RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

RE: 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 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:58:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy 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. Absolutely! You've summed it magificently and succiently , showing what a masterful educator of future poulty physicians you are![&o][&o][&o] BTW, I'm assuming I was the 1st? You didn't clean my clock THAT badly.....[8\|] There are no issues that can't be solved between friends. And the 1st step to establishing friendship is always communications. As with any relationship. [:)]

witpqs -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 5:59:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve 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. [:)] This question is gamey. [image]local://upfiles/14248/817B9B99F8A24918B9CBF91AA227D6D1.gif[/image] [:D]

Disco Duck -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:00:51 PM)
I consider Gamey to be taking advantage of programing errors or things that can be done because of the way the programmers modeled it but would never have been done in real life. The last part is the hard question. For the first one, in the "thousand mile war" scenario you used to be able to use the PG Charleston on surface bombardment to completely wipe out the aircraft on Kiska. Thus saving your airplanes. The picket ship question is similar. The Japanese used fishing boats as pickets and the U.S. used PT boats for the same thing. But neither side sent out a full strike to take one out. An example for the second one is loading up a 25 ship ASW group to go sub hunting off of Australia. You can't do that in AE but you could do it in the old WITP

Chickenboy -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:02:09 PM)
So, if I was to develop a list of recommendations for PBEM partners to limit accusations of gameyness they would be: 1. Suss one another's philosophies about the game and what you want to get out of it. Are you a 'reasonably historical' player or a 'let metaphysics and the real world be damned' sort of player? There's probably a partner out there for you in either case. 2. Be familiar enough with the game's current iterations, frailties and foibles that you can understand their potential impact on your enjoyment of the game. Tell your partner about what these are and why you feel that way. 3. Self-police your actions. Your opponent won't know when you show restraint because of your philosophical game beliefs. You'll have to do it yourself often. 4. Trust your opponent. It will help you build faith that he is doing the right thing over time. 5. If you don't know your opponent well, try to break the ice with a scenario before the 'big' relationship starts. Pay attention to their gameplay and experience in the scenario before offering them a full game. 6. Use HRs for your own game to 'plug holes' that need to be specifically addressed. Find an opponent with a similar perspective re: the need for these HRs. 7. Compromise and learn to 'let it go'. I've not always agreed about some goings-on in my PBEM. I've learned to compromise on some things and just 'suck it up'. Move on-it's not the end of the world.

Chickenboy -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:03:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve BTW, I'm assuming I was the 1st? You didn't clean my clock THAT badly.....[8\|] No-wasn't you. [:)]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:07:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy 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. 1. Hunt CVs on Turn 1: OK, go ahead. You know where they are. But I know there are no HRs, so I move randomly. I might get lucky. I'll for sure attrit some of your good pilots. And while you're chasing Big-E all over the Pac the KB isn't elsewhere supporting something else while also accumulating system damage. I'll wish you don't sink my birdfarms, but by 1944 it won't matter. I'll play a bit differently in 1942 without them, but not markedly so. It's a long war. 2. Move infantry out above the threshold. Why does this need an HR now? The threshold is there so you CAN move everything else out. What don't I get here? 3. Hyperexpand away. It has significant costs. The expansion code is there to allow the trade-off to be made. I don't see why preventing expansion should even be an option for an HR. 4. Ditto training groups. Groups training are groups not fighting. If that's your choice go for it. Live with it too. 5. Changing the starting OOB is not an HR issue or any other issue in this disscussion that I see. Agree on the scenario, play that scenario. Or find someone else to play. 6. Movement "tricks" work for both sides, some better later for the Allies when they have appropriate units, but they're in both quivers. If the Japanese player has run away before the Allies can really use the tricks that's a shame, maybe, but it's also a win for the Allied player. The point is, movement and hex control code is exactly the same for both, within unit design parameters. Use it, and die by it too (maybe--that's a player skill issue not an HR.) 7. The granddaddy of them all--China. Do your worst. Try to grind it to dust. You can, yep. But while you are you're not doing something else with those resources. You're burning supplies, and more importantly vehicle and arms points stocks. You're giving the surviving Chinese experience. They get those LCUs back for free, but knock yourself out. What you take you have to garrison too. Once you take it you have to hold it, all of it, forever, because by 1943 the Allies can come into China in a variety of ways and take back what isn't garrisoned. You probably won't get an auto-vic out of a China take-down, but you can pressure the Allied player to be sure. That's what it's about, Charlie Brown. [:)] Overall though, China is the best example in your list of the power of opportunity costs. Going for it is nowhere "free" for the Japanese. It should be an option since it opens the door to a good Allied player to focus elsewhere while a major portion of the Japanese effort is in China. I somewhat agree with your conclusion. There would be one-upsmanship in a lot of these games. In some, however, only until each side gets counter-punched and backs away. If they don't, fine. If they do, fine. Either way you avoid the neverending carping which is HR negotiations. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a "gamey exploit" which only one side can use, or which doesn't have a counterpart, even if it comes later in the war.

JWE -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve 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. [&:] Dude, you are widdling on your own thread. You asked a good global question, but are now responding to irrelevant details, i.e., making them pertinent. The thread can now slide downhill and devolve into a discussion about the AA values of tuna boats. Patience, my friend. Patience and focus. If the "real" question is addressed, the piddling details fall into place. Your question is top-down, not bottom-up. I don't care if it's called "gamey" or "cheating", it's the same thing to me. IF you couldn't normally do it, and the only way you can do it is use a "code trick", it's "CHEATING". Period. End of frikkin story. Anything one can do without using a "code trick" is fine. Speaking as a developer, we tried to make things work acceptably if people played within the normally accepted principles. To support a certain flexibility, the game code has windows at the top and bottom that can be exploited. If one exploits time, tempo, hindsight, whatever, that is acceptable and within the parameters of the game engine. If one exploits the margins of the game engine in order to acquire an advantage they would not otherwise get, they are "CHEATING" and not worth playing against. It's really simple. If someone wants to play a clean game, you know exactly what they mean. A butthead who wants to push the envelope ain't too bad, so long as you know who they are. What you must realize is there are over 1000 people who play this title. I know there are over 270 people who play Babes but who do not post on this board because it is just so subjective and irrelevant. So if one is an objective individual, patience and a thick skin is indicated. The game engine is set up for flexibility, not to keep morons from cheating. If a moron wants to cheat, then let him. Why do you waste your time listening and responding to those 20 (out of a 1000) whiners who have nothing better to do with their time than moan about something they know little about, but always able to volumetrically projectile vomit about.

jeffk3510 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:21:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America 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. Fair enough.

jeffk3510 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:22:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy 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 (ˈ��eɪmɪ) �� 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] I have an interesting recipe from a farmer that deals with soaking said game in condensed milk overnight, then frying.... he claims the "gamey" taste is completely gone...need to try it this fall.

