Multiplayer Etiquette

I guess you should prevent overly using exploits. (In the past there was a bug with drones that increased their individual attack power to that of their combined attack power).

But for the rest I would say, anything goes. The goal is to win

>> Just don't quit a game without notifying your opponent. That's what I think...

~Myrath

And if you go on holiday or away for a while...let the other players know!

Those are definitely not exploits. Those techniques 100% expected in multiplayer games. You'd be foolish NOT to do those things.

I'm aware of one loophole which may be frowned upon. If tech trading is disabled then you need to sort out with the game host whether it's OK to use the Analyze command on gifted ships.

Another matter of etiquette is not forming pre-game alliances. Don't form any alliances before the game starts unless you're sure the host doesn't mind.

Finally, it's generally frowned upon to exploit known bugs. For example, if you know that building weaponless fighters can cause ground combat to never end then you should avoid building weaponless fighters. Don't worry too much about this one, though - sometimes bugs are unavoidable.

On this topic, how is the tech share clause in treaties usually viewed when tech trades are disallowed? I'm in a game where tech trade is disallowed, but ships may be traded. I placed the clause in my treaty with the host's empire in an attempt to give us a chance against another empire which had far more research points. This turn, I find that the clause has given us far more of an advantage than I had expected.

Obviously, the host doesn't have a problem with it, but I wonder how players typically see this.

Well, IMHO you both cheated... if you trade techs via trade, treaty, or analyzing gifted ships, the result is the same: You acquired new techs with the other player's accord.

IMHO you should not send or accept those kind of treaties, since it could happen they were sent or will be accepted by an AI.

Also there is the question of getting tech via intel, it might be possible to get a tech from an ally with his cooperation... and that should e also forbidden, but what about when the ally/enemy status is not clear?
Also, what about surrender? IMHO, in that case the tech transfer should not only be possible, but obligatory.

I'm not sure the "No Research Trading" is a good rule after all: SEV being a game without practically no diminishing returns, it's already hard for smaller players to stop a larger one. But on the other hand, if allowed, the number of players you manage to reach in the early game can determine the whole game outcome... What do you think?

----

Another point:
Starting in the same system & planet type as another(s) player(s) in a "role-playing" game. I don't know what do you think about it but in that case I don't even bother contacting them - I directly send the troops. One can't roleplay in a quadrant-spanning game while he's still striving for planet control in his own system.

This is just my thoughts...don't make treaties with Empires you know have an absent human player, as for killing them, use your common sense...depending on the situation.

If it is a prolonged absence that the host knows about though, I think the host has the duty to delay the turns till the other player is back. I know this can be annoying and slow the game down, but real life sometimes can't be avoided!

Something worth mentioning is that if you and another player make some sort of agreement outside of the game's diplomacy, it's best to honor it.

For example, after coming into contact in a game, via email you and another player might come to a non-aggression agreement that includes giving 10 turns of warning before either player may end or break it. This sort of thing is somewhat common in another 4X game that I've spent a lot of time playing online over the years; it allows one to focus efforts in other directions. Generally, if a player dishonors it, it's a safe bet that he or she will have trouble finding opponents in the future, once word gets around.

Being sneaky and hatching diabolical plots to win the game is expected. However breaking your word or promises isn't a good idea.

My $.02.

But what about Role-Playing Games? It's probably your right to play a sneaky bastard, but what if that will make players in other games (where you play an honorable warrior for instance) deal with you with suspicion?

I suppose a role-playing game could be a different beastie, at least if it were declared before things started that it was such a game. Having never played in one, I can't say for certain. I'm not laying down rules here, just answering the question in the original post ("what sorts of things tick other players off?")

If a player feels that being totally untrustworthy is a role-play they want to take on, I have to admit that I'd probably be likely to suspect them of possibly "role playing" the same way at any other given time.

In other words, how can you then know whether a person is just playing the game as "themself", and when they are role-playing?

Personally I put certain limits on myself when role-playing.

1. Never (intentionally) break your word, even when role-playing sneaky, underhanded, evil characters.

2. Don't use exploits or loopholes that you know (or suspect) the host would disallow.

In my experience, even with these two rules you still have a huge range of freedom to be sneaky and underhanded. There are plenty of opportunities to be sneaky without lying. For example, just because you make a treaty with an empire doesn't mean you're not secretly selling intelligence about them to their enemies. And just because you're in the middle of negotiations doesn't mean you're not just stalling for time as you prepare to launch an attack.

Outright agreements, though, must be adhered to - or you should at least give adequate warning before you do something contrary to the agreement.

I tend to think that these are good rules of thumb for the game -- part of the reason that they are observed in the real world (to the extent they are) is that reputation matters -- "game over" rarely occurs.

B/c SEV is a virtual community, it's worth accepting artificial limitations and adhering to the letter of agreements. Otherwise, newbies and unknown players will be judged guilty until proven innocent.

Of course agreeing to peace and friendship in Ichyak does not obligate me not to glass your homeworld in Malfador. .

.... Off topic somewhat.... while studying the Cuban Missile crisis, I noticed that the Soviet Ambassador testified to Kennedy that the USSR had placed no 'offensive' weapons in Cuba.

We were, of course, quite miffed about the nuclear weapons that he, evidently, figured could be termed 'defensive.'

Another problem that crept up in a game I'm in:

Dropping more than 100 mines in a sector. (An exploit but commonly used)

On the one hand, if ou only have maximumu 100 mines in a sector, it's easy to build several fleets capable of minesweeping exactly 100 mines, and those mines become ineffective. BTW, do the minesweepers stop after encountering a mine field or they can sweep several per turn?

On the other hand if you allow unlimited mines in a sector, you could practically shut off your empire from the rest of the galaxy, since IIRC it's faster and cheaper to build mines than minesweepers. (What about cloaked ships slipping through?)

As SuicideJunkie said:

Or as scout said: