[quote title=[email]m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 18:04]

BlueTurbit wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 22:05

Where is the link to the post that shows this consensus here?

Quote:

Buried down at r.g.c.s probably.

LOL I figured you'd pull this card out. No documentation then to support your consensus argument? Funny though. I actually found a couple of posts at r.g.c.s, about a decade back and there were discussions of breaking game rules and it was called cheating. One was about using variations of chaff in a game with no chaff allowed. I didn't read any of the posters, some quite well-known, that said this rule violation was not cheating, but just minor cheating, or mere rule breaking.

Quote:

Another quite cogent question would be: where are the gazillion posts condemning the gazillion "minor cheaters" that the lack of such basic consensus should have allowed?

Lack of evidence doesn't prove your case.
But I expect the great majority of violations are kept in the circle of host and game players. Not posted publicly here as a complaint.

[Updated on: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:47]

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Fri, 13 May 2011 21:06]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

yep. In 2477 and 2478, on two planets you used the Target List Overload in attack.
I complained to Michael about the use of this banned bug. And he immediately sent every player a warning email about using the bug/exploit.

Quote:

excerpt from game rules: The bugs and cheats listed in the Must Know section of the SAH are banned! Split fleets and chaff are regarded as legitimate tactics, not as cheats. If a player is suspected of misusing one of the bugs, I will ask a neutral third party to check. If the suspicion turns out to be correct, the player will be set to dead. There will not be a second chance.

There was no third party review or any punishment that I know of.
I didn't press the issue and just chalked it up as a lesson learned. Mostly about the hosting.
By the rules, you should have been banned after doing that twice.

But it's no big deal. Win some, lose some. But I will keep a sharper eye on your SS in the future.
That's why my negative recommendation.

edit:
Oh, and I was doing quite well until you invited the much stronger Threnoid for a joint attack. I saw your fleets and figured, no chance. So I hired the Muppets, bought with SS toys down the road. And told him about the big battle coming up against you two. Surprise, surprise, on his own, without telling me, he sent that big BB fleet through my gate that kicked both your butts with little damage to us.

It was fun to watch. To go from doomsday to happy birthday.
And it took all my strength to resist temptation to send you guys my first message. Because it took place on April Fools day, and all these nasty message ideas rolled though my evil mind.

[Updated on: Sat, 14 May 2011 08:29]

Report message to a moderator

Oh I remember now . I was using chaff to sweep into your planets. It was never meant as a Target List overload.. I just wanted your mines gone.

Many years ago I used to chaff sweep into planets all the time and the rule of thumb was to not overload the battle board.. can't have more than 256 tokens on the board right, or is it 512? Anyway, I had taken a break from stars for a number of years and sometime during that absence the bug became something else. It took me a while to realize the change and old habits die hard. These days I will just send them to within a ly of the planet to avoid the exploit (or is that cheating too?)

In another game I inadvertently did the same thing again. I was trying to hide my production of Nubians by maxing my available fleets to 512. By doing so any new production was being merged into overcloakers I had in orbit… but that posed a problem. How do I make sure my Nubians were being merged into the overcloakers. So I had 400 units of split chaff in orbit of a planet that I thought no one was paying attention too. Unfortunately someone noticed and thought I was trying to use the exploit. The host contacted me and I explained what I was doing, he was convinced but I had to move the chaff around. I did managed to hide 200 Nubians before anyone knew I even had the technology to do it. All the more reason not to trust me right?

Regards,
NeoGrendal

Report message to a moderator

Well, you can't keep saying "I didn't mean that." You've been playing many years. Especially when it is expressly forbidden by the rules. Lucky you didn't get set to "dead."

What you did twice in a row, at planets that were close together, was make it impossible for me or the Muppets to target your main battle ships at the planets. Only your chaff were visible to target.

