[The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

**Jadli** · January 05, 2023, 02:16 AM

Bump

**Mergor** · January 05, 2023, 04:46 AM

**Ventos Mustel** · January 05, 2023, 05:07 AM

yeah I'm going to call

on forcing Brokil to retreat halfway across the map instead of to literally any of the much closer garrisons in southern skyrim

**Jadli** · January 05, 2023, 05:10 AM

Since when it is allowed to exploit retreat mechanics and deny retreat? As one can see in the pics, you blocked many retreat paths (bridges, Morthal,..) to make the general retreat where you want him...

And anyway, if defeating a general more than a half dozen times to make him retreat where you want (while he still survies) across half Skyrim is not an exploit, than I do not know what is

**Jadli** · January 05, 2023, 05:37 AM

And furthermore, the fort had only 19 units inside, so you must have exploited the yoyo/fort retreat bug here as well, which is not allowed...

EDIT:

Mergor says Brokil had a unit that also survived

(so 2 orcs left in two units, nearly impossible to make that happen) ... really ridiculous... how many hours/days did you guys spend to exploit the game into making this possible

**Mergor** · January 05, 2023, 05:44 AM

No YoYo bug was used. The fort indeed had 19 units inside, and the defeated "army" had two units inside until the very last defeat, which killed the noble and allowed the bribe. The two unit "army" simply could not enter the fort.

Before first battle

Before second battle

Furthermore, nothing in the rules suggest that what we did was against the rules. If you need further proof, please wait for jimmy to wake up, he was the main architect of this move

**Jadli** · January 05, 2023, 05:57 AM

Exploit lists are never complete, cause there are many of them. Denying retreat of armies was generally not allowed by admins, at least in the hotseats I played/admined... another very basic rule you forgot during this HS...

Anyway, the exploit list in this HS includes "surrounding armies/navies to deny retreat" (which is quite literally what you guys did), "walls of units", as well literally "and more". Its quite clear this retreat exploit is against the spirit of these rules (and directly against the first one).

**Mergor** · January 05, 2023, 06:15 AM

You are stretching that rule. That particular rule is there to prevent situations where an army could be scattered. Quite the opposite happened. Furthermore, "surronding" means surronding. "denying" means denying. The orcish army in question was not surronded, not by a long shot and was neither denyied from retreating. Using the spirit of the rule argument is thus faulty.

You are quite correct that exploit lists are never complete, but that does not influence whether this move should or should not be allowed at this very moment. Nevertheless I still want to wait for jimmy to tell what happened exactly, only he can.

**Jadli** · January 05, 2023, 06:26 AM

You can surround an army by standing next to it, or at its retreat paths, its the same effectively. Denying retreat is literally what you did. As if you didnt block retreat paths by placing your units at the bridges, and next to closer garissons, the defated army would have 100% retreated elsewhere (towards closer garissons, not across half of Skyrim). Therefore, you denied the army to retreat where it would have, and forced it to retreat where you want it. And even by your logic, it doesnt make the spirit of the rules argument faulty, as all these moves/exploits are quite similar.

It definitely does influence it. In all hotseats, its quite regular many things are not specifically listed in rules, yet admins deal with them accordingly when needed. (as you very well know)

**Mergor** · January 05, 2023, 06:44 AM

I rest my case with the "surrond" and "deny", we just do not agree.

Yes, admins deal with them accordingly. How I deal with it is described in my exploit list. But as I told you in DM-s, even if something is deemed an exploit not listed previously in the rules, its allowed then banned for use after the fact.

**Captainnorway** · January 05, 2023, 06:47 AM

Blocking retreat paths is not allowed. I consider it an exploit and exploits are not allowed.

**Jadli** · January 05, 2023, 06:51 AM

Well, that was quick.

Originally Posted by Mergor

I rest my case with the "surrond" and "deny", we just do not agree.

Yes, admins deal with them accordingly. How I deal with it is described in my exploit list. But as I told you in DM-s, even if something is deemed an exploit not listed previously in the rules, its allowed then banned for use after the fact.

And on and on.... that really depends on situation (as you very well know again)... if a player exploited something, he is generally not allowed to use the move if its deemed to be an exploit (as he gets an advantage he shouldnt have had), he doesnt get to get away with it

. On the other hand, if some kind of a move, thats more of an agreement between players on how it should be dealt with, rather than an exploit of the game, such the blocking of ports rule that we dicussed before, or whether siege eq/agents/etc can be used in some way or the other, than its of course reasonable to give a turn, so people adjust their strategies.

