nmid wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 19:05

in all the duels I played, I have never had ANYONE say no to the minefield dodge.

That doesn't make it any less a bug, and a cheat. I find your eager disposition to decide some of the finer points by vote highly disturbing.

Quote:

When I pointed it out to you, you agreed that we could play either way.

Generous of him. I would have said no.

Quote:

On a side note, I also checked the official duel rules, but sadly, that doesn't say anything explicitly about it.

Blame the rules, then. Also, you'll find many players in the rule-breaker group that will say "something not expressly prohibited is taken for allowed".

But when that something is one of the known cheats abusing game engine bugs, they risk being called cheaters. The hard way.

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 19:22

I have met many players in my games who used that cheat purposely and profusely... But that was before it was called a "cheat". Before it was documented even.

The same can be said of the split-fleet-dodge, the repair-after-gating loophole, the N-S minefield immunity and others... that doesn't make them any less bugs or cheats. And once documented and well understood they are to be avoided.

Many hosts fear the hassle of policing things like the split-fleet dodge, the repair-after-gating loophole, and the mine-damage-dodge, so they allow them, while others forbid them. But, ideally, no-one should use them.

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 19:24

What mac did wasn't a mistake. Let me explain it AGAIN comparing my example. I LET YOU USE THE SAME OPTION. HENCE, I DIDN"T HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER YOU. I AM A SD. YOU ARE AN IT. MAC CAUGHT THE MT. OTHERS DIDNT MAC POP-DROPPED. OTHERS DIDNT MAC USED MT SHIPS. OTHERS COULDNT/DIDNT. If you don't get the difference in the 2 cases, I can only shake my head in sadness.

Well, well, well... so now at long last the ugly truth is revealed!

A bona-fide cheater. Not by mistake, but by design. Adamantly defending his right to cheat. And to break all rules in the process. Intently, no less. So a cheater too in the new sense of the word.

Just trying to muddy other people's names so his is not the only one in the mud pit. That's low. So very low and outright dishonourable that words fail me. Sad. And ugly. And petty. And unforgivable.

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 19:22

Well, the thing is that I would place that particular one in the same area than chaff. Chaff is not really cheating and is (almost) always allowed...

Sorry, but no. Chaff was allowed by the game's own designers. They altered the game engine to allow it. Because it's one of the best balances for the whole battle side of things.

The other is only a bug, and not even a particularly benign one.

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 19:36

Policing this is a really tough thing to do.

But it can be done. People in fact do it. But it's a lot more hassle than it's worth. So it's better for all involved to just say no to that exploit.

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 20:21

What about "ISB trumps IT gate scanning" bug? Hosts never talk about that.

Perhaps because it's impossible to police, and nobody is sure if it's actually a bug or not. Even more, it's almost as harmless as the "CA can view habs" exploit and the like.

Report message to a moderator

I have made many mistakes as a player, and I am a poor host.

I have on several occasions accidentally broken the rules, but as they were accidents they either gave me no advantage or they were a detriment to my position. In a recent game I accidentally pulled off a reverse cheap starbase exploit

So if I am to be known as a whiner, let me really earn it.
I had a fully loaded SB (designed with full compliment of the best weapons, sheilds, and orbitals) ~90% complete when a random event ruined Planet X. Planet X went from 86% habitable to IIRC -4%!
I put the unfinished SB at the bottom of the queue and the rebuilding and terraforming at the top. Several years later ALL my SB design slots were used and I picked one to edit that read 0/22 (I should have deleted it and created a new one, but was in a rush). So I edited the design to an empty SB hull, and added it to the queue of two recently colonized planets. Some years later I get the message that Planet X built a new suchandsuch. What? Oh Balls. 90% of a 2.5k resource SB for a <400k empty hull!!!
The most expensive cheat evar.

I have also broken in-game rules a few times, like forgetting to set everyone to enemy on the first turn (quick to be corrected though).

I have accidentally broke NAPs when an ally forgot to tell me that he had allied one of my enemies and we both ended at one of my allies planets the same year. I still don't understand why that caused my ships to attack my allies and have not been able to duplicate the circumstance.

I have broken Border agreements on more than one occasion, out of neglect (read laziness).

I should probably be more understanding, but I suppose I am just petty that way.

[Updated on: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:32]

Report message to a moderator

[email

m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 17:02]That's low. So very low and outright dishonourable that words fail me. Sad. And ugly. And petty. And unforgivable.

Well done good sir.
I bow before your superior trollery

Verily it has long been foretold that a champion of trollkind would one day show us the true path of the long-troll, it is also written that when the Troll King returns it will be with a flourish of many sock-puppets named Mac and Mac1. Forsooth, the suck-puppets precede the Troll King, and the Troll King precedes the sock puppets, as it is written. Mayhap this holiest of times be upon us, that the Troll King's trolley-car of mayhem has slowed such that it will rain gumdrops and lollipops while we are all diagnosed with diabetes 1.
Then again...
maybe not.
Whatevs

[Updated on: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:37]

Report message to a moderator

What about 0.2% Minimum Damage. It's listed as a a bug/exploit here. But Jeff McBride said it wasn't a bug and wouldn't be changed in the 2.7K upgrade. He was right. It wasn't.

Quote:

Jeff McBride -Oct 4 2000, 2:00 am This is *not* a bug and will not change for 2.7k. It is part of the architecture of the original Stars! battle engine. If you don't want 500 alpha torpedoes to be able to destroy 30,000 Nubians, don't put your 30,000 Nubians all in one fleet.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Wow, only 13 posts in a row for M.A? Funny how those threads turn out to be M.A talking to himself.

Ron, is it possible to make a formal complaint about this? It is annoying me so much that I seriously think about stopping even reading threads in which M.A. participate. It breaks out most of the netiquette rules too...

Edit: whoops, my mistake. It was 14 replies in a row. Not 13.

[Updated on: Fri, 13 May 2011 21:34]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 13 May 2011 22:04]

Report message to a moderator

neilhoward wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 02:15

So if I am to be known as a whiner, let me really earn it.

You are still far from the worst of the lot.

Quote:

I have accidentally broke NAPs when an ally forgot to tell me that he had allied one of my enemies and we both ended at one of my allies planets the same year. I still don't understand why that caused my ships to attack my allies and have not been able to duplicate the circumstance.

Your ships attacked your enemy. Your ally defended his threatened ally by attacking the attacker, you.

That, or your ally had actually setup you as "neutral"

Report message to a moderator

neilhoward wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 02:31

Well done good sir. I bow before your superior trollery

Your feeble attempt at humour/irony/derision doesn't seem quite appropriate in this instance. Not when serious matters are being discussed and you take the liberty of snipping off 90% of my post.

Unless you, who seem unable to forgive the already-punished s######s who met a forbidden MT, mean to side with the self-confessed cheater (by both definitions of the term, the old and the new)

[Updated on: Mon, 16 May 2011 11:30] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 02:37

What about 0.2% Minimum Damage. It's listed as a a bug/exploit here. But Jeff McBride said it wasn't a bug and wouldn't be changed in the 2.7K upgrade. He was right. It wasn't. Quote: Jeff McBride -Oct 4 2000, 2:00 am This is *not* a bug and will not change for 2.7k. It is part of the architecture of the original Stars! battle engine. If you don't want 500 alpha torpedoes to be able to destroy 30,000 Nubians, don't put your 30,000 Nubians all in one fleet.

I would chalk that to developer-speak, which could be translated as follows:

No, the game engine is working as intended. The 0.2% roundup "error" was programmed just that way. Ouch. "Fixing" it would require rewriting the best part of all the maths-code from scratch, which can be hardly justified if there's a reasonable workaround for the problem. Tough.

It is still a bug, and it can be exploited. But at least it can be cured by a regen if all else fails. I can forgive the Jeffs for it.

Report message to a moderator

Eagle of Fire wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 03:45

Yes, I see it now. I never paid attention to those links to the left. It is probably a good option. However, posting without seeing his posts will make for strange no head or tail conversations...

Just like your regular posts, then? No big loss there.

Report message to a moderator

neilhoward wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 03:58

cheating. That is what this thread is about.

... and punishment. Proportional punishment. That's an important part of the rules too.

Report message to a moderator

[email

m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 05:09] nmid wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 18:56 Rule breaker? Sure. Intentional? No. Thus, am I a cheater? No. Even by my more restrictive definition that would be considered a borderline-to-dark-gray case. But by yours, yeah, I'd say so, definitely. Middle-level cheater, at least! Amazing how the high judge can't seem to judge himself!

