Trading commanders, exploit or not?

[Micah]

@Jarkko - "you are on a crusade against perfectly valid and reasonable tactics which work exactly as designed" Please provide me a dev quote on that. Until then I'm calling BS on you attributing the ****ty AI gem use to intended design.

You also say you're not a very good player, and yet you insist on knowing which tactics are "reasonable" without a solid grasp on late game play at high levels of competition. Yes, I'm an elitist jerk, thanks for asking. =)

What I consider cheating is breaking the house rules that are set up in a game. I'm currently arguing in favor of certain rules being adopted on a widespread basis because they make for a better game, in my not at all humble opinion. Again, the hand-wringing comes out in force in your response. I'm not saying people that use these tactics in current games are dirty cheaters, I'm saying that *going forward* the game is better off if they are removed via house rule. No need to refer to an unwritten and undefined code, just a simple post by the admin. The whole point of this thread was to start a discussion so house rules can be made more explicit and easy to implement, since the current system of just leaving it unspecified has led to some nasty situations.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of cheating for stuff that's in a gray area or undefined in a game. Of course people will be angling for whatever advantages they can find if they're playing competitively, and I do it myself. I'm not trying to insult anyone for playing as hard as they can, but I do think I'm in a good position to point out what feels to me like flaws in the game engine, since I've got a pretty good understanding of the game, and a lot of play experience in terms of what makes for a good game.

Just for a guideline, here are some rough guidelines in terms of what feels legitimate to me vs what feels like an exploit/tactic that is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game:
I feel like tactics that interfere with other players' units and orders without actually interacting meaningfully with them (retreating vs fighting a battle, or dying to artillery without doing a single point of damage to bleed gems) are problematic.
Tactics which break the economy (by getting something for nearly nothing or getting something which will pay for itself before long) in an open-ended fashion are problematic.

Hm, that covers most of it actually. Breaking other people's units without actually fighting them, and breaking the economy. Might be something else I'm forgetting, but those are the big ones. There is some rhyme and reason to my crusade.

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by Micah

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of cheating for stuff that's in a gray area or undefined in a game.

But you are, in that very sentence. You claim some perfectly valid tactics (but not *which* tactics or game elements) to be "gray area". My mindreading capabilities are quite poor, and I will make a wild guess most people reading this thread have about same amount of PSI powers as I do.

You can't just assume people know what you think are cheats or exploits if you are unwilling to tell what you think cheats and exploits. Othewise you are just a person who basically reserves himself the right to after a lost game the right to say "Yeah, well, the others were cheating."

I feel like tactics that interfere with other players' units and orders without actually interacting meaningfully with them (retreating vs fighting a battle, or dying to artillery without doing a single point of damage to bleed gems) are problematic.

So if you cause my troops/commanders to die/rout while I am buffing up, and thus I was never able to do a single point of damage, then I am cheating? But if I had a single slinger up front doing 1 point of damage on one of your screening units I was not cheating?

You provide some general handwaving at "gray area" tactics; that is really insulting the intelligence of the people who read your posts, because nobody can know what you think, even though you make it sound like these things are obvious to everybody and no listing are needed. So please, could you provide a list of the tactics *you* consider cheating? I for one would be very interested in that, because so far I have got (the apparently very wrong) impression you don't like sneaking troops or remote attack spells.

[Illuminated One]

I do not think that using a decoy army to force the enemy to use gems is an exploit. It is used in reality (canvas tanks anyone?). In fact I'd love it if the illusion spells just worked for that purpose.
What doesn't make sense is archer (especially when set to guard rear commander) and mage decoys (well, the latter do to some extend, but it can get ridiculous).
Blocking an army is an exploit imo, but in that sense also cutting of retreat routes is when the thing that cut of the retreat is not significantly stronger than the disorganized fleeing army.