AW1Steve -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:34:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve 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. [&:] Dude, you are widdling on your own thread. You asked a good global question, but are now responding to irrelevant details, i.e., making them pertinent. The thread can now slide downhill and devolve into a discussion about the AA values of tuna boats. Patience, my friend. Patience and focus. If the "real" question is addressed, the piddling details fall into place. Your question is top-down, not bottom-up. I don't care if it's called "gamey" or "cheating", it's the same thing to me. IF you couldn't normally do it, and the only way you can do it is use a "code trick", it's "CHEATING". Period. End of frikkin story. Anything one can do without using a "code trick" is fine. Speaking as a developer, we tried to make things work acceptably if people played within the normally accepted principles. To support a certain flexibility, the game code has windows at the top and bottom that can be exploited. If one exploits time, tempo, hindsight, whatever, that is acceptable and within the parameters of the game engine. If one exploits the margins of the game engine in order to acquire an advantage they would not otherwise get, they are "CHEATING" and not worth playing against. It's really simple. If someone wants to play a clean game, you know exactly what they mean. A butthead who wants to push the envelope ain't too bad, so long as you know who they are. What you must realize is there are over 1000 people who play this title. I know there are over 270 people who play Babes but who do not post on this board because it is just so subjective and irrelevant. So if one is an objective individual, patience and a thick skin is indicated. The game engine is set up for flexibility, not to keep morons from cheating. If a moron wants to cheat, then let him. Why do you waste your time listening and responding to those 20 (out of a 1000) whiners who have nothing better to do with their time than moan about something they know little about, but always able to volumetrically projectile vomit about. Mea culpa! [8\|] I should not have thrown out that example. I should have kept things general. [:o] I thought that we'd gotten things back on track, but apparently not. If I delete that post , would you pull off that quote, so that we can make the whole thing dissappear? Thanks for putting me back on the straight and narrow. And if I haven't said it before John, let me say it now. I greatly appreciate everything that you and the folks who put this marvel together have done. I say a mental thank-you to you all everytime the WITP AE screen comes up on my glass and pastic box! [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o

USSAmerica -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:46:22 PM)
John said, "widdling." [:D][:D][:D]

Chickenboy -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:47:03 PM)
Do I get some good AA for my tuna boats? [:D]

Schanilec -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 6:54:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy 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 (ˈ��eɪmɪ) �� 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] I have an interesting recipe from a farmer that deals with soaking said game in condensed milk overnight, then frying.... he claims the "gamey" taste is completely gone...need to try it this fall. I understand your taste. Many people just can't savor wild game and some don't care for fish.. I'm just the opposite on all counts. Fish, upland game waterfowl, big game you name it. However I don't care for bear. To greasy IMO. And gamey. I don't believe I have any problems in my AI game. Couple of weeks ago (20 August 1942) I landed on Guadalcanal and my surface force got clobbered at Savo. I lost three heavy cruisers and a destroyer and others damaged to various degrees. And nary a scratch to the IJN group. But the transports were spared. Pretty much followed what actually happened. Though it two weeks to get the airfield. And I goofed on the Tulagi group not showing up. Greatest of fun though.

dr.hal -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 7:18:17 PM)
Like many things in the real world, there is no one unifying theory (look at physics or international relations theory for example) in terms of this topic and although attempts are made, to date they have failed (poor frustrated Einstein). I don't think it is possible to come to a single definition and have it work. There seems to be two areas (separated for argument sake but interrelated within the game) that some of this discussion falls into (IMHO). Gamey in relation to the game engine is one and certainly that is something of a concern here. Second relates to a tactic or strategy that is "clearly" a historical. Disco Duck points to this in his post above. I think the first form is easier to "define" than the second, as there is a lot of gray area in the second concerning what is "a historical" and what is just "thinking outside the box". I think the discourse between two players agreeing before hand about some guidelines really is the effective way of dealing with the second issue area. The first area can also be handled this way but should also raise the awareness of the designers in relation to a future modification. The "gray" in this area has also been identified, such as when a short term tactic used because it "can be" seems to offset a longer term tactic or strategy that the designers tried to bring into balance (in the larger view of the game) through the short term tactic. I guess a lot of the angst can be cured with a good does of mutual common sense between the players and a lot of conversation as well. This will lead to the now famous naval cry: "Damn the definitions, full speed ahead"!