Perhaps you are right.
I may not be able to be objective enough, being too close to the case.
I thought I was.
I thought my reasoning pattern was correct and in-tune with my earlier posts.
(I still think it is).

However I see the other view point that I broke a general rule.
(Please note that it was not applicable for a duel, that happened 2 weeks ago.)

[email

m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 05:32] nmid wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 19:24 What mac did wasn't a mistake. I LET YOU USE THE SAME OPTION. HENCE, I DIDN"T HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER YOU. I AM A SD. YOU ARE AN IT. MAC CAUGHT THE MT. OTHERS DIDNT MAC POP-DROPPED. OTHERS DIDNT MAC USED MT SHIPS. OTHERS COULDNT/DIDNT. If you don't get the difference in the 2 cases, I can only shake my head in sadness. Well, well, well... so now at long last the ugly truth is revealed! A bona-fide cheater. Not by mistake, but by design. Adamantly defending his right to cheat. And to break all rules in the process. Intently, no less. So a cheater too in the new sense of the word. Just trying to muddy other people's names so his is not the only one in the mud pit. That's low. So very low and outright dishonourable that words fail me. Sad. And ugly. And petty. And unforgivable.

I don't mind and this is exactly what proves my point !!
I agree with your 2nd para (underlined).
Everyone reading this thread now KNOWS that I "cheat" when it comes to "mine-damage-dodge".
No one (so far) has raised any points of my honesty.

What I don't agree and take offence to is your last para.
Please note that my said offence was NOT applicable for a duel, that happened 2 weeks ago.
Thus, I take offence when you say that I'm trying to bring mac down just for company.
That was a troll comment

Also back to the main point, this would mean if you are ever playing a duel against me, talk before the duel starts AND DECIDE whether to allow the dodge or not.

To be clearer -
I have problems with the "mine-damage-dodge-using-chaff" bug.
I have "cheated" using that bug.
None of the duel rules stop it from being used, so it was an unintended mistake that caused confusion.
Now I can't apologise for something that I don't consider cheating, but I do apologise for the confusion.
I do not regret using it, but I will not use it in the future, unless it's specifically agreed to.

[Updated on: Sat, 14 May 2011 01:11]

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 09:33

Unless you, who seem unable to forgive the already-punished smartass who met a forbidden MT, mean to side with the self-confessed cheater (by both definitions of the term, the old and the new)

Fine. Shorter post.
I cheated.
I apologised.

I just hope that ppl read the entire post or ask me about it.
If not, balls to them.

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 12:37

What about 0.2% Minimum Damage. It's listed as a a bug/exploit here. But Jeff McBride said it wasn't a bug and wouldn't be changed in the 2.7K upgrade. He was right. It wasn't. Quote: Jeff McBride -Oct 4 2000, 2:00 am This is *not* a bug and will not change for 2.7k. It is part of the architecture of the original Stars! battle engine. If you don't want 500 alpha torpedoes to be able to destroy 30,000 Nubians, don't put your 30,000 Nubians all in one fleet.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Report message to a moderator

gible wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 09:28

[CITATION NEEDED]

r.g.c.s "Cheating and Host Declarations" - Oct 2000

Also an amazing read for its talk about "concensus", "rules" and "cheating".

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 07:03

I thought my reasoning pattern was correct and in-tune with my earlier posts. (I still think it is).

Oh, the reasoning "pattern" isn't bad per se. It's your intent, your real goal that now becomes suspect.

Quote:

I don't mind and this is exactly what proves my point !!

Sorry, I think I can't quite pinpoint what you mean by "this" that so exactly proves your point.

Quote:

Thus, I take offence when you say that I'm trying to bring mac down just for company. That was a troll comment

No, it wasn't. What is exactly what you're trying to accomplish by adamantly trying to get Mac seen as a far worse "cheater" than yourself?

Quote:

if you are ever playing a duel against me, talk before the duel starts AND DECIDE whether to allow the dodge or not.

I've already answered to that, and the answer is no.

Be aware, too, that most players take the "standard cheats disclaimer" for granted, even in duels. True cheating is forbidden except when explicitly allowed. Period.

