Dark Knight

[Aezeal]

if you see a Dark knight in a province with total 4 units... what is it.. I think I had that before and I recall it where 4 strong creatures.. I'm in the start of a game and can't decide if my lil army will be able to beat it or not... what will I be up against?

[Humakty]

I have them in almost all my games cause I love to take misfortune(in SP).
If I remember well, there is a flying guy who will attack rear, usually right on your general, so give bodyguards to him(and your mages !). There are usually two mages with plenty of gems, so I recommend not to attack them without strong magic support.
One of the thugs has fear, can't remember if it is the flying one.
I usually wait until I have level 4/5 spells to take them down.(quite rapid to have normally)
Don't even think of taking them out with sheer number.
Use spells which allow no magic resistance, I think most of them are quite high on MR.
Good luck

[Aezeal]

clearly not an army I'm gonna attack now thanks.. I thought as much

[Yrkoon]

That must be Bogus and his merry men.

If you want the surprise of finding out for yourself who they are, don't read any further...


Bogus the troll, very very deadly thug. He won't drop of fatigue because he has a wraith sword. he won't rout because he goes berserk. He will kill kill kill, and is very good at it.
The dark knight, and his ferocious griffin - he has the fear helmet plus other magic items, and usually flies straight at your commander
A troll archer who nearly alway hits (your commander generally). Your mages will fall like flies.
A human mage with rune smasher, the weakest of the 5 heroes
A troll mage with air magic, annoying but not very dangerous

[Ironhawk]

Yeah the dark knight will attack your commanders.

Interestingly, if you can gain control of the Dark Knight or... i think the troll in the group w/ a bow, then you will gain access to the Attack Commander order. Incredibly powerful!

[Taqwus]

Bogus is a bit weaker than he used to be, now that the weapon-based life draining is capped. Still nasty, 'tho.

[Cor2]

I have an irrational phobia of Bogus and company. If I see them I leave them alone. I have lost too many armies to that @##$%#

[archaeolept]

in MP, stealing the attack commander order would be thought an exploit

Don't attack them - they're tough, and its easy to be wrong on whether you have the right army for them...

[Meglobob]

archaeolept said:
in MP, stealing the attack commander order would be thought an exploit



Many people have done it thou...

Leave them until you have charm spell. Then put together a few mages with bodyguards(by bodyguards I mean a 20-40 strong army of), then charm them.

You gain them as thugs, with all magic items and can save the attack commander/fire at commander orders using ctrl-number. So all your forces can be scripted with that command.

You should now win easily... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[llamabeast]

I hereby declare using the 'Attack Commander'/'Fire Commander' orders on any LlamaServer game to be cheating. Definitely an exploit.

[NTJedi]

llamabeast said:
I hereby declare using the 'Attack Commander'/'Fire Commander' orders on any LlamaServer game to be cheating. Definitely an exploit.



Unfortunately there's no way to identify if someone is using the 'attack commander' or 'fire at commander'. Perhaps a future patch will change the orders of any commander after it's been stolen.

[sum1lost]

If they fly directly at the commander, or shoot at it, instead of at pd, its a pretty good indication, unless there is a special thing about the commander (only flier, very big). At that point, its worth investigating.

[Cor2]

llamabeast said:
I hereby declare using the 'Attack Commander'/'Fire Commander' orders on any LlamaServer game to be cheating. Definitely an exploit.



I am happy to hear this. I totally agree.

[carlosib]

I suppose you consider it an exploit only when you copy-paste the "attack commander" order into some other unit that is not intended to do that.
If you managed to charm a Dark Night you sure earned the right to use him as he was intended. Or you think it's an exploit to use a charmed DK to attack commanders?

[llamabeast]

Using him as intended sounds reasonable. It's the copy-paste that is clearly naughty.

[Meglobob]

llamabeast said:
Using him as intended sounds reasonable. It's the copy-paste that is clearly naughty.



He's just a very, very naughty boy...err sorry.

[WonderLlama]

Are they any other cheating / bug abuse rules on your server, llama? Maybe a list somewhere? I'm not a fan of bug abuse anyway, but a list would be nice.

[Xietor]

It is an exploit to copy the attack commander command to other units. it is cheating the same as if you hack someone's turn and did something to it. Major bug, major exploit.

I would not feel like I really won a game where i cheated to win. just me. While I am only hosting the epic heroes game, if i saw a player's units attacking my commanders they would be set to AI.

You know it when you see it.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

The American people already know that Meglobob is a bad boy - a naughty boy. I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Meglobob is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

... err sorry. Ignore the foot-tapping senator. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig)


Meglobob said:
llamabeast said:Using him as intended sounds reasonable. It's the copy-paste that is clearly naughty.


He's just a very, very naughty boy...err sorry.

[Meglobob]

Lazy_Perfectionist said:

The American people already know that Meglobob is a bad boy - a naughty boy. I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Meglobob is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

... err sorry. Ignore the foot-tapping senator. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig)


Meglobob said:
llamabeast said:Using him as intended sounds reasonable. It's the copy-paste that is clearly naughty.


He's just a very, very naughty boy...err sorry.





Heh! I have never used the attack commander/fire commander orders in MP. Only in SP. I know 2 people who have thou, 1 against me.

In future I will avoid telling anymore/sharing insights into the game. People always shoot the messenger.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Oh, I don't mind. I've just saw the opportunity to quote Larry "I am not gay" Craig. And I had to run with it, despite it being in poor taste.

Here in America, we don't shoot the messenger, we have them run our government...

Okay... that bit was weak. Sorry.
I'm barely restraining myself from other lame attempts at humor. I had one good line, and it wasn't off of a [self-censored].

...
...

And it appears the original question was answered. I guess there's no way to awkwardly transition back on topic. I'll shut up now.

[quantum_mechani]

Xietor said:
it is cheating the same as if you hack someone's turn and did something to it.

This is quite absurd, the two are not remotely comparable. It is far more akin to for instance the accepted tactic of archer decoying, than hacking the game. Now, I have never personally employed the tactic in MP, but I would certainly not hold it against anyone that used it against me.

It takes a good amount of luck to get in a position to take advantage of bogus, and the orders are far from the overwhelming advantage that seems to be implied by most people. It would actually be fairly difficult to use in a gamebreaking way in the lategame where the issue usually occurs.

[Humakty]

And I used to burn Bogus and his squad to cinders while playing an astral heavy faction....
I'm sure that now, I wont see them anymore.

[llamabeast]

Oh sorry, I missed WonderLlama's question.

The only things I can think of at the moment are the issue under discussion, and also casting Mists of Deception before retreating (the battle never ends as more and more misty things appear, until the opponent is beaten). That's also definitely naughty. I think that might be being fixed in the new patch though, although I'm not certain.

[RonD]

Once upon a time, long ago, KO explained the ability of the Dark Knight and the Troll Mage to teach your commanders to "attack commander".

From my memory (so maybe not literal): "I guess he is a great tactician"

Doesn't sound like a bug to me. Maybe an unintended consequence, but what on earth *isn't* an unintended consequence in Dominions? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

You are obviously free to make whatever house rules you wish, but to declare anyone who uses that trick as the equivalent of someone who hacks turn files is mighty high-handed.

[llamabeast]

Agreed, RonD. I'm declaring only rules I think should apply to games I host, but they are of course only personal opinions. Hacking files would be on an entirely different level.

[Xietor]

It is cheating. There actually used to be an attack commander option, but it was overpowered and removed.

Cheating-or taking an unfair advantage of other players-is all the same. I would prefer that my files be hacked, rather than have someone use an exploit and kid themselves into thinking they were fighting fairly.

