I don't consider that cheating. Only weakness. A weakness I used some times, especially at the beginning. 
Last edited:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I also refrain from doing this since I consider it exploiting. Another thing I consider an exploit, although practically everybody does it, is looking in the events/leaders file of their and other nations. This way a player can plan their nation development around it. Unfortunately this forces other MP players (like me) to do the same, since not having that knowledge, gives the ones who have a serious advantage. Takes the fun out of the game somewhat.PJL said:
Nagel said:I also refrain from doing this since I consider it exploiting. Another thing I consider an exploit, although practically everybody does it, is looking in the events/leaders file of their and other nations. This way a player can plan their nation development around it. Unfortunately this forces other MP players (like me) to do the same, since not having that knowledge, gives the ones who have a serious advantage. Takes the fun out of the game somewhat.
Someone who played hundreds of games knows the leaders, too.
Its like in chess, if a player knows all openings or what could happen in midgame/endgame.
That's what I mean with being players being forced to do so.EarendilHE said:
That's why most chess games are boring. And I know because I play it. Depends of course on the person's idea of boring and their ageEarendilHE said:Its like in chess, if a player knows all openings or what could happen in midgame/endgame.
. Although I must admit the last couple of years I only play games of 3 min max. Much more intense and intuitive. Maybe an idea in MP. Set the speed at maximum and see what happens . Just kidding of course (I think?).
EarendilHE said:Someone who played hundreds of games knows the leaders, too.
Its like in chess, if a player knows all openings or what could happen in midgame/endgame.
Indeed... How can I "erase" from my memory important dates and events that I know it'll happen? We've to live with that.
Nagel said:That's what I mean with being players being forced to do so.That's why most chess games are boring. And I know because I play it. Depends of course on the person's idea of boring and their age
In my high times (3 years ago) ive played chess being drunken...was always fun.
Yeap. In a pub with friends and numerous beers. Ah, ... that brings back memoriesEarendilHE said:In my high times (3 years ago) ive played chess being drunken...was always fun.
.
EarendilHE said:In my high times (3 years ago) ive played chess being drunken...was always fun.
The meeting of EU2MP players in Moscow :rofl:
I like fast chess too. Too much thinking is boring and kill nice combinations.
1. I do anything that will enhance my performance as long as it is not forbidden. Doing anything else would be contrary to my competitive spirit.
2. All rules shall be such that the adherence to the rules can be checked by the GM. Thus rules like "you are not allowed to read the host's log" are bad. All such rules means that the immoral persons (who will read the log as often they want whether you forbid it or not) will get an advantage compared to those righteous that do not. And that effect is definitely something we do not want. On the contrary, we want rules that if possible favours the good guys.
Thus I often not only load up as myself to make a test or two, but as well load up as an opponent and inspect his situation. And I am not a bit ashamed about that, in case someone wondered
2. All rules shall be such that the adherence to the rules can be checked by the GM. Thus rules like "you are not allowed to read the host's log" are bad. All such rules means that the immoral persons (who will read the log as often they want whether you forbid it or not) will get an advantage compared to those righteous that do not. And that effect is definitely something we do not want. On the contrary, we want rules that if possible favours the good guys.
Thus I often not only load up as myself to make a test or two, but as well load up as an opponent and inspect his situation. And I am not a bit ashamed about that, in case someone wondered
The more I think about it, the more I think A in Daniel A's nick stands for Amoral Nothing bad of course.
Nothing bad of course.
Correct Balinus. In a perfect legal framework moral is irrelevant. Intelligence reigns supreme.
However, perfect legal frameworks are nonexistent except under simple circumstances. Games are often simple and more or less perfect legal frameworks thus can be constructed. EU is a game where and I see little reason to rely upon some notions about moral. A simple case is the moral law of behaving nicely towards other humans. That is redundant in most EU games as there is a rule saying exactly the same thing.
Thus in practice these occurencies of players imposing moral/based limits to their choice of actions will mostly merely be a question of unintelligent playing, i.e. playing in way that does not enhance their chance of "doing well
in the game".
-----------
Less enlightened GMs may construct legal frameworks that leak a lot. In such cases, to ensure having a good time, the players must voluntarily amend the rules with rules based upon their own perceptions of
1. what is morally correct
2. and/or what is "good for the game"
3. etc
When forced to do so the question remains: will they agree upon what are the unwritten rules to apply? So far I have never seen an EU community succesfully reaching consensus on this. Thus proving the flaw in their method.
Hopefully this kind of GM belong to a species close to extinction.
PS I hope all readers are aware of the difference between "amoral" and "immoral"... and I hope I myself has not misunderstood it
However, perfect legal frameworks are nonexistent except under simple circumstances. Games are often simple and more or less perfect legal frameworks thus can be constructed. EU is a game where and I see little reason to rely upon some notions about moral. A simple case is the moral law of behaving nicely towards other humans. That is redundant in most EU games as there is a rule saying exactly the same thing.
Thus in practice these occurencies of players imposing moral/based limits to their choice of actions will mostly merely be a question of unintelligent playing, i.e. playing in way that does not enhance their chance of "doing well
in the game".
-----------
Less enlightened GMs may construct legal frameworks that leak a lot. In such cases, to ensure having a good time, the players must voluntarily amend the rules with rules based upon their own perceptions of
1. what is morally correct
2. and/or what is "good for the game"
3. etc
When forced to do so the question remains: will they agree upon what are the unwritten rules to apply? So far I have never seen an EU community succesfully reaching consensus on this. Thus proving the flaw in their method.
Hopefully this kind of GM belong to a species close to extinction.
PS I hope all readers are aware of the difference between "amoral" and "immoral"... and I hope I myself has not misunderstood it
Im not sure whether I want a consensus about all things. Much of the flavour will be lost here in the forum as example.
And maybe its more intelligent if you are moral, players will notice it and react same way after sometime...then yourself feel better and happier...Thats why you are playing or not?
And maybe its more intelligent if you are moral, players will notice it and react same way after sometime...then yourself feel better and happier...Thats why you are playing or not?
Daniel A said:PS I hope all readers are aware of the difference between "amoral" and "immoral"... and I hope I myself has not misunderstood it
With what you've written, I'd say you didn't misunderstood it.
In a game, I also tend to be more amoral than in real-life. However, you can't run from what you are, so I tend to be somewhat moral. Amorality is a goal never achieved in my case.
The log-checking thing is actually enforceable by the simple expedient of editing the host save; no history log, no history log checking!
This works for the weekly save, but on ctd, and connection-drop rehosts, what Host is gonna go and delete the log everytime?
Not that his eventuality really bothers me, simply another challenge to surmount.
Not that his eventuality really bothers me, simply another challenge to surmount.
King of Men said:
Slows down rehosts though...and a host might forget it. But you are essentially right: a host who wants to prevent history log reading and wants 100% sure about it, should delete it all the time instead of making a rule about it.
On this issue, I'll continue with my opinion of playing and giving the power of editing, to ppl you can trust, or have quite a reputation of being a trusted and reliable player, not only of not being a cheater, but also a person that will show up every time, and take seriously the commitment of showing up on time and such.FAL said:
. Just my humble opinion o
King of Men said:
The log may also contain evidence of cheating by the host that is difficult to detect otherwise
example a mysterious lack of messgaes informing the playe rof the construction of manus. and yet there they are.