Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

K isn't a cheater Zeldor, that's not reasonable.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Behave!


If you were a game admin, your first responsibility would be to ensure that everyone would know what is considered breaking the rules.
If you failed to do that, the blame would be your own.

K is arguing about whether or not a house-rule is necessary. Has he said that he will use MoD and retreat even though it has been clearly prohibited in the game he is playing? If he hasn't, I think you should apologize.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Very mature. If you can't win the argument, attack the reputation of the person arguing.

Would you believe that I've never cast MoD in a multiplay game? Or that I always follow the rules set up in the game? In fact, I've never broken a NAP, traded unfairly, or lied in MP. Ask people who've played with me.

As an example, in order to clarify these issues I set up a game called DarkParadise on llamabeast's server with rules explicitly saying what is possible in order to promote fair play and protect everyone's reputation.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

But he is way closer to find a majority than you are. He is basing his argument on the fact that 7/37 already agree with him, while a whole total of 0/37 agree with you. You act like if "I have not been defeated *yet*" is a proof that "I am winning", which is not. That's like a Goverment that faces a 10 million people demonstration in it's 40 million country against a law and defending that it's not a proof of the law unpopularity becouse "30 millions did not demonstrate". Then they are bassically assuming that those who did not demonstrate are not only not disliking the law, but they like it, which is a huge quantum leap in logic.

Bassically it's the same we have here. 7/37 are upset enough with the law as to demonstrate. And you claim that the 30/37 which arent upset as to demonstrate, actually like the law.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

The burden of proof is on you because you are the one asking people to refrain from a certain style of play by playing by a houserule.

By the way, there is no such thing as an "affirmative offense." Since that's not your first logical error, I'm not sure you even know how to dismantle an argument because clearly that has not happened despite the fact that I clearly labeled them with numbers and everything.

So, if everyone is done with the personal attacks on me and my abilities, I'd like to let this thread die. I never imagined I'd convince any of the die-hards, but I wanted the arguments to be in the boards for posterity.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

The argument was "everyone in MP plays by this houserule." That was one of the arguments that people were trying to use to support their position that it is a fair rule and everyone should play by it.

I don't have to prove that people agree with me. I just have to show with the evidence that this argument was flawed, which the data clearly shows.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Using exploits is cheating. Supporting the use of exploits is too. He is willing to use the biggest bug in that game so he is a cheater. Simple. I wouldn't want him in my game and have a risk of him finding a new bug and calling it strategy. Maybe he is even willing to support .2h file hacking and saying that if game creators didn't want it to happen they'd protect that files better?

K:
Yeah, right. I am sure attorney general and supreme court support you. They didn't say theu support us so it is logical they are on your side.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Zeldor, "using exploits is cheating" is only an opinion. If you feel that way, make sure to play in games where exploits are banned. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

In any case, K is a very honorable player. He just has a different attitude to exploits to many others.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I disagree with the first part but agree with the second. You showed that particular argument is flawed. However, that does not proof at all that MoD is desirable, or balanced, or even liked by the community.

You are acting with an admirable logical refuting ability (which i happen to like a lot, being a logical-whore myself). But you look like the lawyer of O.J. Simpson: you arent looking to proof the innocence of your client, just trying to discredit whatever "proof" the attorney gives you. So in the end, you might "win" the "judge decision" and get a "non guilty judgement" , but no one will think your client is innocent. And that might even include your client's advocate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Ok, here's a quick lesson on the court system:
If you are asking the court to do something(give you damages, injunctions, convict someone, change law, etc.), then the burden of proof is on you. Usually, it is the plaintiff who is asking the court to do something.

If the plaintiff does not meet the burden of proof, or the defendant can show that the plaintiff does not meet the burden of proof(by disproving even one element of their argument, for example), then the court will rule against the plaintiff and the defense wins. It works that way in every court in the land (USA).

Now on to our problem: the community is being asked to do something(play by a houserule). Therefore, the burden of proof is on you and I only need to disprove elements of your argument so that you don't meet your burden.