I guess in the end, what the goal should be in any competitive game is that the players all use the same rules.
It is common knowledge that you can copy the dark knight's orders. What I thought was equally well known was that it is an exploit in mp games.

remind me not to let some of you be the banker if we play monopoly! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[quantum_mechani]

It's a slippery slope, if using such orders is cheating, how about archer decoying? What about GoRing tartarians (a non-obvious tactic that I would argue is actually a more potent one than Bogus's orders)?

As such, I'd say it's a tactic like any other: people find blesses and other strategies to be unbalanced in some contexts, and so often explicitly deny or restrict them when setting out rules for a particular game. It is certainly valid to do the same here, but to say it is by default cheating is to enter a quagmire of fuzziness about what is actually cheating.

[Xietor]

Gor any unit is not cheating. There is a spell designed to allow this in games by the designers. Same with using a bless.

It is a far different animal to capture a unit that has a command that was SPECIFICALLY removed from the game as being overpowered, and using a scripting command put in by the designers for reduced micromanagement to put back into the game an overpowered feature just for your armies.

In any event, I have seen this exploit used against me in the big game. But I overcame it. It is surmountable-but it is cheating. If I see it in the Epic Heroes game that I am running-I will see it only once. Then that player will be set to AI.

I guess it is up for the host of the game to set what is and is not allowed. I am glad Llamabeast has clear rules on what is and is not permitted since he is hosting a ton of games on his server these days.

Hail to Llamabeast!

[Ironhawk]

Yeah, I agree with QM. Since you arent breaking any rules of the game - the order is, after all, built in - you can't technically frame it as "cheating".

Which is not to say that I support its use - I've never used it in MP and I'm not sure how I would feel if it were used againt me. But in Dominions, all nations have advantages which are not available to any enemy player in the game... yet we do not hear anyone complaining that, for example, only Pyth/Mari get access to angels or something. The only difference there being that you know the advantages/disadvantages of each nation as you go into any given game, whereas gaining attack commanders via bogus would be something that would randomly happen and you (as an opponent) might or might not know about it.

[Folket]

The question is whether this is a bug or not. Explotation of bug is cheating.

[Tuidjy]

I think that it is A-OK to use the order on Bogus and his companions. To copy
and paste the order on other units is using an unintended consequence - because
it is hard to believe that the developers wanted it that way. In all honesty,
while I have been doing the former ever since Dominions II, I have never done
the latter - as in, I was not smart enough to think of it... so maybe I am biased.

[sector24]

This is an interesting conversation. On a related note, Aezeal, you can save the reload the game in single player if you want to try your hand on Bogus and his allies. However, with all the subjective morality being tossed around I'm not sure I want to post how to do it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Ironhawk]

Folket said:
The question is whether this is a bug or not. Explotation of bug is cheating.



Well, its been around since the Dom2 days and the devs are aware of it... but still no changes to how it works in all that time.

So what does that mean?

[Velusion]

While I wouldn't call it cheating I know I'd be pretty pissed if this "tactic" were to cost me really big MP game battle.

It's a pretty lame tactic IMHO, but some people will do anything to win *shrugs*.

[K]

I consider the "Attack Commander" and "Fire Mage" to be the natural right of Blood and Nature nations.

Even then, I don't consider it even an exploit.

Consider:
1. You need bad luck to even get a Bogus event
2. You need to build a specialized posse of mages equiped with Penetration items to have a decent chance of getting Bogus
3. The commands aren't that effective in SP or MP since even with items boosting Precision the chance to hit a SPECIFIC target placed at the rear of an army with a Fire command is very small, just like attacking a commander with a small amount of chaff on Guard Commander means that you don't get near that commander before other units take them out.
4. The Devs could make it almost impossible to charm Bogus and get the command by simply adding some high HP chaff to the Bogus event, or just increasing Bogus's MR. This could have been done in any of the many patches they have done.

Thats not counting an actual patch that codes the command out of player hands.

Oh, and as far as I can tell its not on the buglist, so its not even an exploit or a bug despite being a well known feature

[Velusion]

K said:
4. The Devs could make it almost impossible to charm Bogus and get the command by simply adding some high HP chaff to the Bogus event, or just increasing Bogus's MR. This could have been done in any of the many patches they have done.




*rolls eyes* The devs could have fixed the other bazillion minor bugs easily too... I guess all of those are intended?

It's called prioritization. As you pointed out it is very difficult to use this strategy (you have to get lucky), so I'm sure they don't feel the urge to "fix" it when there are other, larger bugs to worry about.

...but saying it isn't an exploit because the devs never fixed it is faulty reasoning.

Now if you show me a post where the devs said something like "We want this to be a part of the game..." then I'll agree that there is nothing fishy about it and simply write it off as retarded game design...

Right now it smacks of a minor bug that was never fixed because because it was deemed that there are more important problems to address.

All that said I'll allow it in my games - simply because it isn't on edi's list and I'm too lazy to upkeep a separate list.

[Sombre]

I don't think it's cheating, I just think anyone who uses a tactic like this is lame and I wouldn't be tempted to play more games with them.

I'm sure they realise how lame it is when they do it.

[Sensori]

Ironhawk said:

Well, its been around since the Dom2 days and the devs are aware of it... but still no changes to how it works in all that time.

So what does that mean?



It means that it's a mechanic from the times of Dominions *1* that just hasn't been changed for one reason or another. Probably due to the priorization thing people have been talking about.

Personally, I think that abusing it is lame and completely out of the realm of D3. It's an ancient thing from the olden days when it was the norm which should've been removed ages ago, but hasn't been. This sort of reminds me of bugs (even exploits) for which people have been banned for that have been in Anarchy Online from nearly the start and are only now being fixed (after 6 years of the game being in existence). The major difference between Dominions and AO in this field however is that FunCom has a lot more people working on their game.

Yeah. It's a relic from a time when you could make limitless amounts of elemental kings and queens (sort of like Tartarians of those days, except you could make craploads of actually good freespawn stuff too), devils of all sorts, gem hoarding items were cheap, wishing for Doom Horrors and having armies of them was possible and when Arcane Nexus was truly awesome (those two were prolly in D2 still, though)... Ahh, those were the days.

/ramble

[Aezeal]

It's explotation of a but IMHO and in most games/settings/MPthingies that is not the same a cheating but it usually IS punished the same as cheating and frowned upon nearly as much.

Having said that I think one should not use it in MP games

[Edratman]

I agree wholeheartedly with Aezeal.

It is an exploitation, not cheating. It is an action that is attainable within the game programming and not an external influence or prohibited by any rule other than consensus opinion. And since it is a known carryover from root/parent programing, it is difficult to consider it a bug, maybe a flaw in the programming, but not a bug.

As I read the thread, this exploitation apparently would only be known to Dom1/Dom2 veterans, and probably just a portion of them. It sounds devestating, but extremely unlikely and very difficult to achieve. It is available to only a few nations or specific pretender builds, but what powerful effect isn't.

Just my opinion.

[Kristoffer O]

I like the fact that the VIsitors, Bogus and his merry men, have the ability to target commanders.

I think it can be fun in an SP game to get hold of these ancient tactical skills. The older the better (in accordance with the creed of most new religious movements). These are dom-ppp survivals and ancient to boot.

I think it would be naughty to use these orders in MP, unless all players agreed to their eventual use.

I think it would be fun if assassins were given limited access to these orders.

[Burnsaber]

Kristoffer O said:
I think it would be fun if assassins were given limited access to these orders.



Yeah, if it were made so that you can't copy orders into a unit unless he is actually allowed to do them (this would also stop yuo from accidentally scripting fire spells on a water mage.. etc), that would be extremely cool.

You know all those leadership 80-120 national commanders who really can't do anything that indie commanders couldn't do for cheaper (ferrying troops)? They're supposed to do be "tactical geniuses extraordinaire". Why not allow them to see with their tactical genius who are the opposing commanders/mages and challenge them in the battlefield?

