Re: Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)
 

I don't think most people who take that position are hypocritical, any more than I think it's hypocritical to host a game and allow some tactics but not others. I think the basis of this is "does this break the game?". We can disagree as to what satisfies that condition, but its a very different discussion than what's an "exploit" in an "unintended" game mechanic. The position to ban the MoD exploit has nothing to do with it being unintended, it has to do with the opinion that it really breaks the game. Heck, most of the MP games I've joined lately have banned Arcane Nexus for the same reason. The difference is MoD is pretty much the only universally frowned on tactic so should probably be assumed to be banned unless something is said.

Re: Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)
 

You didnt need to read the entire thread. The OP mention it in the third post.

I guess that 2 post is enough to have a good point of view of the problem http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)
 

Yup.

Re: Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)
 

Well, don't forget it may happen via collusion of more than one opponent as well. For example, if the leader of an MP game puts up the Forge global, and nobody is in a position to Dispel it, I would completely try to make an alliance of the other players who would each send a dozen items. It's a way to deny the one player use of forging, and it seems like a useful and valid tactic to me. And it is sort of self-balancing: if it's a one on one situation, you would have to commit X% of your lab/forging to deny the opponent the same percent of his capability.

Sill

Re: Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

Re: Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)
 

My original quote:
There is a huge difference between saying anytime a player uses a tactic they are being somehow dishonest or cheating, versus recommending that hosts use specific house rules if they want their games to be more fun.

Re: Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)
 

I think this discussion cant reach a conclusion, as there are innate difference between minmaxers and players that have a more roleplaying perspective.

As on one side sailing out of besieged castles, so the sieger does not notice it, or sending your enemy useless trinkets, so that he stops forging makes perfect sense to minmaxers because they get a benefit from this action, even if it defies common sense and is at best a very cheesy solution. While the rp fraction considers this cheating.

So the only solution is the devs either fixing the bugs, or declare them as features.

Re: Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)
 

Who would you place in the "sailing out of besieged castles" is ok camp? I don't believe anyone has said that it should be a feature.

I don't consider myself part of either "faction" but one thing that annoys me about the RP faction is the way they create new rules rather than finding counters to the issue they are facing.

Roleplayers surround themselves with self made rules such as:

"if it would not work in real life, you should not be allowed to do it in a video game"

"Its lame because there are only few counters to it, and even if I could counter it, the other player can do this, this and this"

When instead, players should be figuring out ways to counter the moves. Once they figure out how, then they can stick it to the perpetrator all day. If the players who want to nerf everything were to take all the time they have spent complaining about cheesy moves on this forum and use it towards testing counters, there would be a lot less crying and a lot more laughing at the player using the things that are being complained about.

Another thing to. Just because these guys list these things as exploits does not make them roleplayers. Just because you create artificial rules for the game does not make you a roleplayer. A roleplayer assumes the role of his pretender, it does not mean he plays inefficiently. I would argue that a min/maxer can be a roleplayer and vise versa.

Roleplayer is being used here as an excuse as to why a person should not have to look for counters. It is used as a justification for behavior that should not be rewarded in which the player webs himself in self made rules on how the game should or should not be played. The only rules that should matter are the rules built into the game. And if the developers see fit to change those rules due to bugs, or potential exploits, that should be what changes the game environment, not the opinion of a self proclaimed roleplayer.

Re: Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)
 

Actually, if you're *literally* sailing out of the besieged castle, I think that *should* be allowed. Any castle in a coastal province is probably going to be built on the coast and the besieging army will probably not be able to blockade the harbor too. (Unless they also have a besieging navy, but that's probably too complex to implement.) Flying and sneaking ditto. (Again, rules for midair interception and patrolling to uncover the departing sneakers are probably too complex to make it into Dom3. But if the devs ever change their mind about making a Dom4...)

But if you can use order-changing exploits to assign those same kinds of moves to troops that don't belong with them, then that's a bug.

Re: Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)
 

What is a exploit ? It's using something that doesn't work as intended. Therefore, if something you use doesn't work as intended (it could be important or not, game breaking or not, counterable or not, usable by all or none... it doesn't matter), you are exploiting the game mechanics. That is the definition of cheating.

The problem would then be : "how do you know that this or this is intended ?". Basically, asking the devs what they think of that or that mechanism when you have a problem with it. Then until they fix the problem, it is put on a bug list. Once again, the definition of a bug is "something that is not working as intended". Whether the change is important or not, usable by all or none, game breaking or not, counterable or therefore does not matter.

In the current case, the problem comes from the community that has accepted some exploits as "normal occurences" and do everything in their power so their vision of the game to remain the same, instead of respecting the dev's wishes and playing their game. When a possible large issue comes, those people that have come to rely on those exploits generalize their situations and conveniently forget that the reason why exploits exists isn't because this or that combo is game-breaking, but because after seeing all aspects that players found about a spell, the devs decided that some of them were not what the game should be.

The last problem is the bug list : for some, it's to show that it's not to be exploited, and others, it's a tool that is used to show what combos should be abused before the next patch comes. Again, the same communities clash : it's not about min-maxer, not roleplaying. It's about what you believe is the limit of what should be used in a game. Some believe that everything that currently is in the game is 'fair game', and the other one believes that everything on the bug list should be treated as if it were already out of the game. You can still be a min-maxer or a roleplayer in either case. The problem, and the clash comes when the first community uses one thing on the bug list on a player from the second community, because it gives him an advantage that he cannot countered.

That is another question that I think would have given pretty interesting results too, but before this thread was made (now everyone is worked up, no one's fault !) :
"The bug list is :
A) stuff that will be removed from the game, it's fine to use it,
B) stuff that will be removed from the game, it's fine to use it the one with low importance (everything not of a major or medium status),
C) stuff that will be removed from the game, it's should be considered as if they were our of the game already.
D) Obi-wan kenobi."