Battlefield spell + retreating?

[Saulot]

Gandalf Parker said:
Lame is a term I can accept. Which I would still consider different than cheat.

This is an important distinction, just as there are between things I find distasteful, and things which are illegal.

Gandalf Parker said:
I recommend that games specify at the beginning what can and cannot be done.

I agree completely.

Gandalf Parker said:Even if its to refer to something such as "nothing in Red in Edi's buglist"

Here I have to disagree, rules should be stated once at the beginning of the game, and at that point set in stone. By referring to a third party, which in this case, tends to be edited sometimes, you change the rules of the game after the fact. Suddenly the players gain responsibility for reading through the buglist in case anything's changed everytime they submit a turn. That's far too excessive.

Rules should never be changed after a game begins.

Gandalf Parker said:
Some games such as Velusians used a MOD to make somethings unusable. Would it be bettr to take MoD completely out of a game?

Why? The problem isn't with MoD, but with the game mechanic of battle enchantments staying up if a caster is no longer around. I know little of coding, but if there's a check to end a spell when the caster dies, shouldn't it be relatively straightforward to do a similar one for when the caster retreats?

[Donny]

What I think is, no matter what the rules says, it's always good manner not casting BE-retreat when you are able to do so, cuz it will cause conflicts.
It's unfair to say everyone casts this is bad, though.

Well, considering MoD I'd say that it's not a problem itself just like all the other GEs. BUT, it causes a serious bug, that's the difference makes all the opponents cry.
For example, in GhostBat i'm currently playing, DryaUnda (MA PY) and cipher (Agartha) had a battle. The MoD bug hit, crushing the game (even llamaserver failed to generate new turns correctly, llama fixed it though).
I really appreciate DryaUnda as he casted MoD without retreating, however he was beaten and his mage routed. But MoD was still there, causing bug making all the agartha's MOs disappeared.
Similiarly, I guess if two super SCs have a battle but can't kill each other will cause the same bug, not tested though.
MoD is a very possible way to causing bugs that's the reason it should be considered different than the other GEs and be banned until it's fixed.

[Gandalf Parker]

Saulot said:
Why? The problem isn't with MoD, but with the game mechanic of battle enchantments staying up if a caster is no longer around. I know little of coding, but if there's a check to end a spell when the caster dies, shouldn't it be relatively straightforward to do a similar one for when the caster retreats?

Possibly true. But a MOD can be changed now, by us. In fact, many of the games running have a mod-file as part of the game already which means that the fix could be added mid-game. Eventually there might be a patch to take care of it but that might be awhile.

[Endoperez]

K said:
Considering how quickly and completely I've been personally attacked and demonized, I can now understand why no one has really been willing to draw out the relevant issue. I'll probably have to create a new account just to get people to play in MP with me again.

I'm actually really happy that several games have added these rules as explicit rules in their game as a result of this thread. It means that sacrificing my DomIII reputation was worth the effort.

I haven't really payed much attention to this thread. Most players probably haven't. Also, while some people who HAVE read this thread might prefer not to play with you, it probably won't keep them from joining a game you also have happened to join, at least after a while, or if the retreat bug is fixed.

I don't think the reaction was about what you've argued for or against, but the way you argued. I don't know what started this argument about logic, and I'm not interested. It don't think it helped you, though. I take your point was that unless something has been clearly banned, there's no reason not to use it, even if it's regarded as a bug.

I fully agree with that.

There are lots of players who don't know that e.g. Storm continues if your mage retreats. A player may not be recognize it as a bug, and may not realize MoD will automatically cause the opponent to lose. It took years before the bug was discovered, after all. Accidentally discovering a bug that some other people know about shouldn't be punished. It should be prevented, by using the mod (very elegant solution) or by writing down the unwritten rules.

[Edi]

K said:
Logical arguments are supported by evidence, and thus the weight of the evidence determines who wins. I think you are talking about philosophical logic arguments, which are just pure arguments divorced from the rules of evidence.

You are correct about arguments and evidence. This is especially true in science and the scientific method.

K said:
Moral arguments merely have persuasive power. They can't be proved nor disproved because they neither need nor accept the use of evidence or other objective criteria.

This is not entirely correct. Moral arguments can be logical ones, but one must first define a premise for them. It is entirely possible top construct a logically ironclad moral argument complete with evidence, but that argument will rest on some premise that is accepted as true. If the premise is successfully challenged, the whole argument comes down. For example, if we take the premise that suffering is generally a bad thing, it is very, very easy to construct logical moral arguments against wars of aggression, torture, bullying and a large number of other things and objective evidence is not hard to come by.

