BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: The Red Foliot on April 21, 2015, 11:58:09 PM
-
I will keep this short.
We all remember those realms that were once full of multis and OOC gangs. Aurvandil, Avamar, Fontan. The cheaters in those realms used their superior co-ordination and tactics to fight against all odds, defeating or holding out against realms much larger than themselves. They were known for their warmongering.
Ordinary realms are not known for their warmongering. Realms that warmonger are selected against because they are often gang banged to death. Only realms with supernatural powers such as cheating realms can withstand gang bangs.
Perhaps cheating realms are actually good for the game, as they cause lots of wars and withstand gang bangs, allowing hedgemonies to be shaken and fun to be had.
I've personally played against all three of those cheating realms I mentioned, and even though they had unfair advantages I think they were good for the game, both from a narrative standpoint (Avamar the city state holding out against the Sirion empire and its numerous allies was a romantic scenario) and from a gameplay standpoint, as they increased the amount of warfare and made wars less predictable. Imagine how quickly Oligarch, Rancagua and Perdan would have folded to Coimbra, Fontan, Old Rancagua, Sirion and those two Southern states had it not been for Avamar cheating and giving them an extra ten thousand CS, or whatever.
In my experience cheaters have actually made the game a lot more fun.
-
I will keep this short.
We all remember those realms that were once full of multis and OOC gangs. Aurvandil, Avamar, Fontan. The cheaters in those realms used their superior co-ordination and tactics to fight against all odds, defeating or holding out against realms much larger than themselves. They were known for their warmongering.
Ordinary realms are not known for their warmongering. Realms that warmonger are selected against because they are often gang banged to death. Only realms with supernatural powers such as cheating realms can withstand gang bangs.
Perhaps cheating realms are actually good for the game, as they cause lots of wars and withstand gang bangs, allowing hedgemonies to be shaken and fun to be had.
I've personally played against all three of those cheating realms I mentioned, and even though they had unfair advantages I think they were good for the game, both from a narrative standpoint (Avamar the city state holding out against the Sirion empire and its numerous allies was a romantic scenario) and from a gameplay standpoint, as they increased the amount of warfare and made wars less predictable. Imagine how quickly Oligarch, Rancagua and Perdan would have folded to Coimbra, Fontan, Old Rancagua, Sirion and those two Southern states had it not been for Avamar cheating and giving them an extra ten thousand CS, or whatever.
In my experience cheaters have actually made the game a lot more fun.
This completely ignores the player anger and rage quits that result from such "unfair" advantages. Besides you make this policy and you lose the ability for them to withstand gangbangs, since the realms in the large alliance shall have their own multi-account hordes to counter them.
-
A world of no.
-
Players rage quit and leave regardless of cheaters, my friends. You cannot count on maintaining an unchanging group of players forever, there needs to be an inflow and an outflow of players. While some people rage quit when their realm is beaten, other players, new players, find it fun and stick around. I first joined Coimbra and it was destroyed a few months later, in part because of Avamar's cheating. I thought the destruction of my first realm was fun, though, and it only got me invested in the war that was going on, so I stuck around and joined Sirion.
Oddly enough, on the very day that Sirion broke through Avamar's walls and brought it down I grew bored with the EC and emigrated my character. I guess this is because I cared less about my realm's longevity and cared more about the drama of the situation.
So although players will leave when their realms are beaten, fairly or not, other players will find the scenarios captivating and will stick around. You have an outflow and an inflow, making sure that the player base remains fresh. All you need to do to maintain this flow of players is to keep the drama fresh.
Cheaters have typically used their cheating not to maintain hegemony, but to fight against it. It's easy to see why: hegemonies are boring and cheaters are looking for fun. They create challenges for themselves and use their cheating to create dramatic scenarios.
So I don't think either players rage quitting when their realms are defeated is a bad thing, nor do I think cheaters would use their cheating to maintain hegemony. Hegemony happens because there is no one around to challenge it - anyone who peeps their head up gets gang banged by the hegemony.
-
This is not going to happen, and the reasons for it should be so painfully obvious that they need no explanation.
Please stop trying to argue in favour of the ludicrous proposition "the game's administrators should encourage cheating, because it will make the game better."
-
Players rage quit and leave regardless of cheaters, my friends. You cannot count on maintaining an unchanging group of players forever, there needs to be an inflow and an outflow of players. While some people rage quit when their realm is beaten, other players, new players, find it fun and stick around. I first joined Coimbra and it was destroyed a few months later, in part because of Avamar's cheating. I thought the destruction of my first realm was fun, though, and it only got me invested in the war that was going on, so I stuck around and joined Sirion.
Oddly enough, on the very day that Sirion broke through Avamar's walls and brought it down I grew bored with the EC and emigrated my character. I guess this is because I cared less about my realm's longevity and cared more about the drama of the situation.
So although players will leave when their realms are beaten, fairly or not, other players will find the scenarios captivating and will stick around. You have an outflow and an inflow, making sure that the player base remains fresh. All you need to do to maintain this flow of players is to keep the drama fresh.