Therefore the warning sent immediately to all players by host:

Quote:

Hi all! If you receive duplicates of this mail, it is because you are playing in more than one of the three games. One of the players has brought a possible infringement of the rules to my attention. I will not impose a punishment at this time, but I want to clarify the issues involved. When attacking an enemy planet and crash sweeping the surrounding minefield with chaff, there are two possible rule infringements. - The chaff arriving safely in orbit at the planet can cause battlefield overload. If there is a chance of this happening, it is better to let the chaff travel 1 or 2 LYs beyond the planet. - The chaff can cause Target List Overload at the planet: (The fleet lists that popup when you right click in the scanner pane and the blue diamond of the waypoint tile will only list 100 fleets. So when someone has 101+ fleets at the same coordinates (in orbit of a planet for instance) you can NOT target fleet 101 or higher (these are the fleets with the highest fleet #s.)) This is OK as long as it is remedied immediately after arrival: You *must* merge your fleets in such a way that the main stack has the lowest existing fleet number. This has to be a number that is visible right after the turn. For the other player this means that he can target the lowest fleet number he can see and still be sure to attack the main stack. Regards, Michael

[Updated on: Sat, 14 May 2011 08:28]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 01:29

LOL I figured you'd pull this card out. No documentation then to support your consensus argument? Funny though. I actually found a couple of posts at r.g.c.s, about a decade back

I'm sure there are more. Some flamewars lasted very long. But a formal "peace treaty"? A single post or group of posts or defined date that could be pointed out as "here the great flamewars stopped, and the winners were...". Nope. Buried. Most flamewars just died out. People stopped whining about trivialities. There were more serious problems, and most everybody devoted themselves to those.

In short, not a revolution, bust just evolution. For the better.

Quote:

and there were discussions of breaking game rules and it was called cheating. One was about using variations of chaff in a game with no chaff allowed. I didn't read any of the posters, some quite well-known, that said this rule violation was not cheating, but just minor cheating, or mere rule breaking.

Chaff is the classical example. You can still find very bitter threads about every little aspect of it and how the game was so much better before. Funny thing is, after the Jeffs refused to "fix" it, everybody accepted it, yet it is still called "chaff cheat". Not "exploit" or "trick", but "cheat", and yet no-one (in their right mind) would label chaff-users as "cheaters". Who won that one? The other side. Yet the name stuck. I seriously doubt there's any post anywhere explaining the whys, the hows or the whens of that, but still the consensus exists until today. Because it works.

Quote:

Lack of evidence doesn't prove your case.

It doesn't disprove it either. So, consensus until proved otherwise.

Quote:

But I expect the great majority of violations are kept in the circle of host and game players. Not posted publicly here as a complaint.

Which would seem to actually prove my case.

Report message to a moderator

neogrendal wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 03:14

I wanted to know if the anger I felt was justified.

It probably was. It likely doesn't matter. You'll probably get pounded into space dust. Take the chance to learn what you can. Tactics, strategy, mistakes, diplomacy. Even a doomed fight can be a valuable learning experience. You'll play better the next time. Hopefully.

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 03:21

yep. In 2477 and 2478, on two planets you used the Target List Overload in attack. I complained to Michael about the use of this banned bug. And he immediately sent every player a warning email about using the bug/exploit.

That particular nastie can be hard to avoid. At least two very common events seem to invite it every so often: chaff-sweeping and gating of reinforcements. It needs to be closely examined case by case.

Additionally, if the host managed to keep everyone in line by the use of mere words, all the kudos to him.

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 04:56

This is OK as long as it is remedied immediately after arrival: You *must* merge your fleets in such a way that the main stack has the lowest existing fleet number. This has to be a number that is visible right after the turn. For the other player this means that he can target the lowest fleet number he can see and still be sure to attack the main stack.

Brilliant!

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 01:29

a game with no chaff allowed.

I have some kind of selective blindness to those. I find the mere concept beyond absurd. I prefer simpler things to play.

Report message to a moderator

Hey Blue,

I've gone back and looked at the timeline of games I've played in the last several years and you're right I should have known better. Can I get banned retroactively?

Regards,
NeoGrendal

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 22:36

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 01:29 a game with no chaff allowed. I have some kind of selective blindness to those. I find the mere concept beyond absurd. I prefer simpler things to play.

