Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)

[lch]

Edratman said:
Can someone explain "Filling lab with slave collars"? I'm a SP player and I can't even fathom the mechanics or how it would hurt an opponent.

Messages are sent before item forging occurs, which includes transfer of gems and magic items between nations. If somebody fills another's magic lab with slave collars (or any other item), then any items that he might have forged that turn get lost. And maybe it wasn't possible to throw away items directly from the magic lab in the past, so you had to put it on some commander to get rid of them - which would be a pain if it were slave collars (gives feeblemind and is cursed, i.e. you need a new commander every time).

[Edi]

lch said:

Messages are sent before item forging occurs, which includes transfer of gems and magic items between nations. If somebody fills another's magic lab with slave collars (or any other item), then any items that he might have forged that turn get lost. And maybe it wasn't possible to throw away items directly from the magic lab in the past, so you had to put it on some commander to get rid of them - which would be a pain if it were slave collars (gives feeblemind and is cursed, i.e. you need a new commander every time).

Has anyone checked what the message limit is? It used to be 20 messages per turn total (so you could not get more than that even if more were sent to you). So far as throwing items away, it has always been there. As long as you go to the lab through F8, you can do it. Most of the time people go through a commander's item slots, in which case it equips the item and does not allow the option to throw away.

[Baalz]

Yes, the point about communions really illustrates my point that I think a lot of people don't really understand what I was getting at. We're playing the game as it is, not the game that was "intended" by the devs, whatever that means. Unintended does not mean broken, lots of times some of the most interesting interactions in games were probably unintended, the devs are not a perfect source of divine wisdom, they're just some cool guys who put together a bunch of stuff they thought would be cool and tweaked it until they felt like they had a fun game. Lots of people have commented they like the communion mechanic as it adds to the strategic depth and generally makes the game more fun. This is exactly how I feel about things like copying Bogus' commands and many other tricks that are arguably clever ways to take advantage of quirks in the game, do not unballance things and generally just add to the wonderful texture of this game. Game hosts should absolutely "ban" whatever they think will make a fun game from specific tactics to diplomacy to forging clams to casting Arcane Nexus. It's a pet peeve of mine that in most games people find the idea of using "exploits" abhorrent....yet basically this often boils down to after the fact trying to make up house rules of what is "intended" for the prefect version of the game.

[Velusion]

Baalz said:
Yes, the point about communions really illustrates my point that I think a lot of people don't really understand what I was getting at. We're playing the game as it is, not the game that was "intended" by the devs, whatever that means. Unintended does not mean broken, lots of times some of the most interesting interactions in games were probably unintended, the devs are not a perfect source of divine wisdom, they're just some cool guys who put together a bunch of stuff they thought would be cool and tweaked it until they felt like they had a fun game. Lots of people have commented they like the communion mechanic as it adds to the strategic depth and generally makes the game more fun. This is exactly how I feel about things like copying Bogus' commands and many other tricks that are arguably clever ways to take advantage of quirks in the game, do not unballance things and generally just add to the wonderful texture of this game. Game hosts should absolutely "ban" whatever they think will make a fun game from specific tactics to diplomacy to forging clams to casting Arcane Nexus. It's a pet peeve of mine that in most games people find the idea of using "exploits" abhorrent....yet basically this often boils down to after the fact trying to make up house rules of what is "intended" for the prefect version of the game.

I pretty much agree with everything your saying.

However, on the flip side, one of my pet peeves are players that say that "anything could go" but then don't really mean it.

Like QM:
"If it is in the game it is fair play!" but then goes on to say: "Well... except for that MoD thingy... that is totally an exploit!"

It's totally hypocritical to say that you think the game should be played as is and then give exceptions.

And yes... those aren't exact quotes - but the impression they give is the same.

[Baalz]

Velusion said:

I pretty much agree with everything your saying.

However, on the flip side, one of my pet peeves are players that say that "anything could go" but then don't really mean it.

Like QM:
"If it is in the game it is fair play!" but then goes on to say: "Well... except for that MoD thingy... that is totally an exploit!"

It's totally hypocritical to say that you think the game should be played as is and then give exceptions.

And yes... those aren't exact quotes - but the impression they give is the same.

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.

[quantum_mechani]

Velusion said:
Like QM:
"If it is in the game it is fair play!" but then goes on to say: "Well... except for that MoD thingy... that is totally an exploit!"

It's totally hypocritical to say that you think the game should be played as is and then give exceptions.

And yes... those aren't exact quotes - but the impression they give is the same.

My original quote:

quantum_mechani said:
I've put my two cents in on this before, but in my opinion anything that can be accomplished through the basic game interface and is not specifically outlawed by the host is fair game. That said, a few things are simply so critically buggy hosts should almost always outlaw them, primarily just mist of deception + damage enchantment.

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.

[Hadrian_II]

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.

[Foodstamp]

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.

[DonCorazon]

Hadrian_II said:
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.

Well said Hadrian. I completely agree. I am on the role paying side. Game (for me) is about having fun, trying new strategies, discovering items/spells/sites. Ideally if all players in a game have this mentality, the game also can have a nice competitive feel where everyone is in the race. However, it can be shock if you are playing this way but then you face a minmaxer with some nigh unstoppable maneuver. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, in the sense as one person said, everyone has access to the same game. I can see how over time, once a player has done all the exploring, they can evolve to min max. I am still in the innocent, rosy-eyed RP phase.

[Kristoffer O]

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

I think the easiest solution is the hosts declaring what is ok, perhaps based on what we have said, but still a matter of host policy. If a host would like MoD to be usable in its current form in one of his games (perhaps with Caelum set up as central player and defender of a large empire) it would be silly if players joined and later complained because of something I have said. Each setup game should be the property of the host and the players involved.