 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
From a personal standpoint, even in MP, I am mostly unwilling to take advantage of a number of game "quirks" to gain an advantage over my opponent, but on the other hand, I fully expect that it will be done to me. I figure, if I can beat my opponent without resorting to such parlor tricks, what does that say about the quality of our two games? The only exception to this is the stockpile "quirk." As much of a micromanager as I am, I utterly refuse to spend the time it'd take to NOT take advantage of that bug....I consider it compensation for not using my queue... 
Of course, haivng pointed to the extreme PIA factor, I should also point out that even in games where the stockpile thing is fully exploited, I sill refuse to do it (both in principle, and because of extreme PIA) when building units.
Does this put me at a disadvantage? Certainly. But again, if I win against a player who is making constant use of such an edge, what a statement that is! The victory suddenly becomes soooo much sweeter and more meaningful....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Oh, that rover thing is a good one. Thanks. I'll put it up.
[This message has been edited by Helium Pond (edited June 18, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bingmann2
|
|
Shrewsbury, MA USA
Jun 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Time to chime in...
1. Blatant cheating is trying to modify the state of the game other than through playing the game. This includes reloading turns, activating the scenario editor, hex editing the save file, browsing the diplomacy messages at the end of a save file, etc.
2. The next level of cheating is taking advantage of "features" that are clearly contrary to the design intent of the game. The emphasis here is on *clearly*; there needs to be evidence that it is not supposed to work that way, not just that it doesn't "feel" right to someone. A good example is using the right-click menu for air drops. If you use the keyboard shortcut or the Actions menu to do an airdrop, then a unit can only make one airdrop per turn, must be in a base or airbase, and must not have moved yet in the turn. In my book, this is overwhelming evidence that using the right-click menu to make airdrops is bogus.
Many people consider modifying speeder probe team designs to make other speeder designs without Doc:Mob to be contrary to the intent of the game. The same assertion is made about modifying captured unit designs to make use of a design component without the required technology. In both cases, no evidence is offered to support these positions, only that it doesn't "feel" right to them. Actually, there is evidence that this behavior is explicitly acknowledged by the game and therefore intended; when modifying one of these designs, the design workshop puts up a message that's something like "Modifying Existing Design", so it is acknowledging that you are modifying a design rather than putting together a brand new design. I see no point for this message unless modifying designs were considered a separate and valid operation as opposed to creating a new design from known components. I categorize this "feature" under...
3. Any other "features" are not cheats. They should be considered allowed unless the players agree to ban them at the start of the game. I will gladly follow any list of such banned "features", but I will feel no remorse using anything that is not on the list that falls into this category.
Other issues...
If modifying the speeder probe team design to make other speeders without Doc:Mob is considered cheating, then I would also consider making speeder probe teams without Doc:Mob to be cheating. Only infantry probe teams should be allowed before Doc:Mob in that case.
Also, the AI never benefits from the stockpile energy bug. The AI is essentially using governors which is equivalent to having an endless queue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Bingmann, thanks for your thoughts. But, again (and I'm sorry if everybody's sick of me repeating this), whether a given action is cheating or not is irrelevant to this thread. I know people want to make these firm and binding declarations about the nature of cheating. However, the purpose of this thread is to compile a list of problems with the game, so that people who play multiplayer can agree beforehand which actions are allowed. With that goal in mind, it really doesn't matter whether a given cheat fits any one person's definiton of cheating. What matters is that some people think it's cheating, so it should be agreed on by potential MP-mates. As you see, I've included on the list things I don't even think are cheats. But some people do, and that's all that matters.
I've decided to go ahead and add the Stockpile Energy bug. Here's a case where I don't feel it's a cheat, because it's near-impossible to avoid or monitor, but I feel that it's significant enough that players might want to come to an agreement about it.
[This message has been edited by Helium Pond (edited June 21, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JAMiAM
|
|
Santa Clara, CA, USoA
May 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Ned,
Actually the tech necessary for building ROADS across the fungus is Centauri Empathy. However, I do agree that the AI does often perform terraforming tasks that it does not "legally" have the technology for. It also seems to require fewer turns to finish the tasks that it starts. I suppose that is coded into the game to keep them marginally competitive.
I was under the impression that the v4.0 patch was SUPPOSED to have eliminated the ability of the AI to perform illegal terraforming, but I have my doubts as to the veracity of that claim.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JAMiAM
|
|
Santa Clara, CA, USoA
May 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Ned,
Don't know what to tell you. I do it all the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Say, Ned, why do you always call me Enigma?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Ned, Helium Pond is a nonsensical juxtaposition of terms that amused me when I thought it up and is by now tiresome. But there you go. I've added to the list "Double Terraforming," because I think that it's another one of those things everybody should know about.
