|
|
Post by The Kortl Rheus on Mar 20, 2014 5:49:00 GMT
It's an important part of any RP game as much of the fun depend heavily upon in-game interpretations and using the out-of-game forums to influence in-game play is not really in good form and really disrupts the fun of the game. I'm certain most metagaming is done unintentionally, but it's important to keep it in mind. For instance, I was given some information about race locations my in-game race didn't know, I felt that keeping this info to myself gave me an unfair advantage, so sharing this with everyone at least put everyone on the same metagame footing.
I bring this up because of a recent event with my good friend and neighbor Khizlek posting about how he didn't actually bombard the planet in an OOC setting as that influences the in-game play of other players. Whether or not the statement is true, it fairly directly affects how everyone views our conflict. I'm quite sure it was an unintentional slip, but it's something to keep in mind as we enter the phase of the game where many other empires are getting into heavier diplomacy.
If I choose to interpret my lack of communication with a colony world and overreact, treating it as genocide, that's something plausible, but having it confirmed as not happening in an OOC setting without external verification or in-game play undermines my ability to use the political in-game power of a potential warcrime.
I would suggest, as a rule, to keep things very vague, when talking about existing situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Solvani Imperium on Mar 20, 2014 9:03:01 GMT
I find this sort of thing fascinating.
There are several places this comes into play:
- OOC discussions involving strategy. E.g. Is it dishonorable to reneg on OOC agreements, or is that still part of the game?
- Players who have played against each other previously and therefore have an insight into each other's play style, strategy, and trustworthiness (although these can vary with good RPing).
- Players who know each other outside of the game and therefore might be more inclined to trust and cooperate with each other.
- OOC map and galactic news sharing.
- Knowledge of bugs/game quirks possessed by experienced players but not noobs that can have drastic impacts on the course of the game. Particularly with a difficult and complicated game like SE running a mod on top of it. (I was on the receiving end of this more than once in our last game, which was the first SE game I'd played.)
- Balancing the importance of good role playing with the importance of "winning" the game.
As to the OOC denial of genocide, I think you make a good point that Khizlek's denial compromises your diplomatic position. I also agree with Kunsyz that planetary invasions are dicey propositions by nature and that we can't role back the turn every time more population gets killed than the invader had planned. That's part of the risk of such actions. (It would be good to do a primer on invasions though, to avoid accidental glassings).
What I'm getting at is that you may have a point as far as Khizlek's comment goes. I don't think he was thinking of compromising your diplomatic position though (although I agree it did). He was probably just worried that he'd used too many ships and actually wiped out the population and sought to correct the statement. Which would have been my first thought and reaction as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by khizlek on Mar 20, 2014 12:20:03 GMT
I posted that without considering the RP factor, and mainly to show I wasn't going to protest anything (and I suppose to show that I was getting worked up over nothing). I was worried I selected the wrong strategy (since almost all strats come with 'don't attack the planet' settings as default.
So, in regards to that matter, I did make a mistake, and for that I'm sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial Hegemon on Mar 20, 2014 13:01:59 GMT
Ok, so first off - clearly I don't understand this concept of metagaming with regards to (WRT) the current situation at Horgu. Please forgive my ignorance though, as a lot of these RP concepts are new to me, just as proportions mod (to this depth of play) is as well. It's akin to me talking about Army concepts that you may not be familiar to, so, it's a whole different language  What, exactly, was done that was meta? Clearly whatever was done WAS metagaming as Khizlek has accepted the mistake and apologized. How was it meta? His postings were in the Political forum, the same as the rest of ours. Was it that he took it from the Inside Your Empire forum? It read like a news report, so I assumed such a thing would be accessible by others. Was it his posting of a combat log? Because to me that seems like something which could be broadcasted as well. And others responded to the Genocide first, he simply tried to set the story to his side of events. Again, I am not defending anyone - hell, I'm just laying out facts as I understand them. And that is key, because clearly my understanding of what we are discussing is amiss and I want to straighten it out so as to ensure I do not cross the line. And since I am making a post, the second thing I wanted to address was from another topic but I'll bring it up here. I do not think we should be seeking to retcon combat situations. Period. And I have NO doubt I'll come to eat those words later, but here is the reasoning. Combat, speaking from experience, does not often go as we want. And in our role within this game, we are not combat leaders. We cannot control the combat, which is akin to me giving a Platoon Commander a set of orders and then unleashing him. If he does not follow my orders as I intended them, this is a reflection of communication and otherwise. But in the end, I am still responsible for his actions. I see the same situation here, especially IF Khizlek's fleet had bombarded the planet. I see that as Khizlek saying to his Overmarshal Uber Fleet General Admiral 1st Class, "Don't bombard that planet." and then that same commander SOMEHOW confusing that order to say, "Lets go take that planet!" to which a ship Captain says, "Well, he didn't say we had to take the PEOPLE on that planet." and then orders his tactical officer or NCM to say, "Glass that shithole." and well... now we circle back to Khizlek, furious, thinking, "How the hell am I going to spin this one..." which is what politics is about. Damage control There is a well known term in the military, and it is the Strategic Corporal, which suggests that a low ranking NCM, not even a position of true leadership, through action or inaction can cause strategic ramifications. I see it the same here. Like... when I didn't set the strategies right on a few scouts and umm... you know... blew up a few ships. Shit happens Not a rant in ANY way, but me suggesting my view of such actions. I do believe in retcons if something gamey happened, or a bug developed. Such as if something went COMPLETELY wonking with diplomacy (which seems to be buggy as all hell) which as is seems to take 3 turns for effect. I save my game turn before submitting because I am prepared to resubmit it if someone runs into an issue like that. Anyways, those are my... well shit, we don't have pennies anymore so not two cents, but rather a nickel of thought! |
|
|
|
Post by Tau Ceti Empire on Mar 20, 2014 13:32:31 GMT
Basically, what Norak Schism has an issue with is that the potential glassing of a planet was discussed and confirmed/denied in a non-rp forum (the rerun turn thread). This gave people knowledge of the events before they could be properly handled in the RP area for requisite repercussions to be felt there. It was unintentional, but can be used as an example for the future.
For cases where a judgement on a rerun turn could be granted, the proper procedure should be as follows:
1. In PM or other private venue bring up the situation with either Universal Edifice and/or Myself.
2. A decision will be made on the turn rollback
3. The game moves on, an explanation as to yes or no will be provided.
For cases of Combat, Turn rollbacks will not be provided unless it can be shown that the situation was caused by a bug. The RNG can be quite harsh in combat, so expect your combat results to not match the combat simulator as a rule. Most diplomacy bugs will also not be the cause of a roll back either. As everyone now knows, SE4 diplomacy is slow, buggy and awful, but we also can't change it for the better. RP away on whatever happens with it (I have already had 2 cases where treaties were broken by other players accidentally. It's an easy RP fix).
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial Hegemon on Mar 20, 2014 14:04:20 GMT
Tracking. Okay, guess I wasn't tracking anything with the "Rerun Turn?" thread, but I understand better now.
|
|
|
|
Post by D'Kali Hegemony on Mar 20, 2014 14:08:45 GMT
Especially in this day and age of Facebook and IM and of course the forums here, communication outside of the games diplomacy system is expected. Especially in wartime, you just can't allow for that 3 turn delay, and that's an accepted part of these games.
Since almost everyone here knows at least one other player in real life, it can tough not to plot and scheme and talk about how awesome this game is. I will admit that I do it all the time! Just be careful to try not to use knowledge you gain OOC in game. For example, I would love to chime in on the current diplomatic situation, but the D'Kali have no idea the Norak or the Hierarchy or the Aalien even exist!
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial Hegemon on Mar 20, 2014 14:41:10 GMT
Most of you know each other outside of this forum? Hmm... Very Cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tau Ceti Empire on Mar 20, 2014 16:06:29 GMT
A large number of people in this game played in the last game and several know each other out of the game. Most of these people have pulled in several friends to the game for round 2. Just because we know each other in real life doesn't mean that there are any preset alliances or rivalries. We are pretty good at making the politics of the situation dictate the alliances that form. I know through the grapevine that D'kali and Solvani (who were both in the last game) have already had a "Border Tussle".
