Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

MP edit querstions?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
saskganesh

saskganesh

General
2 Badges
Dec 10, 2002
2.072
0
Visit site
  • Deus Vult
  • 500k Club
OK, this is from my satarday game (LUIII) which I GM and host.

1) a manu did not finish building. is this truely a bug (and the manus should be edited in) or is this a conscious design feature and its the player's tough luck? opinion is split.

2) a player's connection dropped and we played on without them for a few months as it was end of session and no time for a rehost. the player claims that that two events did not fire. i checked the history and the first was in the log and the other wasn't. the first multiple choice event fires between 1640-1660, the second between 1640-1670.

so if there is no player to make a choice and no AI to make the choice either, did anything happen with the first event? or should i fire it? and should i fire it now or in 1660.

i dislike doing edits in principle as the practise sometimes rewards whingers and lobbyists. anyhow, in both these cases, the players are not whingers, so i'm just looking at this as objectively as possible.
 
saskganesh said:
OK, this is from my satarday game (LUIII) which I GM and host.

1) a manu did not finish building. is this truely a bug (and the manus should be edited in) or is this a conscious design feature and its the player's tough luck? opinion is split.

2) a player's connection dropped and we played on without them for a few months as it was end of session and no time for a rehost. the player claims that that two events did not fire. i checked the history and the first was in the log and the other wasn't. the first multiple choice event fires between 1640-1660, the second between 1640-1670.

so if there is no player to make a choice and no AI to make the choice either, did anything happen with the first event? or should i fire it? and should i fire it now or in 1660.

i dislike doing edits in principle as the practise sometimes rewards whingers and lobbyists. anyhow, in both these cases, the players are not whingers, so i'm just looking at this as objectively as possible.
Click to expand...

1) A bug. happens when, while building the manufactory, an event fires changing the population of that province.

2) Don't think anything happens, but I'm not sure. Check possible dp sider moves by comparing current save with old autosave (assuming it was before player drop). If it didn't happen remove it from history, so it can trigger in game. (assuming it's not 1660 yet)

No edit policy is very good Sask!
 
saskganesh said:
OK, this is from my satarday game (LUIII) which I GM and host.

1) a manu did not finish building. is this truely a bug (and the manus should be edited in) or is this a conscious design feature and its the player's tough luck? opinion is split.

2) a player's connection dropped and we played on without them for a few months as it was end of session and no time for a rehost. the player claims that that two events did not fire. i checked the history and the first was in the log and the other wasn't. the first multiple choice event fires between 1640-1660, the second between 1640-1670.

so if there is no player to make a choice and no AI to make the choice either, did anything happen with the first event? or should i fire it? and should i fire it now or in 1660.

i dislike doing edits in principle as the practise sometimes rewards whingers and lobbyists. anyhow, in both these cases, the players are not whingers, so i'm just looking at this as objectively as possible.
Click to expand...



are both possible

in first case,the prob is the lag : i always pause when i build manus ;)

in second,is yet possible : for example,i remember a game in which polish player dropped around 1565.We played some years on,and so he "lost" the inerit of lituania event (it fired only in 1567)
 
1. The manufactory failure is a real thing, though I might consider it WAD (working as designed).

2. The Event definitely occured. When a player drops connection, the computer acts as if they are still there, just not giving orders. Events pop up and they just dont make a choice. The event stays up on the screen (though no one is there to see it). Thus the computer logs that it fired the event, but no one made a choice YET. When rehost occurs, it causes the event to disappear into the ether :D

This second effect is actually an exploitable bug (though your crew may not like it). If you get a particularly nasty event, but just leave it up on the screen, you cannot do anything. However, if a rehost occurs, you will never get the event. Alternatively, if you get a particularly horrific event (say political crisis) and you are determined enough to avoid it; just pull the power cable to the PC. Reboot and then claim you had a CTD. :D

This is totally evil of course. And I would OF COURSE never do it, as I am a pure light of grace. :eek:o If you notice a particular player has a habit of crashing or that someone crashed right after a particularly bad historical event occured; you might want to *ahem* investigate :D
 
ryoken69 said:
1. The manufactory failure is a real thing, though I might consider it WAD (working as designed).

2. The Event definitely occured. When a player drops connection, the computer acts as if they are still there, just not giving orders. Events pop up and they just dont make a choice. The event stays up on the screen (though no one is there to see it). Thus the computer logs that it fired the event, but no one made a choice YET. When rehost occurs, it causes the event to disappear into the ether :D

This second effect is actually an exploitable bug (though your crew may not like it). If you get a particularly nasty event, but just leave it up on the screen, you cannot do anything. However, if a rehost occurs, you will never get the event. Alternatively, if you get a particularly horrific event (say political crisis) and you are determined enough to avoid it; just pull the power cable to the PC. Reboot and then claim you had a CTD. :D

This is totally evil of course. And I would OF COURSE never do it, as I am a pure light of grace. :eek:o If you notice a particular player has a habit of crashing or that someone crashed right after a particularly bad historical event occured; you might want to *ahem* investigate :D
Click to expand...

It is pure evil, nothing out of the ordinary for old Ryo. ;)
 
Sometimes, the 3rd political crisis in 10 years is just too much to bear!

And I have not crashed once since I returned to MP a while back, my new conn is much better. So there! :D I dont use such trickery.....at least not anymore.....
 
This kind of evil is why I will never rise above mediocrity in EU2. I hadn't even conceived of this level of abuse. :wacko:

And frankly, that anyone would use it is just another example of disgusting behaviour among some players. I must say I'm a bit disappointed, Ryo. :confused:

Disrupting play for a dozen people for 5-20 minutes just so you can avoid a bad event. Mindboggling.
 