Now, is this roads thing confirmed? Will terraformers build roads across fungus if they're on auto? How do you do it? If you tell them to build roads to a destination that takes them across fungus, is that when it happens? Or is it only when you have them set to "Auto-build Roads?" Once I get all the info, I'll add this to the list, if it's indeed confirmed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
I'm bumping this, just to see if it gets any new responses. Is it wrong to bump one's own thread?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Mis,
I'm not trolling for responses, I just thought this list would be interesting to the new players. I could cut and paste it into a new thread, if that'd be more convenient. Maybe I should, then people wouldn't feel they had to read all the debates. You think I should send the list to Tau Ceti? There are some things here not included in the Tournee rules.
As to anneharrison,
My assumption was that mark13 is using his mother's computer and email account. Thinking about it, that's a big assumption. Come to think of it, it could be a wife--or even daughter's--account. Hm. Or mark could be a girl. You never know. Or mark could be a guy pretending to be a girl. Or mark could be a transsexual pretending to be a transnational pretending to be a transcontinental. Oh wait, that's a railroad. Nevermind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Well, as you'll see if you read all the posts in this thread (and there's no reason why you should), my intent wasn't to generate debate about these things, just to catalogue all the things people *could* have debates about, so that everyone going into an MP game would know what to watch out for. My feeling is that I play the way I feel is honorable, but if a specific action hasn't been outlawed beforehand (for instance, the Tournament rules don't prohibit Pod-Booming, or Fleecing, or Super-Crawlers) then it's legal. It's not enough for other people to *think* it's cheating, or *assume* it's cheating--they have to have said so *before* you do it. I want this list to exist so that no one has the excuse "well, I didn't know you could do that, otherwise I would've said at the start that it was off-limits".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Misotu
|
 |
Leamington Spa, England
Dec 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
HP, I didn't think there was any harm in bumping this thread at all, especially since we're back on the "is this a cheat?" merry-go-round.
I read this thread when it was originally started, so I'm a bit hazy as to where it got to. I remember thinking there were some good points, and some things that were either trivial or somewhat constricting. Just spotted the road in fungus thing, for example, and I had no idea you could do this! Cor. This might be something that could be ruled on as part of a more detailed set of rules ...
Yes, I think it would be good to put together a list of things that are considered *serious* cheats by the majority and which the current rules don't cover. I agree that there are a few omissions currently that I'd probably consider serious. A final opportunity for comments, and then why not offer it to Tau Ceti?
If there are *important* areas where there's still some debate, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to try to arrive at a ruling, or ask Tau Ceti for a ruling, since these things are, I guess, bound to come up at some point in the games. Actually, Tau is pretty good at coming up with rulings I must say. Not that I always agree with him but he's pretty thorough on backing his opinions up and that's a good thing.
All I'd say is that it would probably be best not to try to rule on everything (grin) Right now, at least the rules are fairly straightforward. If it ends up being a 64-point document, a lot of people just won't read it at all and it'll cause more problems than it solves ...
Or maybe something like a top-line basic rules doc (slightly expanded version of what we have now), with a link to a more detailed list of rulings for people wanting to look something up that's a little more obscure? So it's not too intimidating?
Just my opinion, as always.
Mark: Well, I must admit I always thought you were really a Mark of the masculine variety, so I was surprised to read elsewhere that anne was your real name Since I'm the only regular girlie player in the tourny, I thought a bit of sisterhood might be on the cards - but I guess that's out of the question now 
It's a lonely life, that of a girlie gamer ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mark13
|
 |
Northampton, England
Sep 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Or maybe something like a top-line basic rules doc (slightly expanded version of what we have now), with a link to a more detailed list of rulings for people wanting to look something up that's a little more obscure? So it's not too intimidating?
|
This is, I believe, the best way to do this, as intimidation is one of the major factors in driving players away, something we do *not* want.
HP, I apologise if I may have put across notions that you were hunting for replies - something I may well inadvertantly have done. There is no harm in bumping a thread related to a discussed topic - and I whole-heartedly support this idea.
I shall attempt to compile a list of all the 'cheats' that should be discussed, probably sometime tomorrow. It may be a good idea for a couple of other people to do likewise - something one person may have missed, the other will have included, and vice-versa.
Mark13
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Helium Pond
|
|
Los Anheles, California, Good Ole U S of A
Nov 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
mark13, the first message on the first page of this thread has just such a list.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-06-2000 17:44
|