BrookG wrote:Both sides can use the bug, but not necessarily both sides can gain the same advantage out of it. For instance, a revived Iroquois warchief can be a powerboost to the army, whereas a British explorer can be irrelevant. Is the Indian rush the same without the 2 monks, opposed to a dead Russian explorer?
It's the same with things in aoe3. For instance, Germany can abuse the pull trick almost every game, while brit or Russia you're hardly going to have the opportunity to exploit it. We've had this discussion a lot of times, and the conclusion is that pull trick is fine because it's a nice mechanic according to the people who host the tourneys, while alt D isn't.
Because there is a degree of microing skill behind it compared to pressing a hotkey combination.
Well, you can argue that for sure. Some also say that alt d is a gamble since every time your explorer dies your opponent gets exp, which is reasonable, that's just subjective.
BrookG wrote:Both sides can use the bug, but not necessarily both sides can gain the same advantage out of it. For instance, a revived Iroquois warchief can be a powerboost to the army, whereas a British explorer can be irrelevant. Is the Indian rush the same without the 2 monks, opposed to a dead Russian explorer?
It's the same with things in aoe3. For instance, Germany can abuse the pull trick almost every game, while brit or Russia you're hardly going to have the opportunity to exploit it. We've had this discussion a lot of times, and the conclusion is that pull trick is fine because it's a nice mechanic according to the people who host the tourneys, while alt D isn't.
Because there is a degree of microing skill behind it compared to pressing a hotkey combination.
Well, you can argue that for sure. Some also say that alt d is a gamble since every time your explorer dies your opponent gets exp, which is reasonable, that's just subjective.
I know that the giveaway for using alt+d is the your explorer might die again, thus giving exp to the opponent. However, that is the case only when you revive the explorer blatantly and can be easily scoutable.
91 wrote:Is it cheat if I put back a chess piece on the board after its been beaten? Does it make a difference if my opponent sees it and could also do it?
Chess has explicit rules while aoe3 does not, so your comparison is faulty.
My question was rather about the fact that just because both can do it, is it not cheating?
It can still be cheating. I don't want to prove alt-d isn't cheating, because that is actually not possible. I want to show people that it isn't as obvious of a matter as they think. It's actually a pretty complicated question and the discussion should end up with the conclusion that alt-d is only cheating because people have decided it to be cheating.
So in that aspect, the only relevant thing about both being able to do it is that it invalidates arguments like those presented by macaco.
I'd argue that for something that is part of the game, that is not explicitly forbidden, that one should provide actual arguments as to why it is cheating. I don't actually think those arguments are there.
momuuu wrote:Or because it requires you to basically hack the game?
No you dont. It doesnt require any external programs. Lets not spread fake news, ok.
You need to change the files which is hacking the game.
No its not. Youre allowed to make your own hotkeys, if the devs didnt want you to do this, they wouldve disabled it. Changing the gamefiles, which isnt hacking, but modding, rather, like the ep, results in crc mismatch.
I m telling you again, nomenclature is of little significance. Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game. The fact that there are arguments against its use on tournaments should end the discussion: 1) Advantages only for certain types of explorers (Warchiefs and monks are overall more special than european explorers) 2) The experience points earned aren't a given situation, therefore the drawback isn't present at all times 3) It is easily executable, considering it's vague whether it's intentionally implemented or not
PS. Nobody is going to put the user on a trial nor on a pest list of any kind. You can potentially use it yourself, if your opponent uses it. It is often frowned upon in casual games.
BrookG wrote:I m telling you again, nomenclature is of little significance. Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game. The fact that there are arguments against its use on tournaments should end the discussion: 1) Advantages only for certain types of explorers (Warchiefs and monks are overall more special than european explorers) 2) The experience points earned aren't a given situation, therefore the drawback isn't present at all times 3) It is easily executable, considering it's vague whether it's intentionally implemented or not
None of this shows that alt-d should be banned though..
BrookG wrote:I m telling you again, nomenclature is of little significance. Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game. The fact that there are arguments against its use on tournaments should end the discussion: 1) Advantages only for certain types of explorers (Warchiefs and monks are overall more special than european explorers)
The cover mode exploit as never been considered as a bug. It has been nerfed because it was abusable, but it also only helps China and Aztecs).
2) The experience points earned aren't a given situation, therefore the drawback isn't present at all times
What?
3) It is easily executable, considering it's vague whether it's intentionally implemented or not Yes it is easily executable, so what? Otto is easy to play, does it mean that we should ban the civ? Actually yes, Otto was banned from the RE tourneys . Still, it proves my point, we ban what we don't like and what we believe is abusable, not just "bugs".
BrookG wrote:I m telling you again, nomenclature is of little significance. Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game. The fact that there are arguments against its use on tournaments should end the discussion: 1) Advantages only for certain types of explorers (Warchiefs and monks are overall more special than european explorers) 2) The experience points earned aren't a given situation, therefore the drawback isn't present at all times 3) It is easily executable, considering it's vague whether it's intentionally implemented or not
None of this shows that alt-d should be banned though..
Why not? How is giving an unfair advantage to some civs on a competitive level not enough?
1) Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating; however, the precise determination of what is or is not considered an exploit can be controversial.
2) Exploit =/= hacking. I didn't say it wasn't an exploit. It is. So is alt-d. That's not the question. The question is, is it a cheat, and if so, why so? The conclusion is that is only so because people have decided it is. If you support this conclusion for alt-d, but not for moesbar, you are a dirty hypocrite.
BrookG wrote:I m telling you again, nomenclature is of little significance. Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game. The fact that there are arguments against its use on tournaments should end the discussion: 1) Advantages only for certain types of explorers (Warchiefs and monks are overall more special than european explorers)
The cover mode exploit as never been considered as a bug. It has been nerfed because it was abusable, but it also only helps China and Aztecs).
