Multiplayer Rules, All games should abide by these

This is intended to be a list of uncontroversial rules that we all agree on, as a community. These rules should be followed in all multiplayer games with almost no exceptions and in games where they are not stated by the admin should still be in effect. If people break these rules they will simply not be welcome in the community.


1. Trade agreements are binding. If you are trading resource X for resource Y then you must honour the trade and send resource X. While many games have non-binding diplomacy where an allied nation might stab you in the back, conning people in trade agreements is never acceptable.

Reason: Essentially, this is a bridge too far and upsets people. But it would also undermine trading so much that it would harm this part of the game, which is one many people enjoy.


2. Sending items to people that they do not want is forbidden. It doesn't matter what the item is or how many you send.

Reason: Players accept these 'gifts' by default and they appear in the lab before items from forging do. Because the lab has limited space, this can lead to items that people forge simply vanishing from the game. They pay the gems and get nothing in return.


3. Creating a pre-game alliance is not allowed unless the game calls for it. While in a team game you may well be allied with another nation from the very start unless the game specifically calls for it you may not ally or enter in any other diplomatic agreement with another player before the game begins.

Reason: It is unfair to enter a game with an alliance simply because someone playing is your friend or because you both believe it is an advantage. Players should start on an equal footing. Since diplomacy is usually allowed in games there is no reason to conduct it beforehand unless you are trying to gain some unfair advantage.


4. Going AI without notifying the admin and asking for permission is not acceptable. The admin may be happy for you to go AI. He may even state that you may go AI in his game without warning, which is certainly permission. But you may not submit a turn with the 'become computer controlled' command without that permission.

Reason: Going AI is permanent. It cannot be reversed. If the other players or the admin are not happy with it they will have to perform a rollback which is not a reliable or pleasant thing to have to do. They are unlikely to be happy with it because it voids the possibility of a substitute player and the AI in dominions is sufficiently bad that it is generally worse than a staling player.



Nb. Additional Information

1. Trade agreements are binding. (by Calahan)
Trade agreements in this context are defined as any simple trades that are completed within a few turns. For example PlayerA agrees to buy an item from PlayerB. PlayerA sends the gems. PlayerB forges the item. PlayerB sends the item to PlayerA. This trade takes 3 turns, and is a typical example of a simple trade agreement.

YOU CAN NOT arrange non-simple agreements, such as for example insisting that a NAP is a conditional part of a trade agreement, and then claim the NAP is binding just because it was part of a trade agreement. Manipulating the binding aspect of trade agreements in this way, or other similar ways, by trying to transfer the binding condition of trade agreements to cover other aspects of a deal is not acceptable, and it certainly does not make the other aspects of the agreement binding.


Suggestions for more, please!

All those look fine so far to me. Good stuff Mr.Bomb.

I think move-blocking probably needs to be in these rules somewhere, but that area can get a little cloudy as we know. Since someone move-blocking with a Scout obviously has no leg to stand on, but when you block with a small chaff army then things start turning grey and you get into the whole "did that force have any realistic chance of inflicting damage, if not then all it did was block my move"... "but I didn't know it didn't have any chance of inflicting damage, as I thought it did" etc etc.

I remember there being a proper lengthy discussion on the Crap forum on this a few years back (discussion rather than rants), and I think the conclusion was that once you get past the obvious move-blocking with Scouts, then it just becomes a grey area. But that's not to say we'd come to the same conclusion on this forum.


Edit - I'll probably have a few more suggestions at some point when I get some down time (unless you or someone else beats me to mentioning them)

Calahan:

From my view, it's not the moving from likely attacked province with a token force (which I consider a perfectly valid way to scout scripts). The problem is using a token force from a third direction to block move. IE: I am defending province A. My opponent is expected to attack from province B. I move token force from province C to province B and block his move. From my understanding a token attack from A to B will be VERY unlikely to block (much larger force versus smaller) but for some odd mechanic the move from C to B is likely to block. That's the one should be banned.

You should make a statement that when using mods, it's bad form to use what is clearly a bug like any free troops or free summons.

