Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPraetorious
There's a limit of 20 outgoing and 20 incoming parcels, I believe. This isn't quite the same as messages. I've been making an effort to keep well away from the limit all game.
Point is, this isn't an error by the host or by the hosting machinery, it's an error *by the players* and we can't do rollbacks on that. This is one of the game's more severe and poorly understood quirks, but it's something you can and should plan around. If you failed to do so, tough.
So, obviously, I vote against / object to / do not want a rollback.
|
First, you post that the bug is well known and well understood.
Then you admit that you *don't* know what the bug is, and the error is severe and poorly understood. And to date, neither you, nor the game administrator, nor Gandalf, nor any other team leader have displayed a consistent understanding of what the bug is.
Second. We are playing a game, the rules of the game are published - in the rule book and in the errata. We play by the rules.
When the game acts in manners that are not in accordance with those rules - then the game has been bugged. Just as if all of your casters suddenly became specters - or if recruits were no longer allowed. To say that you will vote against new turn submissions in one case is to say that you are against turn submissions in *all* cases.
We are playing to decide this contest by the rules, not to have the contest decided by bug.
Third. Roll backs are not to be taken lightly. Our team did not ask for a roll back on the turn when squirrels armies did not move. Think about that. His armies did not move. Thats a pretty big disadvantage -but we accepted it, noted it, and moved on.
Therefore, if we ask for a roll back at this time, the issue must be more serious.
Fourth. You believe that no rollback should be issued - as the vet should have known about it.
To answer that point, I have two responses.
A. No team is going to seriously disadvantage themselves by deliberatly putting themselves at a severe handicap. The fact that we did is pretty much prima facie evidence that we didn't know about it.
B. Not only vets have to know about this bug. Players have to know also. There is no way for a vet to review a turn and know that the player has exceeded the message limit.
Recapitulating: the game has been disturbed by a bug, which is acknowledged as severe and poorly understood. IT significantly affected the game. There is minimal to no downside to your team, or to the game as a whole in fixing it.
I don't understand your objection. IF the point is secure a victory for your team, why don't we just concede so you can have your victory?
If the point is to administer a contest of skill according to the rules as written -whats your objection?