BrookG wrote:For instance, a revived Iroquois warchief can be a powerboost to the army, whereas a British explorer can be irrelevant. Is the Indian rush the same without the 2 monks, opposed to a dead Russian explorer?
2) The experience points earned aren't a given situation, therefore the drawback isn't present at all times
What?
BrookG wrote:However, that is the case only when you revive the explorer blatantly and can be easily scoutable.
3) It is easily executable, considering it's vague whether it's intentionally implemented or not Yes it is easily executable, so what? Otto is easy to play, does it mean that we should ban the civ? Actually yes, Otto was banned from the RE tourneys . Still, it proves my point, we ban what we don't like and what we believe is abusable, not just "bugs".
-Otto civ design is probably intentional, whether it is OP, easy or not, is another topic. The developers' intention/level of caring isn't very clear in the alt+d case.
Name it a bug, name it a feature, name it a cheat, it doesn't matter in the end. Apparently we can discuss forever about it. The fact is that it has little room in competitive play.
BrookG wrote:I m telling you again, nomenclature is of little significance. Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game. The fact that there are arguments against its use on tournaments should end the discussion: 1) Advantages only for certain types of explorers (Warchiefs and monks are overall more special than european explorers)
The cover mode exploit as never been considered as a bug. It has been nerfed because it was abusable, but it also only helps China and Aztecs).
BrookG wrote:For instance, a revived Iroquois warchief can be a powerboost to the army, whereas a British explorer can be irrelevant. Is the Indian rush the same without the 2 monks, opposed to a dead Russian explorer?
2) The experience points earned aren't a given situation, therefore the drawback isn't present at all times
What?
BrookG wrote:However, that is the case only when you revive the explorer blatantly and can be easily scoutable.
3) It is easily executable, considering it's vague whether it's intentionally implemented or not Yes it is easily executable, so what? Otto is easy to play, does it mean that we should ban the civ? Actually yes, Otto was banned from the RE tourneys . Still, it proves my point, we ban what we don't like and what we believe is abusable, not just "bugs".
-Otto civ design is probably intentional, whether it is OP, easy or not, is another topic. The developers' intention/level of caring isn't very clear in the alt+d case.
Name it a bug, name it a feature, name it a cheat, it doesn't matter in the end. Apparently we can discuss forever about it. The fact is that it has little room in competitive play.
BrookG wrote:I m telling you again, nomenclature is of little significance. Whether alt+d happens in casual games matters only for the players that are involved in that game. The fact that there are arguments against its use on tournaments should end the discussion: 1) Advantages only for certain types of explorers (Warchiefs and monks are overall more special than european explorers)
The cover mode exploit as never been considered as a bug. It has been nerfed because it was abusable, but it also only helps China and Aztecs).
BrookG wrote:For instance, a revived Iroquois warchief can be a powerboost to the army, whereas a British explorer can be irrelevant. Is the Indian rush the same without the 2 monks, opposed to a dead Russian explorer?
2) The experience points earned aren't a given situation, therefore the drawback isn't present at all times
What?
BrookG wrote:However, that is the case only when you revive the explorer blatantly and can be easily scoutable.
3) It is easily executable, considering it's vague whether it's intentionally implemented or not Yes it is easily executable, so what? Otto is easy to play, does it mean that we should ban the civ? Actually yes, Otto was banned from the RE tourneys . Still, it proves my point, we ban what we don't like and what we believe is abusable, not just "bugs".
-Otto civ design is probably intentional, whether it is OP, easy or not, is another topic. The developers' intention/level of caring isn't very clear in the alt+d case.
Name it a bug, name it a feature, name it a cheat, it doesn't matter in the end. Apparently we can discuss forever about it. The fact is that it has little room in competitive play.
The last statement requires citation. I don't see why it has 'little room in competitive play'.
1) Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating; however, the precise determination of what is or is not considered an exploit can be controversial.
2) Exploit =/= hacking. I didn't say it wasn't an exploit. It is. So is alt-d. That's not the question. The question is, is it a cheat, and if so, why so? The conclusion is that is only so because people have decided it is. If you support this conclusion for alt-d, but not for moesbar, you are a dirty hypocrite.
Arguments in favor of the cheating view involve the spirit of the game and the potentially damaging effects of the exploit on the game's community.[3][4] While the rules or game code may not explicitly disallow a specific exploit, it may be seen that using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game.[3]
So it's not possible that I think moesbar has "damaging effects on the game's community" and that "using that exploit goes against the spirit of the game" while I do not think the same thing about alt-d? Maybe it's a nuanced subject where the game-changing nature of moesbar (or rather, the way that literally removes everything about the game) versus the subtle difference of alt-d can swing one's opinion? I'd find it easier to make a case against moesbar to be honest.
BrookG wrote:1) Advantages only for certain types of explorers (Warchiefs and monks are overall more special than european explorers)
2) The experience points earned aren't a given situation, therefore the drawback isn't present at all times
3) It is easily executable, considering it's vague whether it's intentionally implemented or not
Name it a bug, name it a feature, name it a cheat, it doesn't matter in the end. Apparently we can discuss forever about it. The fact is that it has little room in competitive play.
The last statement requires citation. I don't see why it has 'little room in competitive play'.
BrookG wrote:1) Advantages only for certain types of explorers (Warchiefs and monks are overall more special than european explorers)
2) The experience points earned aren't a given situation, therefore the drawback isn't present at all times
3) It is easily executable, considering it's vague whether it's intentionally implemented or not
Name it a bug, name it a feature, name it a cheat, it doesn't matter in the end. Apparently we can discuss forever about it. The fact is that it has little room in competitive play.
The last statement requires citation. I don't see why it has 'little room in competitive play'.