an insult and won't take it as such. But I am afraid there are members of my team who will take it quite badly and I have no control of others. In the future it would be wise to ask trip if you suspected unethical actions, since he sees all forums he could answer you without offending. This forum has become much more peaceful recently, I am afraid a match+gasoline has just been introduced.

I also realize that this could be an attempt to make us mad and take unwise action. There is no reason to try goading us into unwise quick action, it is simply not going to happen.
Aggie

Hot_Enamel · October 2, 2003, 23:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus

* Some of the PTWDG teams have already taken advantage of the technical opportunites of PTW MP... I hope my teammates won't kill me, but GS has done so, to a limited extent. To date, this has not been a major point of contention as the applications have been limited and more or less in line with how SP, the 'standard', works.

* It is my belief that a line may have been crossed in terms of MP exploits. It is possible to use bombard units twice or more in a given series of MP/PBEM turns, through an "in-turn-cycle" series of ++bombard-next civ declares war-captures bombard units-bombard again-settle for peace++ actions. If this has in fact taken place (by ND/GoW), it must stop NOW. If I am right... in my mind, this contravenes the way that Civ3 MP is supposed to work.

If I am wrong, my sincere apologies to ND and GoW.

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

{edited} - I got to calm down before typing crap like this

In SP, you can use catapults on an enemy.
The enemy can attack on their turn, capture the catapults, and turn the catapults on you.
This all happens in the same turn/(year).

Therefore it happens in SP, and should be allowed here.

Sorry .. but there is no way this is going to stop.
Especially when we had to accept city gifting to warp units as a "valid" tactic by GS.
Something that really peeved and upset a lot of players but could not stop GS from doing it.

{2nd edit} - Aggie beat me. And has indicated that We have not used the ***cough cough*** "exploit".
Either way ... if the opprotunity arises in the future, I would be voting yes in our forum. Just for spite in what GS has done

asleepathewheel · October 2, 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

{edited} - I got to calm down before typing crap like this

In SP, you can use catapults on an enemy.
The enemy can attack on their turn, capture the catapults, and turn the catapults on you.
This all happens in the same turn/(year).

Therefore it happens in SP, and should be allowed here.

Intriguing.

Using a trick to get two attacks out of a unit in one game turn.

I'm not sure I'm interested in this game anymore.