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

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Do nothing against it (as unfortunately, some factions wouldnt be alive without it at this point, for example Heritance, so its extremely rooted in the current situation))

    3 33.33%
  • You cannot move units generated from missions for a turn /se

    5 55.56%
  • Units received from a mission may not be used in a battle the turn that they are received

    2 22.22%
  • You must disband all units that you receive from missions.

    2 22.22%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 84 of 92 FirstFirst ... 345974757677787980818283848586878889909192 LastLast
Results 1,661 to 1,680 of 1826

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

  1. #1661
    Chieftain Khuzaymah's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,288

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mergor View Post
    EDIT: I am not opposed, even supportive of adding this rule to the Universal Exploit List, and using that List for this HS. But only from next turn due to issues I said already.
    It seems you agree that this move should be listed as an exploit, and clearly exploits are not allowed in any case. But your argument is based on the custom that a rule addition or change should happen only from next turn? It sounds a bit pathetic to be honest. What the hell are we doing here guys?
    Not every exploit might be specifically listed, but there are several exploits listed where you cannot deny a retreat in some way. Which is exactly what you guys have done here. Which is why there is no need to discuss which turn it starts. An exploit is an exploit....

    Btw, question: If you were aware of doing something you know is shady at least, how about you run it by the admin?
    Or do you want to set a precedent, that whenever someone finds a shady move, it should be allowed always, because only from the turn after it can be specifically listed as a rule? Sounds like a BS-argument to me.

    An exploit is an exploit and the admin made the only right decision here.
    Most Promising Youngblood TATW: Chieftain Khuzaymah


  2. #1662

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

    No need to belabor it, the ruling was made. Game resumes.

    But yes, congrats to jimmydude for coming up with the move regardless
    Last edited by Ventos Mustel; January 06, 2023 at 07:42 AM.

    I am the Air Bud of Total War

  3. #1663

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

    I still feel this was not an exploit. As it wasn’t a bug or abuse of any kind, imo. I will not argue with GM’s ruling. But I will politely imply my distaste for the ruling made as what I’ve said in my earlier message. There have been grievances made on both sides, from my perspective mainly on the side of Wayrest without trying to add any bias, but for the campaign to continue I feel this stern viewpoint on this ruling alone should set a standard for rulings to be just as harsh as this HS moves forward. Because the vilifying to name calling on top of the wounds created by this HS has made it toxic for all parties involved and nobody is innocent. I’d like to see more professionalism coming up or I will put in my resignation. Same as the reason for leaving the last campaign I was in.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; January 15, 2023 at 05:11 AM. Reason: Unnecessary.

  4. #1664
    jimmy_dude's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    78

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

    I think we're taking the wrong things away from this. I was saying yes, you can call it an exploit, but so many things that we do in hotseat would be considered exploits by a casual med2 player. This ruling still doesn't make it clear to me why this should be banned in the first place. Like, how is this worse than say reloading lots of times, or putting armies in passes/areas that create unwinnable battles? I don't see how this is any abuse that falls into the "is already clearly banned" category.

    Also, I never got an answer, has this same thing been banned on TWC before? That would greatly help me understand this if someone could link me an instance of this happening before.

    I think most of us agree this move exploits the game mechanics to some extent, but given how much we already do that in hotseats, I don't see how that alone is enough to ban it, especially when as far as I can tell there are only instances of it being allowed in other communities, and not any instances of it being specifically disallowed anywhere including here. I still cannot help but feel this is just bending the rules in favor of covering a mistake, which just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes me not want to continue playing here. Not sure if I'll continue playing here yet, not really Norway's fault since as admin you have the right to do what you want, but I still don't understand the logic of this decision, and if rulings are going to be made in the style of "I think it's an exploit, so even though it's allowed elsewhere and not covered by the rules, it's banned" going forward I don't want to be a part of this since I'm not gonna sink time into coming up with moves here just for them to get arbitrarily nuked by this. It's my right as a player to play where and when I want to as well.

    If something isn't on the universal exploit list, maybe have you considered that it isn't on there because people don't actually think it's an exploit that should be banned? Mergor is fine with saying we can add it to the exploit list because he thinks that if people really want to ban this sort of move in the future, we can change it's classification from "not banned" to "banned", but it does not undermine our argument that it shouldn't be banned now, as it's not currently considered a banned exploit in our view.
    Last edited by jimmy_dude; January 06, 2023 at 10:34 AM.

