Is editing deployment files cheating?

I used to play a game called Jumpgate, which was basically a sandbox twitch-based first-person space sim MMOG. The devs weren’t the best, and there were bugs galore. The community wound up self-policing and enforcing the “rules” - if you intentionally disconnected in combat or took advantage of other exploits, it would affect your reputation and you’d get hunted down. Coming from that environment, I’m sensitive to exploiting and have a firm stance on it: It’s lame, and bugs are not ‘unintended features’… they’re bugs.

You could exploit bugs if you wanted, but no one would respect you.

I’m new to online GSB challenges, and my first fight appeared to be against one cruiser. It turned out to be 30 cruisers. I quit the challenge and gave it the lowest enjoyment rating I could.

Why bother stacking? Man up and make a real fleet.

Nope this is actually impossible. You have already prevented this by making a game where every fleet can be easily countered. The number of situational modules creates a largely flexible system that, even something extremely overpowered was introduced (ISSB on 1.44) it was still quickly countered.

yes its true, I am very talented :smiley:

I’m not putting words in your mouth, I’m putting words in my mouth. I’m saying I don’t see the difference. The point being, if you think editing deployment is cheating because it is external and it gives you an advantage, then you need to look at everything that is external and gives you an advantage. So that definition of cheating is actually untenable. But it’s rescued when you take into account what is an important game element and what is not.

Simply put, if two fleets are identical, I have a hard time seeing why anyone would care how they were produced. I mean, I realize that some people do, but again, I think they are missing the point.

Agreed. I think stacking should be banned. If not by Cliff, then by SAC. It just leads to laziness and not knowing how to build a “proper” fleet. Why bother when stacking is better 90% of the time?

But note that you, yourself, have used stacking in SAC challenges before. So don’t you think it’s a little hypocritical that you’ve exploited a bug in the game and are simultaneously condemning some other form of “cheating”?

As long as stacking is allowed in SAC, then I see no difference. Both methods abuse the same exploit.

You know the problem with justifying notepad case to case? Everyone would want to do what they want to do, and nobody would consent. Some will simply justify their own personal use and not care what others think entirely. Refer to a few post back about the use of overpowered mods, some people don’t see anything wrong with that.

Important game element (IGE) is inherently subjective. You believe time as not an IGE. Another person will interpret IGE as fun, and see nothing wrong with using mod to beat challenges. Personally I turn all graphic options to low and don’t even watch the battle most of the time, so for me graphics is not an IGE. I am sure many people will disagree with that.

Am I a hypocrite? I was very consistent, let what’s in game be in game until it is fixed, and don’t use external programs. If a person must use external programs to generate something doable in game, then don’t talk about it. What is in game is fair game until it is fixed. I am not against stacking. I am against using “imperfect interface” as an argument that leads to self contradictory results.

The thing is, that’s not a fact, but simply your opinion. In fact, a lot of multiplayer games outright ban players for abusing exploits. Just because it is in the game, doesn’t mean it isn’t cheating. In other words, the distinction is entirely subjective either way. I guess we should just leave it at that.

Why ask the question in the first place if your decision was already made up?
A question like “Where do we draw the line?” seems to imply that you want to consider people’s opinions on the matter.

I did consider other people’s opinions. I didn’t have my mind made up from the start. But an initial salvo of responses drew 5 different responses, so what am I supposed to think? If you have anything to actually add, do so, but otherwise, it’s obvious no one will come to any agreement, so we should probably let this thread sage.

I don’t see 5 different responses. I do see a couple of off-topic discussions and potential branching threads. (Which you should take as a compliment on a good topic, by the way.)

Strask and 123stw got in a conversation about beating challenges with mods. There was talk about the ethics of game bug using. Cliffski talked a little about about stacking. All of this is mostly irrelevent to your original post about whether or not the use of notepad to stack should be considered legit in SAC.

So here’s a quick summary of some of the responses to your question:

REPONSE 1
Strask proposed that submitting a hacked deployment should not be allowed in SAC.
Follick proposed not using edited deployments in an SAC or other tournament.
Kdansky proposed that using notepad is cheating.
123stw proposed that the game should be played “as is” and not using file editors.

RESPONSE 2
Jekelo says that editing deployment should be allowed, depending on what kind of editing is done.
Noc proposed that legitimacy should be determined on the grounds of “good faith”.

No, I have nothing to add that hasn’t been brought up already. It looks like my opinions on the matter are the same as Jukelo.
As you point out, I don’t think stacking should be allowed in the regular game, let alone a tournament environment like SAC.

