posted 07-05-99 02:45 PM ET        

There is an issue here that needs to be addressed by CMNs in order to prevent similar flaps from developing in other games. Please feel free to post here or on the THC thread.

posted 07-05-99 04:12 PM ET            

You are not allowing the other player to play or reload the current turn for you, you are simply giving the other player (by viewing and OLD file only access to data which you have every right to share, and doing it in a way which is a hell of a lot less inconvenient.

It is a strategic goal in the game to get infiltrator data, and the means for sharing this info should not even qualify as an issue.

NO CHEAT, NO ISSUE

posted 07-06-99 12:16 AM ET            

But I don't think it's smart. I realize it would be hard on the person handing out the Intel due to the Infiltration talents, but they have your password. If they want to get NASTY... Think about it. That is always out there. What if they go to war with you? What if you are the only two left in the game? He or she makes his turn, sends yours to you, and looks at your whole setup.

Or is there a way to change your password in PBEM? I won't play one until the nasty bugs are smoothed out of that kludge of coding.

posted 07-06-99 03:57 AM ET            

I agree that it's convenient to let another player look at the infiltration data, as opposed to spending a long time writing an intel report as MtG mentioned, but I would *not* trust anyone but the CMN with my password.

Alliances have too much of a tendency to be broken without warning in human diplomacy...

posted 07-06-99 12:12 PM ET            

I don't think that the practice should be allowed, for the following reasons.

1) There is no comparative feature in SP. I realize that the dynamics of MP are significantly different than SP, but when a gameplay issue or an ability to circumvent the game design's intent is discovered, the default response should be to disallow the practice. To do otherwise, particularly without first addressing the issue and coming to a consensus within the game is cheating. Pure and simple.

2) I see the possibility of massive amounts of reload messages being generated. In general, I'm very forgiving on the reload messages generated in the numerous pbems that I'm involved in. But that is because I trust the players involved in the games that I'm in. If I am playing with a bunch of unknown players and I am bombarded with reload messages every turn, I'll never be able to develop the trust in the players that I must have, in order to continue with the game.

Now, all of us realize that the MP capabilities of SMAC leave plenty of room for improvement. And, with all of the clever people playing MP SMAC, there is sure to be a continuous evolution of the ideal of what MP SMAC "should" be. As we work our way toward that goal, we should remember to not lose our friends, to mistrust, along the way. Else, we'll have none to play MP with, when it's perfected!

posted 07-06-99 12:59 PM ET            

If you want to show information from your screens to someone else then, do screen shots and email those to your partner. Thus you give the information you want to give and most likely no other info.

MtG, even a player whose integrity I trust utmost does not have the right to open my save file if they control another faction within the game. It isn't what they can do, and it isn't what they can learn. It is the appearance that I "may" have given up control of my faction to another player.

Most of our rules about cheating in SMAC deal as much with how does allowing this event to happen appear to others. Sharing turns raises the appearance of possible misconduct that we can choose to avoid.

posted 07-07-99 09:21 AM ET            

As I said, per se, passing an already played turn, is justa nother mean of communication.

The only objection I raised there, was exactly that I would never trust someone else my password. You'd say, if one wants to, he's free. Well, not if he's going to make pay the consequence of his choice to others too. What if the trusted turns his back and screws the game?

With cousin's words, at first guts I feel it's wrong, but be damned if I can find an argument to sustain that (more or less).

If you try some logical reasoning, there is no reason to call it cheating.
If we go with your first cent, JAM, then we should ban ANY form of extra-game communication. Yes, e-mail included! I'm positive about this.

OTOH, once THE current turn has been played and saved, THAT savefile is the current turn.
you can reload the beginning of that turn any time you want, if you need to review and reflect: you won't be able to alter anything you already did and carved in THE savefile to be mailed on. So it's not cheating. And no reloads get recorded in THE savefile, coz you DON'T save again, just take a look at your last played hand. Thus you can also send the beginning of that turn, once you saved the end of it, the beginning is already part of history. Of course the spreading PW taboo still stands.

Being able to see more than you would with infiltration is not a point, if the owner of the turn is anyway willing to report you everything. What would be the difference in hundreds of screenshots and a savefile?

posted 07-07-99 11:44 AM ET            

You missed the qualifying points of bullet #1. That is, "...without FIRST addressing the issue and coming to a consensus within the game..."

