Poll: Is it Cheating to Break Pact during Sunspots?

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Poll: Is it Cheating to Break Pact during Sunspots?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Poll: Is it Cheating to Break Pact during Sunspots?

Darkstar posted 07-01-99 05:01 PM ET
Since this issue has come up a few times, I thought it would be nice to get a large opinion base on it...
Is it "cheating" to break a pact (via right click) during Sunspots?
I say... No. As leader, if I tell my people, don't treat them like one of our own. Charge their military for fuel, etc... The former Pact-mate is going to find out darned quick.
So, that starts the count at:
1 - No
0 - Yes
-Darkstar
Krushala posted 07-01-99 05:48 PM ET
yes but it is still a terrible design flaw. You should be able to send an emissary (unit) to conduct communications.
Totals:
Yes: 1
No: 1
Nell_Smith posted 07-01-99 05:55 PM ET
Hmmm... technically, if sunspots are meant to break *all* communications, and seeing as Pacts can only be ended by a direct conference between faction leaders, then I suppose that, yes, breaking a Pact during sunspot activity would be cheating.
Realistically, though, you'd think that Zak could just look out of the window, think, "Aha, sunspots!", jump in a rover, nip over to New Jerusalem and tell Miriam to get lost... assuming, of course, the unlikely event of anyone staying in a Pact with Miriam for more than three nanoseconds... so in that case, maybe it isn't cheating.
Hmmm... I vote No, it's not cheating - but it is a design flaw.
Nell
aceplayer posted 07-01-99 06:19 PM ET
hmmm - I see darkstar has been reading the SCENARIO CONTEST threads
imo - in an SP game - if the SP game lets you do it - then its fair.
The question that was brought up is this: since MP players have decided to ban it - should it be legal in a CONTEST - which is a form of multiplayer.
Bottom line is - its a design bug - if I cant communicate to renounce pact (left click) how come I can renounce pact and not communicate (right click).
I didnt even know about this - because I never tried right clicking....
try the SCENARIO CONTESTS at:
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/3802/
See the big improvement announcement thread for details.
Goobmeister posted 07-01-99 06:26 PM ET
I don't think it should be considered cheating. And I am not thinking clearly enough to say why. :-)
Yes - 1
No - 3
Goob
MichaeltheGreat posted 07-01-99 07:52 PM ET
Yes - it should be considered a cheat, for two reasons - it is an oversight in the game coding, since no other form of communication is at all possible.
It also allows you to then attack a former pact brother without normal diplomatic penalty in the sense that other factions pacted with the victim will not declare vendetta on you. During sunspots, you can also commit atrocities without the normal UN sanctions, since even word of your genocidal base destruction, nerve gassing and nerve stapling doesn't get out.
The intent of sunspots is that there be no communication at all, which is pure suck-brain design, and then you have this one convenient loophole which is totally inconsistent with the intended game features.
It's a bug, and it's a cheat.
MichaeltheGreat posted 07-01-99 07:55 PM ET
That makes it 2 to 3 so far.
Also, darkstar - based on what you say, you should just be able to waste a pact brother's unit without warning and figure they'll get the message loud and clear, but you can't.
Bingmann posted 07-01-99 08:36 PM ET
I don't think the right-click thing is a bug or a cheat - I think it is there on purpose. One of the things that sucked in Civ2 was the way it forcibly prevented you from going postal when you wanted to. That's why there's no peace-enforcing Senate, Great Wall, or UN in SMAC. They put the right click in there for breaking a pact because otherwise there is no way to start hostilities with a pact-mate when comms are down. You can break a treaty or a truce by simply attacking. If you try to do the same with a pact, you just move on top of the "enemy" unit. I bet if you ask Firaxis, this is the reply you will get (if they give you one).
MichaeltheGreat posted 07-01-99 09:49 PM ET
Good point Bing, although I disagree in some respects.
CivII was too unbalanced, but there were always workarounds - a little cash and a diplomat, or the right kind of government - or just a quick switch to anarchy. The wonders forced you to agree to peace treaties, but they didn't prevent you from kicking someone's ass unless the Senate interfered in Republic or Democracy - the soultion to that was to go to another form of government.
