Just a few more words on this...
TR made a good point in his previous post. There's the perfect example of a claim for cheating that could or could not be valid(comms taking over..did he do it from one space away?...or maybe the comm moved one space after taking over).
Even though these suggested rules are all good...the enforcement and proof of a rule infraction will be too difficult, if not impossible.
Any clan that progresses thru the tourney will want full credit for their position...with no opportunity for a defeated clan to claim foul.
So, I strongly suggest we just play the game, setting only two rules.
No 1000 pop armies.
No clan jumping by any players...if you play in one clan; you can't play in the tourney with another.

Well shall we take a majority vote on whether bug use is allowed or not (with the exception of 1000pop).
I see that policing bugs would be almost impossible but I thought by stating all the known bugs that people wouldnt risk being caught for the sake of their clan. Also I felt that most bug exploitation came from ignorance or a belief that a bug was a feature, so by letting people know what is and what isnt a bug then MOST cases would be averted. But I'm all for letting the game be played to the limitations that now exist. If the previous clan game worked well with these rules then thats good enough of a recommendation for me that its managable.
By only suggestion to this would be that we list all the bugs and their explanation of how to use them so all clan tourny combatants can use them. Then there will be no advantage gained. ...correct???

Last Edited : Sunday, 21 December 2003 - 06:03

I would rather see no bug abuse in the tournament. I know it would be almost impossible to police but bug users would still be taking a risk(however small) with the disqualification penalty.

Did the AAA/FSA agree not to use all of the known bugs listed above prior to the start of the match? I believe not, correct me if I'm wrong.

If all the participants are aware of these bugs and are aware of the penalty, that should keep bug abuse to a minimum.

There is no point in playing in a tournament where bug abuse is allowed. The BoS vs BoP game was clean, I don't see why all the other games can't be played out the same way.

"4. All barbarians / bandits / Renegades must be killed before taking over resources building." I think this rule would be the hardest to police and its the least damaging bug so I don't mind if it is removed. But if the other rules are ignored I think it will reduce the quality of the gameplay/enjoyment of the game...

Last Edited : Sunday, 21 December 2003 - 07:55

I don't agree that it would decease the quality of gameplay nor the enjoyment.
What's the value of having a rule if it's impossible to enforce? That only keeps the honest player honest and allows the opportunity for someone else to use a bug to their benefit with little risk.
The only bug exploitation that WOULD BE enforceable would be the 1000 pop armies(as no one is going to deploy a 1000 pop army and be unable to use it), attempting to play in multiple clans and the moving of troops into an unfinished building(which would serve no purpose unless attempting to block movement of the opposing clan or creating an unkillable lookout), both of which provide no value except in the presence of the opposing forces....therefore reportable and actionable.
That's the ONLY rules I can think of atm, that would be totally enforceable. Fulcrum, it's your call...if a few more players will share their opinions, afterward, you may the decision and we will abide by it.

the 1000pop bug is easy to control.but other bugs canīt be detected.
Players from Ija wonīt use bugs to gain an advantage.

perhaps req should delete all bandits from the map so nobody can use a bug and everyone will have the same condition?!!
thatīs my suggestion.

correct i hate those poor bandit killers
harharhar

Come on guys, this whole thing about coms around buildings and bandits # of hexes so on is so ridicules. If the bandits are 3 hexes from building, and you are on other side at 4 from bandits and next to building, I don't think you are exploiting a bug. The rule states more than 3 hexes away. The outpost thing. Nothing that can be done. As for the 1k plus pop units that is an exploitable bug! When attacking them you get no damage, and they can inflict on you when they attack. That is a true bug!! So don't make silly little rules on the # of hex thing from building to bandits. If you are 4 hexes from bandits you are legal. As for resources I've never been able to attack them from two hexes away. And getting bonus on attack/dfense before the building is built, that is also exploiting a bug. So I agree on two things 1k plus pops & building bonus for no building.

I am happy to go along with whatever the majority decide, and of the 'bugs' listed by Fulcrum a couple or truly that and the others glitches in the coding.

It does need to be an either or decision, that is if you can do it in the game then it is allowed, or the bug list is defined before the start and disallowed. Personally I am happy to play with all the so called bugs allowed, as that way i only have to worry about my play and not enforcing everyone else's.

i think req should delete bandits so when u try to take over a building u wont get elminated but it should be 3 or less hexs that u cant take over a building if req decides not to delete bandits but that is his choice but it would be easier if he did so
peace out!!!!!
prancer

I'd just as soon play without bug abuse. As I've said before, do players have so little self-respect and dignity to not abide by whatever rules are in place? Whatever rules are decided on/against we should ALL be able to follow them. It just needs to be very clear what the rules are.

As for the bandits next to resources, I'm not aware of any on the 10 player map that are 3 spaces away. There are some right next to the building, and some with one space between them and the building - I don't recall any farther away than that. And actually this is the 2nd easiest bug to get caught at. Unlike take over/attack from two spaces bugs where a player could then say they moved a space away afterwords, a player who is caught with bandits still in the vicinity of a resource they own has obviously exploited the intent and design of the purpose of bandits. The trickier part comes from if a player is surrounded by allies - catching a player in this instance would require an opponent to slip a scout deep into enemy territory.

As for removing all the bandits... bad idea IMO. If everyone can get all their resources freely it will detract greatly from the game. No more deciding whether to press your enemy or free up your resources and trying to balance the two.

no what i am saying is that if u have any unknown 3 hexs or less u shouldnt be able to cuz i cant take over a building when they are 3 hexs away so u cant say that they arent 2 hexs or less away cuz i have 1 that is 3 away and i am sure that req put 3, 2, and 1 hexs away from the resource buildingspeace out!!!!!!!!!
prancer

Why has no one ever suggested "umpires and referees"?
I mean really Fanatic. Like I said before I don't even want to make the accusation that someone is cheating because I don't want to have to prove it.

Really what is proof? I have a few files with a whole lot of saved data and also screen shots of some things; but is saved data proof of anything? Is saving defend messages proof of anything? What is to stop someone from saying that the message was "doctored"? What is to stop someone from saying that your unit wasn't there but you moved it there after? We will need before and after shots.

I personally don't like detective games and I don't like being falsely accused either.

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 21 December 2003 - 23:51

Nice suggestion TR. Any thoughts on how to implement refs though? I don't expect req to add a 'ref' player spot, so I'm just not sure how it could be done....

We could assign another senior player to each game to act as a judge in any disagreements.

And here we go....more and more complicated.
Judges, disputes, debates, disagreements....can't we see where this is going? My suggestion remains, only make rules where the infractions can easily be identified and punishable(disqualification), otherwise it's just gonna get nasty somewhere down the line.

I wasn't really serious about the "referee suggestion" guys but just for argument sake,
Yes you would be speaking of a sort of "judge" I guess who would have authority vested in him by all participating players
(i.e. at game start all players would have to agree that an assigned judge or maybe 2 judges have authority to oversee all disputes arising in the game).

These judges would have to have full clear view of the entire map and access to all "attack and defend messages" of all players.
Even if it is possible who would want to do it?
Actually a decision would only be necessary when there is a dispute but the judge would have had to see the action.

I just don't think this is practical simply because:
a) the game is not set up for it
b) we can't get a "slave judge" to do it

Conclusion:
Although I hate to admit it
"sugar is right".

TR

yeah sugar is right...
"and never forget itīs a game", i personally always cheat in games harharhar

I believe bugs are not initially the responsibility of the player. But it is nice to play with others who don't want to not 'play fair.' I think the judge idea would be nice, eventually. Mayby it is a good suggestion for the new version. Otherwise clans can decide on a sort of 'no mercy' strategy if they know someone has exploited. Like I say, my vote is that it cannot, really, be player enforced; so we will just have to let it go, or apply the 'no mercy rule,' for now.

George

There seems to be a feeling of some bugs are too hard to police (which I agree) but I find it amazing to think that a code of honour cant be adhered to by mature and sensible people. So as we dont like the idea of someone gaining an unfair advantage by the use of bugs, then I think the only option is to allow the unenforceable bugs (1000 pop units and moving units into unfinished buildings will remain off limits).

I do like the idea of a senior unbiased player to oversee any other problems which may arise, I think this would be especially helpful to the newer clans and players. So does anyone object to me assigning a senior player to each match?

Any further comment?

I have no objection to you making appointments. If you can find enough that are willing to take the 'job' you might want to appoint 3 per game so that even if 1 person is biased against a player/clan in theory the other 2 could overrule the one. If rules are set though such that the only things disallowed are 1000 pop and moving into a unfinished building I don't see that ANY disagreements should come up.