You might want to ban blood hunting UW. At least I don't do it since it's cheesy. I know it seems obvious with the Great Kraken but still makes no sense. Now, I suppose you could argue that there is no real reason a aquatic nation couldn't hunt it's own aquatic citizens. Which might make using the Great Kraken acceptable. But still, the fact that slaves drown UW if left after a fight suggests it's not WAD.

Not sure I quite get your example Maer. Is your opponents force in B actually moving anywhere in your example? and if so where to? As you only say "My opponent is expected to attack from province B", but you don't mention where it's going to. As with the following province setup....

...B
../..\
A -- C

Then if your force in A doesn't move, while your token force in C attacks B, then your opponents force in B, if it is ordered to attack A, won't be blocked (or at least shouldn't. As if it does that is news to me). If your opponents force in B attacks C though then it can certainly be blocked.

Although in that example I just gave, I feel there is room for entering into the grey area. As if you expand the map a little and add some game history...

...E
....\
.....D
..../
...B
../..\
A -- C

If your capital is at A (or even just a regular fort), and over the past three turns your opponent has conquered your lands in the sequence E-D-B with his main (only) army, and which looks hell bent on bee-lining for your capital. Then it's not unreasonable to expect him to attack your capital at A next turn with the force in B.

But then one play in that scenario, as the defender, is to try and hold A with everything you've got, while attacking B with a (token) force from C in order to try and cut off the only retreat should you successfully hold A. And if you win at A and your opponent fails to secure B then you've won a total victory. But it only takes a moments hesitation on behalf of your opponent to delay his attack on your capital, and instead of attacking A decides to attack C, at which point there's every chance of his force in B being move-blocked by your token force attacking from C.

And to me that scenario is just one of many possible ones that is very difficult to interpret and make a judgement on. As it's certainly a valid strategic option to try and cut your opponents retreat with an attack from C-B if you have every reason to expect their army to attack in an obvious direction, even if it's a token force you are attacking with. But to show intent of a move block in that example would be pretty much impossible, and probably unfair, as it was a clear and valid strategic option at the time and given the recent movement history of your opponent. It's hard to see that other than a gameplay incident and accidental move-block IMO.

Although as I said there's lots of grey stuff here, and while I hate move blocking, I do recognise that things can often be far from clear cut (especially when token forces are involved and players choose unexpected attack targets with their armies)

(Fuck that diagram was annoying to type. Why didn't I just do a quick save game.)

I don't really see any reason to ban bloodhunting UW as a blanket thing. Is it somewhat cheesy, yes. Is it cheesy enough to be worth banning, not really.

It's obviously not uncontroversial to ban, so I won't put it in this thread, but I personally think it's one of the most clear cut exploits in the game. It can only be accessed by a shortcut and blood slaves don't work properly in combat underwater.

I would bet any amount of money the devs didn't intend for it to be in the game.

Yeah, but that is even harder to enforce. I say, let them hunt underwater. If people want to waste the gems.

What about copying bogus orders, fleeing underwater when seas of ice is up. (and other seas of ice problems)

Site searching while sieging. (also only shortcut accessible)

From a versimilitude point of view, if we assume from shit like Cleansing Water and unit descriptions that water is intended to be a cleansing aspect that direct-counters blood magic and death magic, then it's perfectly reasonable to assume that while blood MAGIC doesn't work underwater, underwater people (with the exception of illithids) still have BLOOD.

You can for example forge blood items underwater. It's just that the rituals and spells don't work because of ocean.

So you can totally kidnap mermaid virgins, you just have to take them abovewater before you can sacrifice them to demons.


Given how haphazard the balancing the devs did was, I think going with the theme/fluff was probably more important to them.

I guess the thing with underwater blood hunting is that it doesn't really confer that much of an advantage, since it takes so long to get slaves without actual blood mages.

There's other stuff water nations need a landfort for, too, so it's not exactly without precedent.

You can get blood mages underwater, ring of water breathing for example. Or a LA Mictlan Rain King. Great Krakens come with blood in CBM, or every single one i've summoned has randomed it.