SMAC has a more subtle peace enforcement mechanism - it ain't easy going to war with a -5 Police rating.
We KNOW that if Firaxis gives an answer, it will be self-justifying. I'm sure they have an explanation for the dialog box in the SE with the four unlabeled pushbuttons, on of which doesn't do anything anyway.
The point is you could have enough votes to force a diplomatic victory, but you can't communicate. You can't enter or change any other diplomatic state, you can get away with atrocities (because the victim can't communicate) and you can't end a war, but you can degrade a pact to a treaty?
The behavior is totally inconsistent. Considering the number of other right click features (and the total number of other features) that are totally inconsistent with each other, I see it as an omission - if there were normal diplomatic penalties for atrocities and betrayals, I'd agree with you that it was a feature, but there aren't.
It is a known strategy to wait until sunspots to nerve staple your damned drones and screw your friends and nerve gas your enemies or waste their cities because of the loophole, so if that's the case, what are the Sunspots for - a negative disruption or a positive enhancement? Normally, the ability to communicate is seen as a positive situation.
tfs99 posted 07-01-99 10:02 PM ET
I agree it is a practical measure. I don't really see it as inconsistent though.
There needs to be a way to attack Pact Bros/Sis during sunspots. Perhaps if SMAC had an alternate way besides moving to perform combat, then the right click option would not be needed.
As it stands, would there ever be a reason to use the right click method other than you wanted to go to war?
IMO ... Not a bug, not cheating
SMAC n ... Ted S.
MichaeltheGreat posted 07-01-99 10:26 PM ET
I don't have a problem with betrayal and going to war - but why the exemption from diplomatic effects of other pact brothers declaring war on you, or why the effect of getting away with atrocities because of no communications? I could see the limits from Sunspots being no UN level activities, but if you can communicate at all, why not any communications with whatever factions you are in physical contact with? That's what I see as inconsistent.
laurens posted 07-01-99 10:33 PM ET
I supposed I'm one of the culprits for starting this up but then again, my viewpoint has been posted for two times already on separate threads...
Really, dun think it's a bug. You dun need official declaration to start a war, I like the infamour tag. Know Hitler?
Normal diplomatic penalties for atrocities: Yes, I only found one. Try using the planet buster during sunspot, and everybody will declare war on you. Perhaps the problem really lie on how you interpret the way to break a pact when you can't communicate effectively.
Not a cheat.
Yes - 2
No - 6
OldWarrior_42 posted 07-01-99 10:52 PM ET
Not a cheat in my opinion.
OldWarrior_42 posted 07-01-99 10:56 PM ET
But then this is just another way for me to be the backstabbing bastard that I am....Anyway ..off to the zone for some MP AoE:RoR
Koshko posted 07-01-99 11:57 PM ET
All's fair in love and war, so it's Not cheating.
Yes-2
No-8
K posted 07-02-99 12:00 AM ET
No. Breaking a Pact is merely a decision to attack someone. Why would a sunspot stop this?
Sunspots are supposed to be "fog of war" "no rules" types of situations that allow for completely foolproof "bad stuff" to be done by either side.
Yes: 2
No: 7
Zoetrope posted 07-02-99 01:50 AM ET
MtG: SE pushbuttons??
Btw, I'd like Firaxis to try explaining the help balloons for the paint icons in the scenario editor. They reek of untested rush-job.
Of course they ignore this query, every time.
Darkstar posted 07-02-99 03:31 AM ET
Thanks for the input gang.
MtG and others... there is a subtle backing to this "Non-face-to-face" declarations... If I commit any atrocity against another during sunspots, my honor drops, and once normal communications are restored, the other factions warn me about doing the same to them. Also, if you do a nasty, save the game, and reload it, your HONOR in the reloaded game displays your true honor (usually a fast ride from Honorable to Wicked.) I've complained to Firaxis about that, but we know what that's worth.
So, I think its a matter of design that wasn't documented well. It's there for the panzies that are afraid of doing mean things during normal times. Or so my opinion goes...