Anyway, thats always up to specific admin, how he deals with the situation (and our admin already dealt with this)

**Captainnorway** · January 05, 2023, 07:04 AM

This is on hold until those who wish has made their statements. Mergor wanted jimmy to say some words

**Mergor** · January 05, 2023, 07:07 AM

The admin will need to explain how something is dissallowed if its not in the rules. If the blanket ban on exploits is used as an argument, we need to go back and penalise every instance an exploit was used which is not in the rules (for example, abusing turn order by generating missions) and retroactively penalise it. The way it stands right now, this ruling makes that not only possible, but needed.

otherwise, as I said, I want to wait for jimmy.

**Jadli** · January 05, 2023, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Mergor

The admin will need to explain how something is dissallowed if its not in the rules. If the blanket ban on exploits is used as an argument, we need to go back and penalise every instance an exploit was used (for example, abusing turn order by generating missions) and retroactively penalise it. The way it stands right now, this ruling makes that not only possible, but needed.

Man, you completely lost it... Your move wasnt allowed, as happened to many players in many hotseats many times before. Get over it.

You either calm down, cause you sound like a lunatic, otherwise it might be better to end this hotseat as it is, cause the amounts of time and energy one need to spend on this HS is quite ridiculous and unhealthy, especially due to all these arguments.

**Ventos Mustel** · January 05, 2023, 08:03 AM

Not sure what jimmy could say that isn't already clear from the screenshots, but ok

the Air Bud clause is one thing, but this case is a pretty egregious skirting of the spirit of the rules, and theres zero chance you expected it to stand unchallenged. There have been zero-grace-period reversals ordered for much milder cases than this

**Isenbard** · January 05, 2023, 08:12 AM

Yeah, all the fun is slowly leeching out of this. With the introduction of Jimmy and Ventos it feels like two football teams trying to buy all the good players to get an edge next season.
It's good to get new players of course to fill vacant spots but the way this is played now is as Jadli put it, quite ridiculous and unhealthy.
I'd be down to ban mission generation and this move in Skyrim because I feel it's the right thing to do. Although this hs has had so many of these instances with rules that I'm not sure if it matters anymore because more will come again and again.
At this point the whole atmosphere and attitude of players needs to change to make a difference

**Mergor** · January 05, 2023, 10:07 AM

I have said it before and I say it again: I would want a full discussion about past happenings and grievences regarding rule breaks in this hotseat. Those calls of mine were always ignored and shrugged off. If we are going this way and applying a blanket ban on exploits whether they are in or out the ruleset, that cannot be avoided anymore, especially that the hotseat is dotted with different rulings regarding things that are missing. Last turn, a ruling was applied a turn after, now its suddenly applied right away even tho in both cases something is missing from the ruleset. That makes this ruling arbitrary, inconsistent and one which that generates drama. This turn, we made a move that simply was not banned like a lot of others moves each team does each turn and were ridicolouled for it. Why are you surprised the HS is so drama-y?

And generating missions was just an example, I am sure there are plenty of other things each side abuses. If a blanket ban stays, then we have to gather ALL exploits, add it to the ruleset, and either penalise them right away (full replay for the previous x turns where the usage of these mattered) or only penalise them next turn.

And to be honest, yes, Isenbard is right. This devolved into a game where we take every advantage possible. But if Jadli dares say that its only the fault of me, I have nothing more to say. So if you really want to "play clean" than we better do a whole rule revision before continuing this hotseat.

**jimmy_dude** · January 05, 2023, 10:27 AM

I've done this same move in hotseats with the "surround/deny retreat" clause in the rules and this has never even been brought up as a part of this. I mean, if we want to ban this kind of thing going forward, I can accept that, but at least give us a turn's notice. I don't think it's fair to suddenly ban something when it's been used in other highly competitive hotseats (I've done it in at least two hotseats, one on the hotseating hub and one on YTWM's server, which are both pretty respected) with the same rule in place. I also maintain that it's not denying the retreat of the units, it's just influencing where it goes, so I don't think the rules as they're written cover this at all, since it's not even considered an exploit in most places I've been in. Also, I imagine I could have achieved a similar result without necessarily building walls of units, but just conveniently leaving units on the spots the orcs wanted to retreat to. Is it even viable to ban that?

Bottom line is I don't think it's right for one to just ban something instantly that is both not clearly banned in the rules, has been allowed in other hotseats with similar precedent. If you want to ban something, go ahead, just give everyone one turn's notice before enforcing it so that no one sinks hours into a move (I spent probably 10-12 hours working through this one), just to get ripped off when the move gets banned.

**Ventos Mustel** · January 05, 2023, 10:56 AM

Its not like this ruling is a disruption to plans that could have possibly existed prior to the turn just now posted. This is an opportunistic attempt to get a free use of something that is obviously against the spirit of the rules. And this is also the third turn in a row of angle-shooting from the Ebonheart Pact side of this hotseat.

View Poll Results: Reloading for the best mission (reward)

Thread: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Re: [The Elder Scrolls - Unofficial Patch 1.42] Black Drake

Posting Permissions