What is the defination of "Gamey"?

What is the defination of "Gamey"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

AW1Steve -> What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 1:37:53 PM)
I'd like to hear from a few people about what they consider "Gamey" is. No, I don't mean how Logboy smells after a day IN the Seattle rain (Just kidding Nik![:D]) or how the deer (venison) that uncle what's his-name shot and insists on subjecting the family to taste. I mean as the term is used in these forums. Personally , I feel that the term has been misused, and grown to encompass far more then it's creator (whom ever that might be) intended. And since I've been uninvited (dis-invited? well, at any event, asked to leave) by another forumite on his thread (obviously ignoring the reality that none of us "own" these threads....Matrix does), I feel that maybe the time has come for us to define , capture and get this monster under control. So what do you think , gentlemen and lady ? [&:] BTW , I'm not a cranky old man (but I do play one in the Geezer thread. The same thread which a professional Swedish Army officer plays a flowerchild. Obviously some people have difficulty tell theatre from reality). I might be considerd a Angry middle aged man. The major difference is a cranky old man just complains, the other tries to do something about it. And I would like to hear everyones view. Not just the ones that conform with my own. Thanks. [:)]

vonTirpitz -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 2:48:09 PM)
Well I would think we should have a starting definition so I pulled this from dictionary.com gamey or gamy (ˈɡeɪmɪ) — adj , gamier , gamiest 1. having the smell or flavour of game, esp high game 2. informal spirited; plucky; brave Based on the "official" definition I would have to say that everything about WitP-AE, the forum, and many members seems to apply to the term. [:D] On with the discussion! [;)]

AW1Steve -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 2:53:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz Well I would think we should have a starting definition so I pulled this from dictionary.com gamey or gamy (ˈɡeɪmɪ) — adj , gamier , gamiest 1. having the smell or flavour of game, esp high game 2. informal spirited; plucky; brave Based on the "official" definition I would have to say that everything about WitP-AE, the forum, and many members seems to apply to the term. [:D] On with the discussion! [;)] So not being the brightest of "cranky old men", am I correct in sumarizing as "tastes or smells bad"? [&:] One question I need clarification on.....do you mean the forum members view , or they themselves? [:D]

jeffk3510 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 3:16:21 PM)
Historical or not doesn't mean gamey in my opinion. Gamey is taking advantage of the game's mechanics imo.... I play EU3 a lot for example....I build ONLY cavalry armies...its a game exploit....its considered "gamey". For those that understand EU3....I build up my navy FAR past my forcelimit modifier, because it is an exploit and you're not penalized.....its considered "gamey" The whole "moving squadrons off carriers to expand" issue...most consider that gamey Gamey to me is finding a way to exploit game mechanics, in such a manner that is not intended. That one popped into my head right away, as I was playing UE3 a bit last night... I wouldn't consider something gamey if you're just that much better at a game than someone else however....

vonTirpitz -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 3:17:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve One question I need clarification on.....do you mean the forum members view , or they themselves? [:D] Probably a little of both but I'd rather not know actually. [:D] As to your point I tend to agree with what you are thinking. The term itself is probably overused and, as you implied, has become a thin politically correct coating for many whom think they are being cheated in the game. Whilst one can appreciate an opponent whom devises a strategy or method that is effective and within the boundaries of the games' mechanics. It seems to boil down to the fact that it can be explained and is within the designed parameters of the game. This is what I would call "gamey" play style based on the second informal definition. Cheating on the other hand involves fraud. It involves manipulating data, stealing information and violating agreed upon rules, etc. The boundaries between "spirited" play and "cheating" often get blured with increasing levels complexity. As mentioned in other discussions I still feel it comes down to the personalities of those involved as well as the limitations that a game design has. There are many excellent examples in AE where these boundaries exist. With a game of this scope and magnitude I believe it really has to come down to a gentlemens agreement as to what play styles would be acceptable. Likewise, I think many of these issues should be resolved more quietly between the players themselves than brought up as an informal inquiry like so many do. Whether it be a mistaken understanding of what your opponent is doing or an outright confrontation to an opponent whom is believed to be cheating in some way. Once the issue is brought to the public forum I cannot imagine how it would positively affect the game only in that it often times carries unspoken accusations that have to have a negative effect on all involved parties. This is just my general opinion on the matter. No threads, members or small animals where harmed in the formation of these thoughts.... I now need to go find more coffee to finish waking up. I'll re-read this later and realize it probably didn't make much sense. Oh well. [>:]