D'kali, I am have a couple of scout ships heading in your general direction. Hopefully I will find everyone in your corner soon (at the glorious speed of lvl 1 efficient engines).
|
|
|
|
Post by Imperial Hegemon on Mar 20, 2014 16:38:59 GMT
Yeah, I'm not too concerned about it. Just find it interesting that several individuals know people IRL and such. No biggie.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Kortl Rheus on Mar 20, 2014 17:15:55 GMT
I posted that without considering the RP factor, and mainly to show I wasn't going to protest anything (and I suppose to show that I was getting worked up over nothing). I was worried I selected the wrong strategy (since almost all strats come with 'don't attack the planet' settings as default. So, in regards to that matter, I did make a mistake, and for that I'm sorry. Yeah, I figured it was unintentional, and it really is a very small thing in the scheme of the game, but I wanted to point it out so others could consider it as everyone else is getting to the point we were at two years ago. No apologies necessary. As to Solvani's questions: > Is it dishonorable to reneg on OOC agreements, or is that still part of the game?
There shouldn't be any ooc agreements. I mean, we don't always have to communicate in a formal way, so random questions, and casual talk about agreements are not really OOC, particularly if they involve an in-game agreement. ie: "Hey Bob, I'm going to attack Rick with those dreadnaughts, don't backstab me!" That's still all in-game communication. > Players who have played against each other previously and therefore have an insight into each other's play style, strategy, and trustworthiness (although these can vary with good RPing).
Yeah, it's really inevitable that players who have experience with eachother will know a bit more than they should, not much can be done about it. I would suggest backing away from influencing others with that information. ie: "Bob, I know Ralph sucks at mid-game aggression, he'll turtle up, you should attack him now!" That would be using previous (metagame) information to influence existing game events. > Players who know each other outside of the game and therefore might be more inclined to trust and cooperate with each other.
This is a tougher one, as I'm new to SE4, I don't know how this will play out. Given that Edifice is known for his ruthless conquest of his IRL friends I suspect this might not be as much of an issue. If we ever start a new game, it might not be a bad idea for everyone to go into anonymously for the first fifty turns or something. Hell, even knowing Hegemony is Canadian might influence me subconsciously! Everyone hates Canadians! I think we just have to trust eachother not to gang up. That said, I've played a giant few Civ 4/5 games with friends, and it inevitably becomes a 1 v 9 against me :/ Damn metagaming! The rest of your questions mostly deal with in-game mechanics, which I feel are good to discuss, as that is just understanding how to react to the system in which roleplaying occurs. I like Hegemony's suggestion that those decisions should not be reversed as shit happens in wartime, and bullets fly and who knows who killed who or who said what and then bam WW1. The confusion is fun, although I don't hesitate to ask questions when shit really goes wrong. For example: about two years ago (in game) my ships had exactly enough fuel to arrive at Khizleks homeworld in the first day of the war, but their movement intersected with one of his transports and their orders automatically forced them to try and avoid the transport. This made them spend extra supplies and then they couldn't complete their movement and attack. It was really costly as it took three turns for enough ships to arrive and reinforce and resupply the first fleet to try another attack. By that time any surprise had been lost. It was a big blow as any gains I earned by the early and unexpected betrayal were almost completely lost. But, it was my mistake, and not a bug, which caused that - and why I had asked for and then cancelled my request for a rollback. |
|
|
|
Post by Dominion of Zabéara on Mar 20, 2014 23:06:07 GMT
Given that Edifice is known for his ruthless conquest of his IRL friends I suspect this might not be as much of an issue. Ruthless is really such a harsh word...I merely consider myself an equal opportunity opponent... Look, the OOC/IC division is a thing, that's why the forums are set up the way they are. Nobody is perfect, and we all screw up from time to time, but in general one should try to respect the difference. |
|