  5. #1665
    Mergor's Avatar T H E | G O R
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,881

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

    I am very angry at this ruling. On one hand, imagine going to court, and saying "I feel like this is illegal." Do you think that would convince the jury or the judge? It is bad admining if an admin rules based on subjective opinion and NOT based on the rules. If a ruleset is self-contained and specifically lists what it considers an exploit (which Jadli argued), then adding or taking from that is not justified, its arbitrary. Who says, that in the future, captainnorway cannot nuke any move with a blanket reasoning along the lines of "the hotseat bans exploit, and while its not named, I feel like it is one, so I ban it." Where is the order? Where is the justification? Where is the precedent? Neither was present here, and Jadli's and Ventos' argument went no further than "other rules extend to this" or "you are just doing this to try to get away with it." Our arguments are largely still unanswered, especially by the admin.

    On another hand, the latter is precisely my second big issue. I have a certain way of legalistic thinking you could say. I have that, because I think predictability is the key to having no drama and having fun. That is why I made the Universal Exploit List, created guidelines for rule interpretation, and why I put time into decreasing toxicity (and why, as Dragon said, my approach so far was, "you do that, but then we can do that also"). That is why I am angry when after that, I get slapped in the face with an arbitrary no-real-justification ruling. And that is why I am especially angry for constantly being vilified for my arguments. "You are a lunatic" or "What you do is pathetic" or "You know it would be controversial and are just trying to get away with it." Me, who want a legacy which is all about harmony? You tell me why I work for this community if your knee-jerk reaction to every argument I make is that I do it for selfish reasons and above all, I know that and still do it?

    I have considered leaving the Hotseat out of protest. To be honest, 4/5 the Ebonheart Pact did, and some may still do. I may not, but then I want to add this to the Universal Exploit List, and add that to this hotseat, with every exploit within it banned (including generating missions), the ban enforced, and an interpretation chosen by an admin, to which he sticks to without deviating between rulings. Or else this will, if its not one already, become a game where every move is shouted at, so that maybe the admin will be in the mood to ban it. If "no exploits" is truly a blanket ban, this should not be an issue.

  6. #1666

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

    I guess the question then is: is anyone having fun here? If not it might be best to simply end this hotseat, since a majority of the participants have expressed a desire for it to be over with to one extent or another.

    I am the Air Bud of Total War

  7. #1667
    Mergor's Avatar T H E | G O R
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,881

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

    Please do not shift the topics. Ending the hotseat (presumably with your victory if I had to guess) is the wrong solution. Preventing fun-sucking instances is the right solution. I can safely say that me, jimmy and dragon all have fun as we speak, but these turn it from fun with some frustration to frustration with some fun. Answer our points instead.

  8. #1668

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

    We've spent three pages of the thread arguing that topic already. The final ruling has been made. Its time to move on.

    I am the Air Bud of Total War

  9. #1669
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    8,528

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

    @Mergor You are getting extremely personal about this in your post. It leads to nowhere good. Please stop.

    Its only a stupid HS with stupid rules. Absolutely nothing to do with your respect in the community, legacy, etc, relations between players outside of the HS (hopefully), other hotseats etc

    @Ventos Yea, having literally zero fun right now

    @Mergor the idea was to bring independent and unbiased admin, who who would make rulings on disputed moves, and both sides would follow it and there would be no useless arguments between our alliances

    So we have one and he is doing exactly what you/we wished for? Why bring one then, if we are gonna argue even louder

    Anyway, if only indeed...


    EDIT

    If all the active GS were not participating in this discussion, it would probably be a good time for Gaming Staff to close this thread for a day or two... before something very bad happens... welp
    Last edited by Jadli; January 07, 2023 at 01:46 AM.

  10. #1670

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

    "I have that, because I think predictability is the key to having no drama and having fun."

    Still it did not bother you at all to bring Almelexia back streight against pecisely described conditions made. Truth is you support admin judgement only if it suits you and is giving you extra advantage.

    "You tell me why I work for this community if your knee-jerk reaction to every argument"

    You do this actualy. You try to get unfair advantage whenever it is possible (I do not speak there particulary about this case, but about all the dramas we already went through in this HS) and if you do not get it you make such a cry posts.

    " and why I put time into decreasing toxicity (and why, as Dragon said, my approach so far was, "you do that, but then we can do that also")."

