New Exploit?
- Thread starter peter grimes
- Start date
I think our team's turnplayers are perfectly capable of:
1. Making an executive decision that reflects the team's likely choice, (in turns when an event requires a choice.)
2. Making an executive decision that reflects the team's best interest.
If my team polls this issue, I am thinking I would vote in favor of option 2, just because it is the most convenient... administratively speaking. Just let every team's turnplayers/logged in player choose whether to quit or accept... but there should be a strict NO RELOAD policy.
I think the overall rule with regard to random events should be:
- Do whatever you want, (as an individual or as a team) but there are NO RELOADS... period (as a result of random events).
Individual teams can vote internally about how they will handle random events.
1. Making an executive decision that reflects the team's likely choice, (in turns when an event requires a choice.)
2. Making an executive decision that reflects the team's best interest.
If my team polls this issue, I am thinking I would vote in favor of option 2, just because it is the most convenient... administratively speaking. Just let every team's turnplayers/logged in player choose whether to quit or accept... but there should be a strict NO RELOAD policy.
I think the overall rule with regard to random events should be:
- Do whatever you want, (as an individual or as a team) but there are NO RELOADS... period (as a result of random events).
Individual teams can vote internally about how they will handle random events.
Speaking for myself, I think we should consider asking the teams to have a policy for how to handle events prepared for anyone who enters the save. That way it does not matter if it's a turnplayer or not. Then, any player seeing an event must handle the event.
It is unenforceable, but it wouldn't be the first thing that can't be enforced.
Most (preferably all but human nature being what it is...) players will do the right thing if they have been told what the right thing is.
It is unenforceable, but it wouldn't be the first thing that can't be enforced.
Most (preferably all but human nature being what it is...) players will do the right thing if they have been told what the right thing is.
Krill
Deity
Q: Dave, what precisely do you mean by "how to handle events". That sentence can be construed to have several different meanings.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Maybe we've been going about this the wrong way. If we all find the rat we've got hiding in our midsts and get rid of him then we can enact the honor rule with confidence.
Joshua368
Warmongering builder
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2008
- Messages
- 3,072
notice i said arn't honest at all.
What the studies show are if you take 10 people (well the study is ~1000) but it breaks down into 10 groups of relatively equal proportion.
where 10% of people are approaching 100% honest.
10 % of people are honest 9 times out of 10
10 % of people are honest 8 yimes out of 10.
all the way down to
10% of people are quite shadey characters.
While i would love to say that everyoen ehre is in that top 10% we arn't.
I would be more in the 70% of the time or 80% of the time. (my wife asks to many tricky questions
)
What the studies show are if you take 10 people (well the study is ~1000) but it breaks down into 10 groups of relatively equal proportion.
where 10% of people are approaching 100% honest.
10 % of people are honest 9 times out of 10
10 % of people are honest 8 yimes out of 10.
all the way down to
10% of people are quite shadey characters.
While i would love to say that everyoen ehre is in that top 10% we arn't.
I would be more in the 70% of the time or 80% of the time. (my wife asks to many tricky questions
)
Diamondeye
So Happy I Could Die
... That means that the majority of the team is honest. If someone one such a team acts dishonest, he sure as hell won't feel too welcome, excuse the french. I think, if we can have all the teams acceptance, that we can make an agreement that whatever player that logs in will handle any eventual events.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
I think the notification doesn't come through until you click the button - hence if you "ignore" an event, the notification may never come through, and no-one would be any the wiser. It might be worth checking this to see if it is indeed the case.
It's not absolutely impossible, but even if everyone were 100% honest, there would still be room for suspicion and accusations - especially during bitterly fought wars. So I think the best thing to do is to steer clear of any situation that allows room for exploitation, since otherwise there will always be suspicion and accusations (whether it's actually abused or not).
I think you're forgetting what my actual proposal is now: all events should be cancelled. So yeah, if any event goes through, then all the other teams can see it and call foul (unless an event can happen, and you click on it, and still no one is notified. But even then surely some honest player within the team will see it). I think we have two issues at stake here - whether we can trust people to be honest, and then whether the event system would be balanced at all given our solution to that first problem. I've been maintaining that only positive events adds too much unfairness/randomness to parts of the game - so if we can't trust people to take negative events we might as well have as none at all.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
But then there was no point in having events on in the first place. We might as well leave in as many events as possible, without allowing room for suspicion and accusations. 
This isn't about changing the settings mid-game in favour of those who originally preferred events off, it's about salvaging what we can from the settings in the face of a major bug/exploit.
This isn't about changing the settings mid-game in favour of those who originally preferred events off, it's about salvaging what we can from the settings in the face of a major bug/exploit.
I think it's best, everybody decide using this exploit or not if you get an event. We didn't Know it befors, perhaps there are some of you also.
Also I don't know if the exploit is valid with events without decision like quests and barb-uprising or if you 've no money to make a decision.
So there is a possibility that special events effect.
Also I don't know if the exploit is valid with events without decision like quests and barb-uprising or if you 've no money to make a decision.
So there is a possibility that special events effect.
Which choice to pick if several are available.
Krill
Deity
That's probably impossible to do; that's require planning for each and every turn, for each event, which late game would be more than a thaosand permutations. No one would be able to work that out; you'd be blindly guessing which one is best.
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
As a veteran of 3 MTDG's I'd like to draw extra attention to this statement:
I've seen some pretty ugly fights over just this kind of thing. If we don't implement option #2 (all teams instructed to just ignore any events they perceive as negative) I worry we'll end up with an ugly "he said, she said" argument that can never really be resolved.
The option to "ignore all events" would also accomplish this - but as part of the majority that voted FOR allowing events - I think we would lose some of the fun if this choice is made.
(standard disclosure: I am not speaking on behalf of Team SANCTA)
To me, this is the main issue.LordParkin said:
I've seen some pretty ugly fights over just this kind of thing. If we don't implement option #2 (all teams instructed to just ignore any events they perceive as negative) I worry we'll end up with an ugly "he said, she said" argument that can never really be resolved.
The option to "ignore all events" would also accomplish this - but as part of the majority that voted FOR allowing events - I think we would lose some of the fun if this choice is made.
(standard disclosure: I am not speaking on behalf of Team SANCTA)
Well-put, G_W. Option #2 is not only the most realistic, but, as a wiser person than me already pointed out, it meshes nicely with human nature: avoiding risk while maximizing pleasure. 
what were we talking about again? 
I, too, am only speaking for myself, and not the team.
what were we talking about again? I, too, am only speaking for myself, and not the team.
I've had the unfortunate duty to preside as admin over some disputes, and would not wish it on anyone.
What was finally decided on this then?
We just had a negative event come up at our end of turn. No official rule amendment has been made in regards to this discussion, has it?
If we are ignoring random negative events than can we please have a reload based on the last login of player cav scout.
We just had a negative event come up at our end of turn. No official rule amendment has been made in regards to this discussion, has it?
If we are ignoring random negative events than can we please have a reload based on the last login of player cav scout.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Hmm, I kind of thought we'd already made the decision to ignore negative events... maybe that was on a different game.