[Kristoffer O]

We have speculated on the reverse. Disallowing some orders on lousy commanders, but that was a while ago, and will probably not appear in the forseeable future.

[Edratman]

Kristoffer O said:
We have speculated on the reverse. Disallowing some orders on lousy commanders, but that was a while ago, and will probably not appear in the forseeable future.



Sorry KO, but I cannot fathom the logic or reasoning behind the disallowing some orders on lousy commanders. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

[Meglobob]

Edratman said:

Kristoffer O said:
We have speculated on the reverse. Disallowing some orders on lousy commanders, but that was a while ago, and will probably not appear in the forseeable future.



Sorry KO, but I cannot fathom the logic or reasoning behind the disallowing some orders on lousy commanders. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif



Surely the reasoning is obvious...they are lousy commanders... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Velusion]

Kristoffer O said:
I think it would be naughty to use these orders in MP, unless all players agreed to their eventual use.




Thats good enough for me to ban the practice on games that I host.

[Aezeal]

and right you are http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

I guess you only mean the copying though.. using it with units that actually have the order themselves isn't morally wrong I think (and seems to be the general consensus)

[Ironhawk]

You know, I was begining to support the "dont use Bogus orders" camp... But then I thought back to QM's point about archer decoying and there are some disturbing parallels. People are arguing here that you shouldnt use the Bogus commands because it was the intent of the devs to remove them from the game.

But clearly the devs did not remove those commands. And then you take the concept of archer decoying. The devs clearly tried to remove this tactic from the game by crippling the morale of small squads. But yet the tactic persists and no one really gripes about how it is an exploit of the archer targeting AI. How can you explain the imbalance? Will people start playing games with decoying banned?

[quantum_mechani]

Those aren't the only fuzzy areas either. For instance, abusing the sickle whose crop is pain with an ally, to result in a higher death gem income than well of misery. Or using quickness with magic items for double spell casting.

[Aezeal]

could I get the basics on archer decoying?

[quantum_mechani]

Very simple, take 1-2 units, put them in a group by themselves, in the very front and center. Put the rest of your stuff slightly behind and to the sides. Enemy archers will target the decoys until the decoys die or go out of range.

[Velusion]

Ironhawk said:
And then you take the concept of archer decoying. The devs clearly tried to remove this tactic from the game by crippling the morale of small squads. But yet the tactic persists and no one really gripes about how it is an exploit of the archer targeting AI. How can you explain the imbalance? Will people start playing games with decoying banned?



I've never thought archer decoying was unintended.

Could you point me to a threat where the devs said archer targeting isn't working correctly?

[Edratman]

quantum_mechani said:
Very simple, take 1-2 units, put them in a group by themselves, in the very front and center. Put the rest of your stuff slightly behind and to the sides. Enemy archers will target the decoys until the decoys die or go out of range.



What a brilliant idea! I can see how it works. Not a cheat by any means, but definately an exploit. I can't believe I have not even seen it mentioned in the 9 months I've been following this forum.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

[Ironhawk]

Wow, seriously Velusion? Huh. I know players who have even quit dominions over the archer decoy exploit. I'm surprised to hear that you dont think it is one.

As for a thread about it, I don't have one handy no. It was discussed (along with several other tactics commonly used in MP play) during the beta. And IIRC the "small squads morale rule" was put in to try and address it. Tho I think the most popular option to address it was Fire Closest/Fire Largest. Unfortunately, that wasnt accepted.

[Ironhawk]

Edratman said:
What a brilliant idea! I can see how it works. Not a cheat by any means, but definately an exploit. I can't believe I have not even seen it mentioned in the 9 months I've been following this forum.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif



Heh. Thats because the tactic is SO COMMON in mp play as to not require mentioning http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif What surprises me is that you havent seen someone use it against you.

[Shovah32]

Edratman said:

quantum_mechani said:
Very simple, take 1-2 units, put them in a group by themselves, in the very front and center. Put the rest of your stuff slightly behind and to the sides. Enemy archers will target the decoys until the decoys die or go out of range.



What a brilliant idea! I can see how it works. Not a cheat by any means, but definately an exploit. I can't believe I have not even seen it mentioned in the 9 months I've been following this forum.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif



It probably wasn't mentioned because (atleast for me) it was considered common knowledge - although I could be wrong.

[Xietor]

I do not think using exploits is common in mp games. In my 40 or so mp games, I have had the attack commander exploit used against me 1 time.

Some people on this forum remind me of players in WOW and EQ that exploited bugs to level their characters, then when caught, cried because their characters were deleted. Many of these players argued that they did not consider "whatever" to be an exploit. Those arguments fell on deaf ears.

Just because a bug exists within the programing of a game does not make it "right" to exploit it.

In any event I am glad the matter is resolved.

[quantum_mechani]

As nice as it is to be able to see things in black and white, the world, and even the dominions world, is a messy place. Even assuming the issue is 'resolved' (i.e., all future use of the tactic that has not been explicitly allowed is considered cheating), that doesn't really answer the question of what qualifies as an unacceptable exploit, and moves the line to much fuzzier place.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I thought the archer decoy was common knowledge as well.
It's one reason to break your archers into squads- you shouldn't always fire closest. The targeting of 'fire none' can be handy.

I sometimes put some tough units in the rear, instead of my mages, so attack rear commands don't quite go as planned. I often have to deal with short range spells, so sometimes I even have my mages in the frontline, with a small bodyguard. Not often, but sometimes.

[Xietor]

The answer QM, to your question is this: if you think what you are planning to do is questionable, post on the game thread and ask the other players if it is acceptable.

In Alpaca, Valerius captured the Dark Knight, and posted
the question as to whether it would be proper to copy the commands and use them on other commanders. The other players informed him it was an exploit-and he should refrain from doing it. But he was thanked by everyone for his honesty.

If in doubt-ask. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

[quantum_mechani]

That is not a very satisfactory definition. First of all, it doesn't really measure what is most exploitive, only what people are most accustomed too. For instance, people are very unlikely to outlaw archer decoying, not due to any particular judgement about it's abusiveness, but simply because people are so accustomed to using it. Further, even if it was decided exploitive, it would be almost unenforceable since it's impossible to say if that smallish group of units near the front is actually a decoy.

On top of that, it assumes a basic intuition of what would be considered an exploit, which implies another definition.

[Chris_Byler]

I thought archer decoying only worked if the archers were explicitly scripted to fire closest - if you leave them on AI (or fire none) they'll ignore close groups that are too small to be worthwhile.

If that's the way it works then I think it should stay - if their God orders them to fire at the closest unit, they'll do so even if it's two militiamen.

[Xietor]

As for decoys, that is not an exploit. When a tactic is listed in the strategy guide that you buy with the game, you are assured that that conduct is not an exploit.

[quantum_mechani]

Cris: It usually works on default order archers too.

Xietor: I doubt if IW did more than skim most the strategy entries in the manual. And archer decoying was in fact a known issue that there were attempts to resolve.

[Ironhawk]

Xietor said:
As for decoys, that is not an exploit. When a tactic is listed in the strategy guide that you buy with the game, you are assured that that conduct is not an exploit.



This comment is completely at odds with my experience in the beta test. IMO, archer decoying is an exploit of the targetting AI. That fact is brought even more to bear by the efforts of the devs to remove it. Its just so commonly used that no one wants to paste the "exploit" label on it, unlike the situation of the bogus orders.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Does archer decoying still work if you have fire none orders, or does it only work when you're set to fire closest?

[Saint_Dude]

What about exploits that are unobservable on the battlefield?

Specifically, I am thinking about using Telestic Animates to reanimate undead. But I am sure there are others.