    I'll just point out that since the start of the HS every single drama which was in this HS (or at least I do not remember any drama around other player) was around your action and that is not a single time, but several different case doing some low move or streight up cheating in this HS, so if you so hard look for the cause of the problems then maybe you should consider looking down at your own actions.

  11. #1671
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    8,528

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

    This is not a very helpful post either Im afraid

  12. #1672
    Captainnorway's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,338

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

    As a guideline for what’s considered exploits, I plan to implement the «The Universal Hotseating Exploit List». This should hopefully prevent future misshaps… Before the list is implemented, I urge everyone to read it carefully and state if they agree with all the installments in the list.

    Once everyone or the majority has come to an agreement about the implementation of the list, it should be in full effect. So i hope everyone will state their stance on the matter.


    The list will also include an installment that prevents retreat path manipulation. Mergor has suggested this wording for the installment:
    - Using 4 or more units / region to influence the retreat path of defeated enemy armies. Four, as to avoid situations which might have been accident, or prevent banning moves which were very obvious mistakes from the defeated player’s part, which could have been predicted. Deliberately using any number of ships to influence the retreat path of defeated navy.
    As well as statements about the exploit list, I expect statements about the current wording about retreat path manipulation. Is it well enough worded or should it be worded in a different manner?



    - Using 4 or more units / region to influence the retreat path of defeated enemy armies. Four, as to avoid situations which might have been accident, or prevent banning moves which were very obvious mistakes from the defeated player’s part, which could have been predicted. Deliberately using any number of ships to influence the retreat path of defeated navy.

  13. #1673
    Mergor's Avatar T H E | G O R
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,881

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

    A note to make, I haven't worked out the exact number of units where the line should be made; my idea is that the definition should be based on an excessive / not excessive logics. (norway posted this because I told him it should be this yesterday, but today I want to actually test to perhaps lower that 4 IF NEEDED). Another note to make is that I did not suggest that norway implement this ruling, I told him he can make his own, although he'll have to define it himself then. But he choose to bring this up for debate.

    But obviously I support my own list

    EDIT: Multiple edits within text
    Last edited by Mergor; January 08, 2023 at 04:38 AM.

  14. #1674

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

    Basing the rule on a given number of units is likely to lead to disputes regarding which units 'count'. Ex, in the scenario below, where A/a and B/b are forts and armies of the respective players, and x is an army of player B that was defeated the previous turn and cannot move, does army x count as as being placed to influence the retreat of a? Does the fort B count?

    Code:
    --a--
    -----
    bBxbb
    -----
    --A--
    Instead I would base the judgement on whether the units in question have some legitimate purpose for being where they are, regardless of number.
    Last edited by Ventos Mustel; January 08, 2023 at 04:42 AM.

    I am the Air Bud of Total War

  15. #1675
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    8,528

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

    This is super weird and confusing wording. (wouldnt it even allow their move lol? not sure how many units they had in each region...). Either the act is exploit, or its not. And as it is en exploit, it therefore should not be used at all. 4, 5, 2, 1, an arbitrary number shouldnt really matter, as sometimes one unit can make all the difference, sometimes even a dozen units cant (when there arent nice bridges, etc).

    It should be listed simply as "deliberately blocking retreat paths or tiles to influence where a defeated army retreats to". I think "deliberately" really covers everything thats needed here to say. (accidents are not deliberate).

    The Universal list may be implemented (would be nice to actually post the newest version tho, cause there are like a dozen of them out there).

    And obviously, like I said before, if Mergor or someone else has some other moves, not literally listed in the OP not Univeral Exploit list, where he/they is unsure whether its are allowed, then you should also post them to make sure about. Cause thats how things should work, when ppl are unsure about some moves.
    Last edited by Jadli; January 08, 2023 at 05:12 AM.

  16. #1676
    Captainnorway's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,338

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

    @jadli i was going to post the newest version i have acquired, but i’m on mobile so i can’t perhaps mergor can upload it here?

    I think jadlis suggestion would suffice, and atm i think it should be the wording of the rule. I do acknowledge that it could lead to situations where a dispute about what’s intentional or not. It should be rare as far as I know. Interested to hear what others think about jadlis wording.

  17. #1677
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    8,528

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

    Yea, as always, admin decides when things are disputed...