The problem with the MoD + retreat discussion seems to be that you and the rest of the forum have very differing standards of evidence. I for example take Illwinter's word on how MoD currently works with retreat vs how it should work as very strong evidence that the mechanic is broken to the point of being an abusive exploit while you obviously do not.

[JimMorrison]

K said:

Actually, it's designed to convince judges who are trained in logical argument and have decades of experience.

But, it was unfair of me to hold random people on the internet to that standard. It seems to only enrage people.

My apologies.

I wasn't aware that anyone was enraged. Frustrated perhaps. At any rate, the version of spin which you are offering us, will not hold up to any judge worth his salt, just as it does not hold up here. You are not, in fact, giving us facts. You are dressing up manipulated information to look like a potential fact, and then calling it a fact - as I pointed out, this does not coincide with reality.

K said:

You see, that's a moral judgment with no basis in a logical argument.

The devs have no right to tell people how to play the game. I respect their work so much that I've bought this game twice, but it ends there. At the end of the day, they wouldn't be the first devs to not understand the intricacies of what they have cobbled together.

This is not a moral judgement on my part, it is you stubbornly providing your own semantic spin on the situation.

It's quite simple, K - this is a detrimental bug. This is a simple evolution in gaming: bugged code ~> flawed game mechanics ~> player exploitation proves it exists ~> programmers acknowledge existence of bug (VERY important part) ~> exploitation of bug is banned by gaming community, pending a fix.

They are not saying how we should play the game. However, they ARE saying it is a pretty serious bug. At the end of the day, making deliberate use of a bug for your own gain = exploitation. Bug exploitation, in every gaming community I have been a part of, has been viewed with great distaste at the least, but more often than that with complete censure. Due to the nature of the bug, I will personally continue to support that sort of methodology, just as everyone else with an opinion has stated is their position - everyone but you. But it is your opinion that silent people agree with you, and it is a fact that people who care to post, agree with me.

You can say I am wrong all you want - but you know as well as I do that in court, at the end of the day it doesn't matter squat who is right and who is wrong - only who is more believable. Most of your arguments here, show that you care more about uninformed belief, than you do for the observations of those who are looking at your arguments with a critical eye.



As to your claim that everyone exploits bugs, apparently you are still willfully ignoring semantics, and continuing to just use words as they please you. Bug exploitation is a matter of intent, and any little bugs that have very widespread effects, will often go on the back burner because while things aren't exactly WAD, they're also not harming the gameplay significantly, once the net effect is reached. You can't avoid them if you want to. Exploiting a bug however, is quite intentional. You have to go far out of your way to abuse the MoD bug. The reason for the length of time needed to resolve the issue, is most likely tied to how hard it is to find the malfunctioning code. If you didn't have to go out of your way to commit the act, it would in fact devastate the game, and would have to be fixed immediately. However, there is absolutely no evidence that the devs don't care, the only public statement that either has made, was to call MoD a "bad bug". Not a good or benign bug, but bad.

Now, you can refer to the concept of bug exploitation as a "moral" stance, but it is not, in and of itself. It is in fact a philosophy of community gaming, where the desire is to discourage people from gaining their own enjoyment from ruining the enjoyment of others. Those people don't actually become "bad people" until they disregard the wishes of the community at large, and continue to abuse unaddressed and malicious bugs. If you felt I was passing a moral judgement on you personally because of your own beliefs, that is not exactly so - it was not until you decided to fight so rabidly for the objectionable position - and your flawed "logical" arguments that are the worst kind of disinformation and gross manipulation.


You're welcome, let me know if you need any more help.

[K]

JimMorrison said:
You can say I am wrong all you want - but you know as well as I do that in court, at the end of the day it doesn't matter squat who is right and who is wrong - only who is more believable. Most of your arguments here, show that you care more about uninformed belief, than you do for the observations of those who are looking at your arguments with a critical eye.

Actually, you are wrong here. Courts look at evidence that supports the arguments. Even if a jury believes you and provides a judgment for you, the judge can actually void that judgment if the weight of evidence doesn't support it, as can appellate courts and supreme courts.

You've been arguing persuasively, but not logically. There really is no logical counter to a blanket statement like "anyone that benefits from a bug is hurting the gaming community's enjoyment." It's the same class of moral argument as "gays are destroying America" or "Coke is better than Pepsi" in that it is both unsupported and unsupportable, relying purely on rhetorical power.

The "Battlefield spell + Retreat combo" and MoD are usuable by anyone, hard to set up, easily counterable by anyone, and only a small percentage of the community feels the need to make explicit rules banning it (for whatever reason). These are simple facts which support my position.

Newbs and players focusing on SCs and thugs get schooled by these tactics. These are the facts that support your position.

Everything else in this thread has been me attempting to counter what I thought were flaws in people's logical arguments. My mistake was thinking that people were using logical arguments rather than figuring out that they were making moral arguments. If I had recognized it, I could have exited earlier.

Again, my apologies.

[JimMorrison]

No, you're right, there is no logical counter to the claim that exploiting a bug is unsportsmanlike and dishonorable behavior, and disrupts the feeling of bittersweet enjoyment that one gets from being defeated by an opponent who respects you as a person.

I still do not buy your "easy to counter" rhetoric either. The layout and scripting for killing a lone mage far in the back, are FAR different from the scripts you want for killing actual armies. So the majority of instances that the MoD caster is encountered, there will be nothing you an do about it unless you have good Astral and are spamming Mind Slay or Enslave Mind starting on turn 1. But you're going to know your enemy, obviously you wouldn't want to try to exploit someone who was strong versus your chosen exploit, as it cuts into the efficiency.



Oh and before I forget - obviously it is well understood that judges like to look at and weigh proven facts - so I'd welcome you to present some that actually support your case. So far you've been proven very badly wrong on your 7/37 assessment, so what else do you have? I have about 8 people supporting me, you have none, the closest you have to a supporter is Gandalf, but his "now let's not be too hasty" interjections sound much more neutral than anything.


Don't get discouraged now, I'm enjoying this banter.

[Tifone]

MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE? A NEW, IMPORTANT QUESTION.

As someone talked about Twan's mod (link please?), which makes the phantasms from MoD appear for just 9 turns at superior rate, I want to ask:

Is in this way a legit tactic to MoD+BAttlefield spell+retreat?

In My Absolutely Humble Opinion, Yes.

PLEASE READ EVERYTHING.

In the elegant solution Twan suggested, MoD loses its annoying and (as "almost" everybody agreed) unfair characteristic to be an automatic win in many situations for the endless phantasms coming.

In this way, using the tactic which was previously an exploit, you now have a IMHO legit tactic to damage an army or an SC, which is maybe MORE effective than a Fires from Afar or a Murdering Winter or a Vengeance of the Dead, but even MORE risky and requires a BETTER mage to be done (as he needs to cast MoD, a battlefield spell, and possibly to teleport and to vortex of returning).

In fact, the countermeasures K and others suggested for the tactic are quite a must to be implemented in mid game - and it would be smart to implement them if you expect such a tactic.

So, this tactic becomes no more an *I win* one, but a risky tactic which takes you a turn of a good mage to be done, puts him at risk (for flyers, archers, earthquakes and the other counters previously suggested), but if it works it can seriously damage an army - like a Master Enslave or such.

Who agrees or doesn't? I'd like to hear something well argumented, please

[DonCorazon]

K said:
The "Battlefield spell + Retreat combo" and MoD are usuable by anyone, hard to set up, easily counterable by anyone, and only a small percentage of the community feels the need to make explicit rules banning it (for whatever reason). These are simple facts which support my position.

K, This is the part of your argument that cracks me up.

1. Usable by anyone applies to anything in the game. Irrelevant. I could argue anybody can hack the game, that doesn�t make it right.

2. MoD plus retreat is not hard to set up. Its not like this is some cool tactical move that only a brilliant strategist can pull off. In Alexandria, I have numerous guys who could do it at this point and I never even planned for it. eg Air Queen, Armor of Virtue, Celestial Masters with Air/Astral etc. If something does not require any advance planning and I just stumble into being able to do it, then it is easy.

3. It is not easily counterable. Post me a game file where you stop an Air Queen in Armor of Virtue or any tough pretender decked out in MR gear from pulling it off. Or a mage in some decent gear. If you cannot stop it then the game essentially becomes a race to get that unit/item b/c once you have it you become invincible. Major battles will all be fought the same way - MoD + retreat. Doesn't sound fun to me.

4. Only a small percentage of the community feels the need to make explicit rules against "BF spell + retreat" because it is such an obvious exploit to most of us. We have implicit rules against it (aka common sense). I don't recall anyone who has been on the boards for a while supporting the BF + retreat. I provided quotes from numerous longstanding vets that feel MoD plus retreat is unacceptable (my expert testimony). I'd like to hear your supporting experts. There are no explicit rules against sending your opponents nasty messages, that doesn�t mean it is acceptable or that we should have to draft explicit rules for everything when common sense should be sufficient.

So I would say the default assumption for any games that don't explicitly outlaw MoD + retreat is that it is not allowed unless someone explicitly allows it.