What game are you playing in now?

Report message to a moderator

neogrendal wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 22:41

Hey Blue, I've gone back and looked at the timeline of games I've played in the last several years and you're right I should have known better. Can I get banned retroactively? Regards, NeoGrendal

Not Michael's games. Seems he only makes the rules, he doesn't enforce them.

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 06:02

What game are you playing in now?

None, actually. The only one I was in got prematurely ended by vote a few days ago.

[Updated on: Sat, 14 May 2011 00:37]

Report message to a moderator

neogrendal wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 04:33

In another game I inadvertently did the same thing again. I was trying to hide my production of Nubians by maxing my available fleets to 512. By doing so any new production was being merged into overcloakers I had in orbit… but that posed a problem. How do I make sure my Nubians were being merged into the overcloakers. So I had 400 units of split chaff in orbit of a planet that I thought no one was paying attention too. Unfortunately someone noticed and thought I was trying to use the exploit. The host contacted me and I explained what I was doing, he was convinced but I had to move the chaff around. I did managed to hide 200 Nubians before anyone knew I even had the technology to do it. All the more reason not to trust me right? Regards, NeoGrendal

I think I was the host in that game, at least I remember an event that fits that description. I took no punitive action because no unlawful benefit could have been gained, and it did not appear to have been a mismanaged attempt at gaining any unlawful benefit.

The fleets that had too high fleet numbers to be targeted were all single chaff, and no fleets were leaving orbit.

Attempting to hide production by bringing the total number of fleets to 512 fleets was not listed as a disallowed tactic/exploit/cheat, so that had to be considered a legitimate tactic.

I advised the player that the legitimate tactic of hiding production by bringing the total number of fleets to 512 fleets should be done without getting into target list overload by doing the necessary splits across several planets instead of at one planet.

The complaining player accepted my explanation that no unlawful benefit could have been gained and that it did not appear to have been a mismanaged attempt at gaining an unlawful benefit, so the complaining player accepted that no punitive action would be taken, and that the offending player would be careful not to make the same mistake again.

There were no other reports of target list overload in that game, so apparently the offending player did take care not to make the same mistake again.

I would also like to add a comment about chaff sweeping and target list overload. It is not only easy to avoid target list overload when chaff sweeping, it is often necessary to avoid target list overload (at least at the target planet) for chaff sweeping to be maximally effective.

It is not the warp speed set for the fleet that determines the probability of a mine hit, it is the minimum warp speed for the distance travelled to the waypoint of the fleet, so if a fleet only has 16 ly or less to travel to it's waypoint, then the probability of a mine hit is zero, even if the speed of the fleet is set to warp 9 in the orders.

This means that in order to be maximally effective, the chaff sweeping ships have to have a waypoint at least 65 ly from their current location, even if the target planet is less than 65 ly from their current location. To completely avoid the possibility of target list overload the chaff sweeping ships just have to be split into groups of no more than 100 ships, which will then be given a different waypoint for each group - Assuming that the chaff sweeping run requires more than 100 chaff sweepers, of course.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 14 May 2011 08:34]

Report message to a moderator

nmid wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 14:10

I don't have access to stars atm) but iirc, the chances of hitting the MF is a combination of warp speed and total distance traveled. So if the Minefield is 16 LY, going at warp4,5,6,7,8,9 will all have different % chances to hit a mine, even if the actual distance traveled is 16 LY.

Actually, there's a bug in the minehit calculations that makes them work "weird" as described by craebild.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

craebild wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 14:54

Perhaps my explanation could have been more clear.

I dare say it's Stars! own Helpfile that's a bit confusing, as it never even hints that it's not the set speed for the fleet that's used in the calculations.

It's right there with the statement that "warmongers cannot lay mines" when it should say "warmongers cannot build minelayers"

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 22:32

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 04:56 This is OK as long as it is remedied immediately after arrival: You *must* merge your fleets in such a way that the main stack has the lowest existing fleet number. This has to be a number that is visible right after the turn. For the other player this means that he can target the lowest fleet number he can see and still be sure to attack the main stack. Brilliant!