Xietor can tell you all about it, if he cares to.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Really, people, behave. Think about the other as a PERSON and not as MERE WORDS, ok? It is more difficult to act mean to people than to words.

I don't agree with K, and IMHO it is evident now he's using low-level logical flaws and the politicians' ways of talking to bring the right to his side. I may be wrong of course.

But really, there is no Orwellian psychocrime here. He can say and think whatever he wants, like everybody else can until hurting someone.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

That's how they proved O.J. Simpson cristal-clear innocence http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Yes, it is.:D

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Ehh, the only actual "proof", as in factual evidence of anything that you have provided in the thread, supports the basic notion that people do not agree with the use of the tactic in question.

Apparently this is the way you have defied logic and won the argument twice - you won first by providing the only evidence available which supports your "opponents", and then you won again by declaring yourself the victor? o.O

You even ignore the fact that Llama confirmed to you that he does indeed have a personal set of rules that he has neglected to type up - which are focused on maximizing enjoyment of the players on his server - and that MoD will be included in that list. The sheer number of games that this effects, may well push the count from 7/37 over the halfway mark, to an actual majority.


And still, the most damning evidence of all, is that you have not a single vocal supporter. Not one material witness will stand in the defense of your position. You are a single man, lecturing to a mass on the correctness of your position, while they all try hopelessly to get you to listen to the fact that they all agree.

So if 90% of the people who post on this thread agree that MoD is an (unfair) exploit, then that is a pretty clear majority as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif You cannot claim a victory as a majority of 1. You also cannot claim victory on the grounds of silence - as your assertion that they consent due to the base existence of the spell, is more than balanced by my assertion that they silently agree that it is a bug that needs fixing.


If you want to continue to disagree about whether or not bugs should be exploited to win a game, that's fine, but I really think it just makes you look bad, as Zeldor is trying to point out.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

How about the seven other players of DarkParadise who are explicitly playing a game that allows it (because I wrote the rules)? By the way, they happen to be playing on llamabeast's server.

Seriously. You've lost on the factual plane and the court of opinion. Accept that the vast majority of people could play the way you want them to, but only 7 out of 37 games care enough to spend twenty seconds to write those rules in. The fact that four or five people can't let go of this thread is only proof that four or five people agree with you.

I'm only in this because I don't like bullies or people who change the rules of a game when they start losing. Considering how quickly this devolved to personal attacks on me, it is no wonder that more people don't stand up to you guys.

The burden of proof was on you, and you've failed.

The end.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I think someone should close that thread. Deleting it would be more appropriate.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

So you suggest we've to write all the exploits in our game rules, ban them seperatly to prevent discussions during game?

The lazier and easier and the standard way is just to trust everyone not doing cheesy actions!

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

It has become rather silly. K is immune to argument so it's probably best left here. I won't lock it though.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

But he won. Or at least, he thinks he won. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I have not seen anything which I would consider to fall into "exploit" or a "rule". I agree that some things in the game might be declared off limits but if they are not so declared by the person running the game, or the host, then calling a "violation" would seem to be on shaky ground.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I'll address these two points since they fall directly under stuff I deal with:

2.1 Yes, it is considered a bug. This has been confirmed by both KO and JK. The severity rating of the bug is my estimation of it as the modertaor in charge of managing bug reporting and the shortlist. Not Gandalf's. That obviously does not preclude Gandalf agreeing with me.

2.2 That's a false dilemma fallacy and a red herring. The devs consider it an important bug, but they have not fixed it yet for reasons known only to them. Perhaps it is a difficult bug to fix or perhaps there are other considerations. It is presumptuous of anyone on the forums to make unequivocal statements like that when they do not have access to all the relevant information. Even I do not (though I have access to more than is on the public forum) and I talk to the devs fairly regularly about stuff like this for obvious reasons.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

But you see, K's education is failing him right now, and he's not sure how to handle it, Edi, except soldier on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif

The forms of rhetoric that he is taught, are meant to bully and impression the 90 IQ members of a jury into believing him. They are never meant to directly address reality, but rather to operate in that grey area between reality and perception. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

He's just unwilling to admit that his jedi mind tricks won't work here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif Also, he now must maintain that the primary reason the bug has not been fixed, is that our devs do not "consider it important enough", for if he capitulates on that point, his whole argument begins to deflate.


