Saving and reloading turns

[Darius871]

Originally posted by conmcb25
And yes I know that particular discussion did not. However the other two related discussions did.

Related? They just occurred at roughly the same time.

Originally posted by conmcb25
Most of here are mature enough to have a very good above board discussion. Unfortunately a few are not. Thats all Im concerned about.

Perhaps in the other discussion, but everyone (even those you're referring to as immature) was reasonable in this one.

Originally posted by conmcb25
OK, I will adjust my request. If this turns into a flame war ST Leo then please close the thread.

Most likely it'll just fade away due to lack of interest. Curse you for bumping it to the top.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Darius871


Related? They just occurred at roughly the same time.

Well they all dealed with cheating basically, blacklists, reloading, etc.

Originally posted by Darius871
Perhaps in the other discussion, but everyone (even those you're referring to as immature) was reasonable in this one.

I agree

Originally posted by Darius871
Most likely it'll just fade away due to lack of interest. Curse you for bumping it to the top.

DITTO! -

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by conmcb25
My Opinion:

RELOADING = CHEATING, PERIOD!

Aaah, I see, you are afraid from you yourself! Mr. Jekyll and. Mr. Hyde...

I think reloading needn't to be cheating. If players agree that everybody can conjure up one settler per turn by hexediting then everything is OK.
I see the problem is that most PBEM games go without house rules.
Without exact rules people tend to simplify their Civ2 life and get used to their 'light cheats'. Eventually light cheats become heavier and one day you find out that many PBEM players got accustomed to reloading.

(MP players have their sets of rules (see 'rah rules' in Civ2-Multiplaying for example))

[EZRhino]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
I think reloading needn't to be cheating. If players agree that everybody can conjure up one settler per turn by hexediting then everything is OK.

I dont think there is any need for sarcasm Slowthinker. If there is no way of policing this, then why are we even arguing about it?

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by EZRhino
I dont think there is any need for sarcasm Slowthinker. If there is no way of policing this, then why are we even arguing about it?

There was a smiley attached, I dont believe anything was meant other than humor. Thats the way I took it.

[SlowThinker]

I am sorry to be confusing: that smile was for the first sentence only.

Players may have different opinions - one may consider incremental rushbuy as bad, another one can consider a game with one new settler per turn as interesting (OK, I go to extremes). Anyway I think clear house rules for every game would be very beneficial.

Originally posted by EZRhino
If there is no way of policing this, then why are we even arguing about it?

1. It is interesting
2. It may be beneficial (I think it is good that people inclined to reloading and/or cheating perceive that they lose the most entertaining elements of the game)

About policing reloading - there would be a way how to appease feelings that another player was reloading: logs. When the game finishes you could read that not all huts of your more prosperous opponent contained 100 gold and not all his warriors killed heavy infantry.
But I can understand many people might consider logs detaining.

[conmcb25]

Actually indirectly you can prove reloading at least sometimes.

Lets say I have to reload for a combat result that only happens every 50 turns. Well unless it is a new scenario usually players will know the combat I just did required reloading or changing the rules.txt values.

Now the accused could deny that, but at least at that point he knows he is being watched. A series of very lucky combat results probably indicate reloading or rules.txt modifications.

In that way you can tell, not 100%, but it passes the reasonable person test.

[EZRhino]

Originally posted by SlowThinker
Anyway I think clear house rules for every game would be very beneficial.

I would tend to agree. What would be considered cheating needs to be set in stone before each game.

Originally posted by conmcb25
In that way you can tell, not 100%, but it passes the reasonable person test.

I dont like the idea of people accusing each other of cheating just because of 'improbable' battle outcomes. These things do happen. If it happens more than you might think is possible, then keep your eye on the person, but nobody should make any accusations unless they have proof, which is, unfortunatly, impossible to acquire using this technique

[SlowThinker]

I think there is much less cheaters than suspicion... And I think both suspect and cheating are bad ... and both could be solved by logs (they would be published after the game ends).
Say you read from a log that a player got 100 gold from 5 huts in a row. You needn't to accuse him from cheating, or to care if he cheated or not. But everybody sees he won because he was very lucky.
This is not good for a cheater: he wants to show he is strong, not lucky.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by MagyarCrusader

Since when did we start caring about St. Leo?

That's not what you said last night, hippy punk of doom. My feelings are hurt now.