[Tuidjy]

As far as I am concerned, the game host can stipulate any house rules he wishes
before the game has started. It's the players choice to join after all. Once the
game is on, and players have invested some time in it, it is too late to forbid
anything that is not a clear abuse of a bug. I think that setting decoys for
archers is just fine. So is scripting Bogus to attack commanders. Copying his
orders looks fishy to me, but I would not vote to exclude it, even if I weren't
the one who usually ends being visited by him and his friends.

[quantum_mechani]

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
Does archer decoying still work if you have fire none orders, or does it only work when you're set to fire closest?

It works with no order archers too.

[jutetrea]

I think items like re-animating dead with a statue are just a flavor of whatever nation gets that ability. I might summon priestly "goody" statues, they summon nasty dark zombie creating statues. Shrug.

IMO things like bogus's band of merry men are something that can happen to anyone. Capture and atainment of any of the units is a spoil of war, a specific bonus to those with the right paths (or that spend the effort to get into those paths, any nation has at least the potential), blood/nature only? Enslave mind/GoR work? Seduction? Using the associated orders are again a spoil of war, as K.O. said, kind of like new training as a reward. And its not really easy.

Fire mages isn't that powerful, nice if it works, but not more powerful then the right spell. Attack commander is a bit different, there are so many weak mages/ferries sitting in the back that the payoff could be significant. I'm still thinking that payoff should only be significant once, then its just another aspect to deal with like various nasty battle spell capability or a nasty SC/item combo.

Again, IMO - the archer decoy is actually the worst of the bunch as it takes advantage of something the player has the least control over - AI. Yes there are methods of dealing with it (changing orders being the easiest), but it can have significant initial impact as well.

I also find it ironic that some can declaim something as inherently exploitable when so much of the game is exploitable. I think soul drain/master enslave is exploitable - what are you really going to do against it? Darkness? Has a counter..but pretty nasty for a reasonably common enchant. Arrow fend against my archer army? Nothing I can do. Storm against my flyers, etc, etc... there are tons of things that can be considered exploits in specific situations - you can do something I can't counter or that the developers didn't anticipate. That's my definition of an exploit...and I'm assuming there are plenty of definitions. One of the reasons I find the game both fantastic and occasionally frustrating. So many things to do, nasty combos and such... but still enough freedom to TRY to find an answer.

[Xietor]

"Using the associated orders are again a spoil of war, as K.O. said, kind of like new training as a reward. And its not really easy."

Fortunately Ko's opinion trumps all. The issue is settled. Move along citizens.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Well, juterea, I haven't done a thorough survey of reanimation, but here's my experiences with ea ctis and Yomi. I've come to the conclusion that reanimation is tied directly to whether a unit is undead or demon.

Yomi - Demon Priest (human): No
Yomi - Oni General (demon, h0+3) Prophet: Yes
Yomi - Dai Oni (demon, h1): yes
Yomi - Hannya (hannya, h0+3) Prophet: yes
Yomi - Telsestic Animate (astral summon h2): no
Ctis - High Priest: No
Ctis - Undead Lizard Chariot hero: yes
Ctis - Bane Lord (undead) Prophet: Yes.

[quantum_mechani]

That overlooks the nations (like ME Ermor) who get reanimation for all priests.

[Lingchih]

Umm. What is the counter against Darkness. Sorry to get off topic, but I've always wondered, and have had my *** kicked by it a couple of times now.

[quantum_mechani]

Solar brilliance.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Depends upon your enemy and nation. If you've got astral magic, Solar Brilliance will clear it right up for you.

If you've got fire, Purgatory will be the counter you use against Ermor.

If facing Agartha as Ctis or Caelum, Quagmire/Grip of Winter won't counter, but will be quite tough on them. If they're asleep, you're going to hit ALL the time, and nightvision races rarely have exceptional attack/def scores. An extra bit of fatigue may be of some help.

If you're Abysia, and your opponent is using Darkness to make all your spells miss, you'll have to settle for Combustion, Blindness, Conflagration, Rage, Hydrophobia, Incinerate, or other precision one hundred spells.

[jutetrea]

Xietor said:
"Using the associated orders are again a spoil of war, as K.O. said, kind of like new training as a reward. And its not really easy."

Fortunately Ko's opinion trumps all. The issue is settled. Move along citizens.



There you go talking in absolutes again. Its not settled. Unless the functionality is completely removed from the game it is a viable ability. If the game host bans it at the start of a game, no problem. If the players (and/or host) agree to its use, no problem. Any game can have house rules.

For those nations that can have indy priests re-animate, I'd rather have the 5 gems instead of the 50g - usually. For those that can't, it might need a house ruling although I don't have the experience with it to say how powerful it is.

[sum1lost]

Lingchih said:
Umm. What is the counter against Darkness. Sorry to get off topic, but I've always wondered, and have had my *** kicked by it a couple of times now.



*wink*

[Xietor]

1. Use undead or demon troops is one counter to darkness.

2.Script your mages to cast spells that have 100 percent precision-they still hit 100 percent in darkness. drain life, charm, frozen heart etc.

3. Equip your mages with items that cast spells that have 100 percent precision. herald lance, drain life staff.

4. cast battlefield spells like wraithful skies( along with storm warriors), rain of stones etc that can kill off the enemy troops.

5. buy indies with dark vision-shamblers, atlantean militia etc.

6. aoe spells

7. Assassinate mages that are casting darkness-earth attack, mind hunt, manifestation, wings of monkey, vengeance of the dead.

8. burn up his gems by casting ghost riders before the battle.

[Tuidjy]

I absolutely do not think it is settled. I will use the orders on Bogus and his
friends, in any game which does not explicitly state that it is not allowed.

[K]

I don't even think its an issue considering how easy it is to counter these abilities, like:

Fire Mage: Wear an item with Air Shield, or just put decent armor on your mages or put a few mages with good armor slightly up front. This is the same thing one does when someone uses the normal Fire Rear Command against you.

Attack Commanders: Put chaff around your commanders. When the attackers fly over, they die from regular missiles or magic or even your chaff's attackers.

Heck, when was the last time you lost anything to Bogus and his friends? Except for the turn he appears, I never take losses against him, regardless of the nation I'm using.


Considering that its far easier to kill commanders simply by getting a troll king and casting Earthquake over and over, or casting the Fire spell that hits the whole battlefield, or casting Foul Vapors, or Wrathful Skies, or any of the many other many spells that kill commanders and mages easily, I don't know why people are tripping.

I basically think that some people are always willing to call someone else's good tactic or advantage an exploit. Considering that some people swear that clamming and fever fetishes are a cheat, and Arcane Nexus is gamebreaking, and Utterdark is unplayable, and blood magic is for power gamers, and undead reanimation is unfair, and SCs are broken....people say these kinds of things all the time about just about everything.....and I just don't give them any credit.

[Lingchih]

quantum_mechani said:
Solar brilliance.



Ahh. I see, I see. Literally.

[Velusion]

Ironhawk said:
Wow, seriously Velusion? Huh. I know players who have even quit dominions over the archer decoy exploit. I'm surprised to hear that you dont think it is one.

As for a thread about it, I don't have one handy no. It was discussed (along with several other tactics commonly used in MP play) during the beta. And IIRC the "small squads morale rule" was put in to try and address it. Tho I think the most popular option to address it was Fire Closest/Fire Largest. Unfortunately, that wasnt accepted.



Isn't there a paragraph in the manual stating that this is a good tactic to use? Why would anyone ever think that something described explicitly in the manual is an exploit?

[Velusion]

K said:
I basically think that some people are always willing to call someone else's good tactic or advantage an exploit. Considering that some people swear that clamming and fever fetishes are a cheat, and Arcane Nexus is gamebreaking, and Utterdark is unplayable, and blood magic is for power gamers, and undead reanimation is unfair, and SCs are broken....people say these kinds of things all the time about just about everything.....and I just don't give them any credit.