But I do love hearing everyone's opinion. It seems that SMAC is so schitzophrenic in so many places, that I have to wonder how other SMAC players interpret the game.
-Darkstar
MikeH II posted 07-02-99 04:10 AM ET
No - it's a tactical move. Do as much nasty stuff as you can during sun-spots.
I think that's 8 - 2. It could be thought of as a design weakness though.
aceplayer posted 07-02-99 05:12 AM ET
well its definitely a design error
my point (made above) is this -
if it was intended - then left click should ask you if you want to renounce pact - before it kicks you out for sunspots.
so 1) it is a design flaw
2) it is not what i would call a "cheat" but it certainly makes sense to not allow it in competition - asking about "acceptable tactic" rather than "cheat" may have made the vote closer
3) I did not notice anyone make the following point - and it implies its was intended - if the faction declines to speak to you - you can still right click and renounce pact
my conclusion - they should have made left click ask if you wish to renounce pact - before declining to speak with you or stating sunspot activity....
Aredhran posted 07-02-99 05:16 AM ET
No Cheat.
MikeH II posted 07-02-99 05:39 AM ET
aceplayer, I think what you say makes sense. It isn't a cheat but your design would make more sense.
ARES 7 posted 07-02-99 08:59 AM ET
I didnt use right klick-options yet (may be I'm too much newbee for that). But the arguments of tfs99, laurens, k and specially aceplayer do convince me.
Programming could be better, but:
No cheat. No banning.
ARES 7
Bingmann posted 07-02-99 09:20 AM ET
ace- Left click = communicate. Right click = unilateral action. When you break a pact by right-clicking, you are recalling your troops and kicking out the other side's troops. If you couldn't do this under sun-spots because it should somehow require communication, then all of your units should go on auto-pilot during sun-spots because obviously you can't communicate with them either.
Regarding point #3, yes, that's why it is there - to unilaterally break a pact whenever formal communications aren't possible: communication refused or sun-spots.
It should not be banned from competition in general, but I fully support being able to ban it from specific games if desired.
Darkstar posted 07-02-99 12:55 PM ET
Bingman, I really like your explanation of things. Thanks!
And once again everyone, thanks!
-Darkstar
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Poll: Is it Cheating to Break Pact during Sunspots?
Darkstar	posted 07-01-99 05:01 PM ET Since this issue has come up a few times, I thought it would be nice to get a large opinion base on it... Is it "cheating" to break a pact (via right click) during Sunspots? I say... No. As leader, if I tell my people, don't treat them like one of our own. Charge their military for fuel, etc... The former Pact-mate is going to find out darned quick. So, that starts the count at: 1 - No 0 - Yes -Darkstar
Krushala	posted 07-01-99 05:48 PM ET yes but it is still a terrible design flaw. You should be able to send an emissary (unit) to conduct communications. Totals: Yes: 1 No: 1
Nell_Smith	posted 07-01-99 05:55 PM ET Hmmm... technically, if sunspots are meant to break all communications, and seeing as Pacts can only be ended by a direct conference between faction leaders, then I suppose that, yes, breaking a Pact during sunspot activity would be cheating. Realistically, though, you'd think that Zak could just look out of the window, think, "Aha, sunspots!", jump in a rover, nip over to New Jerusalem and tell Miriam to get lost... assuming, of course, the unlikely event of anyone staying in a Pact with Miriam for more than three nanoseconds... so in that case, maybe it isn't cheating. Hmmm... I vote No, it's not cheating - but it is a design flaw. Nell
aceplayer	posted 07-01-99 06:19 PM ET hmmm - I see darkstar has been reading the SCENARIO CONTEST threads imo - in an SP game - if the SP game lets you do it - then its fair. The question that was brought up is this: since MP players have decided to ban it - should it be legal in a CONTEST - which is a form of multiplayer. Bottom line is - its a design bug - if I cant communicate to renounce pact (left click) how come I can renounce pact and not communicate (right click). I didnt even know about this - because I never tried right clicking.... try the SCENARIO CONTESTS at: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/3802/ See the big improvement announcement thread for details.