AW1Steve -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/29/2011 8:15:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal Like many things in the real world, there is no one unifying theory (look at physics or international relations theory for example) in terms of this topic and although attempts are made, to date they have failed (poor frustrated Einstein). I don't think it is possible to come to a single definition and have it work. There seems to be two areas (separated for argument sake but interrelated within the game) that some of this discussion falls into (IMHO). Gamey in relation to the game engine is one and certainly that is something of a concern here. Second relates to a tactic or strategy that is "clearly" a historical. Disco Duck points to this in his post above. I think the first form is easier to "define" than the second, as there is a lot of gray area in the second concerning what is "a historical" and what is just "thinking outside the box". I think the discourse between two players agreeing before hand about some guidelines really is the effective way of dealing with the second issue area. The first area can also be handled this way but should also raise the awareness of the designers in relation to a future modification. The "gray" in this area has also been identified, such as when a short term tactic used because it "can be" seems to offset a longer term tactic or strategy that the designers tried to bring into balance (in the larger view of the game) through the short term tactic. I guess a lot of the angst can be cured with a good does of mutual common sense between the players and a lot of conversation as well. This will lead to the now famous naval cry: "Damn the definitions, full speed ahead"! Not looking for a "Unified field theory". I'm looking for an agreeable defination. More Noah Webster than Albert Einstein. [:D] And I perfer the comment that is unofficially attributed to ,"Soc" McMorris at the Battle of the Komandorski's. "Screw the torpedo's, full speed astern, let's get the hell out of here!" [:D]

pws1225 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/30/2011 2:26:41 AM)
gamey adj : descriptive of an action that exploits the game engine to achieve ahistorical results : unfairly exploitative of the rules : against the spirit of fair play

darbycmcd -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/30/2011 3:23:41 AM)
I hope it is ok to step into this thread, but it relates to the other one I started. The problem with the definition of gamey = cheating is it is sort of tautological as a definition, but not really clarifying in some cases. For example, the Japanese air group resize issue. It is possible by code. But is it a cheat? It is definitely in the game, but was it intended? JWE says they designed the game to allow for rational play, so because it is in the game should that mean it is not an exploit? Would anything then be, as long as one player can say it is 'rational'. That is why I was soliciting input on the other thread, as one of the players I have a perspective, and in discussion with my op he had another. We had already come to a conclusion, but certainly one that wasn't based on really much more than "I'm right". Only a very small handful of people know what the design intent was. (very American example) think about baseball before the infield fly rule. Guys were dropping pop-ups to turn double plays, very much within the rules of the game. but not within the spirit of the game. of course if you asked an infielder at that moment he would say it was totally ok. ask a hitter (maybe the same guy!) and he would complain about it. definitely not cheating but also gamey (as they added the rule to prevent this with baseball 2.1)

JeffroK -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/30/2011 4:45:22 AM)
One of the reasons I dont do PBM/PBEM, lost friends arguing over stupid actions. One I did myself, certainly not cheating but definatly gamey. SPI Folio game Wurzburg, as NATO using your small armoured and mechanized battalions to hold back the Soviet hordes in their Regiments. the game was about 3/4 way through and became a series of blocking actions which would continually get pushed back. I noticed that IFF I could hold Wurzburg I could win the game, but it was about 10 hexes behind the lines. My right flank was floating on some rough terrain (maybe armour couldnt enter?) so I moved an Air Cav Sqn over there. On the last turn, with no ability for the Soviet to react, my Air Cav scooted into Wurzburg and I won the game. No rules to say there had to be a LOC or the unit be more than a dozen Hueys. I thought I was pretty good, but noticed that I wasnt asked over to play as often. WITPAE suffers, like mose wargames, from the ability of each side to KNOW the others abilities, and how to exploit them. Playing the Line of Death and the knowledge of what reinforcements arrive, where and when (Maybe playe with reos +- 60days!!, I do against the AI, bloody annoying!) And like most behaviours, those being gamey often dont understand what they are doing wrong, after alll the game lets them.

Itdepends -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/30/2011 1:07:59 PM)
To me; Gamey is exploiting the system or rules to achieve a result outside of the intended paramaters of the game/programmers. I can't explain this very well- but effectively it's doing something you know you shouldn't be able to do- but you do it because it gives you an advantage. Cheating is completely different- effectively it's breaking the rules. The rules in this case being an agreed rule between players or breaking the game via hacking the database, cracking your opponents password, reading their AAR or using information given to you from their AAR etc. So perhaps to summarise- gamey is exploiting a flaw in the system and cheating is breaking the system. And of course please note the initial sentence- this is what these things mean "to me". Others opinion will vary. The best scenario in a long PBEM game such as this is to get an opponent who's thoughts on what is and isn't gamey closely matches my own. Regards, Daniel

Shark7 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/30/2011 3:51:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy 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 (ˈ��eɪmɪ) �� 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] I have an interesting recipe from a farmer that deals with soaking said game in condensed milk overnight, then frying.... he claims the "gamey" taste is completely gone...need to try it this fall. Soaking in milk over-night does work, I've made venison this way. Thing is, I actually prefer the gamey flavour myself.

augustinus -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/30/2011 4:38:29 PM)
I agree with Bullwinkle58. If a player wants to try out new tactics or strategy in AE, so be it. There will always be an appropriate response to another's creative imagination. Remember, all is fair in love and war. My friend and I are playing a PBEM of the Full Campaign game. No HRs. He has the Japanese side. We are into the eighth turn and where has he deployed KB? Its not supporting his efforts in DEI or the Malay Peninsula where it is probably needed to destroy Allied shipping. He's hanging around PH. Meanwhile, I set my CVTF to raid Kwajalein and sank plenty of ships and damaged some of the port. Leaving the area I fortuitously bumped into a small IJN invasion TF near Ocean Island, and sank some transports with their embarked LCUs. Maybe, I frustrated his attempt to take the island. There is no way for him to retaliate and I have had a nice romp, but I'm getting the heck out of there, because too much of a good thing can be unhealthy -- my last sighting of him, he was stern-down and full speed ahead toward the Marshalls. Anyway, the lesson being: he wasn't in the area, so I took advantage of it while he was prancing about PH looking for targets of opportunity.

JWE -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/30/2011 5:42:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 I have an interesting recipe from a farmer that deals with soaking said game in condensed milk overnight, then frying.... he claims the "gamey" taste is completely gone...need to try it this fall. Friend of mine, next door, gave me a bag of 16 pheasant breasts after one of his hunts. Finally defrosted them and marinated them in a decent Port (Fonseca, Bin 27), garlic, onion, bay leaves and cardomom. Will slow grill half, and serve with wild rice, greens and an Italian salad. Other half, I'll slow smoke to 80% done and give to folks hereabouts. Had pheasant back in Cali that were marinated in Port and they were good. Also like pheasant straight up. Like dove straight up. Like wild duck straight up. Like damn near anything ya shoot, straight up, except for big mammals; deer and goats, and such ought to hang for two days, moose and bears ought to hang for four days. After that, marinade makes it tender and pulls the gaminess out. There's a reason the Germans invented sauerbraten; and why God invented wine/vinegar and onions and piquant spices.