On the other hand, I claim unequivocal victory in this debate. You see, we have direct confirmation that MoD IS in fact a bug. Utilizing bugs for personal gain in considered exploitation - you are using something that is not working properly, to get results beyond what is intended. I think if you polled the Dom3 community on whether or not they support the exploitation of unfixed bugs in public MP games, your answer would be vastly, overwhelmingly, devastatingly -almost- unanimous. I would say it would be 100%, but you can vote however you like on the matter, K, it won't change reality, or anyone's perception of it. <3

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Personally, I suspect if you polled the Dom3 community on whether or not they support the exploitation of unfixed bugs in public MP games, your answer would be vastly, overwhelmingly, devastatingly -almost- unanimous: and the answer would be "Sometimes".

On MoD, you're probably right. On reverse communions, which are also considered a bug, the response would probably be the reverse.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Reverse communions are a bug that turned out to be a feature in the bigger picture. It is not working exactly as it was originally envisioned, but it is not really breaking any game mechanics or causing out of bounds errors, as it were. Plus it's available to absolutely everyone with astral magic.

But MoD, force marching, sneaking out of sieges with non-stealthy units, haven't really seen anyone but K advocating those as acceptable tactics. All three happen to be red or violet bugs.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Maybe its just semantics but isnt there a difference between non-acceptable tactics and cheat? I dont have a problem with people saying its rude, or its commonly not allowed. But until Dom3 doesnt allow it, or the rules of that game by the runner or the host, then it doesnt seem like a cheat.

It does bring up an interesting thought though. Rather than every host coming up with a list of "not allowed" it would be easier to bow to Edi's judgement. IF the game-starter or the host were to say right at the beginning "nothing colored Red or Violet on Edi's bug list are allowed to be used in the game". That would create a better source for validation than a generic expectation that everyone reads all of the threads (or lives in IRC).

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

With MoD, we have a statement from the developers to go on that it is a serious bug. With the two movement issues, the game is actually violating its own rules due to incomplete validation of orders. In the force marching bug (first in the BHV section), units with a limited stratmove can move an arbitrary number of provinces, limited only by the stratmove and terrain limitations that affect the commander leading them. In the non-stealthy sneakers bug, units without stealth are actually moving according too rules that require stealth in the move phase, but they behave normally at the end of the move phase and trigger combat if moving to an enemy province.

So these three examples are all, in my opinion, clearcut cases.

I'd not go that far. The above-mentioned three bugs are the only ones I consider outright cheating. The dome spells have a redlisted entry because stacking domes of the same kind is cheesy, but nowhere does it say that a province could not have more than one dome of the same type. It is, in my opinion, implied, but it is never stated directly anywhere, so interpretation of whether or not it's an issue may vary. I consider it an important issue, but not an automatic cheat like the others.

There is an easy answer to the MoD issue as an interim measure: mod the spell to be unresearchable, use that mod and you're good to go.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Isn't dome stacking as we know it already fixed?

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Actually, it's designed to convince judges who are trained in logical argument and have decades of experience.

But, it was unfair of me to hold random people on the internet to that standard. It seems to only enrage people.

My apologies.

You see, that's a moral judgment with no basis in a logical argument.

The devs have no right to tell people how to play the game. I respect their work so much that I've bought this game twice, but it ends there. At the end of the day, they wouldn't be the first devs to not understand the intricacies of what they have cobbled together. Just because they created something they did not intent doesn't mean that changing it will improve gameplay or enjoyment. The fact remains that the "battlefield and retreat" tactic is a "bug" that only affects new players who don't have the foresight or experince to know that they should build balanced armies.