Crackaces -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 3:47:00 PM)
"Gamey" in my opinion is a player exploiting a software or rules behavior in a boardgame, in such a way that the risks are infinitesimally small and the benifits of such an explotiation are overwhleming. The line is crossed when the opponent has no similar retort. Thus the contest becomes about the figuring out the GAME as a puzzle, and not about the PLAYERS and their decisions. For example, some role playing games have some sort of puzzle or pattern than one learned one can dominate despite the responses of the other player(s). However, I think I do see where you are coming from in terms of definition and perceptions. In some threads some ahistorical move with appropriate risks and benifits is perceived as "gamey" because one player has a rigid context for reproducing history and the other wants to try a "what-if" situtaion vs.both are just playing a game. IMHO) For these types of wargaming players they are testing the ability of the software to reproduce historical results or they are testing the ability of the software to simulate all of the War in the Pacific during WWII, and not so much interested in playing a game. The problem becomes that WitP is just a game and not a simulation. For example, I posted the thought that if IJN submarine warfare completly fccused on isolating the land of OZ then the powers to be would have made the appropriate response, which I might contend is to build much more infrastrcutre once the risk / reward became apparent. The game does not allow for such responses, which a simulation would facilitate. Thus to put all the IJN submarines to isolate the land of OZ might be a bit gamey -- but that is in the light that right now I do not understand a response within the confines of WitP AE. (A little background .. I am working with software called "Organizational Risk Analysis" and this allows for such decision making along with the overt and unintended consequinces of such decisions and thus thus my rant :)

USSAmerica -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 3:55:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 Gamey to me is finding a way to exploit game mechanics, in such a manner that is not intended. Jeff nailed it. Defining what "gamey is" is not difficult. Defining what "is gamey" is a very personal, opinion based decision. Sure there are plenty of things that have a "consensus" from the forum members declaring them gamey, but there are plenty of individuals on the other side of the issue in every case. They are absolutely entitled to that opinion. The only problems arise when people start to imply that their opinions "should" be the opinion of everyone else. The only people who need to agree whether something is gamey or not are the players in a PBEM or yourself if you are playing vs the AI. Before starting a PBEM relationship with anyone, be sure you can reach an agreement on what is/is not gamey, or be sure you can reach an agreement in the future when something comes up. It always will. [:)]

FatR -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 3:57:16 PM)
The general definition of "gamey" is exploitation of the game engine's quirks to achieve results that a)would have been impossible in reality b)clearly weren't intended to be achieved by the delelopers. (Point (b) is here because some of the game engine's elements sacrifice close adherence to reality in lesser things, to achieve it in greater things - i.e., while actual altitude numbers associated with AE's stratosphere air combat are wrong, the resulting general advantage of late-war Allied planes is exactly right). Unfortunately, people tend to not agree where unconventional tactics end and impossibility begins. For example, it is pretty clear, that sending a gaggle of small-value targets ahead of one's SCTF to make the enemy vaste their ammo and ops points is gamey, but is is it gamey to engage the enemy with a bunch of single-DD TFs? Single-PT TFs? And so on.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crackaces For example, I posted the thought that if IJN submarine warfare completly fccused on isolating the land of OZ then the powers to be would have made the appropriate response, which I might contend is to build much more infrastrcutre once the risk / reward became apparent. The game does not allow for such responses, which a simulation would facilitate. Thus to put all the IJN submarines to isolate the land of OZ might be a bit gamey -- but that is in the light that right now I do not understand a response within the confines of WitP AE. While I believe your example is a good one, I disagree that the game fails to provide avenues of response. True, the Allied player can't build more infrastructure in Oz. But once it is clear that the IJN sub force is camped there the Allied player has many responses available to him which ARE possible in the game code. The biggest one, and the thought applies in myriad situations like your example, is to "go where they ain't." Any time a player crowds resources into a geography, land or sea, he necessarily is leaving other places less crowded. Being prepared to respond to this, especially within the prep consraints of the engine, is a key to becoming a very good player. Also, knowing, on either side of the color wheel, when is the time to stop being "reaction conservative" and instead becoming overtly aggressive in the pursuit of final end-game goals, is a key skill. Many PBEM games have not or never will get to 1944, so Allied players in particular don't have a lot of AARs to study for this swing mechanism, but it's there. Playing 1942 over and over and over does not fully show the game's possibilities. I don't play PBEM, but were I to do so I would play with no HRs. From reading many AARs I think they detract more than they add. They motivate much table talk which not only slows down progress and can lead to hurt feelings (or one side leaving the game) but also often reveals a lot of operational planning to the opponent. If the game engine has limits which can be pushed (and it does, especially in the area of Op Points), there are areas available to both sides. Outside of simple cheating, such as reading an opponent's AAR, I say play on. It's a long war, and you'll get many chances for payback.

