Having problems counting?

Moderators: BitMask, Havok

User avatar
Donovan
Posts: 354
Contact:

Post#16 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:35 pm

albatross wrote:You know, I don't see any broken rules here, as for my part I don't actually have any code. Quite interesting series of accusations though.
Hmm you actually have a point there. It's the Fed who seems to be helping you while also happily moving through webmines. I do think that is against the one-ally rule. But as you correctly point out, it's not you.
albatross wrote:All I see here instead is an attempt to sell the exploits of an unbalanced addon as great victory of skill.
No, you're wrong there. I actually agreed with you on the balance issues in Jupiter. I merely pointed out that you were way too quick to cry 'addon imbalance' as an excuse for getting your butt kicked and/or breaking the rules. You got invaded without any addon imbalances used, even without robot/colonies combination imbalance.

In fact, I'm planning on not using any Ion storm goodness while you get evicted. Just to prove a point. I will ofcourse slap you around with other Jupiter abilities, as I'm sure Rimstalker will do too, but none of those are impossible to counter. And since you do have the home advantage, help from the Feds and your "I might still be better than Rimstalker", it should be an interesting experience.

User avatar
albatross
Posts: 412
Contact:

Post#17 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:11 pm

Donovan wrote:In fact, I'm planning on not using any Ion storm goodness while you get evicted. Just to prove a point. I will ofcourse slap you around with other Jupiter abilities, as I'm sure Rimstalker will do too, but none of those are impossible to counter. And since you do have the home advantage, help from the Feds and your "I might still be better than Rimstalker", it should be an interesting experience.
Man.. you're not 'not planing', the storm that helped Rim initiate the attack on my home cluster in the first place simply went out of control, that's it :).

After all that preparation under ion cover and after pulling a dozen ships away from another hot zone with a single storm, it has a certain humor to come up now with something like 'look at us..whohoo..no ion storm!'. Things already are the way they are.

BC_Guy
Posts: 73

Post#18 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:15 am

You are ALL confused and are missing the main point of this thread... Perhaps Havok can provide the final ruling on this..

The parameters of the game are that it uses the OneAlly addon, a host program which "allows only one ally to be set at a time"..
http://www.thewarshed.com/Addons/htm/oneally.htm

It does not imply at all that there is a "one-ally" rule, which would in any case be so riddled with interpretation issues one might have a thread in which people accuse others of "breaking the rules" at the drop of a hat, or even in the passage of a ship through a minefield..

Since races do not need to be "Allies" in order to do 'passive' things like use fcodes to traverse minefields or even to use less passive fcodes like 'gsx', I will interpret these actions as legal with non-allies, unless and until the definition of 'allies' and of the OneAlly addon are explained to all and contradict me.

I'm sure all the 'cheaters' are waiting with bated breath for the apology.

Shardin - the answer to your question is simple: To get to the other side ! duh !! :roll:

User avatar
Donovan
Posts: 354
Contact:

Post#19 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:57 am

There have been many discussions on the meaning of 'one ally' and 'no-ally'. I've stirred one up recentely in the AQ6 thread, without realizing it had already been discussed to death.

The point is, these one ally rules are there to prevent multi-race alliances working together. That is impossible to enforce on the host-side, the maximum possible enforcement is the one-ally or no-allies addon as you describe it - just blocking the ffX codes or limiting them to one.

Players are supposed to honor the rule to have only one ally (or none in a no-allies game). There's been much debate on what is and what isn't allowed between non-allies, and you are right - the opinions vary greatly. Some say a temporary non agression pact is permitted and nothing else, some say a non agression pact should only be permitted until turn X. There are also different opintions on wether or not trading ships is allowed, or trading information.

Personally, I think have an ally and then having another race who also has an ally himself cover your territory in webmines is way beyond the 'one ally' principle. So that is what I pointed out.

If we are only going to stick to what is and isn't possible under the settings of the one-ally addon, in theory, you could join the Robots and me in a nice big alliance, just without setting ffX codes. We could all share information, we'd be able to supply you with free fighters, and we could even transfer bases to you to build more Gorbies. You'd also have clear passage just about everywhere for SSD imperial assaults. I don't think anyone (other than perhaps the three of us) would want that, but on the host-side there is nothing preventing us from doing so. That is why I think we should stick to the spirit of one-ally, and not just do everything that is technically possible.

Oh, and the Fed did not have the minefield codes to 'get to the other side', as he was flying to and from the center of the webminefield. I don't know if it is a web around a Fed planet, or the Feds providing stuff to a Crystal base. Perhaps your Dark Sense can tell you more.

PS: speaking of 'having problems counting': have you counted your starbases lately? :twisted:

User avatar
albatross
Posts: 412
Contact:

Post#20 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:58 am

It is actually you who tries to change the rules when things don't go the way you want.