In other words, don't do it, unless you've already discussed it with the other players in the game and everyone has agreed that it will be allowable practice within THAT game.

In my opinion, this should be the default response to the introduction of ANY peculiararities between SP and MP games. Otherwise, such practice is an underhanded attempt by players to take advantage of a situation that the others are not aware of and hence, incapable of reciprocating with. In other words, cheating.

posted 07-07-99 02:19 PM ET            

I don't think its cheating. But I do think it's dumb.

Why isn't it cheating? Mose summed it up great... if its alright to send copies of your screen shots to your allies, then its just a way to save time.

But it *is* stupid. It's that unchangeable password issue and how long can you trust your possibly momentary ally?

However, it should become an issue that is raised before embarking on a PBEM game. It SEEMS like cheating, especially if its used 'by the other side'. However, the counter to it is in SMAC reality, they would be able to work out a data exchange, if only momentary, to give each other maps and Intel. And in reality, you can just screen shot everything, but it saves TIME for all, as if you have to do that EVERYTURN, well... 1 turn a day may go to 1 turn a week or so.

posted 07-08-99 01:09 AM ET            

I think this issue should be dealt with by the CMN community. I am sure it will come up again sometime soon.

I would only reply to Jam's statement:

"Otherwise, such practice is an underhanded
attempt by players to take advantage of a situation that the others are not aware of
and hence, incapable of reciprocating with. In other words, cheating."

I think the player in question was trying to cope with the chore of relaying info to a pactmate, and a light bulb went off, and he thought of sending the .sav to save time. I don't think it was underhanded, or an attempt to take advantage.

However, it is interesting that you feel anything that is different from SP should be debated before being employed. It simply would not occur to me that sharing info with a pactmate would be a problem.

One of the players in the game did not know that the Planetary Gov had infiltrator status. So you can easily see that his first response was to accuse someone of cheating. How do you propose to deal with that type of thing.

IMHO, the diplomatic aspects involved with THC was fantastic and added so much to the experience. I found myself thinking, all day long, about how to use misinformation and other tactics to get inside the minds of the other players. I almost wish I had been the one to come up with the .sav game idea. What a brillant ploy if this was leaked on purpose to "freak out" the other side.

Of course you could say that this is over the line. But, is it?

It will be up to the CMNs to keep pirates like me in line.

Was it cheating. I think not. Should it be allowed. Not my decision, but prob not.

Some folks play for fun. Other to win. And then there are those of us who can't help ourselves, we play for blood.

We don't cheat, but we play hardball. To paraphrase Jam, "My practice is an aboveboard
attempt to create situation(s) that the others players are not aware of and hence, incapable of reciprocating with. In other words, winning."

If someone outsmarts me, I will take it hard, sure. But, then I will look them in the eye, shake their hand and try to figure out how they beat me.

[I am sure that Jam will remind me of this later, since he and I are in Vendetta and things are looking bleak for me]

Anyway, feel free to flame me for my inability to adopt the: "play for fun and who cares about winning or losing" mentality.

My wife complains that I can't even screw without keeping score.

posted 07-08-99 03:49 AM ET            

I also, play to win. But there seems to be some confusion as to my points. I won't repeat them as they are in my initial post.

However, it should be noted that they go hand in hand. As was your experience in THC, trust is essential in continuing a MP pbem game, even among enemies. My condolences, by the way, on the demise of the game. If the originator of the idea had first discussed the possibility incorporating this into your game, and the others agreed that it was a "legitimate" means of communicating among each other, then more power to you. It's your game and you guys need to make your own decisions. But, from what I've read in the THC threads, trust was supremely lacking iin your game and had even caused it to almost break up once before "the final straw". Especially given this atmosphere, all efforts should have been made to be open about anything introduced into the game that was not already there by analogy of, or extension to, SP mode.

Now, to address the non-issue of infiltrator status of the Planetary Governor or Empath Guild. This feature is well documented, both in the manual and in the datalinks. There is no excuse for a player not being aware of this capability. It is not something that does not exist in SP. On the contrary, it is something that many strive to attain. Therefore, it is not related to the argument at hand.

Remember, to win a game at the cost of losing your partners, is to lose all. So, be devious, brilliant, plotting, manipulative, honorable, whatever... as long as it is within the confines of the game as designed or modified by consensus.