Cheaters have typically used their cheating not to maintain hegemony, but to fight against it. It's easy to see why: hegemonies are boring and cheaters are looking for fun. They create challenges for themselves and use their cheating to create dramatic scenarios.
So I don't think either players rage quitting when their realms are defeated is a bad thing, nor do I think cheaters would use their cheating to maintain hegemony. Hegemony happens because there is no one around to challenge it - anyone who peeps their head up gets gang banged by the hegemony.
Of course, the reasons for people quitting are varied. Taking actions that encourage people to leave, on the basis that people leave anyway is just odd.
Lets put it another way, I am a reasonable software developer. If there was no rule against multi accounts it would take me less then a day to set up a server that would play automated BM accounts that could receive simple SMS message commands to control individual groups of nobles. In other words I could run 100's of characters with very little effort, control entire continents by flooding each and every realm with my drones and use a single character in each realm as my main to see what the situation is, before sending out the control messages to the drones.
-
I doubt some realms would notice ... ::)
-
In all fairness such a scenario, unlikely as it is, would actually make the game more interesting, as there would finally be enough nobles to occupy excess estates, making war actually meaningful again.
When I talk about cheating, however, I do not mean hypothetical scenarios where a single person controls hundreds of nobles in every realm. I mean cheating as it occurred in the past, in those examples I listed. In those examples the cheaters put a lot of time and effort into the game and wielded only one or two dozen accounts. As I've reflected on them I've become aware that they were actually responsible for some of my best experiences in the game. I remember fondly the situations they created and the drama they inspired. When I think of hegemonic realms which are run by non-cheaters, I can only note the contrast.
-
Sorry, official endorsement of cheating, or changing the rules to make such a thing legal, is not going to happen.
-
In all fairness such a scenario, unlikely as it is, would actually make the game more interesting, as there would finally be enough nobles to occupy excess estates, making war actually meaningful again.
When I talk about cheating, however, I do not mean hypothetical scenarios where a single person controls hundreds of nobles in every realm. I mean cheating as it occurred in the past, in those examples I listed. In those examples the cheaters put a lot of time and effort into the game and wielded only one or two dozen accounts. As I've reflected on them I've become aware that they were actually responsible for some of my best experiences in the game. I remember fondly the situations they created and the drama they inspired. When I think of hegemonic realms which are run by non-cheaters, I can only note the contrast.
So now we will allow cheating, but only cheating within certain limits? Okay here is the problem you forget, those "cheat" realms were often completely boring from the inside, completely dominated by the cheater. So now we allow that, that means that were we have a small cheat problem that affects 1 or 2 continents every now and then, we open the door. The distinct possibilty exist that war will happen, but it will be war between 3-4 players in all but name, as each cheat basically becomes their realm. Other players are squeezed out, as we have seen happen before.
This is of course running with your assumption that cheats drive fun. While it is possible to cite examples of this, it is just as easy to cite examples of multi-cheats doing the opposite. Oddly enough it is similar to how some non-cheating players work to drive change and fun, while others work to maintain the status quo. Who would have thought.
-
In all fairness such a scenario, unlikely as it is, would actually make the game more interesting, as there would finally be enough nobles to occupy excess estates, making war actually meaningful again.
When I talk about cheating, however, I do not mean hypothetical scenarios where a single person controls hundreds of nobles in every realm. I mean cheating as it occurred in the past, in those examples I listed. In those examples the cheaters put a lot of time and effort into the game and wielded only one or two dozen accounts. As I've reflected on them I've become aware that they were actually responsible for some of my best experiences in the game. I remember fondly the situations they created and the drama they inspired. When I think of hegemonic realms which are run by non-cheaters, I can only note the contrast.
I was in Fontan and my char (coming from Taselak as the war islands sunk) was part of the Lions, as were quite some former Taselakians who were known for their activity. As far as I know, there was no cheating going on there. There was an instance where one guy was accused of cheating (never proven), rage quite because he felt insulted, which prompted a few other players to do the same. One might argue that those accounts were all the same, but I've never seen any proof of that tbh.
More on topic, this game is fun also because you can truly RP and create mystery, intrigue and betrayel. Against cheaters, that is all taken away for the most part.
-
I was in Fontan and my char (coming from Taselak as the war islands sunk) was part of the Lions, as were quite some former Taselakians who were known for their activity. As far as I know, there was no cheating going on there. There was an instance where one guy was accused of cheating (never proven), rage quite because he felt insulted, which prompted a few other players to do the same. One might argue that those accounts were all the same, but I've never seen any proof of that tbh.
More on topic, this game is fun also because you can truly RP and create mystery, intrigue and betrayel. Against cheaters, that is all taken away for the most part.
That is stupid. When have you seen ANY proof of multi cheat accusations, beyond the word of the teams that investigate such matters.
-
My point is that from what I remember most of the Lions communicated seperately and also RP'd. Most of them were active within the assembly as far as I remember. Most multi's wouldn't make that effort. Also I can't remember that there was any good report that indicated multi's in Fontan back then, but I might have simply missed it then?
-
To the best of my knowledge, there was no reliable evidence that the core members of the Fontan Lions were multicheaters while they were known as such.
However, after their leader ragequit and they followed, there was a great deal of suspicion. Some time later, he rejoined, as did a few of the other accounts. At that time, they were, in fact, determined to be multicheaters, and their new accounts were locked as such.
It is, of course, quite possible that originally, there were several players, and that either before the original ragequit or at the time of the new accounts' creation, the leader took over their families. However, it's also possible he was the only real person behind the Lions from the start. At this point, it's impossible to know for certain...and not really all that important.
-
My point is that from what I remember most of the Lions communicated seperately and also RP'd. Most of them were active within the assembly as far as I remember. Most multi's wouldn't make that effort. Also I can't remember that there was any good report that indicated multi's in Fontan back then, but I might have simply missed it then?
Cause we have NEVER seen cases of Multi cheats smart enough, and with enough time on their hands, to generate significant message traffic and RP's from their other accounts in order to hide the reality , cough cough Aurvandil. Sure not most multies do, but then most multies are also found relatively quickly because they aren't covering their tracks with such activity (among other things).
But as to the case, he was not accused of being a Multi by the Titans or Dev team at the time if I recall correctly (I played in Fontan at the time and well recall the overly aggressive nature of the character). His conduct in other matters was called into question, and his arrogance was such that he raged quit at the audacity of anyone to call his actions into question.
-
Cause we have NEVER seen cases of Multi cheats smart enough, and with enough time on their hands, to generate significant message traffic and RP's from their other accounts in order to hide the reality , cough cough Aurvandil. Sure not most multies do, but then most multies are also found relatively quickly because they aren't covering their tracks with such activity (among other things).
But as to the case, he was not accused of being a Multi by the Titans or Dev team at the time if I recall correctly (I played in Fontan at the time and well recall the overly aggressive nature of the character). His conduct in other matters was called into question, and his arrogance was such that he raged quit at the audacity of anyone to call his actions into question.
I remember that the founder's English was not all too good,where that of others was still fine, which also has me in doubts about these accusations. I don't really know the situation of Aurvandil so can't really comment there. Anyway it's been a long while since then. I remember he was accused of something else, not cheating but being rude or something, and ragequite. I honestly don't recall him returning, but I prob stopped playing by then.
-
De-Legro, I'm pretty sure that Aurvandil was a clan that heavily used exploits, not multicheaters.
-
De-Legro, I'm pretty sure that Aurvandil was a clan that heavily used exploits, not multicheaters.
There are entire threads dedicated to the case. I'm not going to rehash everything here.
-
There are entire threads dedicated to the case. I'm not going to rehash everything here.
Didn't say I was going to.
-
Didn't say I was going to.
I'm saying the fact there was a multi-cheat in the realm is well established. A rarity is that it was of such a nature that it was openly discussed. Most Multi cheats are shut down without any such open discussion.
-
De-Legro, I'm pretty sure that Aurvandil was a clan that heavily used exploits, not multicheaters.
You are probably thinking of Thulsoma, which was considered by some as a kind of precursor to Aurvandil. They were not the same people, however, nor the same problem. Thulsoma was cracked down upon for their abusing of newbie family wealth issues, namely, while Aurvandil was for multicheating.
Aurvandil was openly talked about because of how obvious it was to every nation facing them, combined with the lengths the person went through to cover his tracks from Devs being able to prove the cheating and act on it. It was a realm that grew huge from nothing, with poor regions but perfect management and mobility, in a time where no one else achieved anything remotely close to that.
The guy spent endless time, however, dealing with everyone and himself, in all places he had tentacles. He namely used his own characters in another realm to justify a war with them.
That was not the first time such a thing happened. Just on Dwi, there was a realm that collasped when a multicheater quit (wasn't even caught). Aquilera or something? Same thing happened to Irombrozia on BT (same guy I think), who also had control in another realm of that continent. I had dealt a lot with his accounts on BT, and never suspected a thing.
Point is, there's no way to know how prevalent cheating is, or what forms it tends to take. We only hear about those who get caught, or those who admit to it. And while the checks might have improved with time, there was a number of people who only admited to it once they tired and quit, so there might have been a lot of others who just never got caught and never told anyone. Some of the cheaters we know of had armies of silent drones. Other cheaters we know of had armies of interactive drones or even characters that occasionally went against each other. But one could hardly use the known cheaters to extrapolate on how the unknown ones behaved.
The whole idea is kind of absurd, though. If having multiple families was deemed to be beneficial, then the proposition should be "let's change the rules so players can play multiple families", not "let's promote cheating!". While still pretty unlikely to result in any change, it'd at least merit consideration.
-
We will never encourage, support or allow cheating.
However, the rules of the game are not god-given and set in stone for all eternity. If you think specific rules could be revisited and it would make the game better, open a topic about that. Maybe multiple accounts are not so bad, or clans not so evil, etc.