User avatar
Donovan
Posts: 354
Contact:

Post#21 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:11 am

albatross wrote:It is actually you who tries to change the rules when things don't go the way you want.
Though you list a good number of very solid arguments, could you please explain some more?

User avatar
albatross
Posts: 412
Contact:

Post#22 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:15 am

Hehe.. sorry.. but you actually invited to this one: read the addon docs.

User avatar
Donovan
Posts: 354
Contact:

Post#23 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:53 am

I'm not trying to change any rules. In fact, things are not even going 'not as I want them'.

I pointed out that the rules for one ally are not as loose as the addon is able to restrict. I suggest you read some of the following stuff:

viewtopic.php?t=4142

or

viewtopic.php?t=2994

As I wrote earlier, there are many different opinions on what is and what isn't allowed with non-allies. I don't recall Havok ever setting the exact rules in stone, which would end these debates.

So if everyone in this game agrees that the rules are as strict or loose as the addon allows (just not more than one ffX code, other than that anything goes), that is fine with me.

User avatar
albatross
Posts: 412
Contact:

Post#24 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:22 am

You're playing a good game, your strategy seems bulletproof and you're on top score. come'on what do you want more.. the other players also need to have fun here.

User avatar
Gilgamesh
Posts: 4940
Contact:

Post#25 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:26 pm

BC_Guy wrote:You are ALL confused and are missing the main point of this thread... Perhaps Havok can provide the final ruling on this..

The parameters of the game are that it uses the OneAlly addon, a host program which "allows only one ally to be set at a time"..
http://www.thewarshed.com/Addons/htm/oneally.htm

It does not imply at all that there is a "one-ally" rule, (snip)
OK - I'm not in this game but we had a remarkably similar comment in a thread for Che'ron (so close it could almost have been written by the same guy) and this kind of barrack room lawyer dance around the intent of the game drives me nuts. That game nearly got wrecked by people going in with an obvious intent to weasle their way around the rules before the first turn ever ran.

The intent of one-ally or no-ally should be clear enough - and trying to split the hairs between having an addon and having a rule is to me a poor attempt to excuse cheating. If you can't get with the intent of the addon you (collectively) should only play in games where you can feel safe with a 4-way alliance to protect you.

Stepping down from soapbox now.
QI'DaS tuQ SoSlI'

User avatar
BitMask
Site Admin
Posts: 2318
Contact:

Post#26 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:45 pm

The game description pages are limited to 256 characters, so we try to be as descriptive as possible in those limited space, but we cannot say everything in all detail.

One-Ally not only say the add-in is used, but also that you should have only 1 ally. (or less)
Same goes for No-Ally. You should have no ally.

You should read this post if you are still unsure of what you need to do. The host standing on the issue is very clear. viewtopic.php?t=4267

User avatar
albatross
Posts: 412
Contact:

Post#27 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:48 pm

Gilgamesh wrote:The intent of one-ally or no-ally should be clear enough - and trying to split the hairs between having an addon and having a rule is to me a poor attempt to excuse cheating. ...
Beyond the docs for 'one-ally' there is nothing specified, so everyone plays according to the rules. Pretty sad that some people are quick to jack out terms like 'cheater' just to back up their oppinion.

But enough insults now. If you want a specific 'one-ally' rule, ask Havok to place one.


edit: was writing while BitMask posted... now reading
Last edited by albatross on Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#28 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:55 pm

BM,

Did you mean this specific post?
viewtopic.php?p=56909#56909

I would assume that Havok's POV regarding "One-Ally" is a simple
exchange of "No-Ally" in that post.

Correct me if I am wrong.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
BitMask
Site Admin
Posts: 2318
Contact:

Post#29 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:11 pm

Yes, that is correct.

User avatar
Gilgamesh
Posts: 4940
Contact:

Post#30 » Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:47 pm

albatross wrote:
Gilgamesh wrote:The intent of one-ally or no-ally should be clear enough - and trying to split the hairs between having an addon and having a rule is to me a poor attempt to excuse cheating. ...
Beyond the docs for 'one-ally' there is nothing specified, so everyone plays according to the rules. Pretty sad that some people are quick to jack out terms like 'cheater' just to back up their oppinion.

But enough insults now. If you want a specific 'one-ally' rule, ask Havok to place one.

edit: was writing while BitMask posted... now reading
I don't know your game well enough to have an opinion in what's going on there, I know what went on in Che'ron and the near word-for-word excuse given for it. And that's all that kind of talk is - an excuse, and a pretty lame one at that, based on semantics.

"Cheat" is an ugly word, it's true, but one that applies under those circumstances, IMHO.
QI'DaS tuQ SoSlI'

Return to “Messages From Old Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron