Exploit question
 

I understand it is considered an exploit to charm the "Bogus boys" and copy their orders (Fire Mage, Attack Commanders, etc) to other commanders (and I won't do it). However, is it considered an exploit to Charm them,leave their orders as is and use the bogus gang in battle as is (never copying their orders to anyone else)?

-ssj

Re: Exploit question
 

I consider it perfectly ok to use bogus orders on bogus. I think I'm mainstream on that.

Re: Exploit question
 

I think many players see it, Bogus and company keeping their orders, as "reward for effort". I agree with this point of view.

Copying their orders and using them on other commanders is cheating and something of a game breaker. It goes well beyond "reward for effort".

Re: Exploit question
 

I find that most people think they are a lot more powerful than they really are. To call them a gamebreaker just shows a lack of experience since they basically only affect noobs.

Experienced players have seen enough Attack Rear and Flyers to ever not have units around commanders, and seen too many Earthquakes or other BF spells or just archers to not put some armor on mages.

Bogus orders don't even work on computer players.

Re: Exploit question
 

I don't see a problem in using the original commanders to keep using their orders. It's usually pretty tough to keep them alive though. You need a lot of high pen charms.

Re: Exploit question
 

I would have thought being able to kit a bunch of cheapo commanders with bows and script them to "Fire Mage" would be pretty devastating. I haven't seen it happen and haven't ever used the commands, even on the rare occasion I charmed some of Bogus's troll buddies but I really can't see how it wouldn't be unfair.

Re: Exploit question
 

Three opinions here.

1) It's ok to leave the special orders on Bogus and co but not to copy them.
2) It's fine to copy them.
3) It's not ok to use them even on Bogus and co.

In my experience the majority holds opinion 1. A few vocal people hold opinion 2. Even less people hold opinion 3.

I hold opinion 3 myself.

So I'd stick to following opinion 1 in MP games unless you think it's worth annoying people over.

Re: Exploit question
 

Try it. At a tactic, it ranks somewhere between "ho-hum" and "meh".

As far as I can tell, anyone who thinks it's awesome hasn't actually tried it against human or computer players. I mean, have you ever noticed how little trouble the computer AI has against Bogus provinces? Can you imagine how useless it is when someone outfits their first thug?

Re: Exploit question
 

I'm of Sombre's camp number 2, but it is just opinion and I wouldn't use it in MP just because most other players are in camp 1. If it were used against me, I wouldn't rat the offending player out.

Re: Exploit question
 

Meh, they can be worthwhile but they're less 'game breaking' than any of the top tier artifacts or globals - which is an appropriate comparison considering the amount of research, effort, and luck required. Sure, if you're not expecting them and they catch you with your pants down they can be devastating under the right circumstances, but I'd generally rather have the gatestone or the ark or the gift of health if I had a choice. I have to agree with K, most people who ban the orders seem to never have seen them leveraged, they just think they'd be bad in theory. There also seems to be a bit of a negative inclination from some because it 'feels like' this is unintended so its cheating to use it. Well...so are reverse communions (according to JK), along with I'm sure several of the other idiosyncrasies that make up the game.

Re: Exploit question
 

I agree that most people haven't seen it in action. Largely because it's both obscure and seen as an exploit. I've never done it because to me it's an exploit, which has nothing to do with how powerful it is.

I'd also happily see reverse communions removed, since they're so dependant on meta-game knowledge of unit IDs and if you don't want to use them, just make communions fiddly and arguably buggy. They feel more legit than copying orders over using a gui trick though.

Re: Exploit question
 

I have seen Bogus orders (fire mages) used in MP. And they are as bad as people may fear, if used by good player on proper commanders with proper gear. If you have a mage in PD, it will be owned by a scout + bow. Your big battles will be lost due to some of your mages getting owned by arrows really fast. Of course losses can be limited, but should we be expecting everyone in MP, especially good players, to use exploits like that? I don't think so.

Re: Exploit question
 

"if used by good player on proper commanders with proper gear"....who lucked into getting Bogus, has the mages and research to cast charm/hellbind heart, lucks into actually charming the guy with those orders (you know, the one who is firing at the mages trying to charm him), takes the time to forge appropriate gear and get it with the commanders where it can be leveraged...he can easily take out your PD (if all you've got is mages for PD commanders) and unprotected mages. Truth is a 5 gem tower shield will leave your mages very resistant to most arrow fire (which will miss many shots regardless of scripting). A few more gems/smart scripting will leave them effectively immune. Sure, you can come up with some situations where it'll give you a nice advantage, but it's a tough sell to claim it's game breaking.

Re: Exploit question
 

I don't think people are claiming it is. But it's an exploit. It takes some preparations, decent research and good luck to get it. But it can change the result of war, in some situations.

Re: Exploit question
 

The problem is that a reverse communion doesn't require any knowledge of unit IDs. You just have to tell the masters to leave the battlefield or stand not casting spells. The exploit part is when you want to keep the masters to cast spells.

Re: Exploit question
 

The other way :) When you want slaves to cast spells.