crsutton -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/30/2011 6:30:28 PM)
"I will know it when I see it." Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/30/2011 8:24:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: darbymcd I hope it is ok to step into this thread, but it relates to the other one I started. The problem with the definition of gamey = cheating is it is sort of tautological as a definition, but not really clarifying in some cases. For example, the Japanese air group resize issue. It is possible by code. But is it a cheat? It is definitely in the game, but was it intended? JWE says they designed the game to allow for rational play, so because it is in the game should that mean it is not an exploit? Would anything then be, as long as one player can say it is 'rational'. That is why I was soliciting input on the other thread, as one of the players I have a perspective, and in discussion with my op he had another. We had already come to a conclusion, but certainly one that wasn't based on really much more than "I'm right". Only a very small handful of people know what the design intent was. (very American example) think about baseball before the infield fly rule. Guys were dropping pop-ups to turn double plays, very much within the rules of the game. but not within the spirit of the game. of course if you asked an infielder at that moment he would say it was totally ok. ask a hitter (maybe the same guy!) and he would complain about it. definitely not cheating but also gamey (as they added the rule to prevent this with baseball 2.1) I disagree that gamey = cheating. JWE is entitled to his opinion of course, but I believe he has self-identified on the forum as being a lawyer (among other things) and so well understands the importance of defining one's terms. "Rational" is among the most slippery in the language. Yesterday, when reading this thread, I also thought of sports analogies. Baseball is rife with examples of tactics employed (stealing signs, doctoring the ball by pitchers, sliding spikes high, "chin music") which may or may not be punished by officials if detected, but which are ALL retaliated against by opponents and well within "the spirit of the game", even though against the rules. (Often, chin music is a valid "rational" tactical move in a given situation, even though later retaliation hurts the musical team more in the long run.) In each of these cases, however, it's up to the umps to catch the offense and punish it. No one expects a pitcher to walk to home plate and hand the ump his emery board. In fact, were one to do so, he'd probably be drummed out of the sport. Ditto football, where things which happen in a pile-up would rise to the level of gross misdemeanors, or even felonies, if done in the open, but which are an accepted part of the game. Now contrast these to golf, where the official rules REQUIRE a player to self-report an infraction. Not only will failure to do so result in a loss, but such a player who cheats and hides his own actions will be shunned by others. In golf there is no requirement that an official (the "code") catch the malfeasor. It's self-policing all the way, and the rules so state. The devs could have written a number of thou-shalt-nots into the rule book shipped with the game. Pickets, parafrags (what's a "frag" anyway? 10%? 39%? More?), "ammo sponges", etc. All could be in the rules, but aren't. I'm glad they aren't. But the converse of this is everything that IS in the code is there because the devs wanted it there, including the ability to "throw chin music." AE is baseball, not golf. Just some thoughts from a non-PBEM, non-Kool-Kid kid.

JeffroK -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/31/2011 9:07:35 AM)
But the converse of this is everything that IS in the code is there because the devs wanted it there, including the ability to "throw chin music." AE is baseball, not golf. The problem is where something isnt in the code because the devs didnt think of it, and we have had enough patches to know that it is impossible to cover everything. I love CR's approach, but disagree with his use of pickets. Generally the Radar-Pickets were close to the fleet, not a number of hexes (100 miles?) ahead. This is using a semi-valid tactic which the code cant resolve, so CV use up their strike to clear. Using sports as a simile is only good if 100 years plus of rules development has taken place.

AW1Steve -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/31/2011 4:57:22 PM)
Actually , that's only ONE way pickets were used. You are referring to the RADAR pickets used as a counter Kamikaze tactic. A more conventional line was used by Japan's fishing fleet , and the American's "Hooligan Navy". Historically pickets have been used by the USN from the Civil war till just before the end of the Cold war. Along with the DD radar pickets you mentioned , DER (coverted DE's) and SSR's and even one SSNR (Triton) were utilized. So were "Texas towers" (retired oil platforms) , WV's (EC-121's and Z class blimps "flying the barrier" before the DEW line) and most recently (till the early 1990's) both specially designed mono-hull craft, as well as converted tuna boats and whatever the Navy could get ahold of (the COOP program--craft of opportunity program--seized drug boats , ships with tax leins, whatever). And these ships were handled by the USNS and were civilian manned (Navy paid). Pickets are an ancient and traditional way of protecting a perimeter. As long as there has been war, there's been pickets. Often I hear that no one would ever put an exposed AKL on picket duty. Really? Ever hear of the Banner class AGI's? They were converted AKL's that sat off unfriendly shores during the Cold war vacuming SIGNINT. The most famous was of course, the USS Pueblo.[:)] OK, more history than you ever wanted to hear, and once again I've let myself get off topic due to this subject (which , admittedly is near and dear to my heart). Let's try and firm up the defination of "Gamey" and I promise a WHOLE thread on this subject alone. Promise![:)] Now , hopefully JWE won't see this post and slap me around again! [8\|][:(][:D]

JWE -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/31/2011 7:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve Now , hopefully JWE won't see this post and slap me around again! [8\|][:(][:D] You dummy, this isn't the sarcophagus of King Rootin Tootin, it's his Queen, Hotsy Totsy. [:D][:D] [image]local://upfiles/17451/DBDE1FA9E4A54028A063226F8BABDA75.jpg[/image]

Oldguard1970 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (7/31/2011 10:54:57 PM)
Jeff keeps nailing it. Gamey is an exploitation of game mechanics or bugs. One of the best examples was the old WITP issue with LCUs. You could break them down and recombine them and they grew! Obviously, the program lets that happen, but the designers didn't intend it. It was a bit of goofy "magic" in the code. Of course, as you move away from the obviously absurd stuff, you begin to move into the area of just playing the game. As many have said, the key to dealing with the "gray" areas is to find a like-minded opponent and talk about any sore spots.

wpurdom -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (8/1/2011 3:51:25 AM)
The only thing I am confident of is that not paying PP's to cross national borders is "gamey" because all of the developer's have said that's the intent, and the only reason it's not in the software is that it would be too hard to program. Moving an unrestricted HQ subordinate to a restricted HQ is probably in the same category, if you polled them, they would probably almost all say that's essentially cheating on the PP's. Beyond that, it's going to be a matter of personal choice as to how much of a simulation you want versus doing the best that can be done with this particular program and how much you need to weight things to make things fun for the IJ player. (The game itself is pretty unrealistic in terms of the quality of Japanese aviation industry and more so on the ability to maintain planes out in the field.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"? (8/1/2011 5:46:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK But the converse of this is everything that IS in the code is there because the devs wanted it there, including the ability to "throw chin music." AE is baseball, not golf. The problem is where something isnt in the code because the devs didnt think of it, and we have had enough patches to know that it is impossible to cover everything. But everything in a patch the devs DID think of, eventually, and is thus fair game to be used. OR abused, under my formula. I actually set up a false situation in my post on purpose. The devs didn't ship a "rulebook." The manual, not rulebook, simply describes what the code will do. It doesn't say what may not be done even if the code allows it to be done. In this way it is unlike baseball or football, and light years different from golf, a game designed for those with OCD. In my view, because the docs aren't a rulebook it's ultimatley purely subjective to then assign thou-shalt-nots to operations which the code happily executes. Some here have described good systems for somewhat peaceful negotiation of such subjectivity, but it's still subjectivity in play and peace in the PBEM world depends on there existing only a minor gap in the degree of that subjectivity perception. I love CR's approach, but disagree with his use of pickets. Generally the Radar-Pickets were close to the fleet, not a number of hexes (100 miles?) ahead. This is using a semi-valid tactic which the code cant resolve, so CV use up their strike to clear. But the code DOES resolve it. It gives intel and it lets the picket be creamed. That the intel might be worth more than the VPs of the picket is peripherally a code issue, but it's a trade-off since the code can't decide that the VPs awarded in exchange for valuable intel ought to (subjectively) be 50x as much as the VPs awarded for sinking that same xAKL while it's on a sake run between two worthless island bases. On the third hand though, the devs didn't put in code to make that distinction possible. So, it isn't a "rule." The enforcement mechanism for pickets IMO ought to be "Do it, and I'll do it back." Since supply of small ships, supply of warships, supply of fuel to be used for pickets, and other variables are not symetrical, retaliation will have an unequal effect on the two sides at different points in the game. Can this system ever be "fair"? I dunno. Maybe. But if you go the other way, and institute an HR "against pickets" you get into advanced carping over definitions. One guy's picket is another's "he saw something he shouldn't 'uv while plying the sake trade between East and West Pooistan." Using sports as a simile is only good if 100 years plus of rules development has taken place. I was going for a metaphor. [:)]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.90625