Considering the number of bugs that still exist in this game, everyone is guilty of benefiting from those bugs. Passing moral judgment on them is illogical.

And that is the crux of our disagreement. I've been making logical arguments and you've been making moral arguments. Logical arguments have winners and losers by determining who has the stronger argument, and moral arguments have two losers (since there is no criteria for strength of argument and which should prevail).

Thank you. This has been very helpful.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Logical arguments have the same criteria for "winning" as moral arguments: can you convince your audience? You're aware that there's no way to prove that a logical proof is correct without an invoking a shared metalogic. In practice nobody reasons about their metalogic, they just declare victory, as both you and Jim have done, or come to an understanding, as great men do.

One of the first interesting experiences I had in this project at Princeton was meeting great men. I had never met very many great men before. But there was an evaluation committee that had to try to help us along, and help us ultimately decide which way we were going to separate the uranium. This committee had men like Compton and Tolman and Smyth and Urey and Rabi and Oppenheimer on it. I would sit in because I understood the theory of how our process of separating isotopes worked, so they'd ask me questions and talk about it. In these discussions, one man would make a point. Then Compton, for example, would explain a different point of view. He would say it should be this way, and he was perfectly right. Another guy would say, well, maybe, but there is this other possibility that we have to consider against it.

So everybody is disagreeing, all around the table. I am surprised and disturbed that Compton doesn't repeat and emphasize his point. Finally, at the end, Tolman, who's the chairman, would say, "Well, having heard all these arguments, I guess it's true that Compton's argument is the best of all, and now we have to go ahead."

It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best---summing it all up---without having to say it three times. These were very great men indeed.

http://www.brics.dk/~danvy/lafb.html

-Max

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Actually, that's wrong.

Logical arguments are supported by evidence, and thus the weight of the evidence determines who wins. I think you are talking about philosophical logic arguments, which are just pure arguments divorced from the rules of evidence.

Moral arguments merely have persuasive power. They can't be proved nor disproved because they neither need nor accept the use of evidence or other objective criteria.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

[raises eyebrows]

-Max

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Riiiiight.

I haven't taken part in this thread. I just want to state for the record that K is apparently taking that I consier MoD + retreat even without any other spells to inflict damage to be an exploit and a 'lame' tactic and I have no interest in playing against someone who uses it.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Then play in a game that explicitly has rules against it. There are seven out of 37 playing now, so you won't be alone. You are just in the minority.

Heck, I might even join you. I follow all rules set by the admin. For the record, I've never taken the position that people should violate agreements.

I just advise you to take a little responsibility and don't expect people to read your mind about what you consider "lame."

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Lame is a term I can accept. Which I would still consider different than cheat.

I recommend that games specify at the beginning what can and cannot be done. Even if its to refer to something such as "nothing in Red in Edi's buglist"

Some games such as Velusians used a MOD to make somethings unusable. Would it be bettr to take MoD completely out of a game?

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Well at least 1 out of the 30 w/o explicit rules against it (Alexandria) had implict rules against it, which we have just made explicit.

We confirmed that we were all playing under the assumption that MoD - retreat was an abusive tactic and not in the spirit of the game.

In the future it probably makes sense to clarify up front as you never know who is in the game.

Ironically, check Figment, looks like MoD just got banned there too.

K, you're data set is shrinking!!!

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Figment is what I asked.
It has a MOD in place and I think that a change can be made to it to remove MoD from the game and still allow the game to continue

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I don't remember asking for your advice. I probably won't be playing any games with you K, just based on the way you've acted in several threads I've read. It could happen we're in the same game though, where I'm sure we'd both follow the rules.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

And I think that's great. I'm sure that it's going to keep a lot of problems out of your game.

Now we're up to 9 out 37.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Willing or not, you've all been part of my personal crusade to clarify this issue and make MP less contentious by having explicit rules (either pro or con is fine for me).

