Time for a poll. (The subject is abuse)

[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.

[Chris_Byler]

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.

[kasnavada]

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."

[quantum_mechani]

kasnavada said:
you are exploiting the game mechanics. That is the definition of cheating.

Exploiting just means taking advantage of... and taking advantage of the game mechanics is what you are doing every time you attempt any strategy. Defining cheating as *not using* the game mechanics might be better (i.e., hacking to add gems from nowhere).

[kasnavada]

Exploiting :
1. The act of utilizing something for any purpose. In this case, exploit is a synonym for use.
2. The act of utilizing something in an unjust, cruel or selfish manner for one's own advantage.

I used exploit with its second meaning, and in that case it means cheating. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough. I would have used "used" if I meant just using the game mechanics.

EDIT :
Defining cheating as "not using the game mechanics" is wrong in my opinion. Because a bug often is a game mechanic that can currently be used.

[quantum_mechani]

kasnavada said:
EDIT :
Defining cheating as "not using the game mechanics" is wrong in my opinion. Because a bug often is a game mechanic that can currently be used.

I think we have pretty much reached the very root of the issue. I (and I think many of the other people in this thread), would not call making use of a bug 'cheating', per se. I would draw a firm line between someone using some external method to alter the game files (i.e., hacking), and someone simply using the interface in possibly unintended ways. The latter can certainly be undesirable behavior in some cases, but it really is a whole different issue from cheating.

[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.

[Foodstamp]

So let me get this straight. You guys are roleplayers because you don't play to win, and people who play to win are not roleplayers?

[DonCorazon]

No, that is not what I said.

Maybe this will make it easier for you to understand -
I am still learning the game and I like to try new things to see what they do even though they may not be the best way to win. I'd rather play with people doing the same so we all have a decent chance of winning.

Once I have tried more things I probably will be more focused on strategies proven to win.