Complaining about things being unbalanced is not the same as saying something is an exploit. All the things you mention are in the rules and condoned by the devs. People ***** about them, but they don't consider them "cheating". Exploits break the written rules and are not condoned by the devs.

[Xietor]

"I absolutely do not think it is settled. I will use the orders on Bogus and his friends, in any game which does not explicitly state that it is not allowed."

No one has suggested you cannot use the orders on the charmed mobs themselves-it is copying them to the rest of your commanders/units that is the exploit. If I was unclear, it may be because I missed a post here or there. But I think Ko and LLamabeast were clear on that point.

It is the use of the copy order command to bring back the overpowered command that is the exploit. I agree that there should be some reward for capturing bogus and his friends.
And that reward is using them as they are.

[Edratman]

The archer decoy is common knowledge to MP players. Alas and alack, I am solely a SP.

[llamabeast]

As an aside, does anyone know where the word "mob" comes from?

(I believe it's used in e.g. WoW to mean 'enemy', and there doesn't have to be a group of them as in the normal sense of a mob).

[Xietor]

"Mob" predates WOW. It was used in the States in EQ back in the 90's. It refers to a creature controlled by the game's AI.

Not sure of its origination, but given the vocabulary of many 15 year old players of the game, that may never be known.

[LoloMo]

The first time I heard the word "mob" used was around 20 years ago, during the days of ftp "multi-user dungeons" (mud) games. "Mob" refers to computer controlled "mobiles", which are units that move from room to room.

[Dhaeron]

Yep, that's where it originated. Abbreviation of mobile or mobile object. It's much older than wow or other modern mmorpgs.

[llamabeast]

Ah, thanks guys, good info.

[Kristoffer O]

They doesn't have the tactical, strategical or practical sense to order their fellows to do stuff in an orderly fashion. Works much like headmasters at schools, CEO's and other bosses. Most can make the organization around, but some are quite lousy at getting people work as a unit with a common goal.

In game terms they might just panic and shout 'fire', instead of telling their subordinates to 'fire at their incoming knights'.

Seems reasonable to me. Most mages have low leadershgip values to represent that they are unused to giving order during stressful situations such as battles.


Edit: Hmm, this was an answer to a post some pages back about lousy commanders. Didnt realize there was so many posts after that one.

[Aezeal]

LOl this thread is going nowhere last 20 or more posts.. only the die hards on a certain stand post and they won't agree with eachother anyway.. lol

let the thread die pplz http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Baalz]

I think trying to "ban" "exploits" is generally an exercise in frustration and futility. With all due respect, what does it matter what the devs intended? We're not playing the game they intended, we're playing the game they made. The devs are not some infallible source of inspired wisdom, and I happen to like the many, many non-obvious tricks you can pull by leveraging combinations of things that in all probability didn't occur to the original designers. QM has laid out several good examples, but heck trying to define what is "good and clever strategies" and "exploiting unintended consequences" is absolutely inane - there is so much complexity to this game that I'd guess *most* of the more subtle interactions were not explicitly intended - they threw in every cool thing they could think of, then removed/tweaked stuff for balance. Voila, out comes a phenomenally complex and nuanced game that a bunch of hardcore strategy nerds can play for years and years *because* there are so many neat little tricks you can pull out of the millions of ways you can combine things.

I can see banning the mists of deception exploit not because it's unintended but because its game breaking. This Bogus thing is not even close. I'll also try to:

ritual of rebirth the genie
cast vengeance of the dead on SCs until they auto rout
deploy every kind of decoy I can to fool the targeting AI
leverage every forge bonus I can wrangle to forge gem producing items
teleport a thug in prior to a big battle to try and make the enemy expend their gems before the main event
set my raiders to hide rather than attack so that the stealth is resolved before any magic retaliation
use fear to get enemies to route from an assassination
slap boots of quickness on every banner of the damned I ever forge
Fire and flee with death blessed archers
use the fact that globals (AC, AN, etc) take effect one turn before anyone can react
double/triple bless rush
use diplomacy and trade to my advantage -leverage my allies to help with things like harvesting gems from the sickle, pool gems for globals, gang up on weaker nations, etc.
order my communions so that the slaves can cast spells and give them banners of the damned

I do that not because I'm a prick who will do anything to win, but because that's the game I'm playing. The whole point of this game is to find clever tricks (read strategies). If something breaks the game experience by being too exploitive, I expect the devs to fix that (and they do a great job), but pretty much if it's in the game its fair play.

[Reverend Zombie]

Baalz said:
I think trying to "ban" "exploits" is generally an exercise in frustration and futility. ... If something breaks the game experience by being too exploitive, I expect the devs to fix that (and they do a great job), but pretty much if it's in the game its fair play.



I'm firmly in this camp, but could not have phrased it as eloquently. Nice job.

[Meglobob]

Reverend Zombie said:

Baalz said:
I think trying to "ban" "exploits" is generally an exercise in frustration and futility. ... If something breaks the game experience by being too exploitive, I expect the devs to fix that (and they do a great job), but pretty much if it's in the game its fair play.



I'm firmly in this camp, but could not have phrased it as eloquently. Nice job.



I 3rd this!

[Velusion]

Baalz said:
I can see banning the mists of deception exploit not because it's unintended but because its game breaking.



Its wholly subjective as to what "breaks" the game or not. If (and yes, I know it's extremely unlikely) the bogus trick were to cause me to lose a very important battle(s) in a game I spent hours on - then yea I would say it breaks the game.

Any game needs a definitive source to say "Ok this is over the line" and traditionally this has always been the creators, otherwise you might as well say ANY exploit is ok to use because no one will ever agree what is game breaking.

Someone could easily argue that the mists of deception exploit is not really an exploit. Indeed, from a rules perspective the bogus trick is WORSE from my point of view because it specifically contradicts explicit wording in the rulebook, while MoD does exactly what it says it does - no contradictions, no explicit rule breaking.

What you are advocating is anarchy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif. Its the same sort of stuff that ultimately ruins many MMORPGs.


Baalz said:
With all due respect, what does it matter what the devs intended?



It doesn't matter what they intended, however it does matter what they say is acceptable because I'd rather THEY determine what is "game-breaking" rather than player "X" who might have a vested interest.

At least it does in my games.

[Xietor]

I think what Velusion and llamabeast has done-which is ban the copy attacl commander order on the games they host is a good thing.

Everyone should be playing by the same rules. Since it is banned on games they host, you know that going into the game. if you want a free for all anything goes game, obviously you avoid games hosted on those servers.

The person hosting the game can set any parameters he likes-banning arcane nexus for instance. As long as it is done up front, you agree to abide by the rules when you sign up to play the game.

[Ironhawk]

I 4th! If its physically in the game and not banned by a house rule, then its fair to use.

[Cor2]

My definition of an exploit is a little diffrent, i guess.
1 Does it greatly unbalance the game?
2 Was it NOT intended to be used that way?
3 Is it rarely used, usually by very experince players?
4 And most importantly does it signifigantly detract from the fun of the game?

To me the bogus "exploit" answers yes to all my conditions so it is an exploit.

The archer baiting, for me is
1 no 2 yes 3 no 4 no

So its not an exploit in my book.

Mists answers
1yes 2yes 3yes 4 yes
So mists is a exploit to me.

[Xietor]

I will add if you need to use exploits to win,"maybe poker just ain't your game."

Doc Holliday: Why Ike, whatever do you mean? Maybe poker's just not your game. I know! Let's have a spelling contest! ...

Tombstone http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[thejeff]

The problem with house rules is: can they change during a game?

