Consensus on Cheating?

[MidKnight Lament]

Ned, from what (little) I understand, yes.

Does anyone have any major gripes about me thinking most of these are cheats? (Forget the stockpile bug. I'll gladly concede that one is too much of a pain not to accidently exploit.)

It just seemed wrong to me that heaps of these 'opportunities' were considered OK to exploit.

- MKL

[Velociryx]

From a personal standpoint, even in MP, I am mostly unwilling to take advantage of a number of game "quirks" to gain an advantage over my opponent, but on the other hand, I fully expect that it will be done to me. I figure, if I can beat my opponent without resorting to such parlor tricks, what does that say about the quality of our two games? The only exception to this is the stockpile "quirk." As much of a micromanager as I am, I utterly refuse to spend the time it'd take to NOT take advantage of that bug....I consider it compensation for not using my queue...

Of course, haivng pointed to the extreme PIA factor, I should also point out that even in games where the stockpile thing is fully exploited, I sill refuse to do it (both in principle, and because of extreme PIA) when building units.

Does this put me at a disadvantage? Certainly. But again, if I win against a player who is making constant use of such an edge, what a statement that is! The victory suddenly becomes soooo much sweeter and more meaningful....

-=Vel=-

[BustaMike]

You can easily build any kind of rover unit without ever researching mobility. Just get probes and change the weapon in the design workshop. POOF!! Instant rover.

BTW. I was screwing around with HTML code. If your using Netscape part of this post should blink.

[BustaMike]

Let me tell you how that didn't work at all. Not only is it not blinking (heck it's not even there as far as I can tell), but when I went to edit my post the blink command didn't even show up and the cursor wouldn't either. I guess I'll stick to just using funny colors in my posts

[Helium Pond]

Oh, that rover thing is a good one. Thanks. I'll put it up.
[This message has been edited by Helium Pond (edited June 18, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

Vel - that's the sort of stance I'd take too. Well I would if I wasn't a SMAC newbie, who's currenty oodles less skilled than about %95 of the people in this forum. After all, what's the point in winning if you know you didn't do it all yourself? I know that sounds goodie-two-shoes, but it's the way I'd rather win.

- MKL

[Bingmann2]

Time to chime in...

1. Blatant cheating is trying to modify the state of the game other than through playing the game. This includes reloading turns, activating the scenario editor, hex editing the save file, browsing the diplomacy messages at the end of a save file, etc.

2. The next level of cheating is taking advantage of "features" that are clearly contrary to the design intent of the game. The emphasis here is on *clearly*; there needs to be evidence that it is not supposed to work that way, not just that it doesn't "feel" right to someone. A good example is using the right-click menu for air drops. If you use the keyboard shortcut or the Actions menu to do an airdrop, then a unit can only make one airdrop per turn, must be in a base or airbase, and must not have moved yet in the turn. In my book, this is overwhelming evidence that using the right-click menu to make airdrops is bogus.

Many people consider modifying speeder probe team designs to make other speeder designs without Doc:Mob to be contrary to the intent of the game. The same assertion is made about modifying captured unit designs to make use of a design component without the required technology. In both cases, no evidence is offered to support these positions, only that it doesn't "feel" right to them. Actually, there is evidence that this behavior is explicitly acknowledged by the game and therefore intended; when modifying one of these designs, the design workshop puts up a message that's something like "Modifying Existing Design", so it is acknowledging that you are modifying a design rather than putting together a brand new design. I see no point for this message unless modifying designs were considered a separate and valid operation as opposed to creating a new design from known components. I categorize this "feature" under...

3. Any other "features" are not cheats. They should be considered allowed unless the players agree to ban them at the start of the game. I will gladly follow any list of such banned "features", but I will feel no remorse using anything that is not on the list that falls into this category.

Other issues...

If modifying the speeder probe team design to make other speeders without Doc:Mob is considered cheating, then I would also consider making speeder probe teams without Doc:Mob to be cheating. Only infantry probe teams should be allowed before Doc:Mob in that case.

Also, the AI never benefits from the stockpile energy bug. The AI is essentially using governors which is equivalent to having an endless queue.

[Helium Pond]

Bingmann, thanks for your thoughts. But, again (and I'm sorry if everybody's sick of me repeating this), whether a given action is cheating or not is irrelevant to this thread. I know people want to make these firm and binding declarations about the nature of cheating. However, the purpose of this thread is to compile a list of problems with the game, so that people who play multiplayer can agree beforehand which actions are allowed. With that goal in mind, it really doesn't matter whether a given cheat fits any one person's definiton of cheating. What matters is that some people think it's cheating, so it should be agreed on by potential MP-mates. As you see, I've included on the list things I don't even think are cheats. But some people do, and that's all that matters.

I've decided to go ahead and add the Stockpile Energy bug. Here's a case where I don't feel it's a cheat, because it's near-impossible to avoid or monitor, but I feel that it's significant enough that players might want to come to an agreement about it.

[This message has been edited by Helium Pond (edited June 21, 2000).]

[Ned]

Enigma, Normally when you move, you cannot or should not be able to airdrop or upgrade. However, and aside from the right-click airdrop problem, one can move units in mag tubes or through PSI gates to a destination and then airdrop or upgrade.

As well, and I still find this fascinating, you can upgrade at any time during a unit's move through the Workshop. I just used this recently when I landed a drop infrantry unit next to an enemy sea base and tried to take it only to find that this was the only drop unit I had that yet upgraded to amphibious. So I prompltly did so in the Workshop and took the sea base.

One more point, I know the AI uses the new weapons, armor and reactors from captured units by modifying designs in the Workshop. This is clear indication that doing so oneself is not a cheat.

[Ned]

Even though we may never make this game perfect, there is another "problem" that I think should be addressed.

The rules state that you cannot build improvements on Fungus until Centauri Psi. However, you can build roads and tubes across fungus before by simply directing that a road or tube be built between two points with the fungus in betweeen. The former will build right across the fungus.

Now if you try to build a road or a tube directly on the fungus, the game will not let you do it and give you an error message.

This "bug" exists both for the human and AI factions. I have seen AI roads and tubes build right across fungus long before they have the tech to do so.

Now, just imagine how the game would be altered if this rule were actually enforced? Factions with low planet ratings would even more hampered because movement across fungus is highly related to the planet rating. They would have to clear the fungus and would not have the option of simply building a road across it.

Also now imagine the increased utility of a Fungal Missle.

[Chowlett]

That one would be very hard to implement though, Ned, since IIRC, SMAC does not show you the route the former will take, so you'd have to guess if it would go over fungus, or check each turn to ensure it wasn't. (That sentence is longer than I was expecting)

Pity, though, that's quite an annoying one. As with Stockpile Energy, it's probably best just to let everyone know.

[JAMiAM]

Ned,

Actually the tech necessary for building ROADS across the fungus is Centauri Empathy. However, I do agree that the AI does often perform terraforming tasks that it does not "legally" have the technology for. It also seems to require fewer turns to finish the tasks that it starts. I suppose that is coded into the game to keep them marginally competitive.

I was under the impression that the v4.0 patch was SUPPOSED to have eliminated the ability of the AI to perform illegal terraforming, but I have my doubts as to the veracity of that claim.

[Ned]

Centauri Emphathy? P.46 in the manual does say this, but I am sure that if I try to build a road directly on fungus before I get Centauri Psi I get an error message.

[JAMiAM]

Ned,

Don't know what to tell you. I do it all the time.

[Helium Pond]

Say, Ned, why do you always call me Enigma?