I don't really think about thematic justifications for it or whether or not it breaks game balance, my issue is simply that on land you can access the command by normal means whereas underwater you can't (is it the only command that is actually disabled underwater? Possibly hide too?). It seems much more likely that being able to access it via shortcut is the bug, not that the command being disabled is the bug.

If you accept the shortcut is a bug then it's clearly an exploit since you're using a bug to gain resources. So all it comes down to is whether you think:

a) The devs intended it to only be accessible by shortcut

B) The devs intended it to be accessible by the command menu but a bug prevents that

c) The devs intended blood hunting to be disabled underwater but a bug allows it via shortcut

The first option is extremely unlikely, the second is possible, the third is likely. Does anyone disagree with that logic?

c is probably the most likely but,

a) it doesn't really make sense thematically.

b ) it doesn't really make sense balance wise.

c) it's not something that confers an unfair advantage, and in fact, having some of your holdings underwater and not being able to bloodhunt those can be a considerable disadvantage vis someone else who has holdings entirely on land.

C is probably the most pertinent. Other stuff, scoutblocking labfilling etc is using bugs/unintended effects in the game for unfair advantage against the spirit of the game. I see no real reason why blood hunting is disabled underwater, and see no way that blood hunting underwater is using a bug for unfair advantage. If blood hunting underwater gave you thousands of slaves or something, sure, but you can blood hunt abovewater provinces, and if anything, blood hunting underwater is harder (very few amphibian bloodhunters, need to spend gems on rings or whatever). There's just no real reason why it's 'unfair' to do so, you can blood hunt in mountains and fields and forests and whatever else... why not sea provinces?

I am aware unfairness is a factor in some things being banned (like hinnom being banned originally in many games) but I don't see it as a factor in the blood hunting underwater issue at all. That's ok though, it isn't a required factor - scout blocking is completely fair as all players can do it but it is generally agreed it is not ok.

To be clear, the only reason I have an issue with blood hunting underwater is that it appears to me to be exploiting a bug for gain. I don't actually care how great the gain is, how much thematic sense it makes or how it might change balance. If the gain is enough that people will do it and so exploit a bug, it's enough that it should be banned. If it isn't enough of a gain that they'd do it then who cares if it's banned or not? May as well ban it just in case.

That's just my view though, clearly we don't have consensus.


I agree with the rule about exploiting something which is clearly broken in a mod file. I'm not sure how best to express this though. Something like,....

You may not exploit clear bugs in game mods. Some mod files will contain bugs which may be exploited for gain. Sometimes these bugs will not be apparent but often they will be obvious. If a mod gives you a good recruitable for 0 or 1 gold then it is a bug. If a powerful spell costs nothing, this is a bug. If you have a unit that randomly has 9 in a magic path, that is a bug. It is impossible to cover all the possibilities with a rule so if in doubt check with your admin. Saying 'I didn't realise it was a bug' is not an excuse in cases where it /obviously/ is.

Reason: Mods may add content to the game that is not balanced regardless of bugs but if the mod is allowed in the game presumably the admin is prepared for this. It is not reasonable to expect the admin to have spotted every bug in a mod though and things like test values (0 gems, 0 gold etc) or typos can lead to clearly overpowered or broken content appearing in the game. Exploiting this content breaks any semblance of game balance or competition.

Calahan, I realize the whole moving blocking thing is complex as hell and I still don't get it. But you made a great point about cutting off retreat using a small army. That's VERY legit.

I guess it's just way too complex to rule. Let's hope folks stick with the spirit of using small armies defensively or offensively. There are plenty a valid reasons to use them. I mean, hell, the classic scout army move is taking a province cleared by a horror or ghost riders. And nothing wrong with that.

On the blood hunting issue, I'm with you Sombre. If you can't set the command by menu it's an exploit. To me that's quite clearly not WAD.

Another thing, fortblocking.

You can park a hidden unitspawning commander at a fort with no pd. You now cannot get rid of that commander, and the fort remains blocked. iirc that was possible, and only mind hunt could get rid of it.