AW1Steve -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:09:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR The general definition of "gamey" is exploitation of the game engine's quirks to achieve results that a)would have been impossible in reality b)clearly weren't intended to be achieved by the delelopers. (Point (b) is here because some of the game engine's elements sacrifice close adherence to reality in lesser things, to achieve it in greater things - i.e., while actual altitude numbers associated with AE's stratosphere air combat are wrong, the resulting general advantage of late-war Allied planes is exactly right). Unfortunately, people tend to not agree where unconventional tactics end and impossibility begins. For example, it is pretty clear, that sending a gaggle of small-value targets ahead of one's SCTF to make the enemy vaste their ammo and ops points is gamey, but is is it gamey to engage the enemy with a bunch of single-DD TFs? Single-PT TFs? And so on. This is one I've always had trouble with. My opponents generally forbid me to use AKL's or other extremely low value ships as pickets while citing this issue. I don't intend these units to be a sponge...I intend them to be part of a picket line (which both sides used..but there are no fishing boats for Japan or requesitioned Tuna boats or small pleasure craft for the allies. Is this "gamey"? My intentions are not...but the results may be. [&:]

USSAmerica -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:16:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: FatR The general definition of "gamey" is exploitation of the game engine's quirks to achieve results that a)would have been impossible in reality b)clearly weren't intended to be achieved by the delelopers. (Point (b) is here because some of the game engine's elements sacrifice close adherence to reality in lesser things, to achieve it in greater things - i.e., while actual altitude numbers associated with AE's stratosphere air combat are wrong, the resulting general advantage of late-war Allied planes is exactly right). Unfortunately, people tend to not agree where unconventional tactics end and impossibility begins. For example, it is pretty clear, that sending a gaggle of small-value targets ahead of one's SCTF to make the enemy vaste their ammo and ops points is gamey, but is is it gamey to engage the enemy with a bunch of single-DD TFs? Single-PT TFs? And so on. This is one I've always had trouble with. My opponents generally forbid me to use AKL's or other extremely low value ships as pickets while citing this issue. I don't intend these units to be a sponge...I intend them to be part of a picket line (which both sides used..but there are no fishing boats for Japan or requesitioned Tuna boats or small pleasure craft for the allies. Is this "gamey"? My intentions are not...but the results may be. [&:] My opinion is that purposeful "ammo sponges" are gamey but pickets are not gamey, Steve, but my opinion doesn't matter. Only you and your opponent's opinions matter. Oh, wait. I guess my opinion DOES matter in a couple of cases, then. [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:17:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 Gamey to me is finding a way to exploit game mechanics, in such a manner that is not intended. Jeff nailed it. Defining what "gamey is" is not difficult. Defining what "is gamey" is a very personal, opinion based decision. Sure there are plenty of things that have a "consensus" from the forum members declaring them gamey, but there are plenty of individuals on the other side of the issue in every case. They are absolutely entitled to that opinion. The only problems arise when people start to imply that their opinions "should" be the opinion of everyone else. The only people who need to agree whether something is gamey or not are the players in a PBEM or yourself if you are playing vs the AI. Before starting a PBEM relationship with anyone, be sure you can reach an agreement on what is/is not gamey, or be sure you can reach an agreement in the future when something comes up. It always will. [:)] So can this thread serve a usefull purpose by exploring what's "gamey", and trying to reach a general consensus on what many if not most players view as the problem, if not a solution? My experince is that many players jump with both feet on houserules without stopping to discuss if they are needed. If we can figure out what the problem is , aren't we a little closer to solving it? My personal intention is to explore that here, THEN follow up with other threads , 1st exploring some of those flaws and problems that might be gamey.And how to solve them. But 1st we need to figure out what the defination of "is" is. One thing I'm convinced is , the time to figure out if something is a problem in in threads like this one.Not when you are negtoiating house rules. [:)]

AW1Steve -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:21:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: FatR The general definition of "gamey" is exploitation of the game engine's quirks to achieve results that a)would have been impossible in reality b)clearly weren't intended to be achieved by the delelopers. (Point (b) is here because some of the game engine's elements sacrifice close adherence to reality in lesser things, to achieve it in greater things - i.e., while actual altitude numbers associated with AE's stratosphere air combat are wrong, the resulting general advantage of late-war Allied planes is exactly right). Unfortunately, people tend to not agree where unconventional tactics end and impossibility begins. For example, it is pretty clear, that sending a gaggle of small-value targets ahead of one's SCTF to make the enemy vaste their ammo and ops points is gamey, but is is it gamey to engage the enemy with a bunch of single-DD TFs? Single-PT TFs? And so on. This is one I've always had trouble with. My opponents generally forbid me to use AKL's or other extremely low value ships as pickets while citing this issue. I don't intend these units to be a sponge...I intend them to be part of a picket line (which both sides used..but there are no fishing boats for Japan or requesitioned Tuna boats or small pleasure craft for the allies. Is this "gamey"? My intentions are not...but the results may be. [&:] My opinion is that purposeful "ammo sponges" are gamey but pickets are not gamey, Steve, but my opinion doesn't matter. Only you and your opponent's opinions matter. Oh, wait. I guess my opinion DOES matter in a couple of cases, then. [:D] Your opinion ALWAYS matters Mike. And so do that of others. Find the problem. Identify it, and kill it or deal with it. Frankly , I'm so fed up with this lack of defination of gamey (that's the burr under my saddle. Everybody whined about the problem) that I would like it dead, or al least handcuffed and put in a staight-jacket! Then we can move on to other pressing issues. [:D]

Shark7 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:28:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz Well I would think we should have a starting definition so I pulled this from dictionary.com gamey or gamy (ˈɡeɪmɪ) — adj , gamier , gamiest 1. having the smell or flavour of game, esp high game 2. informal spirited; plucky; brave Based on the "official" definition I would have to say that everything about WitP-AE, the forum, and many members seems to apply to the term. [:D] On with the discussion! [;)] So not being the brightest of "cranky old men", am I correct in sumarizing as "tastes or smells bad"? [&:] One question I need clarification on.....do you mean the forum members view , or they themselves? [:D] Actually gamey in the sense of meats is not so much it tastes or smells bad, but rather it has the flavour of the wild (wild animals are what they eat after all...remember that the next time you take a big bite of wild hog). After all, you hunt wild game, so it makes sense.

USSAmerica -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:31:14 PM)
Steve-O, I'm afraid you might be tilting at windmills again. You're not going to be able to define what moves/tactics/sneaky tricks are or are not gamey to anyone's satisfaction, except your own. I know you well enough to know you would usually prefer as close to "no holes barred" as you can get an opponent to accept. I think that's the answer you are looking for, and the only one that matters for you, except that of any opponents you engage. [:)] You'll sooner solve the Federal budget problems than get everyone here to agree that any single issue is or is not gamey. [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:42:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America Steve-O, I'm afraid you might be tilting at windmills again.� You're not going to be able to define what moves/tactics/sneaky tricks are or are not gamey to anyone's satisfaction, except your own.� I know you well enough to know you would usually prefer as close to "no holes barred" as you can get an opponent to accept.� I think that's the answer you are looking for, and the only one that matters for you, except that of any opponents you engage.� [:)] You'll sooner solve the Federal budget problems than get everyone here to agree that any single issue is or is not gamey. 燵:D] Not necessarilly true Mike. My only real requirement for house rules acceptance is "show me where one person that I trust makes the case that it's necessary". That means any one from Matrix, only any of the non-employess that helped build the game, or any one VERY knowledgable about the game. That includes automatically any of the "GrandMasters". I don't oppose houserules. I simply want to have it proven to me that we need them. I do not belive in exchanging one monster for another. And quite often , in my humble view, a house rule simply shifts the advantage from one party to another . In other words I view house rules as often gamey themselves. As far as the Federal budget goes, I can easily solve that! But until my plan for global world domination comes to fruition , the budget will have to remain the problem of the people we are PAYING to solve it. [:D]

jeffk3510 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz Well I would think we should have a starting definition so I pulled this from dictionary.com gamey or gamy (ˈɡeɪmɪ) — adj , gamier , gamiest 1. having the smell or flavour of game, esp high game 2. informal spirited; plucky; brave Based on the "official" definition I would have to say that everything about WitP-AE, the forum, and many members seems to apply to the term. [:D] On with the discussion! [;)] So not being the brightest of "cranky old men", am I correct in sumarizing as "tastes or smells bad"? [&:] One question I need clarification on.....do you mean the forum members view , or they themselves? [:D] Actually gamey in the sense of meats is not so much it tastes or smells bad, but rather it has the flavour of the wild (wild animals are what they eat after all...remember that the next time you take a big bite of wild hog). After all, you hunt wild game, so it makes sense. That is why I fish more instead of hunt. Catch-n-Release... when I drop a pheasant from 25 yards...I, unfortunately, have to eat it...