It is?
How would you execute that?

Report message to a moderator

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 22:09

[email m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Fri, 13 May 2011 22:32] BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 04:56 This is OK as long as it is remedied immediately after arrival: You *must* merge your fleets in such a way that the main stack has the lowest existing fleet number. This has to be a number that is visible right after the turn. For the other player this means that he can target the lowest fleet number he can see and still be sure to attack the main stack. Brilliant! It is? How would you execute that?

I might have misunderstood your question, but if I didnt then here's a simpler example:

I have those 249 chaff and 1 main fleet on a planet in Year 1.
I have to merge them all into the lowest existing fleet number.

The opponent will target that lowest fleet number (the chaff) but when he engages me next turn (Year 2), he'll be hitting my main fleet.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 14 May 2011 14:37]

Report message to a moderator

vonKreedon wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 00:06

nmid wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 10:50 I have those 249 chaff and 1 main fleet on a planet in Year 1. I have to merge them all into the lowest existing fleet number. The opponent will target that lowest fleet number (the chaff) but when he engages me next turn (Year 2), he'll be hitting my main fleet. If I understand your process correctly you are advocating chaff sweeping that ends with the battle fleet merging with the lowest number chaff at the end of the move. If my understanding is correct, then I believe that this will not work. 1) I calculate the number of chaff needed to sweep the MF to the target. 2) I create a fleet of that number of chaff and send it to the target and then Split All so that all chaff are in fleets of 1. 3) I then make sure that my battle fleet, also moving to the target, has a higher fleet number than all the chaff so that all the chaff move, and impact mines, before my battle fleet. 4) IF I than give the battle fleet merge orders with the lowest numbered chaff I think that I'm likely as not to end up at a piece of salvage in deep space rather than the target since I'm hoping that my chaff get blown up in the MF. Am I incorrect about this? Will the battle fleet move to the target instead of to the salvage? Even if so, my battle fleet will not be able to merge with the lowest numbered chaff because that fleet number no longer exists and so my battle fleet will still have its high fleet number. As has been noted by others, the fix to this is to have your sweeper chaff to all go beyond the target rather than to the target.

Ah, selective quoting got the better of me. My bad.

This discussion was about target list overloading at one's own planet.
Generally ppl talk about target list overloading on enemy planets or how it could expand into battle board overloading.

The reason we were talking about this varation (of target list overloading at one's own planet) was on account of a past game where a SS was building nubians and wanted to have them merged into an overcloaking fleet.
For more details, the exact post:

neogrendal wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 08:03

In another game I inadvertently did the same thing again. I was trying to hide my production of Nubians by maxing my available fleets to 512. By doing so any new production was being merged into overcloakers I had in orbit… but that posed a problem. How do I make sure my Nubians were being merged into the overcloakers. So I had 400 units of split chaff in orbit of a planet that I thought no one was paying attention too. Unfortunately someone noticed and thought I was trying to use the exploit. The host contacted me and I explained what I was doing, he was convinced but I had to move the chaff around. I did managed to hide 200 Nubians before anyone knew I even had the technology to do it. All the more reason not to trust me right? Regards, NeoGrendal

Also, my simpler explanation was what I understood from the host's mail that was posted here by Blueturbit:

BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 08:26

Well, you can't keep saying "I didn't mean that." You've been playing many years. Especially when it is expressly forbidden by the rules. Lucky you didn't get set to "dead." What you did twice in a row, at planets that were close together, was make it impossible for me or the Muppets to target your main battle ships at the planets. Only your chaff were visible to target. Therefore the warning sent immediately to all players by host: Quote: Hi all! If you receive duplicates of this mail, it is because you are playing in more than one of the three games. One of the players has brought a possible infringement of the rules to my attention. I will not impose a punishment at this time, but I want to clarify the issues involved. When attacking an enemy planet and crash sweeping the surrounding minefield with chaff, there are two possible rule infringements. - The chaff arriving safely in orbit at the planet can cause battlefiel

Report message to a moderator