Re: Dark Knight
 

My definition of an exploit is a little diffrent, i guess.
1 Does it greatly unbalance the game?
2 Was it NOT intended to be used that way?
3 Is it rarely used, usually by very experince players?
4 And most importantly does it signifigantly detract from the fun of the game?

To me the bogus "exploit" answers yes to all my conditions so it is an exploit.

The archer baiting, for me is
1 no 2 yes 3 no 4 no

So its not an exploit in my book.

Mists answers
1yes 2yes 3yes 4 yes
So mists is a exploit to me.

Re: Dark Knight
 

I will add if you need to use exploits to win,"maybe poker just ain't your game."

Doc Holliday: Why Ike, whatever do you mean? Maybe poker's just not your game. I know! Let's have a spelling contest! ...

Tombstone http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Dark Knight
 

The problem with house rules is: can they change during a game?

I don't believe either the Bogus exploit or the MoD were explicitly banned at the start of most of either llamabeast's or Velusion's games. Now both have said they are.
Is it fair to change the house rules part way through the game? Is it fair not to ban a newly discovered problem?

Re: Dark Knight
 

Per my rules (not allowed):
• Exploit known bugs on Edi’s bug list (see main forum sticky) or obvious bugs that aren't on Edi's list.

KO's announcement that he recommends it not be used in MP play without everyone's permission is enough for me to label it an "obvious bug".

Re: Dark Knight
 

It is my opinion that it was always improper to use them. shrug. I think this discussion just confirmed the general consensus.

As I mentioned previously the issue was raised in the middle of Alpaca. Many very experienced players in that game, and everyone said you could not copy the orders of the dark knight over to other commanders. Not 1 player argued that it was proper.

Re: Dark Knight
 

Xietor, I'm unclear how you can "confirm general consensus" out of a hotly debated thread with veteran players taking clear stands with good points on both sides of a line.

Re: Dark Knight
 

Ironhawk, your opinion is obviously as valued as any other player. But I think more people, numerically, have agreed that it is an exploit. Add to that the 10 players in the Alpaca game. Then add to that the developer who made the game-who designed and balanced it.

While the issue was not laid out before Alpaca began, when the issue arose, the player properly brought the issue up and it was decided 10-0 that the order could not be copied to other commanders.

I only see 3-4 people saying they think "anything goes."

So when I say general consensus, I mean the majority of people that posted on the thread, with KO's opinion being decisive in my mind.

Re: Dark Knight
 

Well, I'm too lazy to go back and count exactly how many are for and how many against. But I take the length and continued debate on the thread to mean that the issue is still contentious. As for KO's opinion being the end-all of the debate I totally disagree. The fact of his intent on the Bogus problem is almost insignificant when you compare it to the analogous problem of archer decoying. That was intended to be removed and yet people still use it commonly without anyone crying foul.

As to the question of changing house rules while a game is playing: I think you definitely need to be able to do so. But thejeff's point stands that it is unfair to change the rules out from underneath a player in mid-game. IMO, the only reasonable solution to changing house rules is to just vote it out in the thread and have the game host break ties.

Re: Dark Knight
 

This is reply to my question because I could not figure out the logic of your statement where you considered limiting the commands of weak leaders. Your answer clears that up now.

We were talking about two different types of commanders. I was thinking "weak commanders" meant the military type with leadership 40 to 120, with one map movement, nothing special in hit points, armor etc, which aren't even good ferry captains. You were talking about mages and others with low unit leadership, around 10 or so as an example.

There are about 2 gazillion posts in between our exchanges so this probably will get hidden in the fog of forum.

Re: Dark Knight
 

As I am playing Caelum one of those games (Mongoose), I'm betting I'd be the one to benefit most from the MoD exploit. But I wholly support it being banned.

I'd suggest that the only time it becomes a problem to ban something mid game is if someone has already spent a good deal of resources under the assumption it was legal. Which is not the case about 12 turns into a game, as is about when this came up in the Mongoose game. If someone has spent a lot of resources that become wasted because of a closed exploit, I'd suggest it be up to them to demonstrate that. If they can, than leave the exploit open until next game.

<edited because I realised the point was less specific than I thought.>

Re: Dark Knight
 

I don't want to be cited as a rule on how to play.