If it is allowed, however, I see no problem in using notepad to create a challenge that could be created using the game interface.
However, I object to using notepad (in a tournament environment) to do things that would be impossible or difficult to do with the game interface, such as “better stacking” all on the same coordinate, for example.

Then your opinion is no different than mine, and I’m not sure why were arguing.

Well that’s why I didn’t add my opinion in the first place. It’s already been brought up.

We’re not arguing, really. It’s a discussion, not an argument. Our goal isn’t to argue on the basis of objective facts here – we’re just considering different people’s opinions to see what they think and why they think that way, and to see if we can reach some overall consensus or compromise. At least that’s how your original post sounded to me.

I only objected to your post when I saw what seemed like an outright dismissal of someone else’s ideas because he had a different opinion that wasn’t based on fact. I felt like the discussion was getting way off track from your original discussion topic. But perhaps I misunderstood.

In any case, it seems like the community has very distinct areas of thought on the subject… the “editing shouldn’t be allowed in SAC” camp and the “it depends on the intent of the designer” camp. I can definitely understand the merits of the former argument, seeing as how the latter would need further definition to prevent misuse. Everyone who has posted in this thread seems to agree that the editing of deployment files CAN lead to misuse and cheating, if that is the challenge-designer’s intent.

Either we (the folks who have no problems with editing) have to draw a firm line as to what is cheating and what isn’t, or concede to the more definitive argument (all editing is cheating) so that the tournament remains an even ground for everyone.

I don’t get what the big deal about stacking is; it only helps if you’re spamming a bunch of the same ship in my experience.

As for edited deployments, keep in mind that it’s possible to save a deployment that allows you to place ships outside the deployment box or even outside the whole battlefield in vanilla GSB, if the field of battle is smaller than where it was originally saved (mostly a problem with the “custom challenge” map).

Well, the main thing is that it allows for a concentration of firepower that a more mobile attacker can’t match. Moving ships can’t maintain that sort of formation.

That and it throws off player attempts at force estimation, even during the battle. I can see why people would be annoyed.

I don’t think it’s that big of an issue, though. If it were a matter of developer time, we could get a hell of a lot more mileage out some sorely needed balance changes or AI additions.

Agree with this.

Stacking is not particularly overpowered, it’s stacking with Tribes that’s overpower. Tribe uses less energy and have 2x HP, making them almost immune to shockwave damage.

Killing any non Tribe stack is actually pretty easy. Kill a few ships can set off a pretty serious chain reaction.

Well it need not require development time. We could simply enforce it as a rule in tournaments and such. If that could reduce some of the overpoweredness of tribe, I think we should all be for it. (We might see more swarm fleets then!)

If people want to create more interesting deployments by using Notepad, I still consider that cheating. I might still play it, if it’s fun. Obviously I would not want to see it in the competitive environment, such as SAC or tournaments.

As for “People get banned all the time when they exploit!”

That is actually very untrue. Wavedashing, Skying and bunnyhopping are expected of you if you play at even the lowest competitive levels. If an exploit is considered bad for the game’s health, the dev will have to fix it, or see it (ab)used. Honor codes* have absolutely no place in a competitive game, because if you add them, the game is not competitive anymore, because all parties held back.
There are no “honorable tactics”, there are only good tactics (those that make you win) and bad tactics (those that make you lose). If some tactics are uninteresting and strong (so called “cheese”) then it will have to be changed, see the 1.1 Starcraft II patch notes which nerf Reaper rushes significantly.
It is also very important that you can easily decide whether something is cheating or not. Changing deployment files can be checked very easily, but other things, such as spawncamping is very hard to prove. I can always claim that I was nearby by chance when you spawned, or that I was “far” away (how far is far?), or that I was shooting at some other guy, and so on. If you need a commitee to decide whether someone cheated, it’s not cheating, it’s peer pressure.

  • Honor code means that you adhere to rules in addition to the game rules, such as “no spawncamping” or “don’t use that gun that slows people”. Beating people up so they cannot play due to broken fingers is no “honor code”, that’s cheating, as you are using resources outside of the game to influence your opposition.

Read this: sirlin.net/ptw
It explains my point a lot better.

Ridiculous.
Rules are a social construct that define parameters to play the game. If you violate the parameters agreed on by all parties involved in the game, you have cheated, and thus aren’t really playing the game at all. Thus, it is the person who ignores the rules, regulations, and other guidelines established by social construct that is being less competitive… because he isn’t even playing, really. He’s doing his own thing.

Games, tournaments, matches, and venues can all have their own rules, in an attempt to create a particular game environment that applies equally to everyone. If you play in a chess tournament and decide to put your Queen back after its killed, you’ve cheated, and would be disqualified from any tournament. If a tournament used a timer and said you lose your turn if you take too long, then you must abide by those rules/regulations if you are in the tournament… if you insist on acting anyway after 20 minutes of inaction in violation of tournament rules, you are cheating and will likely be disqualified.

For that matter, there’s nothing in the rules of chess that say you can’t play anymore if you’ve been disqualified, but the rules of the tournament are such that you can not win. You can play your own thing, but you are no longer competing in the competitive environment that everyone else is in. You have violated the social contract. Trying to rename the esbalished rules to an “honor code” doesn’t change the fact that you’ve cheated. If everyone had agreed to only take 5 minutes to take their turns, then that’s the rules. If the agreement is that everyone will play the game with no queens on the board, then that’s the rules. Anything else is cheating, and will have you thrown out of any competitive environment for rules violation if you don’t follow the extra requirements of this so-called “honor code”.

If we create a competitive environment and say there’s no more than 2 cruisers allowed, whether its an official tournament of hundreds of people, or just a private game between two individuals, the person who brings 3 cruisers to the fight has cheated. He’s not playing to win. He’s not playing the game at all. He’s off playing something else for some reason.

Okay, I’ve reading your Play To Win stuff and I have a few comments. This could very well be its own thread. Interesting stuff, though a lot of it just seems like common sense. I suppose that’s true of any relevant work, though.

According to your reference material, there is another body capable of fixing these problems - not just the game developer. In this case, it’s the tournament authority for SAC… which is to say this community. Which is what the original topic was all about.

If its legal in the tournament, it’s part of the game. Not the other way around.
This topic is about whether or not a particular action should be considered “legal” in the tournaments we are creating.

Further, on the subject of using Notepad, Play To Win also suggests its legal if we agree to it. It doesn’t ALWAYS have to be illegal just because its not in the game, just as timers aren’t necessarily part of chess but are often part of chess tournaments. (Which brings up another point – games evolve over time, not just by developers, but by players. But that’s beyond the scope of PTW.)

He does go on to discuss that reasonable people would consider using methods outside the game to be cheating, but in the quote above makes an exception if the tournament specifically allows it.

Honestly, this stuff is just common sense. And doesn’t seem to justify the hyper-competitive darwinian philosophy that you intiially proposed about exploiting anything you can to win at all costs, honor be damned. In fact most of the book seems to focus on ethics and good sportsmanship. Of course, I haven’t read the Art of War sections yet. I read the sections on tournaments, cheating, sportsmanship, banning, and the introductory material.


Ah, okay, I think I finally found the section.

Under the section of “scrubs”, there’s some talk of “cheapness” and that some moves that are legal are considered “cheap” by some players, but that the measure of what is “cheap” can be subjective, artificial, and contradictory. That valid play should be determined by what wins effectively, not on a measure of “skill” or “cheapness”. Here’s a brief quote:

Unfortunately, this only applies to private, arbitrary rules and accusations by players. If I said, for example, you were cheap and unskilled because you used the Tribe, then this argument would apply. It only applies however within his definition of a “game”, which is a game that requires no modification. The argument does not apply, for example, when talking about the merits of whether or not Tribe is unbalanced, whether it should be allowed in a tournament, or whether particular rules should be made for or against it. “Cheapness”, “honor”, and most importantly “skill” are valid when creating the rules for a tournament. As I mentioned before, the author even talks about soft-banning (an unofficial understanding among players not to use certain game elements that are overpowering) as something that can improve the game if it creates a more competitive environment and challenging tournament.

I think you’ve confused the concept of “no honor, only victory”, which only applies while PLAYING a particular match, with the concept of setting up the parameters for the match in the first place.

I hope that helps a little. I really did try to read your reference materials and understand both sides of the argument to see where you were coming from.

Anecdotal - based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.

Actually, it’s NOT. That’s the point. It’s impossible to tell the difference.

Again, it doesn’t support your point, and as I’ve already told you, I’ve already read it, thank you very much. You’re purposely misinterpreting the message of the book. I’d write more, but Cetiah just wrote 10 walls of text explaining why you are wrong. :stuck_out_tongue:

Part of me wants to throw up my hands in the air and go: “But that’s what I was trying to tell you all along!” and another part is really confused that you guys make my point for me…

Utter failure in communication. (Yeah, I’ll take at least 50% of the blame for that)

I don’t mean “in code”. I mean: If a person looks at the deployment, and they can see no stacking, then it does not matter whether the deployment was created in notepad or in the game, after all, the results are equal. And if there is stacking, obviously someone used notepad, and therefore the deployment could be disqualified.