Considering how quickly and completely I've been personally attacked and demonized, I can now understand why no one has really been willing to draw out the relevant issue. I'll probably have to create a new account just to get people to play in MP with me again.

I'm actually really happy that several games have added these rules as explicit rules in their game as a result of this thread. It means that sacrificing my DomIII reputation was worth the effort.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Having multiple accounts is not acceptable. The Board rules are very clear about this.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

This is an important distinction, just as there are between things I find distasteful, and things which are illegal.

I agree completely.

Here I have to disagree, rules should be stated once at the beginning of the game, and at that point set in stone. By referring to a third party, which in this case, tends to be edited sometimes, you change the rules of the game after the fact. Suddenly the players gain responsibility for reading through the buglist in case anything's changed everytime they submit a turn. That's far too excessive.

Rules should never be changed after a game begins.

Why? The problem isn't with MoD, but with the game mechanic of battle enchantments staying up if a caster is no longer around. I know little of coding, but if there's a check to end a spell when the caster dies, shouldn't it be relatively straightforward to do a similar one for when the caster retreats?

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

What I think is, no matter what the rules says, it's always good manner not casting BE-retreat when you are able to do so, cuz it will cause conflicts.
It's unfair to say everyone casts this is bad, though.

Well, considering MoD I'd say that it's not a problem itself just like all the other GEs. BUT, it causes a serious bug, that's the difference makes all the opponents cry.
For example, in GhostBat i'm currently playing, DryaUnda (MA PY) and cipher (Agartha) had a battle. The MoD bug hit, crushing the game (even llamaserver failed to generate new turns correctly, llama fixed it though).
I really appreciate DryaUnda as he casted MoD without retreating, however he was beaten and his mage routed. But MoD was still there, causing bug making all the agartha's MOs disappeared.
Similiarly, I guess if two super SCs have a battle but can't kill each other will cause the same bug, not tested though.
MoD is a very possible way to causing bugs that's the reason it should be considered different than the other GEs and be banned until it's fixed.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Possibly true. But a MOD can be changed now, by us. In fact, many of the games running have a mod-file as part of the game already which means that the fix could be added mid-game. Eventually there might be a patch to take care of it but that might be awhile.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I haven't really payed much attention to this thread. Most players probably haven't. Also, while some people who HAVE read this thread might prefer not to play with you, it probably won't keep them from joining a game you also have happened to join, at least after a while, or if the retreat bug is fixed.

I don't think the reaction was about what you've argued for or against, but the way you argued. I don't know what started this argument about logic, and I'm not interested. It don't think it helped you, though. I take your point was that unless something has been clearly banned, there's no reason not to use it, even if it's regarded as a bug.

I fully agree with that.

There are lots of players who don't know that e.g. Storm continues if your mage retreats. A player may not be recognize it as a bug, and may not realize MoD will automatically cause the opponent to lose. It took years before the bug was discovered, after all. Accidentally discovering a bug that some other people know about shouldn't be punished. It should be prevented, by using the mod (very elegant solution) or by writing down the unwritten rules.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

You are correct about arguments and evidence. This is especially true in science and the scientific method.

This is not entirely correct. Moral arguments can be logical ones, but one must first define a premise for them. It is entirely possible top construct a logically ironclad moral argument complete with evidence, but that argument will rest on some premise that is accepted as true. If the premise is successfully challenged, the whole argument comes down. For example, if we take the premise that suffering is generally a bad thing, it is very, very easy to construct logical moral arguments against wars of aggression, torture, bullying and a large number of other things and objective evidence is not hard to come by.

The problem with the MoD + retreat discussion seems to be that you and the rest of the forum have very differing standards of evidence. I for example take Illwinter's word on how MoD currently works with retreat vs how it should work as very strong evidence that the mechanic is broken to the point of being an abusive exploit while you obviously do not.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

I wasn't aware that anyone was enraged. Frustrated perhaps. At any rate, the version of spin which you are offering us, will not hold up to any judge worth his salt, just as it does not hold up here. You are not, in fact, giving us facts. You are dressing up manipulated information to look like a potential fact, and then calling it a fact - as I pointed out, this does not coincide with reality.




This is not a moral judgement on my part, it is you stubbornly providing your own semantic spin on the situation.

It's quite simple, K - this is a detrimental bug. This is a simple evolution in gaming: bugged code ~> flawed game mechanics ~> player exploitation proves it exists ~> programmers acknowledge existence of bug (VERY important part) ~> exploitation of bug is banned by gaming community, pending a fix.

They are not saying how we should play the game. However, they ARE saying it is a pretty serious bug. At the end of the day, making deliberate use of a bug for your own gain = exploitation. Bug exploitation, in every gaming community I have been a part of, has been viewed with great distaste at the least, but more often than that with complete censure. Due to the nature of the bug, I will personally continue to support that sort of methodology, just as everyone else with an opinion has stated is their position - everyone but you. But it is your opinion that silent people agree with you, and it is a fact that people who care to post, agree with me.

You can say I am wrong all you want - but you know as well as I do that in court, at the end of the day it doesn't matter squat who is right and who is wrong - only who is more believable. Most of your arguments here, show that you care more about uninformed belief, than you do for the observations of those who are looking at your arguments with a critical eye.



As to your claim that everyone exploits bugs, apparently you are still willfully ignoring semantics, and continuing to just use words as they please you. Bug exploitation is a matter of intent, and any little bugs that have very widespread effects, will often go on the back burner because while things aren't exactly WAD, they're also not harming the gameplay significantly, once the net effect is reached. You can't avoid them if you want to. Exploiting a bug however, is quite intentional. You have to go far out of your way to abuse the MoD bug. The reason for the length of time needed to resolve the issue, is most likely tied to how hard it is to find the malfunctioning code. If you didn't have to go out of your way to commit the act, it would in fact devastate the game, and would have to be fixed immediately. However, there is absolutely no evidence that the devs don't care, the only public statement that either has made, was to call MoD a "bad bug". Not a good or benign bug, but bad.

Now, you can refer to the concept of bug exploitation as a "moral" stance, but it is not, in and of itself. It is in fact a philosophy of community gaming, where the desire is to discourage people from gaining their own enjoyment from ruining the enjoyment of others. Those people don't actually become "bad people" until they disregard the wishes of the community at large, and continue to abuse unaddressed and malicious bugs. If you felt I was passing a moral judgement on you personally because of your own beliefs, that is not exactly so - it was not until you decided to fight so rabidly for the objectionable position - and your flawed "logical" arguments that are the worst kind of disinformation and gross manipulation.


You're welcome, let me know if you need any more help.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

Actually, you are wrong here. Courts look at evidence that supports the arguments. Even if a jury believes you and provides a judgment for you, the judge can actually void that judgment if the weight of evidence doesn't support it, as can appellate courts and supreme courts.

You've been arguing persuasively, but not logically. There really is no logical counter to a blanket statement like "anyone that benefits from a bug is hurting the gaming community's enjoyment." It's the same class of moral argument as "gays are destroying America" or "Coke is better than Pepsi" in that it is both unsupported and unsupportable, relying purely on rhetorical power.

The "Battlefield spell + Retreat combo" and MoD are usuable by anyone, hard to set up, easily counterable by anyone, and only a small percentage of the community feels the need to make explicit rules banning it (for whatever reason). These are simple facts which support my position.

Newbs and players focusing on SCs and thugs get schooled by these tactics. These are the facts that support your position.

Everything else in this thread has been me attempting to counter what I thought were flaws in people's logical arguments. My mistake was thinking that people were using logical arguments rather than figuring out that they were making moral arguments. If I had recognized it, I could have exited earlier.