Goobmeister	posted 07-01-99 06:26 PM ET I don't think it should be considered cheating. And I am not thinking clearly enough to say why. :-) Yes - 1 No - 3 Goob
MichaeltheGreat	posted 07-01-99 07:52 PM ET Yes - it should be considered a cheat, for two reasons - it is an oversight in the game coding, since no other form of communication is at all possible. It also allows you to then attack a former pact brother without normal diplomatic penalty in the sense that other factions pacted with the victim will not declare vendetta on you. During sunspots, you can also commit atrocities without the normal UN sanctions, since even word of your genocidal base destruction, nerve gassing and nerve stapling doesn't get out. The intent of sunspots is that there be no communication at all, which is pure suck-brain design, and then you have this one convenient loophole which is totally inconsistent with the intended game features. It's a bug, and it's a cheat.
MichaeltheGreat	posted 07-01-99 07:55 PM ET That makes it 2 to 3 so far. Also, darkstar - based on what you say, you should just be able to waste a pact brother's unit without warning and figure they'll get the message loud and clear, but you can't.
Bingmann	posted 07-01-99 08:36 PM ET I don't think the right-click thing is a bug or a cheat - I think it is there on purpose. One of the things that sucked in Civ2 was the way it forcibly prevented you from going postal when you wanted to. That's why there's no peace-enforcing Senate, Great Wall, or UN in SMAC. They put the right click in there for breaking a pact because otherwise there is no way to start hostilities with a pact-mate when comms are down. You can break a treaty or a truce by simply attacking. If you try to do the same with a pact, you just move on top of the "enemy" unit. I bet if you ask Firaxis, this is the reply you will get (if they give you one).
MichaeltheGreat	posted 07-01-99 09:49 PM ET Good point Bing, although I disagree in some respects. CivII was too unbalanced, but there were always workarounds - a little cash and a diplomat, or the right kind of government - or just a quick switch to anarchy. The wonders forced you to agree to peace treaties, but they didn't prevent you from kicking someone's ass unless the Senate interfered in Republic or Democracy - the soultion to that was to go to another form of government. SMAC has a more subtle peace enforcement mechanism - it ain't easy going to war with a -5 Police rating. We KNOW that if Firaxis gives an answer, it will be self-justifying. I'm sure they have an explanation for the dialog box in the SE with the four unlabeled pushbuttons, on of which doesn't do anything anyway. The point is you could have enough votes to force a diplomatic victory, but you can't communicate. You can't enter or change any other diplomatic state, you can get away with atrocities (because the victim can't communicate) and you can't end a war, but you can degrade a pact to a treaty? The behavior is totally inconsistent. Considering the number of other right click features (and the total number of other features) that are totally inconsistent with each other, I see it as an omission - if there were normal diplomatic penalties for atrocities and betrayals, I'd agree with you that it was a feature, but there aren't. It is a known strategy to wait until sunspots to nerve staple your damned drones and screw your friends and nerve gas your enemies or waste their cities because of the loophole, so if that's the case, what are the Sunspots for - a negative disruption or a positive enhancement? Normally, the ability to communicate is seen as a positive situation.
tfs99	posted 07-01-99 10:02 PM ET I agree it is a practical measure. I don't really see it as inconsistent though. There needs to be a way to attack Pact Bros/Sis during sunspots. Perhaps if SMAC had an alternate way besides moving to perform combat, then the right click option would not be needed. As it stands, would there ever be a reason to use the right click method other than you wanted to go to war? IMO ... Not a bug, not cheating SMAC n ... Ted S.
MichaeltheGreat	posted 07-01-99 10:26 PM ET I don't have a problem with betrayal and going to war - but why the exemption from diplomatic effects of other pact brothers declaring war on you, or why the effect of getting away with atrocities because of no communications? I could see the limits from Sunspots being no UN level activities, but if you can communicate at all, why not any communications with whatever factions you are in physical contact with? That's what I see as inconsistent.
laurens	posted 07-01-99 10:33 PM ET I supposed I'm one of the culprits for starting this up but then again, my viewpoint has been posted for two times already on separate threads... Really, dun think it's a bug. You dun need official declaration to start a war, I like the infamour tag. Know Hitler? Normal diplomatic penalties for atrocities: Yes, I only found one. Try using the planet buster during sunspot, and everybody will declare war on you. Perhaps the problem really lie on how you interpret the way to break a pact when you can't communicate effectively. Not a cheat. Yes - 2 No - 6
OldWarrior_42	posted 07-01-99 10:52 PM ET Not a cheat in my opinion.