I don't believe either the Bogus exploit or the MoD were explicitly banned at the start of most of either llamabeast's or Velusion's games. Now both have said they are.
Is it fair to change the house rules part way through the game? Is it fair not to ban a newly discovered problem?

[Velusion]

thejeff said:
The problem with house rules is: can they change during a game?

I don't believe either the Bogus exploit or the MoD were explicitly banned at the start of most of either llamabeast's or Velusion's games. Now both have said they are.
Is it fair to change the house rules part way through the game? Is it fair not to ban a newly discovered problem?



Per my rules (not allowed):
• Exploit known bugs on Edi’s bug list (see main forum sticky) or obvious bugs that aren't on Edi's list.

KO's announcement that he recommends it not be used in MP play without everyone's permission is enough for me to label it an "obvious bug".

[Xietor]

It is my opinion that it was always improper to use them. shrug. I think this discussion just confirmed the general consensus.

As I mentioned previously the issue was raised in the middle of Alpaca. Many very experienced players in that game, and everyone said you could not copy the orders of the dark knight over to other commanders. Not 1 player argued that it was proper.

[Ironhawk]

Xietor, I'm unclear how you can "confirm general consensus" out of a hotly debated thread with veteran players taking clear stands with good points on both sides of a line.

[Xietor]

Ironhawk, your opinion is obviously as valued as any other player. But I think more people, numerically, have agreed that it is an exploit. Add to that the 10 players in the Alpaca game. Then add to that the developer who made the game-who designed and balanced it.

While the issue was not laid out before Alpaca began, when the issue arose, the player properly brought the issue up and it was decided 10-0 that the order could not be copied to other commanders.

I only see 3-4 people saying they think "anything goes."

So when I say general consensus, I mean the majority of people that posted on the thread, with KO's opinion being decisive in my mind.

[Ironhawk]

Well, I'm too lazy to go back and count exactly how many are for and how many against. But I take the length and continued debate on the thread to mean that the issue is still contentious. As for KO's opinion being the end-all of the debate I totally disagree. The fact of his intent on the Bogus problem is almost insignificant when you compare it to the analogous problem of archer decoying. That was intended to be removed and yet people still use it commonly without anyone crying foul.

As to the question of changing house rules while a game is playing: I think you definitely need to be able to do so. But thejeff's point stands that it is unfair to change the rules out from underneath a player in mid-game. IMO, the only reasonable solution to changing house rules is to just vote it out in the thread and have the game host break ties.

[Edratman]

Kristoffer O said:
They doesn't have the tactical, strategical or practical sense to order their fellows to do stuff in an orderly fashion. Works much like headmasters at schools, CEO's and other bosses. Most can make the organization around, but some are quite lousy at getting people work as a unit with a common goal.

In game terms they might just panic and shout 'fire', instead of telling their subordinates to 'fire at their incoming knights'.

Seems reasonable to me. Most mages have low leadershgip values to represent that they are unused to giving order during stressful situations such as battles.


Edit: Hmm, this was an answer to a post some pages back about lousy commanders. Didnt realize there was so many posts after that one.



This is reply to my question because I could not figure out the logic of your statement where you considered limiting the commands of weak leaders. Your answer clears that up now.

We were talking about two different types of commanders. I was thinking "weak commanders" meant the military type with leadership 40 to 120, with one map movement, nothing special in hit points, armor etc, which aren't even good ferry captains. You were talking about mages and others with low unit leadership, around 10 or so as an example.

There are about 2 gazillion posts in between our exchanges so this probably will get hidden in the fog of forum.

[WonderLlama]

thejeff said:
The problem with house rules is: can they change during a game?

I don't believe either the Bogus exploit or the MoD were explicitly banned at the start of most of either llamabeast's or Velusion's games. Now both have said they are.
Is it fair to change the house rules part way through the game? Is it fair not to ban a newly discovered problem?


As I am playing Caelum one of those games (Mongoose), I'm betting I'd be the one to benefit most from the MoD exploit. But I wholly support it being banned.

I'd suggest that the only time it becomes a problem to ban something mid game is if someone has already spent a good deal of resources under the assumption it was legal. Which is not the case about 12 turns into a game, as is about when this came up in the Mongoose game. If someone has spent a lot of resources that become wasted because of a closed exploit, I'd suggest it be up to them to demonstrate that. If they can, than leave the exploit open until next game.

<edited because I realised the point was less specific than I thought.>

[Kristoffer O]

I don't want to be cited as a rule on how to play.

I might think it is rude to play the game in a way other players dissapprove of. Since players will alwys dissaprove of something it might be good to discuss house rules before a game starts. If house rules are changed along the line, I the players least offended by either course to yield. They will feel greater in the long run. The meek shall inherit the earth or whatever http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Baalz]

Velusion said:

Its wholly subjective as to what "breaks" the game or not. If (and yes, I know it's extremely unlikely) the bogus trick were to cause me to lose a very important battle(s) in a game I spent hours on - then yea I would say it breaks the game.
<snip>
It doesn't matter what they intended, however it does matter what they say is acceptable because I'd rather THEY determine what is "game-breaking" rather than player "X" who might have a vested interest.





By all means, play with whatever house rules you want - no Arcane Nexus, no tartarians, no clams, whatever you think makes the game more fun, I just think it's not only silly but unenforceable to ban "exploits". I listed over a dozen tricks that could arguably be called exploits above, and I'm sure somebody more clever than me could come up with dozens more. I think a trick which causes you to loose a couple important battles is not a good measure of something which breaks the game, it's a measure of someone who's using an effective strategy.

I guess my question is, why does this specific thing warrant special attention? As QM asserts, and I agree its not easy to use, and not game breaking. Compare it to other things in the game which give you a significant advantage...would you rather capture bogus and steal his script or
keep the FotA up
be the only one who can forge artifacts for several turns
get a 60% reduction blood magic site
find a province with enchantresses early on
etc.

Bogus (if you happen to be in a position to take advantage of him) doesn't even come close.

[thejeff]

There's a difference between a good strategy that's an intentional part of the game and taking advantage of something that isn't supposed to work.

Bogus isn't anywhere near as good as any number of other strategies, but that's not the distinction. No one's saying we should ban all the best strategies, just the ones that are based around bugs.

How effective it is isn't the issue.

[Baalz]

I was addressing Velusion's assertion (paraphrased) that this exploit is a problem because it's game breaking.

As far as banning it because it's based around a bug, that's the part that I think is silly and unenforceable. Even if (as in this case) you have direct feedback of what a dev's opinion is I'd assert that so much of this game's dynamic was not explicitly designed that its pretty silly to blacklist it based on KO's comment that it's a bit underhanded. My point is that this whole game is about finding underhanded stuff to throw at your opponent.

[archaeolept]

hmmm... i said that i considered it an exploit... but, unless it were explicitly banned as a house rule (which i wouldn't bother doing, as it is so rare and not really that important), I wouldn't raise that much of a fuss... other than being much more likely to attack the perpetrator http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

That's the best way to deal with it. If someone does something other players consider exploitative or a bit underhanded, just hand his *** to him on a platter - or at least say hello w/ a dozen rain of toads ;p

[Aezeal]

what exactly is the mist of deception exploit?

[Shovah32]

I think it's that even when you have no units on the battlefield(ie: send in one mage to cast the spell and they retreat after casting) it continues to spawn troops every round of battle, forcing the enemy to auto-rout.

[Dedas]

pretty deceptive...

[Folket]

You retreat the mage casting mist of deception. That way your opponent can't make the spell and end and will have to fight new units every turn.

When defending you will win the battle at turn 50 when the opponent retreats. If attacking he will have to fight the illusions for 75 turns.

If you use this spell togather with a damage enchantment such as wrathful skies the enchantment will strike your opponent for 75 turns or til they retreat. That way you may destroy huge armies without commiting much to battle.