Again, my apologies.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

No, you're right, there is no logical counter to the claim that exploiting a bug is unsportsmanlike and dishonorable behavior, and disrupts the feeling of bittersweet enjoyment that one gets from being defeated by an opponent who respects you as a person.

I still do not buy your "easy to counter" rhetoric either. The layout and scripting for killing a lone mage far in the back, are FAR different from the scripts you want for killing actual armies. So the majority of instances that the MoD caster is encountered, there will be nothing you an do about it unless you have good Astral and are spamming Mind Slay or Enslave Mind starting on turn 1. But you're going to know your enemy, obviously you wouldn't want to try to exploit someone who was strong versus your chosen exploit, as it cuts into the efficiency.



Oh and before I forget - obviously it is well understood that judges like to look at and weigh proven facts - so I'd welcome you to present some that actually support your case. So far you've been proven very badly wrong on your 7/37 assessment, so what else do you have? I have about 8 people supporting me, you have none, the closest you have to a supporter is Gandalf, but his "now let's not be too hasty" interjections sound much more neutral than anything.


Don't get discouraged now, I'm enjoying this banter.

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE? A NEW, IMPORTANT QUESTION.

As someone talked about Twan's mod (link please?), which makes the phantasms from MoD appear for just 9 turns at superior rate, I want to ask:

Is in this way a legit tactic to MoD+BAttlefield spell+retreat?

In My Absolutely Humble Opinion, Yes.

PLEASE READ EVERYTHING.

In the elegant solution Twan suggested, MoD loses its annoying and (as "almost" everybody agreed) unfair characteristic to be an automatic win in many situations for the endless phantasms coming.

In this way, using the tactic which was previously an exploit, you now have a IMHO legit tactic to damage an army or an SC, which is maybe MORE effective than a Fires from Afar or a Murdering Winter or a Vengeance of the Dead, but even MORE risky and requires a BETTER mage to be done (as he needs to cast MoD, a battlefield spell, and possibly to teleport and to vortex of returning).

In fact, the countermeasures K and others suggested for the tactic are quite a must to be implemented in mid game - and it would be smart to implement them if you expect such a tactic.

So, this tactic becomes no more an *I win* one, but a risky tactic which takes you a turn of a good mage to be done, puts him at risk (for flyers, archers, earthquakes and the other counters previously suggested), but if it works it can seriously damage an army - like a Master Enslave or such.

Who agrees or doesn't? I'd like to hear something well argumented, please http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Battlefield spell + retreating?
 

K, This is the part of your argument that cracks me up.

1. Usable by anyone applies to anything in the game. Irrelevant. I could argue anybody can hack the game, that doesn’t make it right.

2. MoD plus retreat is not hard to set up. Its not like this is some cool tactical move that only a brilliant strategist can pull off. In Alexandria, I have numerous guys who could do it at this point and I never even planned for it. eg Air Queen, Armor of Virtue, Celestial Masters with Air/Astral etc. If something does not require any advance planning and I just stumble into being able to do it, then it is easy.

3. It is not easily counterable. Post me a game file where you stop an Air Queen in Armor of Virtue or any tough pretender decked out in MR gear from pulling it off. Or a mage in some decent gear. If you cannot stop it then the game essentially becomes a race to get that unit/item b/c once you have it you become invincible. Major battles will all be fought the same way - MoD + retreat. Doesn't sound fun to me.

4. Only a small percentage of the community feels the need to make explicit rules against "BF spell + retreat" because it is such an obvious exploit to most of us. We have implicit rules against it (aka common sense). I don't recall anyone who has been on the boards for a while supporting the BF + retreat. I provided quotes from numerous longstanding vets that feel MoD plus retreat is unacceptable (my expert testimony). I'd like to hear your supporting experts. There are no explicit rules against sending your opponents nasty messages, that doesn’t mean it is acceptable or that we should have to draft explicit rules for everything when common sense should be sufficient.

So I would say the default assumption for any games that don't explicitly outlaw MoD + retreat is that it is not allowed unless someone explicitly allows it.