Quote:

it was an unintended mistake that caused confusion.

You mean the mistake was in not asking beforehand if your favourite cheat was allowed? Because everything else you did to use it couldn't have been done by mistake.

Luring the other player into cheating himself so you both would be on the same level was kind of underhanded too. So you broke the rules, and instead of paying the penalty kept the marbles and still think you're right. Oh, my...

Quote:

I will not use it in the future, unless it's specifically agreed to.

That's good. You might yet be saved!

Report message to a moderator

For one..
I'll quote myself, just to be clear.

nmid wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 10:48

m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 09:33 Unless you, who seem unable to forgive the already-punished smartass who met a forbidden MT, mean to side with the self-confessed cheater (by both definitions of the term, the old and the new) Fine. Shorter post. I cheated. I apologised. I just hope that ppl read the entire post or ask me about it. If not, balls to them.

Moving on..

ma.stars on Sat, 14 May 2011 17:37

nmid wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 07:03 I thought my reasoning pattern was correct and in-tune with my earlier posts. (I still think it is). Oh, the reasoning "pattern" isn't bad per se. It's your intent, your real goal that now becomes suspect.

------------------------------------------------------------ ----
What goal? Calling mac a cheater?
I never started. Someone else did. I agreed. As do plenty of other ppl.
PLEASE USE THIS AS A WHOLE QUOTE, not a line by line
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
Again repeating myself:
Did I break rules? Sure. (A rule that wasn't mentioned).
Intentionally, with a point of breaking rules? No.
Can I be called a cheater? As per MY definition No. The same definition I have been trying to get through to you.
If you do want to call me a cheater, I'm FINE with that too, as long as future players realise it was UNINTENTIONAL and I ADMITTED to AND APOLOGISED for.

Things that are NOT common with mac. In detail:
Did mac break rules? Yes.
Intentionally, with a point of breaking rules? Arguable, but done 2 times, perhaps 3.
Can mac be called a cheater? Yes.
PLEASE USE THIS AS A WHOLE QUOTE, not a line by line
------------------------------------------------------------ ----

Oh best of all, when I started playing the duel, it was clearly stated that standard championship thread rules will apply.
Show me the rule that I broke.
I considered mine-dodge a standard game rule, like chaff and over-gating heal and fleet dodge.
Does that mean using the last 3 in a duel = cheating as well?
PLEASE USE THIS AS A WHOLE QUOTE, not a line by line
------------------------------------------------------------ ----

ma.stars on Sat, 14 May 2011 17:37

Nmid I don't mind and this is exactly what proves my point !! Sorry, I think I can't quite pinpoint what you mean by "this" that so exactly proves your point.

this = being called a cheater.

Intent, regret, apology, continued breaking of rules... are all factors that SHOULD be looked at.
PLEASE USE THIS AS A WHOLE QUOTE, not a line by line
------------------------------------------------------------ ----

ma.stars on Sat, 14 May 2011 17:37

Quote: Thus, I take offence when you say that I'm trying to bring mac down just for company. That was a troll comment No, it wasn't. What is exactly what you're trying to accomplish by adamantly trying to get Mac seen as a far worse "cheater" than yourself?

Your emote shows as <shame>. That offends.
I am not ashamed of what I'm doing.
Calling mac a cheater or a WORSE cheater is me saying black is black and white is white.
It's based on facts.
I'm not TRYING to accomplish anything for an ulterior motive.
I have nothing to gain and you are PUSHING a motive for my actions.

You are being deliberately obtuse in understanding me.
/sad /sorrow /worried for you

Also if you haven't realised, I'm least bothered about Mac. I'm not playing with him nor ever plan on.
However I give due to your vast game experience and plan on playing against you someday.
WHICH is why I'm putting all this effort to try to get you to understand the basic concept of cheating.
PLEASE USE THIS AS A WHOLE QUOTE, not a line by line
------------------------------------------------------------ ----

ma.stars on Sat, 14 May 2011 17:37

Quote: if you are ever playing a duel against me, talk before the duel starts AND DECIDE whether to allow the dodge or not. I've already answered to that, and the answer is no. Be aware, too, that most pl

[Updated on: Sat, 14 May 2011 10:05]

Report message to a moderator