[Velusion]

Baalz said:

Velusion said:

Its wholly subjective as to what "breaks" the game or not. If (and yes, I know it's extremely unlikely) the bogus trick were to cause me to lose a very important battle(s) in a game I spent hours on - then yea I would say it breaks the game.
<snip>
It doesn't matter what they intended, however it does matter what they say is acceptable because I'd rather THEY determine what is "game-breaking" rather than player "X" who might have a vested interest.





By all means, play with whatever house rules you want - no Arcane Nexus, no tartarians, no clams, whatever you think makes the game more fun, I just think it's not only silly but unenforceable to ban "exploits". I listed over a dozen tricks that could arguably be called exploits above, and I'm sure somebody more clever than me could come up with dozens more. I think a trick which causes you to loose a couple important battles is not a good measure of something which breaks the game, it's a measure of someone who's using an effective strategy.




But then you support banning the MoD "exploit".

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Velusion]

See the beef I have with the people that say "anything goes" is that they say that until something "game-breaking" comes along. How do they know it's game breaking? Well because "they" insist it is.

In other words - you have no consistency and you begin to sound hypocritical... "Oh we can't ban things! It's futile! Why bother! (p.s. except for the MoD exploit)"

We can argue to the moon about what bug is game breaking and what bug isn't but in the end of the day the only way to have a consistent stance is to rely on one source to make rulings. As someone who runs multiple games I'm not going to create a booklet of what is or is not a valid bug. I'm going to go by the defacto standard - edi's buglist and the devs.

Of course people can create any house rules they want for any game.

[Reverend Zombie]

Velusion said:

In other words - you have no consistency and you begin to sound hypocritical... "Oh we can't ban things! It's futile! Why bother! (p.s. except for the MoD exploit)"

... I'm going to go by the defacto standard - edi's buglist and the devs.




Why is it inconsistent or hypocritical to have a higher tolerance for what ought to be banned than you do?

[K]

Considering how weak Air magic is with its high Path, Research, and gem costs, nerfing even an unintended benefit coded into the Mists of Deception spell is unfair and out of line.

Play the game as coded and patched. I never whined about the how powerful the Glamour races used to be, and I didn't whine when they got nerfed. Even obvious mistakes like the Black Dog Man summoning spell mix-up are just part of the game, and if you want to mod a variation of the game it is made to do that.

Just don't expect people to want to play your modded game. I'm playing this game instead of a tabletop game because I don't want to argue about rules.

[sum1lost]

K said:
Considering how weak Air magic is with its high Path, Research, and gem costs, nerfing even an unintended benefit coded into the Mists of Deception spell is unfair and out of line.

Play the game as coded and patched. I never whined about the how powerful the Glamour races used to be, and I didn't whine when they got nerfed. Even obvious mistakes like the Black Dog Man summoning spell mix-up are just part of the game, and if you want to mod a variation of the game it is made to do that.

Just don't expect people to want to play your modded game. I'm playing this game instead of a tabletop game because I don't want to argue about rules.



When the developers say that MoD is an exploit, thats a sign that saying it is acceptabl is so much nonsense.

[Reverend Zombie]

sum1lost said:
When the developers say that MoD is an exploit, thats a sign that saying it is acceptabl is so much nonsense.



But what about archer decoys?

[Baalz]

K said:
I'm playing this game instead of a tabletop game because I don't want to argue about rules.



This is my fundamental objection that I touched on before, I don't have a lot of patience for trying to figure out what "acceptable" tactics are - if I can do it within the context of the game then it's fair play. If there's something that breaks the game it should be patched and by all means make a house rule not to do it until the patch is released (which is my position on MoD), but blacklisting everything that was "unintended" or "bugged" seems likely to accomplish nothing other than constant cries of "cheater!". There isn't much more frustrating than after the fact having somebody come invalidate a strategy you did which you didn't realize was blacklisted. I really, honestly, don't see any difference at all between clipping a script from Bogus and all the "tricks" I list above.

That being said, I understand your position Vel and don't mean to sound like I'm disparaging the great job you do adminning your servers, just offering my opinion on this topic on a slow day at work.

[Velusion]

Reverend Zombie said:
Why is it inconsistent or hypocritical to have a higher tolerance for what ought to be banned than you do?



It's inconsistent and hypocritical to say "anything goes" and then start tacking on exceptions as you see fit.

[Velusion]

Baalz said:
That being said, I understand your position Vel and don't mean to sound like I'm disparaging the great job you do adminning your servers, just offering my opinion on this topic on a slow day at work.



I know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I'm just talking to pass the time as well.

[Velusion]

K said:
Considering how weak Air magic is with its high Path, Research, and gem costs, nerfing even an unintended benefit coded into the Mists of Deception spell is unfair and out of line.

Play the game as coded and patched. I never whined about the how powerful the Glamour races used to be, and I didn't whine when they got nerfed. Even obvious mistakes like the Black Dog Man summoning spell mix-up are just part of the game, and if you want to mod a variation of the game it is made to do that.

Just don't expect people to want to play your modded game. I'm playing this game instead of a tabletop game because I don't want to argue about rules.



See I can see that point of view and accept it because it is consistent.

I do think it could end up making a game *unfun* in certain circumstances however.

As a side note - I play tabletop board games as a hobby (I've played hundreds of differnt ones over just these last couple years) and I don't see near the amount of arguments over boardgame rules than about computer games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Reverend Zombie]

Velusion said:

Reverend Zombie said:
Why is it inconsistent or hypocritical to have a higher tolerance for what ought to be banned than you do?



It's inconsistent and hypocritical to say "anything goes" and then start tacking on exceptions as you see fit.



There are judgment calls everywhere, I don't think they make anyone hypocritical.

You don't *really* ban everything on the bug list in your games, do you (is it even possible)?

Also, you ban some stuff that isn't on the bug list. You do this according to some standard you have, which is acceptable (& I enjoy playing in your games, and always abide by house rules).

If someone else's standard is "anything goes except for MoD, because it alone among bugs uniquely breaks the combat rout system" why is that hypocritical?

[sum1lost]

Reverend Zombie said:

sum1lost said:
When the developers say that MoD is an exploit, thats a sign that saying it is acceptable is so much nonsense.



But what about archer decoys?



What about archer decoys? Why would archer decoys being exploits have anything to do with Ks post? If the devs ruled it a bug/exploit, its pretty obvious it is. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to ask the question, to be honest.

That said, it would be nice if a link could be posted to the ruling on the matter, since I may have missed the post where the devs ruled it an exploit.

[Reverend Zombie]

sum1lost said:

Reverend Zombie said:

sum1lost said:
When the developers say that MoD is an exploit, thats a sign that saying it is acceptable is so much nonsense.



But what about archer decoys?



What about archer decoys? Why would archer decoys being exploits have anything to do with Ks post? If the devs ruled it a bug/exploit, its pretty obvious it is. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to ask the question, to be honest.



It's a counter to your argument. Devs think it's an exploit (see below), but everyone accepts it.


That said, it would be nice if a link could be posted to the ruling on the matter, since I may have missed the post where the devs ruled it an exploit.



From earlier in this thread:


Ironhawk said:
...I know players who have even quit dominions over the archer decoy exploit. I'm surprised to hear that you dont think it is one.

As for a thread about it, I don't have one handy no. It was discussed (along with several other tactics commonly used in MP play) during the beta. And IIRC the "small squads morale rule" was put in to try and address it. Tho I think the most popular option to address it was Fire Closest/Fire Largest. Unfortunately, that wasnt accepted.

[Velusion]

Reverend Zombie said:
There are judgment calls everywhere, I don't think they make anyone hypocritical.



K isn't being hypocritical, he is taking the position that "anything goes". I'm saying "whatever the devs say is bad is banned". Others however are standing upon a platform of espousing "anything goes" but then slipping in their own exceptions as they see fit. That leads to being inconsistent which in turns makes someone look hypocritical.



Reverend Zombie said:
You don't *really* ban everything on the bug list in your games, do you (is it even possible)?



Sure I do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif It's been like that for along time and listed in Velusion's game FAQs/Rules thread linked on every game. There really aren't that many actual *bugs* that can be exploited, so no one really notices or cares. There are also a select few exploits that can't be reasonably enforced so those are ignored - but not condoned. And it's not like I kick people off for using an exploit, I just give a warning, point to the first post in the game thread and have never had a problem after that.


Reverend Zombie said:
Also, you ban some stuff that isn't on the bug list. You do this according to some standard you have, which is acceptable (& I enjoy playing in your games, and always abide by house rules).



Hey I'm all for house rules that effect specific games (though I incorporate individual game rules into mods so you can't not abide by them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ). However "exploits" are never allowed in any the games I start.


Reverend Zombie said:
If someone else's standard is "anything goes except for MoD, because it alone among bugs uniquely breaks the combat rout system" why is that hypocritical?



That standard isn't hypocritical, but is that person prepared to keep that promise that "anything goes" no matter what game-breaking bug is discovered next month? If not.. then yea, it's hypocritical.

[Velusion]

Reverend Zombie said:

From earlier in this thread:


Ironhawk said:
...





I've asked for a link to a post where the devs said that anchor decoys were a "bug" or shouldn't be used...

The manual mentions it being an acceptable tactic.

Perhaps at one point during the beta archer decoys were considered bad, but I have seen no indication that the devs currently think anchor decoys are a problem that shouldn't be used.

I'll also add that personally - I don't have a problem with archer decoys. Never did.

[sum1lost]

Reverend Zombie said:

sum1lost said:

Reverend Zombie said:

sum1lost said:
When the developers say that MoD is an exploit, thats a sign that saying it is acceptable is so much nonsense.



But what about archer decoys?



What about archer decoys? Why would archer decoys being exploits have anything to do with Ks post? If the devs ruled it a bug/exploit, its pretty obvious it is. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to ask the question, to be honest.




It's a counter to your argument. Devs think it's an exploit (see below), but everyone accepts it.


Not really. Its only a counter if I accept it as a legitimate strategy.


That said, it would be nice if a link could be posted to the ruling on the matter, since I may have missed the post where the devs ruled it an exploit.



From earlier in this thread:


Ironhawk said:
...I know players who have even quit dominions over the archer decoy exploit. I'm surprised to hear that you dont think it is one.

As for a thread about it, I don't have one handy no. It was discussed (along with several other tactics commonly used in MP play) during the beta. And IIRC the "small squads morale rule" was put in to try and address it. Tho I think the most popular option to address it was Fire Closest/Fire Largest. Unfortunately, that wasnt accepted.




I saw that quote, but Ironhawk isn't a dev. While I see no reason to mistrust him, I'd like to see what the devs said on that actual ruling myself, if it is possible. Especially since it is in the strategy manual, so perhaps the descion was made to make it less effective and incorporate it into the game.

[Kristoffer O]

From a thematic point of view it feels ridiculous to have archers fire at three gyus up close, when there is a whole bunch of threatening archers firing at you from the enemy ranks.

I dislike the current possibility to place an arrow-magnet up front just to disable the first enemy arbalest volley, making them practically useless.

There is no easy fix tho the problem, but I think the targeting system is less intent on 'THE' closest nowdays. The order 'fire at - none' is less likely to target stray archers and can be used if you are expecting decoys.

[LoloMo]

Problem is, it is impossible to formulate a house rule to define archer decoys.

If you have 1000 troops, a squad of 50 troops up front is an archer decoy. Or is it? So how many troops up front would make it NOT an archer decoy?

If you have 5 troops, 3 soldiers in front is not an archer decoy. Or is it? How many troops up front would make it an archer decoy?

If your rule is 3 soldiers up front make a decoy, what about 4? 5? 6? What about 2 squads of 3?, what about 6 squads of 2? What about 4 squads of 5?

So when is it an archer decoy, and when is it chaff? One can argue all tactics employing chaff are actually archer decoy tactics.

See, even with the above posted two extremes, you can get a debate going on which is an archer decoy and which is not. What about all the situations that are less extreme? Who wants to define all the possibilities and work out all the gray areas?

Therefore you can not make a house rule banning archer decoys, and I have yet to play in an MP game where it is banned.

[archaeolept]

rules on archer decoys are impossible to enforce. its just an accepted part of the game; not out of desire, but necessity.

Maltrease had the best archer decoy set-up i've seen - in domII - a single unit in every second square, checkerboarded, for the whole front half of his battlefield deployment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

I was in awe, but i guess not ever desperate enough to ever mimic it ;p

after all, doing something extremely boring is a cost itself...

[Valandil]

That and they'd probably all run together after about three turns anyways...

[Jazzepi]

Kristoffer O said:
From a thematic point of view it feels ridiculous to have archers fire at three gyus up close, when there is a whole bunch of threatening archers firing at you from the enemy ranks.

I dislike the current possibility to place an arrow-magnet up front just to disable the first enemy arbalest volley, making them practically useless.

There is no easy fix tho the problem, but I think the targeting system is less intent on 'THE' closest nowdays. The order 'fire at - none' is less likely to target stray archers and can be used if you are expecting decoys.



I have a really simple solution. The targeting AI could just look at each squad that it's considering to fire upon for "fire closest" then the AI would compare the size of that squad to the size of the army, and possibly with other squads nearby. If the size of the squad they're firing at is found lacking RELATIVE to that of both the opposing army, and the alternate squads, then they would simply ignore the tiny squads up front.

I don't think this would be difficult to code. All you need to do is...

-Gather up all the targets within range
-Compare relative sizes of squads with those of the army they're with
-Select a target out of the available based on that information

Jazzepi

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Now, what if that tiny squad up front consists of wights? Do you still want to ignore?

On the other hand, if there are only say, 10 units out of a hostile hundred, and you have forty archers? Maybe cap the number of archers who can target those squares at 20 or 4 or some mathematically calculated percentage based on proportion of hostiles relative to number of friendly archers, and force the rest to target elsewhere.

Alternatively, factor something into the equation where if archers are split into two squads, they are more likely to target other squads?

Well... as I don't play archer races, I don't really care about archer decoying yet.

[LoloMo]

Or just add another command "Fire at Largest Squad". The archers preferentially target the most numerous squad.

Also, "Fire Middle", "Fire Rear", in addition to the "Fire Closest". The enemy half of the battlefield can be segmented into 9 sections. Archers would preferentially target an enemy squad in a section directly opposite its own. So an archer located in a lower section with "Fire Middle" orders would preferentially target an enemy squad in the Middle, Lower section of the enemy's side of the battlefield.

Probably easier to code too.

[Jazzepi]

I like the idea of a "fire at largest squad" using the AI firing the way I mentioned above.

Jazzepi

[sum1lost]

I do think that a screen is entirely thematic and valid, but if the game was not meant to encorporate them, then it wasn't meant to.

[Kristoffer O]

Archer screens are not unheard of. But they should be screens and not just three guys.

Shooting beyond the closest target is also something that is not very historic. Target closest should be the default for archers, but would worsen the single-unit-squad decoy tactics.

[fictionfan]

On a different note. I am playing a game where I have managed to charm the black knight. I did not know about the copy paste feature and I won't go into it. I would like to ask for suggections on how to use the black knight effectively. What sort of equipment to give him. I can forge everything in the game at this point.

[Gregstrom]

Impressive necro there...

The sword that banishes people it hits to Inferno looks like a natural choice, btw.

[Psycho]

Thanks for the necro, it was an interesting thread to read.