[Discuss] Changing the definition of cheating

[Matt Runyon]

Christopher Subich wrote:
> Lyman Stone wrote:
>> 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".
>
> There is a problem with this, however.  While I too would appreciate 
> some exploits being made impossible, the means of doing so is neither 
> easy nor obvious.
>
> In the specific example of a capital move, how do you firstly define a 
> move for strategic reasons?  Is it a move to within one/two regions of 
> a border?  Only a hostile border?  What if the realm is long and thin, 
> and the only city far from a border is also off in a corner 
> somewhere?  The only algorithmic ways I can think of to make this 
> decision would also be overly restrictive in some cases.
>
> Also, Tom's coding time is very much finite.  While I don't want to 
> dictiate how he spends it, I think it would be better for the game if 
> he would work on bugfixes and new features, rather than nontrivial 
> code to close loopholes.
>
> Loophole closure, bugfixes, and new features -- pick one now, and one 
> maybe later.


I don't think you people are getting it.  It sounds to me like strategic 
capital moves would be declared legal under the new system, if 
implemented.  THAT seems to be what Tom's point is.  Then, you don't 
have issues with it being abuse, since anyone can use the idea without 
OOG consequences.  Obviously, IG consequences are another matter, but 
that will be dictated by the politics of the moment.


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