[Discuss] Changing the definition of cheating

[Lyman Stone]

> I've had something on my mind for a long time now. I've held back  
> on it for various reasons, but I think it's time we discuss it.
>
> I'm thinking about changing the way we define "cheating" or  
> "abuse". Basically, I'm thinking about saying something like:
>
> If the game mechanics allow it, and you know that it's not a bug,  
> then it isn't cheating.


I LOVE this concept. Assuming that you intend to make things like  
strategic capitol moves impossible (that was just an example, btw).  
Things that are currently "abuse, but possible", I really hope are  
going to become, "impossible".

Specifically about strategic capitol moves, of course, the problem is  
how do you do it? You could move the capitol, to prepare for a war,  
then declare war a month later once regions are changed...

Here's an idea: If you're already thinking about some massive code  
adding, maybe make the game choose your capitol by automatically  
selecting the "most central" city. Thus, AFTER you capture new lands,  
your capitol will automatically be changed.

OR, use that system, but be able to "resist" the capitol change by...  
hmm.... tax defficiencies? I dunno, something.

Of course, duchy recruiting would solve the problem too, and is  
probably a better solution all around.


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss