Battlefield spell + retreating?

[K]

DonCorazon said:
So you knew he was talking about MoD / retreating?

Yup. It was counted as part of the 7 out of 37.

[DonCorazon]

So I guess the point I am trying to make is that most people who have played the game know that MoD is one of the cheap battlefield combos Omni outlawed in Andean, as evidenced by the fact K read it and included MoD / retreating in that category when he compiled his stats.

IMHO MoD is part of the community knowledge, just as Omni referenced in his guidelines for Andean. But I think it makes sense to point it out at the start of a game cuz you never know who knows what and an MP game is a big time investment.

Also, I don't think people get cheezed at every effective tactic. On the contrary, i am always delighted to get schooled by effective tactics. I may lose a battle but it adds an arrow to my quiver for future games.

But if I were in a game where MoD-retreat was allowed, I would design my entire strategy to focus on it, including having a hard to kill pretender designed to teleport around and use that move. I don't think it would be fun and I guess the other guy would eventually use the same strategy.

Anyway, I am not going to belabor the point but I still look forward to someone posting a turn where they show how they stopped an MoD-retreat.

[Gandalf Parker]

I wasnt all that "ware" of MoD till this thread.

But wouldnt assassins be considered one answer for that?
Sure the same set of orders would kick in for the mage, but during an assassination isnt retreat equal to losing the battle?

[K]

DonCorazon said:
So I guess the point I am trying to make is that most people who have played the game know that MoD is one of the cheap battlefield combos Omni outlawed in Andean, as evidenced by the fact K read it and included MoD / retreating in that category when he compiled his stats.

I included it because it specifically said "battlefield spells" and I count MoD as a battlefield spell (The criteria I use is any spell that gets an icon on the top right of the battle screen when cast).

I was also being generous. For example, I included one game that said "no tricky stuff."

For whatever reason, only a small percentage of the community has a problem with it.

[DonCorazon]

K, It said "cheap battlefield" and I just don't understand how you can say only a small percentage of the community has a problem with it.
Most people who have been around the block know it is a game breaker.

Baalz said:
Yeah, as you can see from the sample in this thread there's a pretty wide variety of opinions as to what's fair game around quirks in the game, but the Mist of Deception exploit is pretty much about the only thing virtually everybody agrees is essentially cheating. Breaks the game and theres not really anything you can do about it....

Micah said:
The combo of Mists and a damaging battlefield enchant is pretty much just a flat-out bug exploit, and I wouldn't be keen on playing with someone that was abusing it as such.

vfb said:
Even just casting a battle enchantment and retreating the caster is exploiting a bug in the shortlist:

CBT Battlefield Enchantments Battlefield enchantments that affect the whole battlefield for the duration of the battle (e.g. Wrathful Skies, Darkness, Solar Brilliance etc) do not end when the mage who cast them leaves battlefield, even though they should.

Using this in combo with Mists of Deception is abusive, and it's explicitly banned in some games for that reason.

CUnknown said:
Yeah, cast and run is fine (even still I hope they change it), but it is fine for now.

But Mists of Deception is just plain sick and wrong!
It's just an exploit that needs to be fixed.

Jazzepi said:
I do agree with Tuidjy that Mist + whatever is a clear exploit. Personally I think that BE spells not ending with mages retreating/returning is a general exploit.
Jazzepi

[MaxWilson]

K said:
For whatever reason, only a small percentage of the community has a problem with it.

You used a rhetorical trick earlier and seem to have confused it into fact by this point. Quoted from earlier in the thread:

K said:

How? Since it's not written, there is no way of knowing!

*snip*

Considering that it takes seconds to write the rules down, I think the fact that 30 out of 37 games on the front page (meaning the most current games) don't have rules like that is pretty devastating evidence.

The community has spoken.

Therefore:

K said:
For whatever reason, only a small percentage of the community explicitly bans it, so I infer that only a small percentage of the community has a problem with it. But they could be like llamabeast and have an implicit ban--the only way to know is to poll the hosts of all 37 games.

Or would you prefer to continue begging the question?

-Max

[K]

Actually, the only way of knowing for sure is polling all the players of DominionsIII, both those playing in current games in the Multiplayer forum and those not. Just because the host of a certain game thinks it's bad doesn't mean that all of the players in that game think it's wrong.

That being said, based on the representative sample it is easy to draw a conclusion that the vast majority of players don't have a problem.

Arguing that there might be implicit or "unwritten" rules that support the opposite conclusion is exactly the same as saying "the available evidence doesn't support my opinion, but I'd like you to believe my position even though I don't have any evidence."

Heck, I'd be surprised if the majority of the players on llamabeast's servers even knew about his implicit rules, or are playing by them.

[sum1lost]

No, it is not easy. All you can draw from your sample is that most players have not explicitly expressed a concern, or it has not been brought to their attention.

[K]

sum1lost said:
No, it is not easy. All you can draw from your sample is that most players have not explicitly expressed a concern, or it has not been brought to their attention.

It's a little hard to imagine that roughly 4 out of 5 Multiplayer players are uninformed or unwilling to express concern. MP players tend to be better informed about the game, especially the ones that frequent the forums.

As I said before, all the evidence points to a loud and very outspoken minority who are attempting to dominate the conversation, and there is no credible evidence supporting their positions. When someone points out the flaws in every aspect of their argument, they get louder.

Having proved my point, I'll exit stage left.

[Jazzepi]

sum1lost said:
No, it is not easy. All you can draw from your sample is that most players have not explicitly expressed a concern, or it has not been brought to their attention.

I agree. Personally my feelings are that the games that don't ban MoD + BE exploit don't do so because the creator hasn't experienced the awesome *** kicking that it can be. Just for the record, I'm 99% certain that the combo was abused during the first Megagame.

I know Micah used a QoA equipped with armor of virture + Shimmering Fields + a golem with 100% lighting resistance against me in Dolphin. That was pretty frustrating, but I deserved to get kicked around, and if I had a proper army I could have killed the golem, and at least made the QoA retreat, thus ending the shimmering fields.

It's pretty silly for K to say that people who don't explicitly ban an obscure combo that breaks the game implicitly support its use. I would say the vast majority of people who don't ban it explicitly don't know about the sheer game breaking potential, or even that the exploit exists at all.

Jazzepi