Re: Exploit question
 

That is the other way. You tell the masters to leave, or give them a bow and fire. You don't need to know unit Ids, since once the masters stop casting any slaves will be free to.

Re: Exploit question
 

Are you SURE you have seen this used in MP? Did the guy say he used it? The reason I ask is because all it took for me to be publicly accused of using it was using the "Fire at large monsters" command.

This thing is tedious to pull off; I have only done it a couple of times in SP, so it really surprises me to see accusations of it being used thrown around in MP all the time. You got a lot of crap going on in MP to be basing part of your resources and a chunk of your strategy towards charming Bogus.

That is one of the reasons I wouldn't accuse another player of using it, especially in public.

Re: Exploit question
 

Well almost no one bases their strat off it. Its just useful to have.

Re: Exploit question
 

No but it does take a considerable amount of mage resource which takes away from your overall strategy, and even then there is a chance it will fail. To near guarantee it works would take even more resources.

Re: Exploit question
 

Yep, I'm sure. I have seen it more than once. Confirmed cases.

Re: Exploit question
 

How did you confirm the cases? The reason I ask is because in my situation I even had an independent 3rd party check my turn and the person accusing me still to this day does not believe me, and he is a pretty experienced player.

There are several scenarios that can play out that look exactly like "Fire at enemy commanders".

Re: Exploit question
 

Played admitted it in one case, game admin admitted it another time, after looking at turn.

Re: Exploit question
 

I think we need an experienced 3rd party to confirm whether or not Zeldor is making up the confirmation :]

Re: Exploit question
 

The only way I would trust the 3rd party to confirm it is if a 4th party was an eye witness!

Re: Exploit question
 

I have a 3rd in partying, if that helps.

What? It's better than a pass.

Re: Exploit question
 

3rd in partying? You refuse to allow troops to attend your parties except in time of war as proscribed by law?

-Max

Pleading the Third: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Re: Exploit question
 

I only consider something an exploit only if it is game-breaking in some way. This game is full of undocumented features, so flipping out if someone takes advantage of one in game is silly even if the person maintaining the bug list considers it a bug (I mean, how many things on that list end up being WAD when the designers chime in).

Considering that the designers of the game have mentioned that they are OK with it, and its a not terribly effective tactic, it gets a pass in my book. I mean, the reason I play a computer game and not a tabletop game is so I don't have to argue rules with people. That means accepting all the little quirks in the game.

Re: Exploit question
 

OK, saying it is "game breaking" was a touch over the top.

I would put it the category of "game ruining". Especially if someone exploited it with any success against me in an individual game. Which hasn't happened ...

But like a lot of things in MP games if something isn't explicitly ruled out before the game starts you, as a player, shouldn't really complain that much.

Re: Exploit question
 

I have a feeling this discussion could be heading down Mists of Deception Boulevard soon.

If you look to your left, you will see all the people who wanted the spell changed, the most vocal are missing because they quit playing shortly after the patch they lobbied for.

Re: Exploit question
 

In a hypothetical situation where somebody is copying Bogus' orders and using them against you... doesn't that just invite you to Charm his commanders and use the same orders against HIM? And of course Charming a scout with a bow and Fire Commanders should be a lot easier than Charming Bogus in the first place, especially since you get multiple tries.

-Max

Re: Exploit question
 

Yeh, that was a hilarious time. I proved that small endgame armies could fight their way out of a MoD easily and posted game files to that effect, argued it wasn't that powerful of a spell and acquired a few stalkers who to this day won't let up, got marked by the mods as "kinda a douche" in my permanent file(before the mods realized they could and should hide that crap), and a few months later we got a patch for an issue we didn't need fixed.

Good times.

On another note, I think Max has a good point though.

Re: Exploit question
 

Where/when was this?

The only people I see veering this towards MoD thread territory and you and K foodstamp.

Re: Exploit question
 

I'll be your guide for this trip. This one will play out completely different than the MoD riot though because the devs are pretty much done changing the game!

Instead someone will have to create an MP mod that changes Bogus and his band of merry men into gigantic nerf balls that shower their enemies with candy when they are pinned to the ground and tickled under the arm.

Re: Exploit question
 

Even when the devs were actively working Dom3 it was a battle to try and get any changes to "Bogus and company" due to the special history involved which stretches back before the dominions game even existed. Im surprised they arent much stronger.

Re: Exploit question
 

Their slightly weird nature was very useful for modding unique units before the #unique tag, so I salute them!

Re: Exploit question
 

I don't see this as a discussion about nerfing old Bogus and company. Its just about copying and pasting their commands in MP games. I take the view that it is not on, regardless of how effective it is in practice.

I know I have not tested it and perhaps it is completely "meh" as a strategy.

But if it has not been banned before a game starts the player on the receiving end shouldn't get too upset by it. I probably would but shouldn't ....

Re: Exploit question
 

Its another one of those items that creates an "everyone knows" argument. Its hard for a person who is creating a game to remember everything they want to rule on.