Shark7 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:49:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: USS America Steve-O, I'm afraid you might be tilting at windmills again.� You're not going to be able to define what moves/tactics/sneaky tricks are or are not gamey to anyone's satisfaction, except your own.� I know you well enough to know you would usually prefer as close to "no holes barred" as you can get an opponent to accept.� I think that's the answer you are looking for, and the only one that matters for you, except that of any opponents you engage.� [:)] You'll sooner solve the Federal budget problems than get everyone here to agree that any single issue is or is not gamey. 燵:D] Not necessarilly true Mike. My only real requirement for house rules acceptance is "show me where one person that I trust makes the case that it's necessary". That means any one from Matrix, only any of the non-employess that helped build the game, or any one VERY knowledgable about the game. That includes automatically any of the "GrandMasters". I don't oppose houserules. I simply want to have it proven to me that we need them. I do not belive in exchanging one monster for another. And quite often , in my humble view, a house rule simply shifts the advantage from one party to another . In other words I view house rules as often gamey themselves. As far as the Federal budget goes, I can easily solve that! But until my plan for global world domination comes to fruition , the budget will have to remain the problem of the people we are PAYING to solve it. [:D] When it comes to house rules, I don't necessarily bar anything, but what I do ask is that you make it reasonable. For instance 4Es at 1000' for skip bombing: I agree you can do it, just don't set every 4E unit you have to do it, etc. I guess it would be less of a house rule as a gentlemen's agreement, or a better way to put it, don't do anything that ruins the game for either player.

jeffk3510 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 4:52:21 PM)
I just don't think "historical vs non-historical" is the answer to gamey... As I mentioned... gamey is finding a way to exploit game mechanics, in such a manner that is not intended.

Chickenboy -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:13:01 PM)
I believe that's "no holds barred", Mike. All of my holes should be considered barred. [;)] VonTirpitz and Jeff's definitions of 'gamey' are quite suitable by my standards. Here's my question to you, Steve: "How will one deal with their legitimate philosophical differences about what they consider illegitimate application of the game engine?" Will we know for certain how our opponents will look at a potential future problem? What issues they may find inoffensive versus those that are 'game killers'? The only way to know is to talk about specific, known issues with prospective partners moving forward. Otherwise, you may find yourself apoplectic with anger and dropping a game yourself because your opponent is gamey/cheating/scheming to get an upper hand through game mechanics alone. The only way to do so is to talk things out ahead of time, get to understand an opponent's style of gameplay and give specific examples of activities that are verboten before committing to a long-term relationship. Otherwise, you are assuming that you will agree in the future on yet undiscovered problem. If one is afraid to talk about these issues ahead of time, trouble will come. If you really wanted to play 'no holds barred', I'd hunt your carriers on turn one, move all Kwangtung infantry above the threshold out of Manchuria for further assault exploit, hyperexpand my industry and my training groups and maybe insist on a starting OOB that gives me some additional ahistoric toys. I'd also use every movement-related trick in the book to bork your naval and LCU-related movements (para fragments combined with LCU assault, parafragments to bork LCU LOS movements, etc., etc. When it was possible to do so, I'd stack every artillery tube in the empire and grind China to dust. Well, what was left of China that I hadn't already carpet bombed in my attack on HI. Before long, such an approach like this devolves into a frustrating match of one-upsmanship. Who can find the newest wrinkle in the game code, the most subtle flaw in the mechanics and exploit that towards victory. Victories are tainted by this footnote, losses blamed on it. It's not what most people want. Lastly, a challenge: Show me one-just one-AE PBEM AAR that has survived the test of time with zero house rules to prevent 'gamey' exploits.

bradfordkay -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:13:13 PM)
The picket boat situation is a tough one, because they were used IRL (even though those specific craft weren't included in the game). The problem with using them "in game" is that the game mechanics don't handle them well. If the AI would only choose a couple of your carrier aircraft to deal with a single picket boat, I would have no problem with the use of single ship pickets. However, since the AI tends to send a bucketload of aircraft to deal with the single picket boat it has the result of soaking up the available sorties on your carrier and thus has an effect on the game way out of proportion to the situation. This is why I do not use them.

Chickenboy -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz Well I would think we should have a starting definition so I pulled this from dictionary.com gamey or gamy (ˈɡeɪmɪ) — adj , gamier , gamiest 1. having the smell or flavour of game, esp high game 2. informal spirited; plucky; brave Based on the "official" definition I would have to say that everything about WitP-AE, the forum, and many members seems to apply to the term. [:D] On with the discussion! [;)] So not being the brightest of "cranky old men", am I correct in sumarizing as "tastes or smells bad"? [&:] One question I need clarification on.....do you mean the forum members view , or they themselves? [:D] Actually gamey in the sense of meats is not so much it tastes or smells bad, but rather it has the flavour of the wild (wild animals are what they eat after all...remember that the next time you take a big bite of wild hog). After all, you hunt wild game, so it makes sense. That is why I fish more instead of hunt. Catch-n-Release... when I drop a pheasant from 25 yards...I, unfortunately, have to eat it... Dude...you're not using the right pheasant recipes then. I'll take pheasant any day over most freshwater fish...[&o]

USSAmerica -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:17:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 I just don't think "historical vs non-historical" is the answer to gamey... As I mentioned... gamey is finding a way to exploit game mechanics, in such a manner that is not intended. Jeff, I think you're seeing the discussion drifting into the HR/gamey gray area. That's another "trap" IMO, on the path to declaring any individual issue gamey or not. I think it can be hard enough to get two people to agree on any issue, but once they do reach an agreement, what the rest of the world thinks about that game issue is irrelevant to their game or fun.

bradfordkay -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:18:29 PM)
CB... there is no AAR, but ChezDaJez and I are well into 1943 in our PBEM with no house rules and no "gamey" exploits. This is because we played each other in a CHS game and recognized that neither of us tend to pull such exploits (we did have a long list of house rules in that game, but dropped them for this one as they never really came into play). My original ad for the CHS game explained my playing philosophy, which I feel went a long ways towards finding a compatible opponent. EDIT: here are the lines from my original "opponent wanted" ad that described my playing style. I think that posting this information made it far more likely that I was able to find an opponent of similar bent... My reason for playing the allies is that I have never yet even looked at the game from the Japanese side, so this would be a nice advantage to my opponent. I have no idea as to the exact capabilities of the Japanese OOB, nor its arrival times. I play a very historical style of play. Some examples of how I've been doing this are as follows: No replacements until TFs arrive from the US/Aden. The only a/c that can relocate and fly missions on the same day are those whose relocation takes four hours or less at cruise speed. No more than 2 subs per AS can leave Manila each day. No replenishing SCTFs at ports under size 3. No replenishing BBs/CVs at ports under size 6. These are not proposed house rules, but rather an example of my style of play. In general, if it seems impossible IRL, I don't do it.

USSAmerica -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:24:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay The picket boat situation is a tough one, because they were used IRL (even though those specific craft weren't included in the game). The problem with using them "in game" is that the game mechanics don't handle them well. If the AI would only choose a couple of your carrier aircraft to deal with a single picket boat, I would have no problem with the use of single ship pickets. However, since the AI tends to send燼 bucketload of aircraft to deal with the single picket boat it has the result of soaking up the available sorties on your carrier and thus has an effect on the game way out of proportion to the situation. This is why I do not use them. I think dropping the % of attack planes on a CV when it is not expecting a major engagement would conserve sorties. The question then is, "is this too dangerous if the CV does encounter a non-trivial enemy force?" It's a tradeoff, like many choices in this awesome game. [:)]

bradfordkay -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:36:23 PM)
Mike, to me that answer is a non-working one because if you do hit the picket line then you are getting close enough to have needed your squadrons on "full alert". You are right in that it is a philosophical difference - I prefer to go into dangerous waters with my eyes open (a certain percentage of my carrier aircraft set to search) while Chez keeps his carrier aircraft off of search so as not to give away the location of his carriers. At any rate, I feel very lucky to have found an opponent who plays in a similar historically limited manner, and so have been enjoying years of excellent game play in WITP and AE.

AW1Steve -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:37:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I believe that's "no holds barred", Mike. All of my holes should be considered barred. [;)] VonTirpitz and Jeff's definitions of 'gamey' are quite suitable by my standards. Here's my question to you, Steve: "How will one deal with their legitimate philosophical differences about what they consider illegitimate application of the game engine?" Will we know for certain how our opponents will look at a potential future problem? What issues they may find inoffensive versus those that are 'game killers'? The only way to know is to talk about specific, known issues with prospective partners moving forward. Otherwise, you may find yourself apoplectic with anger and dropping a game yourself because your opponent is gamey/cheating/scheming to get an upper hand through game mechanics alone. The only way to do so is to talk things out ahead of time, get to understand an opponent's style of gameplay and give specific examples of activities that are verboten before committing to a long-term relationship. Otherwise, you are assuming that you will agree in the future on yet undiscovered problem. If one is afraid to talk about these issues ahead of time, trouble will come. If you really wanted to play 'no holds barred', I'd hunt your carriers on turn one, move all Kwangtung infantry above the threshold out of Manchuria for further assault exploit, hyperexpand my industry and my training groups and maybe insist on a starting OOB that gives me some additional ahistoric toys. I'd also use every movement-related trick in the book to bork your naval and LCU-related movements (para fragments combined with LCU assault, parafragments to bork LCU LOS movements, etc., etc. When it was possible to do so, I'd stack every artillery tube in the empire and grind China to dust. Well, what was left of China that I hadn't already carpet bombed in my attack on HI. Before long, such an approach like this devolves into a frustrating match of one-upsmanship. Who can find the newest wrinkle in the game code, the most subtle flaw in the mechanics and exploit that towards victory. Victories are tainted by this footnote, losses blamed on it. It's not what most people want. Lastly, a challenge: Show me one-just one-AE PBEM AAR that has survived the test of time with zero house rules to prevent 'gamey' exploits. Andre. as always , you make excellent points. But once again, I'm not anti-house rule. I just want to make sure 1) we understand why want them, and be certain that they are necessary 2) we don't create a monster to replace a monster. So you might say I'm very cautious, maybe even conservative or reluctant to house rules. There's a big difference between opposing the concept and being cautious about it. I might not be opposed to my daughter (the non existant one) dating , but I'll be very careful who I let her date. [:D] How do you deal with philisophic differences? As gentlemen, with respect and grace. But before you can deal with any problem, question or difference of opinion, you 1st need to define it and identify it. As I said before, we can come up with endless threads on this is gamey, and that is gamey. That's identifying the problem, and overall it's a good thing. But 1st we need a general idea of what gamey is. So far we see it as a flaw,glitch,oversight,mistake or inadequacy of the gaming system. Pretty much no one has championed the "a-historical" argument. And we are talking about it. That's what I'm looking for. Set the mission 1st, and get it in our heads. Because as the old Florida say goes, "When your up to your butt (censored version) in alligators , it's hard to remember that your there to drain the swamp". Gamey is the swamp. Examples and objections are the alligators. [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay The picket boat situation is a tough one, because they were used IRL (even though those specific craft weren't included in the game). The problem with using them "in game" is that the game mechanics don't handle them well. If the AI would only choose a couple of your carrier aircraft to deal with a single picket boat, I would have no problem with the use of single ship pickets. However, since the AI tends to send燼 bucketload of aircraft to deal with the single picket boat it has the result of soaking up the available sorties on your carrier and thus has an effect on the game way out of proportion to the situation. This is why I do not use them. I salute you and your sense of fairplay. I too refrain from their use , but I resent to some degree the fact that I feel my hands are tied. But your right, it's what we have to do sometimes to play in a gentlemans fashion. [&o][&o][&o]

Chickenboy -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:51:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy I believe that's "no holds barred", Mike. All of my holes should be considered barred. [;)] VonTirpitz and Jeff's definitions of 'gamey' are quite suitable by my standards. Here's my question to you, Steve: "How will one deal with their legitimate philosophical differences about what they consider illegitimate application of the game engine?" Will we know for certain how our opponents will look at a potential future problem? What issues they may find inoffensive versus those that are 'game killers'? The only way to know is to talk about specific, known issues with prospective partners moving forward. Otherwise, you may find yourself apoplectic with anger and dropping a game yourself because your opponent is gamey/cheating/scheming to get an upper hand through game mechanics alone. The only way to do so is to talk things out ahead of time, get to understand an opponent's style of gameplay and give specific examples of activities that are verboten before committing to a long-term relationship. Otherwise, you are assuming that you will agree in the future on yet undiscovered problem. If one is afraid to talk about these issues ahead of time, trouble will come. If you really wanted to play 'no holds barred', I'd hunt your carriers on turn one, move all Kwangtung infantry above the threshold out of Manchuria for further assault exploit, hyperexpand my industry and my training groups and maybe insist on a starting OOB that gives me some additional ahistoric toys. I'd also use every movement-related trick in the book to bork your naval and LCU-related movements (para fragments combined with LCU assault, parafragments to bork LCU LOS movements, etc., etc. When it was possible to do so, I'd stack every artillery tube in the empire and grind China to dust. Well, what was left of China that I hadn't already carpet bombed in my attack on HI. Before long, such an approach like this devolves into a frustrating match of one-upsmanship. Who can find the newest wrinkle in the game code, the most subtle flaw in the mechanics and exploit that towards victory. Victories are tainted by this footnote, losses blamed on it. It's not what most people want. Lastly, a challenge: Show me one-just one-AE PBEM AAR that has survived the test of time with zero house rules to prevent 'gamey' exploits. Andre. as always , you make excellent points. But once again, I'm not anti-house rule. I just want to make sure 1) we understand why want them, and be certain that they are necessary 2) we don't create a monster to replace a monster. So you might say I'm very cautious, maybe even conservative or reluctant to house rules. There's a big difference between opposing the concept and being cautious about it. I might not be opposed to my daughter (the non existant one) dating , but I'll be very careful who I let her date. [:D] How do you deal with philisophic differences? As gentlemen, with respect and grace. But before you can deal with any problem, question or difference of opinion, you 1st need to define it and identify it. As I said before, we can come up with endless threads on this is gamey, and that is gamey. That's identifying the problem, and overall it's a good thing. But 1st we need a general idea of what gamey is. So far we see it as a flaw,glitch,oversight,mistake or inadequacy of the gaming system. Pretty much no one has championed the "a-historical" argument. And we are talking about it. That's what I'm looking for. Set the mission 1st, and get it in our heads. Because as the old Florida say goes, "When your up to your butt (censored version) in alligators , it's hard to remember that your there to drain the swamp". Gamey is the swamp. Examples and objections are the alligators. [:D] Steve, OK. I understand what you're looking for now. [8D] I too share your philosophy on HRs. I think most players want to play with an eye towards POSSIBLE non-historic outcomes rather than nutsoid 'gonna do it because I can'. I think there are a good many disagreements about 'the alligators' as specific subjects. There's also (maybe more?) disagreements about about unspoken expectations for how the game flow should be. This philosophical approach that Brad spoke to. They knew each other's style of gameplay and how compatible it would be with their own vision. That obviated the need for targetting alligators in their most recent game. Wouldn't it be cool if we were all that predisposed towards a common vision that we didn't need cumbersome rules? I've started three AE CG PBEMs. One partner dropped after losing a major naval battle early in the war. I lucked into a really good second PBEM partner. Other than the fact that he's an inveterate AFB (Boo! Down with Eleanor Roosevelt! Babe Ruth go to ****!), we've been clear with one another moving forward on issues that arise. The 'expanding carrier group' issue is one of them. Neither of us knew of this problem when we started the game, but we game to an understanding-I volunteered to not do this because of my game philosophy and he agreed. I expect that he will self-identify issues that make him uncomfortable now too. Result? No more HRs. No accusations of gameyness for sure. It can work, but it takes time, patience, compromise and a compatible partner.

witpqs -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:56:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay The picket boat situation is a tough one, because they were used IRL (even though those specific craft weren't included in the game). The problem with using them "in game" is that the game mechanics don't handle them well. If the AI would only choose a couple of your carrier aircraft to deal with a single picket boat, I would have no problem with the use of single ship pickets. However, since the AI tends to send燼 bucketload of aircraft to deal with the single picket boat it has the result of soaking up the available sorties on your carrier and thus has an effect on the game way out of proportion to the situation. This is why I do not use them. I salute you and your sense of fairplay. I too refrain from their use , but I resent to some degree the fact that I feel my hands are tied. But your right, it's what we have to do sometimes to play in a gentlemans fashion. [&o][&o][&o] They modified the air attack routines to be quite good at handling many small targets. I have to interpret occasional incidents of sending too many planes as FOW in the (internal electronic sailors') reports that triggered the raid, and therefore I have no problem with that. I would have a problem with using tiny TFs as CAP traps, as the game probably does not have any consideration for sighting reports like "2 ships with 400 fighters on CAP" or such. As far as surface combat goes, using a bunch of single ship TFs to use up enemy ops points is certainly gamey. Single ship TFs trying to get out of Dodge is totally different, and so are the orders given to those TFs.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

8.828125