I might think it is rude to play the game in a way other players dissapprove of. Since players will alwys dissaprove of something it might be good to discuss house rules before a game starts. If house rules are changed along the line, I the players least offended by either course to yield. They will feel greater in the long run. The meek shall inherit the earth or whatever http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Dark Knight
 

By all means, play with whatever house rules you want - no Arcane Nexus, no tartarians, no clams, whatever you think makes the game more fun, I just think it's not only silly but unenforceable to ban "exploits". I listed over a dozen tricks that could arguably be called exploits above, and I'm sure somebody more clever than me could come up with dozens more. I think a trick which causes you to loose a couple important battles is not a good measure of something which breaks the game, it's a measure of someone who's using an effective strategy.

I guess my question is, why does this specific thing warrant special attention? As QM asserts, and I agree its not easy to use, and not game breaking. Compare it to other things in the game which give you a significant advantage...would you rather capture bogus and steal his script or
keep the FotA up
be the only one who can forge artifacts for several turns
get a 60% reduction blood magic site
find a province with enchantresses early on
etc.

Bogus (if you happen to be in a position to take advantage of him) doesn't even come close.

Re: Dark Knight
 

There's a difference between a good strategy that's an intentional part of the game and taking advantage of something that isn't supposed to work.

Bogus isn't anywhere near as good as any number of other strategies, but that's not the distinction. No one's saying we should ban all the best strategies, just the ones that are based around bugs.

How effective it is isn't the issue.

Re: Dark Knight
 

I was addressing Velusion's assertion (paraphrased) that this exploit is a problem because it's game breaking.

As far as banning it because it's based around a bug, that's the part that I think is silly and unenforceable. Even if (as in this case) you have direct feedback of what a dev's opinion is I'd assert that so much of this game's dynamic was not explicitly designed that its pretty silly to blacklist it based on KO's comment that it's a bit underhanded. My point is that this whole game is about finding underhanded stuff to throw at your opponent.

Re: Dark Knight
 

hmmm... i said that i considered it an exploit... but, unless it were explicitly banned as a house rule (which i wouldn't bother doing, as it is so rare and not really that important), I wouldn't raise that much of a fuss... other than being much more likely to attack the perpetrator http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

That's the best way to deal with it. If someone does something other players consider exploitative or a bit underhanded, just hand his *** to him on a platter - or at least say hello w/ a dozen rain of toads ;p

Re: Dark Knight
 

what exactly is the mist of deception exploit?

Re: Dark Knight
 

I think it's that even when you have no units on the battlefield(ie: send in one mage to cast the spell and they retreat after casting) it continues to spawn troops every round of battle, forcing the enemy to auto-rout.

Re: Dark Knight
 

pretty deceptive...

Re: Dark Knight
 

You retreat the mage casting mist of deception. That way your opponent can't make the spell and end and will have to fight new units every turn.

When defending you will win the battle at turn 50 when the opponent retreats. If attacking he will have to fight the illusions for 75 turns.

If you use this spell togather with a damage enchantment such as wrathful skies the enchantment will strike your opponent for 75 turns or til they retreat. That way you may destroy huge armies without commiting much to battle.

Re: Dark Knight
 

But then you support banning the MoD "exploit".

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Re: Dark Knight
 

See the beef I have with the people that say "anything goes" is that they say that until something "game-breaking" comes along. How do they know it's game breaking? Well because "they" insist it is.

In other words - you have no consistency and you begin to sound hypocritical... "Oh we can't ban things! It's futile! Why bother! (p.s. except for the MoD exploit)"

We can argue to the moon about what bug is game breaking and what bug isn't but in the end of the day the only way to have a consistent stance is to rely on one source to make rulings. As someone who runs multiple games I'm not going to create a booklet of what is or is not a valid bug. I'm going to go by the defacto standard - edi's buglist and the devs.

Of course people can create any house rules they want for any game.

Re: Dark Knight
 

Why is it inconsistent or hypocritical to have a higher tolerance for what ought to be banned than you do?

Re: Dark Knight
 

Considering how weak Air magic is with its high Path, Research, and gem costs, nerfing even an unintended benefit coded into the Mists of Deception spell is unfair and out of line.

Play the game as coded and patched. I never whined about the how powerful the Glamour races used to be, and I didn't whine when they got nerfed. Even obvious mistakes like the Black Dog Man summoning spell mix-up are just part of the game, and if you want to mod a variation of the game it is made to do that.

Just don't expect people to want to play your modded game. I'm playing this game instead of a tabletop game because I don't want to argue about rules.

Re: Dark Knight
 

When the developers say that MoD is an exploit, thats a sign that saying it is acceptabl is so much nonsense.

Re: Dark Knight
 

But what about archer decoys?

Re: Dark Knight
 

This is my fundamental objection that I touched on before, I don't have a lot of patience for trying to figure out what "acceptable" tactics are - if I can do it within the context of the game then it's fair play. If there's something that breaks the game it should be patched and by all means make a house rule not to do it until the patch is released (which is my position on MoD), but blacklisting everything that was "unintended" or "bugged" seems likely to accomplish nothing other than constant cries of "cheater!". There isn't much more frustrating than after the fact having somebody come invalidate a strategy you did which you didn't realize was blacklisted. I really, honestly, don't see any difference at all between clipping a script from Bogus and all the "tricks" I list above.

That being said, I understand your position Vel and don't mean to sound like I'm disparaging the great job you do adminning your servers, just offering my opinion on this topic on a slow day at work.

Re: Dark Knight
 

It's inconsistent and hypocritical to say "anything goes" and then start tacking on exceptions as you see fit.

Re: Dark Knight
 

I know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I'm just talking to pass the time as well.

Re: Dark Knight
 

See I can see that point of view and accept it because it is consistent.

I do think it could end up making a game *unfun* in certain circumstances however.

As a side note - I play tabletop board games as a hobby (I've played hundreds of differnt ones over just these last couple years) and I don't see near the amount of arguments over boardgame rules than about computer games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Dark Knight
 

There are judgment calls everywhere, I don't think they make anyone hypocritical.

You don't *really* ban everything on the bug list in your games, do you (is it even possible)?

Also, you ban some stuff that isn't on the bug list. You do this according to some standard you have, which is acceptable (& I enjoy playing in your games, and always abide by house rules).

If someone else's standard is "anything goes except for MoD, because it alone among bugs uniquely breaks the combat rout system" why is that hypocritical?

Re: Dark Knight
 

What about archer decoys? Why would archer decoys being exploits have anything to do with Ks post? If the devs ruled it a bug/exploit, its pretty obvious it is. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to ask the question, to be honest.

That said, it would be nice if a link could be posted to the ruling on the matter, since I may have missed the post where the devs ruled it an exploit.

Re: Dark Knight
 

It's a counter to your argument. Devs think it's an exploit (see below), but everyone accepts it.

From earlier in this thread:

Re: Dark Knight
 

K isn't being hypocritical, he is taking the position that "anything goes". I'm saying "whatever the devs say is bad is banned". Others however are standing upon a platform of espousing "anything goes" but then slipping in their own exceptions as they see fit. That leads to being inconsistent which in turns makes someone look hypocritical.


Sure I do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It's been like that for along time and listed in Velusion's game FAQs/Rules thread linked on every game. There really aren't that many actual *bugs* that can be exploited, so no one really notices or cares. There are also a select few exploits that can't be reasonably enforced so those are ignored - but not condoned. And it's not like I kick people off for using an exploit, I just give a warning, point to the first post in the game thread and have never had a problem after that.

Hey I'm all for house rules that effect specific games (though I incorporate individual game rules into mods so you can't not abide by them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ). However "exploits" are never allowed in any the games I start.

That standard isn't hypocritical, but is that person prepared to keep that promise that "anything goes" no matter what game-breaking bug is discovered next month? If not.. then yea, it's hypocritical.

Re: Dark Knight
 

I've asked for a link to a post where the devs said that anchor decoys were a "bug" or shouldn't be used...

The manual mentions it being an acceptable tactic.

Perhaps at one point during the beta archer decoys were considered bad, but I have seen no indication that the devs currently think anchor decoys are a problem that shouldn't be used.

I'll also add that personally - I don't have a problem with archer decoys. Never did.

Re: Dark Knight
 

I saw that quote, but Ironhawk isn't a dev. While I see no reason to mistrust him, I'd like to see what the devs said on that actual ruling myself, if it is possible. Especially since it is in the strategy manual, so perhaps the descion was made to make it less effective and incorporate it into the game.

Re: Dark Knight
 

From a thematic point of view it feels ridiculous to have archers fire at three gyus up close, when there is a whole bunch of threatening archers firing at you from the enemy ranks.

I dislike the current possibility to place an arrow-magnet up front just to disable the first enemy arbalest volley, making them practically useless.

There is no easy fix tho the problem, but I think the targeting system is less intent on 'THE' closest nowdays. The order 'fire at - none' is less likely to target stray archers and can be used if you are expecting decoys.

Re: Dark Knight
 

Problem is, it is impossible to formulate a house rule to define archer decoys.

If you have 1000 troops, a squad of 50 troops up front is an archer decoy. Or is it? So how many troops up front would make it NOT an archer decoy?

If you have 5 troops, 3 soldiers in front is not an archer decoy. Or is it? How many troops up front would make it an archer decoy?

If your rule is 3 soldiers up front make a decoy, what about 4? 5? 6? What about 2 squads of 3?, what about 6 squads of 2? What about 4 squads of 5?

So when is it an archer decoy, and when is it chaff? One can argue all tactics employing chaff are actually archer decoy tactics.

See, even with the above posted two extremes, you can get a debate going on which is an archer decoy and which is not. What about all the situations that are less extreme? Who wants to define all the possibilities and work out all the gray areas?

Therefore you can not make a house rule banning archer decoys, and I have yet to play in an MP game where it is banned.

Re: Dark Knight
 

rules on archer decoys are impossible to enforce. its just an accepted part of the game; not out of desire, but necessity.

Maltrease had the best archer decoy set-up i've seen - in domII - a single unit in every second square, checkerboarded, for the whole front half of his battlefield deployment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

I was in awe, but i guess not ever desperate enough to ever mimic it ;p

after all, doing something extremely boring is a cost itself...

Re: Dark Knight
 

That and they'd probably all run together after about three turns anyways...

Re: Dark Knight
 

I have a really simple solution. The targeting AI could just look at each squad that it's considering to fire upon for "fire closest" then the AI would compare the size of that squad to the size of the army, and possibly with other squads nearby. If the size of the squad they're firing at is found lacking RELATIVE to that of both the opposing army, and the alternate squads, then they would simply ignore the tiny squads up front.

I don't think this would be difficult to code. All you need to do is...

-Gather up all the targets within range
-Compare relative sizes of squads with those of the army they're with
-Select a target out of the available based on that information

Jazzepi

Re: Dark Knight
 

Now, what if that tiny squad up front consists of wights? Do you still want to ignore?

On the other hand, if there are only say, 10 units out of a hostile hundred, and you have forty archers? Maybe cap the number of archers who can target those squares at 20 or 4 or some mathematically calculated percentage based on proportion of hostiles relative to number of friendly archers, and force the rest to target elsewhere.

Alternatively, factor something into the equation where if archers are split into two squads, they are more likely to target other squads?

Well... as I don't play archer races, I don't really care about archer decoying yet.

Re: Dark Knight
 

Or just add another command "Fire at Largest Squad". The archers preferentially target the most numerous squad.

Also, "Fire Middle", "Fire Rear", in addition to the "Fire Closest". The enemy half of the battlefield can be segmented into 9 sections. Archers would preferentially target an enemy squad in a section directly opposite its own. So an archer located in a lower section with "Fire Middle" orders would preferentially target an enemy squad in the Middle, Lower section of the enemy's side of the battlefield.

Probably easier to code too.

Re: Dark Knight
 

I like the idea of a "fire at largest squad" using the AI firing the way I mentioned above.

Jazzepi

Re: Dark Knight
 

I do think that a screen is entirely thematic and valid, but if the game was not meant to encorporate them, then it wasn't meant to.

Re: Dark Knight
 

Archer screens are not unheard of. But they should be screens and not just three guys.

Shooting beyond the closest target is also something that is not very historic. Target closest should be the default for archers, but would worsen the single-unit-squad decoy tactics.

Re: Dark Knight
 

On a different note. I am playing a game where I have managed to charm the black knight. I did not know about the copy paste feature and I won't go into it. I would like to ask for suggections on how to use the black knight effectively. What sort of equipment to give him. I can forge everything in the game at this point.

Re: Dark Knight
 

Impressive necro there...

The sword that banishes people it hits to Inferno looks like a natural choice, btw.

Re: Dark Knight
 

Thanks for the necro, it was an interesting thread to read.