    Let me clarifiy about the list, Universal exploit list may be used, but considering how this HS works, when there are several allied factions in turn order, we should exclude:

    "- Abusing turn order by generating missions or traits, ancillaries for the next player by sending new saves / looking into the next turn after ending the current one until the desired outcome is reached."

    Yes, its very sad, and I definitely am not happy about this being the case. But there is literally no way to enforce this, it would create endless drama, about whether someone "accidentally" got a nice mission, or a nice trait, etc, and there is no way to confirm, whether someone reloaded to get the best result, or he was simply lucky... or for example a person could claim, he played the turn, and then realised he needs to change something in the previous turn, et etc... Simply very bad. And considering how "dramatic" this HS can get, this would probably destroy the HS lol (if its still alive).

    If you guys wants to limit missions generation (which Im not sure makes sense to do it since at this point, some factions wouldnt exist without it at this point lol... ), the only viable options on how to do it are:
    - You cannot move units generated from missions for a turn (light version)
    - You must disband all units that you receive from missions.

    Furthermore, I think we should use it simply as a list of exploits, and leave out "Rules Interpreation", cause it mostly fees like thats kinda MErgor's interpreation, which as we could see is not that we all agree on exactly, so we should not open that can of worms I think here, and just let admin continue admining as he has admined.

    EDIT and ofc for the final statement I need to wait to see the actual version of the list that you propose.

    EDIT 2 BTW the mission reward that gives you the best unit is bugged, its not supposed to give you the best unit, but a best unit within a given price range. Therefore, the solution is only to modify or move missions in your mod, not much we can do about this in this specific HS. Hence, what I for example did to fix this in BD 2 is, that I removed this specific reward, and completely reworked missions (and rewards), so there is much less to gain from reloading (tho ofc, you can never completely remove this, unless you remove missions or the ability reload turn starts...)
    Last edited by Jadli; January 08, 2023 at 05:53 AM.

  18. #1678
    Mergor's Avatar T H E | G O R
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,881

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

    The issue with saying "deliberate" (and I thought about it) is that what is considered deliberate? Say you don't use single units, where it is obvious, but full armies or forts. Saying "you deliberetaly" put your 3 stacks at a bridge to block a retreat would be quite sketchy, while in theory it could be a strategy to hold a bridge; an accident; or actually a deliberate attempt to block retreat paths.

    The problem is, everything can influence retreat paths and it is not particularly easy to make a rule with that in mind. Furthermore, units do have a habit of retreating into completely places, perhaps the best example is that I hardly see ships retreating into friendly waters, instead they almost always run right into enemy controlled waters. Of course, there are no borders at sea, but the retreat mechanics often works against the players.

    With this in mind, imagine just wording the rule as "deliberate." I fear, that in a very competitive enviroment such as this one or others, a witch hunt could be started every other turn, where the other side demands that the admin investigates because the other player might have deliberately influenced retreat paths with a fort, or armies, or whatever.

    You might say I overthink it, because this has not been a problem before jimmy very, very obviously influenced retreat paths with single units. But the issue here is, is that while I agree that policing the intent would be much better, in reaility we would be making a rule that is so vague, that what it exactly it tries to police is impossible to define. And again, you can say "but spirit of the rules", but what if a player says it was an accident? That he was moving units around to help reload or something? Or that he was in the process of reorgainizing an army to change the unit order? I do that plenty. Or again, just placing units at bridges to set up defences, and bridges are the single most important way to influence retreat paths.

    So the reason why I would want to make this number based, even tho it means retreat paths could be influenced in limited ways, is that it makes the rule predictable and testable. With my unfinished definition, I mainly want to avoid vagueness.

    https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...ergor4244.docx

    EDIT: To Ventos: Forts or settlements do not count, because they are not units. Units are defined in the list.
    Last edited by Mergor; January 08, 2023 at 05:13 AM.

  19. #1679
    Jadli's Avatar The Fallen God
    Gaming Emeritus

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    8,528

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

    Im pretty sure admin can see for himself and decide whether its deliberate, thats what we have him for. If you are unsure, then ask him first before doing your move.
    Last edited by Jadli; January 08, 2023 at 05:18 AM.

  20. #1680
    Mergor's Avatar T H E | G O R
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,881

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

    That is not my point though, my point is that the intent could be hidden. Something else I just wanted to write, is that pictures could be cropped to make influencing units dissapear. And then, just like in real life, it is perhaps better to regulate something instead of just straight up making it illegal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •