Donation

Help us to pay our server!
(: Consider a donation :)



Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Google+

Latest Posts

Topic: Widelands tournament 2017: subscriptions started!

WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 308
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: Saxony, Djermany
Posted at: 2017-09-13, 18:19

dershrimp wrote:

I already masseged king. For personal reasons, I have to quit the tournament. I am sorry!

No need to be sorry, Mr. Shrimperator. May all your problems be solved...


*insert phrase about the necessity of saving the world here*

Top Quote
animohim
Avatar
Joined: 2014-11-05, 20:41
Posts: 26
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2017-09-13, 20:34

Does someone want to substitute dershrimp?


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 926
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2017-09-14, 01:22

This sucks, but we can work with it.

First thing, I can change the round. As gunchleoc will not play first round, and ddershrimp will be swapped for a forfait, the new match will be me vs nemesis, and gunchleoc will get the forfait. Everybody gets to play that way. Then we go on with a forfait.

Of course, if someone wants to substitute dersrhimp, it will be better. I'lll wait a couple days to update the turn just to see if this happens.


Top Quote
einstein13
Avatar
Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01
Posts: 798
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Poland
Posted at: 2017-09-14, 19:48

King, this is only a game face-wink.png Don't worry, be happy! face-grin.png


einstein13
calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 926
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2017-09-14, 23:12

Addition to the rules

I looked at worldsavior's replay, and found that he used a game's glitch to win: namely, he did something with the expedition ship that let him claim the port space as his own, without unloading the goods ( I guess he just said to build a port and then deleted quickly afterwards). That way, trimard was unable to make his own port, and was stuck without metals. He therefore surrendered.

I definitely did not host a tournament to see games won that way. Mastery of the game is one thing, abusing an obvious bug is another. In fact, I would call for a remake of the game if worldsavior didn't have such a huge advantage anyway. If trimard had contested the result on the ground of use of that bug, I would have called for a remake of the game. I don't know what teppo would have thought about it, as he has the power to overrule me. Still, I am not going to do anything because the rules said nothing about it. But it is in my power to make an addition to the rules for the future.

In the future, I will call abusing obvious bugs an infraction, and give game lost to the abuser I'm editing the rules with this.

Notice that micromanaging tricks or placing military buildings to block an opponent will not be considered abusing a bug, even if the second case is clearly a problem of the map and calls for a map fixing. If there is even a shred of doubt that the thing could be labeled not a bug or glitch, I would not punish the player - though I may want to post an announcement "this thing is considered a bug and don't do it from now on".

I am hoping the dev team fixes the bug as soon as possible. I opened a bug report.

Edited: 2017-09-14, 23:14
Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 308
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: Saxony, Djermany
Posted at: 2017-09-15, 02:21

king_of_nowhere wrote:

Addition to the rules

I looked at worldsavior's replay, and found that he used a game's glitch to win

I'm not sure if it's a glitch...

namely, he did something with the expedition ship that let him claim the port space as his own, without unloading the goods ( I guess he just said to build a port and then deleted quickly afterwards).

To be precise: A plank has been loaded into the port construction side, so the plank has been destroyed because the port has been destroyed.

That way, trimard was unable to make his own port, and was stuck without metals. He therefore surrendered.

To be precise: He didn't surrender therefore. At least he couldn't see it during the match... He only saw my ship, not anything else of my goods...

I definitely did not host a tournament to see games won that way. Mastery of the game is one thing, abusing an obvious bug is another.

I'm not sure that it's a bug, and I wouldn't say that I abused a bug...

It's a fact that expedition ships are able to change free port spaces. Why shouldn't an expedition ship have a certain grade of might; the ship is not cheap, the expedition is not cheap. You are able to click on "found a colony" and the ship will make a port construction side, so the territory will be yours. That is how it works. Why shouldn't you be able to destroy this constructionside immediately, before the goods are unloaded?

The flag and the territory will remain. Why should the opponent be able to use this port space now? One is not able to build ports into hostile territory...

The port space blocker increases the strategical depth of the game...

I am hoping the dev team fixes the bug as soon as possible. I opened a bug report.

Well, at least I'm thinking that it's a bug that I wasn't able myself to build a port at the blocked port space again face-wink.png


*insert phrase about the necessity of saving the world here*

Top Quote
kaputtnik
Avatar
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 1096
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2017-09-15, 07:55

I am not sure if this is a bug in the game. At least not in the current game logic where you could dismantle a building and the conquered lands stay yours. On the other side building a port on another islands works vice versa than near your headquarter: First conquer some area of a map without military buildings and then build a building (port).

But i think using this trick is not what Expeditions are made for. If everyone knows this trick, this would lead into a "run for port spaces and dismantle" game on some maps, which is surely not a wanted goal of widelands.

I feel it is unfair to work with such tricks nobody else knows (or expect). So i would also vote for a call to remake.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 308
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: Saxony, Djermany
Posted at: 2017-09-15, 09:21

kaputtnik wrote:

I am not sure if this is a bug in the game. At least not in the current game logic where you could dismantle a building and the conquered lands stay yours. On the other side building a port on another islands works vice versa than near your headquarter: First conquer some area of a map without military buildings and then build a building (port).

But i think using this trick is not what Expeditions are made for.

Forester huts are also not made for defensive purposes, I guess. And military buildings which can be conquered by someone else are also not made for just being destroyed before. And so on...

I feel it is unfair to work with such tricks nobody else knows (or expect). So i would also vote for a call to remake.

Are you meaning "remaking the match"? Really? I just played the game. In Widelands, you need a lot of tricks. If you invent a new one, it should be an advantage for you, shouldn't it?


*insert phrase about the necessity of saving the world here*

Top Quote
SirVer
Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18
Posts: 1422
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany - Munich
Posted at: 2017-09-15, 09:59

In the future, I will call abusing obvious bugs an infraction, and give game lost to the abuser I'm editing the rules with this.

I disagree with this additional rule. It is too vague and I think it stifles innovation inside the game (see below). Instead I suggest that you disallow this particular exploit going forward.

I'm not sure that it's a bug, and I wouldn't say that I abused a bug...

It is not a bug, since it implements the rules we have elsewhere in Widelands. But I think the rules of the game are bad here, since they lead to undesirable strategies: rush for the first ship (see the bug for discussion) and we should do something about this.

I feel it is unfair to work with such tricks nobody else knows (or expect). So i would also vote for a call to remake.

I do not agree with this opinion. I for one am very grateful that WorldSavior stretches the games to its limits. We would not have found this problem if WorldSavior was not investigating it as a possible avenue for gaining an advantage. Good things come from innovations like these - for example in StarCraft, a bug called drone-drill increased the strategic depth of the game and was therefore left unpatched. Other bugs like the Flying templars also won some games when initially found. Since they were too powerful, they were forbidden first and later patched out of the game. I think this bug is closer to the flying templar than the drone drill. Nevertheless, I think World Savior deserves the win for innovating inside the game. Also looking at the replay he was ahead anyways, even without this bug.

I therefore do not think a remake would be fair for him. Also - and this goes back to the first paragraph - I think it is a good call to forbid this exploit in the tournament and going forward[1], but I think this has to be decided on a case by case basis. Do not threaten players with remakes if they stretch the game. This will stifle innovation inside the game. And we want this innovation to improve Widelands and find things to fix - or fun new strategies similar to the drone drill (for example forresters as defensive mechanism or burning down attacked buildings are in this vain).

[1] There is also precedence in StarCraft. The observer over turret bug was never patched out and it is forbidden to use it in some tournaments, but some also allow it.


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 926
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2017-09-15, 12:06

WorldSavior wrote:

I'm not sure that it's a bug, and I wouldn't say that I abused a bug...

It's a fact that expedition ships are able to change free port spaces. Why shouldn't an expedition ship have a certain grade of might; the ship is not cheap, the expedition is not cheap. You are able to click on "found a colony" and the ship will make a port construction side, so the territory will be yours. That is how it works. Why shouldn't you be able to destroy this constructionside immediately, before the goods are unloaded?

An expedition is expensive, a port is expensive. Permanently blocking a port space at the cost of a single plank is not expensive. It means that once you have the first expedition, you can block any number of port spaces with a very little amount of resources.

Forester huts are also not made for defensive purposes, I guess. And military buildings which can be conquered by someone else are also not made for just being destroyed before. And so on...

And yet those strategies are simply using buildings as intended. The forester plant trees, and terrain conquered remains conquered until someone else conquers it. Instead an expedition is supposed to plant a port, not to conquer land with almost no expence.

more importantly, those other strategies can be countered. A forester wall can be chopped by woodcutters, terrain lost can be recovered. A port space blocked, instead, is permanent.

The flag and the territory will remain. Why should the opponent be able to use this port space now? One is not able to build ports into hostile territory...

The port space blocker increases the strategical depth of the game...

How would increase the depth of the game? once you set up the first expedition ship, you race to block all the opponent's port spaces, and it can't be undone in any way.

kaputtnik wrote: I feel it is unfair to work with such tricks nobody else knows (or expect). So i would also vote for a call to remake.

Worldsavior didn't break any rule, and he was already winning by large anyway. It's unfair to penalize him. Plus, we all know he's going to win every time anyway.

SirVer wrote:

In the future, I will call abusing obvious bugs an infraction, and give game lost to the abuser I'm editing the rules with this.

I disagree with this additional rule. It is too vague and I think it stifles innovation inside the game (see below). Instead I suggest that you disallow this particular exploit going forward.

It is vague, but it is stated that it would only be called in blatant cases. I don't intend it to stifle innovation. But you can be right, I don't want to accidentally discourage players to try new things because they could be considered bug exploiting. I'll change the wording of the rule so that I will have the power to veto certain exploits retroactively, but not penalize who uses them first. So whoever discovers them can still win a game fair and square, and I'm just going to say "no more" afterwards.

I do not agree with this opinion. I for one am very grateful that WorldSavior stretches the games to its limits. We would not have found this problem if WorldSavior was not investigating it as a possible avenue for gaining an advantage. Good things come from innovations like these

I am also happy that he stretches the limits of the game and discovers new things. I would have been happier, though, if he had opened a bug report for what was a clear malfunctioning of the game.

EDIT: I changed the rule as

[there is] a list of bugs whose exploit is forbidden. A player that abuses a bug on the list to get an unfair advantage will be punished with the loss of the game. Exploiting bugs not on the list will NOT be considered an infraction, but the bugs WILL be added to the list afterwards

I think we can all agree on that wording. Even you, worldsavior: I don't think you'd like it if someone blocked your port space because he could get a ship one minute faster than you.

Edited: 2017-09-15, 12:23
Top Quote