Im convinced this bug is real. I have had it several times when there has been no event, no rebels/troops to burn the manu. It happens so that the manu doesnt even appear after it should be built.

I was playing game with johan in and he said it was rebels or something and there is no such bug but what does he know :)
 
Hi Sask,

Manufactories not appearing is a known bug.

I had a feeling that when events fire and the player has dropped, it automatically chooses the a) option, but Ryoken could easily be right.
 
Slargos said:
This kind of evil is why I will never rise above mediocrity in EU2. I hadn't even conceived of this level of abuse. :wacko:

And frankly, that anyone would use it is just another example of disgusting behaviour among some players. I must say I'm a bit disappointed, Ryo. :confused:

Disrupting play for a dozen people for 5-20 minutes just so you can avoid a bad event. Mindboggling.
Click to expand...

I agree. "Crashing" on purpose just to avoid an event is despicable. :mad:

As to Sask's questions:

1. It is indeed a bug, I've seen it many times. It's not WAD - manus are always supposed to appear. Whenever this happens in a game I GM, I edit the manu back for the player after the session. Given that we are sure he ordered one to be build, that is (otherwise people who like to abuse situations, like Ryo apparantly, can easily claim to have had a whole bunch of manus dissapear).

2. The event triggers, but no choice is selected due to AI being completely braindead. When braindead, AI doesn't even chose the defeault choice - it choses nothing. And that can be pretty bad if the event is rather important, like the Spanish succession or something.
 
Oh, and here's how best to do the edits:

1. In the save file, copy and paste a naval manufactory from another province into the right place for Antalya.

2. Delete the event number from the history. Assuming you haven't reached the end date for the event yet, it should fire again next time you load up and you won't need to fire it beforehand.

ICQ/MSN me if you want a hand.
 
Owen said:
Oh, and here's how best to do the edits:

1. In the save file, copy and paste a naval manufactory from another province into the right place for Antalya.

2. Delete the event number from the history. Assuming you haven't reached the end date for the event yet, it should fire again next time you load up and you won't need to fire it beforehand.

ICQ/MSN me if you want a hand.
Click to expand...

thanks for the advise fellas. :)

1) seems to be confusion about whether it is a bug or a WAD. i think its an extreme and rather brutal WAD though, if it is a WAD though. i'm gonna edit it in.

2) I poked through the file and found the event number fo the first event (the second event did not fire). I will delete the number, run a test and see what happens.

Iron: no edit policy. seems to be working. players forget they are falliable and make mistakes of memory (ie I'm missing a Conqusitador; I don't know where my fleets are, that kind of thing). and i dont have to deal with lobbyists. anyhow, every case is different.

in this game we have previously edited in a missing colony once. at a small pop cost as an edit fee. thinking if we ever do a province transfer by edit in this game, i will extract a pop/tax fee. this transfer tax will escalate as the game goes on.

editing is a slippery slope
 
Slargos said:
This kind of evil is why I will never rise above mediocrity in EU2. I hadn't even conceived of this level of abuse. :wacko:
Click to expand...

You havent risen above mediocrity?


And why do I get such a bad rap for just pointing out a potential abuse of the game engine. Did I say that I do this thing? No, I said I didnt (albiet with a little tease, but I never claimed to use it).

There are a lot of engine bugs that I can point out. Some people will use them to catch cheaters, others will use it to cheat. Several more examples;

1. Copy-paste a manufactory in development. Place it anywhere you like. The manufactory will now be building in that territory; only there will not be a graphic to represent the building process. When it appears, you claim you had a "Invention" event.

2. Edit the DIP setting of a troublesome AI nation down to 1. Try diplo-vassalizing or annexing then.

3. Lag-Colonizing. This really works best with TPs, not colonists. During a time of lag, send as many TPs as you can afford in rapid succession using right-click, left-click. Paint the world (usually red :D )!

4. The list goes on..........


The more you learn about the game the easier it is to exploit. Do I use those three extra exploits? No. But I have a devious mind that thinks of these things. I have been building scenarios and mods so much, I know a ton about how the system works. That gives me special insight into how it might be exploited. The other side of the coin is that I can help people hunt down cheaters; just like a criminal can provide insight about criminal activity to law enforcement. So dont get all moralistic on me.
 
Adam Breit said:
No, You just need someone who is to be trusted to do the edits.
Click to expand...
Sask didn't mean that, he is entirely trustworthy. Or as GM anyway. ;)

He meant that once you start doing edits, more and more of players start demanding them.
 
Owen said:
Sask didn't mean that, he is entirely trustworthy. Or as GM anyway. ;)

He meant that once you start doing edits, more and more of players start demanding them.
Click to expand...

Well, you hold a referendum then among the players wheter they accept such an edit or not. :)
 
Adam Breit said:
Well, you hold a referendum then among the players wheter they accept such an edit or not. :)
Click to expand...
No, the Languish game runs like a western democracy, where you elect the executive at the start of the game and then agree to abide by all their decisions throughout. For LU1 and LU2, that GM was me, but I had to drop out for LU3.

Of course, you can run your games as an autonomous collective if you like... :D
 
Owen said:
No, the Languish game runs like a western democracy, where you elect the executive at the start of the game and then agree to abide by all their decisions throughout. For LU1 and LU2, that GM was me, but I had to drop out for LU3.

Of course, you can run your games as an autonomous collective if you like... :D
Click to expand...

exactly. I favour a strong executive branch. still i always consult with the people before making a decision, as its smart politics, but in the end, the decison is the GM's.

the game itself is thriving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back