I still think that someone, maybe LLamaserver or the IRC group, could post a variety of such "well known community standards" someplace so that new games could do something like "Rule Set #5 applies"

Re: Exploit question
 

And that's the core of this argument. People who aren't willing to test out the tactic make a snap decision that it is "overpowered", then they lobby the forums to ban it because they aren't willing to adapt their playstyle. Often they do so while someone is currently using it in an MP game against them or after some defeat.

It's an irrational standpoint, and no amount of proof or argument to the contrary can convince someone with an inherently irrational standpoint.

It's the same logic behind the CBM mod, a whole "rather than these elements making me adapt my playstyle and become a better player, everyone else should just play the way that fits me."

I'd argue that the reason there is no master list of "community standards" for a game this old is simply because they aren't needed. People have been playing the game for years without problems, but every once in a while someone pops in and makes a stink about their favorite pet peeve after some defeat on the battlefield. I mean, there is currently an argument against frigging Astral Magic on the front page. WTH?

Re: Exploit question
 

K, why do you insist on being pointlessly argumentative and ignoring everything another poster says just so you can continue harping on about your agenda? Every time you open your mouth, you tell us all why those moderators made that little comment about you.

Who exactly in this thread is lobbying to prevent the bogus orders from being allowed? NO ONE. I see people talking about their opinions about it, but that doesn't even remotely resemble lobbying. They don't need to lobby against it, because nearly every single game advertised on the forums specifically states that you can't copy bogus' orders as it is perceived that most people see it as an exploit. Since the devs apparently removed those orders from the game when a previous version of the game had them, I'd say there's a good chance they consider it an exploit as well.

You will notice that I haven't said whether or not I consider it to be an exploit. This is because it completely fails to matter whether it is an exploit or not for what I'm saying to be true. It seems like most people believe it's only an exploit if the house rules for the game they're playing say that it's an exploit. Is there really a problem with that? Frankly I fail to see one.

Your comment about it being an irrational standpoint is also completely unwarranted, since the very person you are making this comment at has had his opinion challenged by you and is reconsidering it! Seriously, get off your soapbox and start paying attention to what people say, not just what you want them to say.

And why exactly are you bringing CBM into this? Because you're so bitter about the clam nerf that had nearly all of the top players of the game dancing in joy after the horrors of preponderance and artifacts? Have you ever even played CBM? Most of what CBM does is try to make sense out of things that the vanilla game got confused about :P I can assure you, QM does not just make changes because he's not a good enough player to play properly.

And last but not least, WTH to your complaining about people complaining about astral magic. THERE IS ONE GUY WHO WAS COMPLAINING. He is a new player who was owned by some pretty heavy control spam and didn't understand how to deal with it. And I don't think a single other poster in that thread said that astral magic was overpowered. They did, however, offer him some advice on how to deal with such a problem. Again, seriously, pay attention and read before you spout off this nonsense. You are literally as bad about it as these people you claim to exist are. Thank you for wasting our time and derailing a perfectly innocent thread with your propaganda and nonsense.

Re: Exploit question
 

Hey Rdonj,

Making personal attacks muddies the discourse. If you have nothing to add, please refrain from posting.

Re: Exploit question
 

lol, K complaining about muddying the discourse, when every other post he makes has some embittered reference to how he can't abuse MoD anymore.

Re: Exploit question
 

You words don't cease to be personal attacks just because you don't name the people you are complaining about. Your post was a giant personal attack against every single person who doesn't agree with you, accusing them of being irrational. It's a standard tactic used by people who want to insult others while still flying under the radar of mods.

Re: Exploit question
 

I have no need to respond to this anyway, as others have convincingly made my arguments for me :)

Way to prove me wrong btw.

Re: Exploit question
 

What is there to prove wrong? You didn't say anything of value.

I expressed an opinion of a disturbing trend I have noticed where people try to get minor tactics in the game banned for no logical reason. You personally attacked me. End of story.

Now this thread sucks. Congratulations.

You did inspire me to find the ignore list, so I have to thank you for that.

Re: Exploit question
 

:lol

Okay, y'all can get back to talking about bogus now.

Re: Exploit question
 

I do have a build, atm, that makes Bogus come up quite frequently. No idea why, but I've gotten him three times now. I'm running out of people to put "precious" on, so it is becoming attractive to charm him and his troops.

That said, if I did charm the archer, I would probably re-distribute his orders. Nothing about banning it was said in the game thread. Overlords game, which is kind of a cluster-frack anyway.

Re: Exploit question
 

Someone is trying to argue with feebleminded again? :)

Re: Exploit question
 

I must say that, as K, I remember the devs saying they didn't feel like it was an exploit. Namely, they want these orders to stay on Bogus's party, and didn't mind if someone copied their orders.

Re: Exploit question
 

LDiCesare: Since K seems to have left the thread in a hissy fit, maybe you could point me to where they said it isn't an exploit. I'm not disputing that they did but since you remember it, it would probably be easier for you to find than me and I'd like to see what they said about it.

I don't think their stance has that much bearing on the topic of this thread since the majority of people I've heard from still fall into camp #2. But it would be nice to know.