Dark Knight

[Velusion]

Baalz said:

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.

But then you support banning the MoD "exploit".

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

[Velusion]

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.

[Reverend Zombie]

Velusion said:

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)"

... I'm going to go by the defacto standard - edi's buglist and the devs.

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

[Velusion]

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

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

[Reverend Zombie]

Velusion said:

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

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?

[Velusion]

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

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.

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

Sure I do. 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.

Reverend Zombie said:
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).

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 ). However "exploits" are never allowed in any the games I start.

Reverend Zombie said:
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?

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.

[K]

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.

[sum1lost]

K said:
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.

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

[Reverend Zombie]

sum1lost said:
When the developers say that MoD is an exploit, thats a sign that saying it is acceptabl is so much nonsense.

But what about archer decoys?

[sum1lost]

Reverend Zombie said:

But what about archer decoys?

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.