MP: Noobs & Vets: Rise of the AI Menace. EA, BI. Game Over. Team ACGHHS wins!

[DrPraetorious]

The 20 msg. thing is a known bug and certainly not a rollback issue. There was a pre-rollback turn, did the items/money arrive during that turn?


I suppose that it isn't in the documentation, and probably should be. Sometimes people abuse it. But the Vet on your team certainly should've known about it.

[GrudgeBringer]

I don't usually get involved in all this as I am the least likely to come up with a solution (as I am computer challenged). And for the fact that I am on the team with Chris and Squirrel.

However, I spend as much time as anyone doing my turn , and to be honest with you I never realized the amount of Micro-management a team game would take (although I did help finish up one of these games as a sub).

I am NOT accusing anyone of anything OR am I critiquing Gandolph's server, but I have played games with these guys and know that when something is 'forgotten' or just plain missed, they just grumble and go on.

I am privy to the 'inter office mail' and trust me, they discussed EVERY possible reason why these things COULD have happened and was it their fault.

I don't want to redo the Dang turn either, but these are not SMALL glitches, these are Major problems for individuals and as a team strategy.

I don't think anyone has ever challenged my word when I give it in this game and I am the first to dismiss crying, and whining in a game.

In this case though it seems warranted, and we need to scrutinize what the heck IS going on as I also don't have the time to keep messing with this every turn as I am in other games also.

Just an opinion gentlemen from the peanut gallery, but if we are going to keep this game going....we need to address it NOW.

Thank you

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by DrPraetorious

The 20 msg. thing is a known bug and certainly not a rollback issue. There was a pre-rollback turn, did the items/money arrive during that turn?

This is from the last turn's hosting, which doesn't have anything to do with the former rollback.

As to it being a known bug... Known to whom? Documented where? I looked through the Bug List that is maintained by Edi and did not see a single mention of it. A search for 'message limit' and 'messages limit' of the forums revealed no pertinent hits.

In fact, given that I've seen 'overflowing your opponent's lab with sent items so he can't forge' listed as an exploit, which sort of implies you can send 50 items, I was rather surprised that this limit exists and had no reason to believe such a thing was so. There's even a post (from 2007) asking about reviewing messages that specifically states messages can be shown as 1-99 messages sent. 99 messages is a lot more than 20! That was the most relevant hit I generated on my forum searches, and it implies the exact opposite of what you're saying is a 'known bug'.

Surely you can't say that a bug which doesn't occur in the bug list, and cannot be searched for reasonably on the forums, is something that is particularly 'known' to exist - either in general or to specific persons. At least in my experience, a known bug is both well-documented and a description of the bug is readily available, such as in a sticky.

[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.

[Gandalf Parker]

As with most fiery arguments, definitions are needed.

One of the 20 message limit is a sending limit.
That is easily testable. Send 20 messages of just A and it will not let you send any more (be sure to delete them before hitting end-turn)

The Max Message Limit is a misleading number since it involves everything you see in the Messages display such as events, death match, castings, slave collection, etc. That number is quite high.

The maximum number of "player messages" between players is a separate limit and I dont remember what its set at. But its much below the max for the message display itself or the exploit for flooding would not be such a problem. The log records them as pmsg (there were 41 in the last hosting)

(and most of our rollbacks have been player error)
Player error is a pain for rollbacks. So is rolling back if the game itself does something screwy. But it isnt as big a problem as player manipulation. If it cant be verified that the player did something which the game ignored then it could be used to roll-back and get new random rolls on bad events or even battles. Im not saying this is the case. Im only pointing out that it can be bad precedent to rollback for things that cannot be verified as an error by the host IMHO.

[Stagger Lee]

You know, when I posted that thread last week - the one about the rollback that screwed up so many things and was turning a fun newbie game into a miserable chore - some of you were kind enough to answer with sage advice and lent the benefit of your years of experience just to help me.

And now, you're reenacting a soul-sapping rollback here, one can only assume for my benefit alone! Thank you for showing a poor noob how it should be done!

[Septimius Severus]

I strongly doubt there would have been any cheating involved in the past turn (as squirreloid stated it was the turn before this one that was rolled back) especially since the only ones with access to all these files are myself, Gandalf, and Melnorjr. All four turns and the 2h files being sent to a single e-mail it is possible that a mistake was made by a player.

My turn, I did notice a slight oddity, but I can't be certain that I did not make a mistake and throw away something by mistake. My laboratory lost an item or two, but all my orders were carried out and I noticed no other odd behaviour. Despite this, though I think we should try to forge ahead, as Admin I've just got to keep things moving, grumbling or not. The game's important to me, but really I just love to play, but I am not really interested in haggling or squabbling over every single detail at the cost of risking everything else (and you guys know how much I loving debating) and winning is not paramount to me.

Therefore, I strongly advise against another rollback right now and that we play the current turn out and see what happens next turn. If there is any major oddness that takes place next turn, well then, we can look into a rollback or other measure that might be taken if the majority agree.

If this is not sufficient, well then you know we have a mechanism to handle this, it's called a poll (gotta love em). Depending upon the response to what I have said one can certainly be set up on our team forums. You guys let me know.

[chrispedersen]

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?

[Gandalf Parker]

A bug not agreed upon is not necessarily a bug not understood.

There are bug experts. Such as in the IRC group. Maybe one of them would be willing to view the turn files we received and verify that it seems to have happened.

But unless they can point out something which might avoid it in the future, do you feel that you should roll back every time someone says something didnt happen with their turn? If its general to everyone then maybe it can be RPG'd as bad bureucracy.

[Squirrelloid]

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.

And where is one supposed to learn of said bug? It doesn't appear to be documented anywhere. Its certainly not on Edi's bug list, not that comprehensive knowledge of the bug list can really be expected of everyone (but i've read the whole thing twice now). How can I plan around something I have no idea exists and have no method of learning about?

For the record, this rollback isn't going to be great for me. I'm going to lose a rather nice gold event, and given my scales its probably not going to happen again. I also won a combat that was by no means guaranteed, which would get re-rolled.

Originally Posted by Gandalf

A bug not agreed upon is not necessarily a bug not understood.

There are bug experts. Such as in the IRC group. Maybe one of them would be willing to view the turn files we received and verify that it seems to have happened.

But unless they can point out something which might avoid it in the future, do you feel that you should roll back every time someone says something didnt happen with their turn? If its general to everyone then maybe it can be RPG'd as bad bureucracy.

My point was that, not only was I obviously not aware of said bug, there is no reasonable way I could have been aware of said bug since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned once on the forums in a way that is even plausibly searchable. Assuming I had any reason to suspect it existed in the first place.

As to the second, would you like to review my .trn file and .2h file from last turn - i can provide a list of everything sent (which can be confirmed as not on commanders or in labs) and purchases made (which can be confirmed by reviewing recruitment queues) and cash remaining (Starting cash - purchases = money sent by necessity). You could then review messages received by Mictlan and Arco and determine that exactly 20 messages were received, and which items were not among them.