OldWarrior_42	posted 07-01-99 10:56 PM ET But then this is just another way for me to be the backstabbing bastard that I am....Anyway ..off to the zone for some MP AoE:RoR
Koshko	posted 07-01-99 11:57 PM ET All's fair in love and war, so it's Not cheating. Yes-2 No-8
K	posted 07-02-99 12:00 AM ET No. Breaking a Pact is merely a decision to attack someone. Why would a sunspot stop this? Sunspots are supposed to be "fog of war" "no rules" types of situations that allow for completely foolproof "bad stuff" to be done by either side. Yes: 2 No: 7
Zoetrope	posted 07-02-99 01:50 AM ET MtG: SE pushbuttons?? Btw, I'd like Firaxis to try explaining the help balloons for the paint icons in the scenario editor. They reek of untested rush-job. Of course they ignore this query, every time.
Darkstar	posted 07-02-99 03:31 AM ET Thanks for the input gang. MtG and others... there is a subtle backing to this "Non-face-to-face" declarations... If I commit any atrocity against another during sunspots, my honor drops, and once normal communications are restored, the other factions warn me about doing the same to them. Also, if you do a nasty, save the game, and reload it, your HONOR in the reloaded game displays your true honor (usually a fast ride from Honorable to Wicked.) I've complained to Firaxis about that, but we know what that's worth. So, I think its a matter of design that wasn't documented well. It's there for the panzies that are afraid of doing mean things during normal times. Or so my opinion goes... But I do love hearing everyone's opinion. It seems that SMAC is so schitzophrenic in so many places, that I have to wonder how other SMAC players interpret the game. -Darkstar
MikeH II	posted 07-02-99 04:10 AM ET No - it's a tactical move. Do as much nasty stuff as you can during sun-spots. I think that's 8 - 2. It could be thought of as a design weakness though.
aceplayer	posted 07-02-99 05:12 AM ET well its definitely a design error my point (made above) is this - if it was intended - then left click should ask you if you want to renounce pact - before it kicks you out for sunspots. so 1) it is a design flaw 2) it is not what i would call a "cheat" but it certainly makes sense to not allow it in competition - asking about "acceptable tactic" rather than "cheat" may have made the vote closer 3) I did not notice anyone make the following point - and it implies its was intended - if the faction declines to speak to you - you can still right click and renounce pact my conclusion - they should have made left click ask if you wish to renounce pact - before declining to speak with you or stating sunspot activity....
Aredhran	posted 07-02-99 05:16 AM ET No Cheat.
MikeH II	posted 07-02-99 05:39 AM ET aceplayer, I think what you say makes sense. It isn't a cheat but your design would make more sense.
ARES 7	posted 07-02-99 08:59 AM ET I didnt use right klick-options yet (may be I'm too much newbee for that). But the arguments of tfs99, laurens, k and specially aceplayer do convince me. Programming could be better, but: No cheat. No banning. ARES 7
Bingmann	posted 07-02-99 09:20 AM ET ace- Left click = communicate. Right click = unilateral action. When you break a pact by right-clicking, you are recalling your troops and kicking out the other side's troops. If you couldn't do this under sun-spots because it should somehow require communication, then all of your units should go on auto-pilot during sun-spots because obviously you can't communicate with them either. Regarding point #3, yes, that's why it is there - to unilaterally break a pact whenever formal communications aren't possible: communication refused or sun-spots. It should not be banned from competition in general, but I fully support being able to ban it from specific games if desired.
Darkstar	posted 07-02-99 12:55 PM ET Bingman, I really like your explanation of things. Thanks! And once again everyone, thanks! -Darkstar