Character Creation philosophy

[MMXI]

A TB strategy, let's say Warlords, is designed to be played by up to 8 players controlling a minimum of 1 race each. The game lets you alone control up to all 8 races without having to modify files or dump saves into different directories. It doesn't check for a player's fingerprints whenever the move is passed. Is it therefore not exploiting and completely legitimate?

The very definition of "exploit" is making an unintended abuse of legitimate features rather than hacking the data or what have you. Creating dozens of dummy characters and pooling their starting items and gold to your primary party is an exploit, an unintended abuse of legitimate features. Using quirks in character import-export routine to clone unique artifacts is an exploit, an unintended abuse of legitimate features. Simultaneously controlling several factions in a strategy in order to advance one of them is an exploit, an unintended abuse of legitimate features. And so is taking an advantage of mp party creation while playing single-player.

What? But you are playing multiplayer on your own, not single player. You aren't exploiting anything. Are you exploiting the game when you are playing multiplayer but one of the players drops out for 5 minutes and you continue with their characters under your control? No. Therefore playing multiplayer on your own isn't exploiting anything.

It's pretty simple really. Playing 6 characters with 2 players is supported legitimately in multiplayer mode. So is playing 6 characters with 6 players. So why isn't playing 6 characters with 1 player? Why is there some arbitrary limit? If one player controls 5 characters and a second player controls 1, is that legitimate? The game lets you. But when one player controls 6 characters it's suddenly unintended? Why?

So this is the thread where mondblut realises you can make your own party in BG and goes ballistic?

 

[mondblut]

What? But you are playing multiplayer on your own, not single player. You aren't exploiting anything. Are you exploiting the game when you are playing multiplayer but one of the players drops out for 5 minutes and you continue with their characters under your control? No. Therefore playing multiplayer on your own isn't exploiting anything.

I guess picking several sides in a TB strategy and playing them all at once pooling their resources isn't an exploit in your book too?

A TB strategy, let's say Warlords, is designed to be played by up to 8 players controlling a minimum of 1 race each. The game lets you alone control up to all 8 races without having to modify files or dump saves into different directories. It doesn't check for a player's fingerprints whenever the move is passed. Is it therefore not exploiting and completely legitimate?

I am still awaiting for your response with immense curiosity, mr. Dodgy One.

 

[mondblut]

So this is the thread where mondblut realises you can make your own party in BG and goes ballistic?

I've never played it otherwise. Well, limited custom party to 4 in BG2 in order not to miss NPC quests. But unlike some, I tend to be aware when I'm "doin' it 'rong".

 

[King Crispy]

Look at your own sig, mondblut.

 

[mondblut]

So? If I feel like starting, say, Fallout with all 10s, all 300s and level 24, I am perfectly entitled to do that, and don't care what would anyone else say about that. But I won't then proceed with posting that Fallout doesn't have levelups.

 

[MMXI]

I guess picking several sides in a TB strategy and playing them all at once pooling their resources isn't an exploit in your book too?

A TB strategy, let's say Warlords, is designed to be played by up to 8 players controlling a minimum of 1 race each. The game lets you alone control up to all 8 races without having to modify files or dump saves into different directories. It doesn't check for a player's fingerprints whenever the move is passed. Is it therefore not exploiting and completely legitimate?

I am still awaiting for your response with immense curiosity, mr. Dodgy One.

But the entire Baldur's Gate game is designed for the player to control 6 characters. Even in multiplayer the game is designed for players to control more than a single player created character, for example 3 each. That's the design of the game. Is this turn-based strategy game designed for 8 races to work together? I don't know. If the player controls 8 races is there still an opposition? Does it differ from the number of races controlled in a single player game? Does it make the game easier?

Stupid analogy is stupid.

 

[Mastermind]

So copying a mp save to sp is an exploit (nobody argued otherwise) yet leaving it in mp folder, all other things equal, isn't? I guess picking several sides in a TB strategy and playing them all at once pooling their resources isn't an exploit in your book too?

Intended feature = exploit....



Dumbfuck detected.

 

[Sceptic]

A TB strategy, let's say Warlords, is designed to be played by up to 8 players controlling a minimum of 1 race each. The game lets you alone control up to all 8 races without having to modify files or dump saves into different directories. It doesn't check for a player's fingerprints whenever the move is passed. Is it therefore not exploiting and completely legitimate?

ITT mondblut fails to note the difference a multiplayer mode made for cooperative play and a multiplayer mode made for competitive play

This is fun. Please do continue.

 

[PorkaMorka]

I always avoided using the multiplayer features to build a party in BG because it seemed clear that it would break the intended difficulty; a party of characters I built would almost inevitably be stronger than a bunch of random NPCs, not to mention that I'd get my multiplayer party a lot earlier than I was able to assemble my desired team of NPCs.

Of course mondblut likes breaking the difficulty of games so...

 

[mondblut]

ITT mondblut fails to note the difference a multiplayer mode made for cooperative play and a multiplayer mode made for competitive play

This is fun. Please do continue.

Newsflash: a vast majority of strategy games (the good ones, anyway) feature diplomacy and allied victory, making cooperative play viable and legitimate feature. Next.

But the entire Baldur's Gate game is designed for the player to control one custom character and a bunch of joining NPCs.

Fixed for ya.

If they intended you to run around with a custom-made party, they would put it right there into character creation mode, as in IWD, dontcha think?

Even in multiplayer the game is designed for players to control more than a single player created character, for example 3 each.

And the reason is the same the strategy games don't bother to check what player is sitting behind a hotseat computer when the faction's turn comes - they technically can't, or wouldn't be assed to.

If the player controls 8 races is there still an opposition?

Who needs an opposition when you can immediately resign as everyone and WIN?

Fine, make it 7 races if you don't want an easy ride

Is this turn-based strategy game designed for 8 races to work together? Does it differ from the number of races controlled in a single player game? Does it make the game easier?

No, not particularly in Warlords, but in a plenty of such games. Yes, you can have races working together, yes, you only control one in a single player, and yes, controlling several races at once in hotseat mode naturally gives you a massive advantage over ai.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

What? BG2 constantly advertises that you can create a full party if you do it in multiplayer mode, so it's clearly intended to be an option. It's just pretty clunky but then again a lot of things in that game are. Compare it to NWN2 where you don't have that option at all.

 

[MMXI]

It's pretty clear that mondblut doesn't actually have an argument. His analogy to a turn-based strategy game is just terrible.

 

[mondblut]

What? BG2 constantly advertises that you can create a full party if you do it in multiplayer mode, so it's clearly intended to be an option.

ORLY? I just browsed the BG2 manual and never found any suggestions the like of "if you want to play a game with a fully customized party, just start it as a multiplayer session". Apparently it never occured to them somebody could be forever alone so much he would play a multiplayer game alone

 

[mondblut]

It's pretty clear that mondblut doesn't actually have an argument. His analogy to a turn-based strategy game is just terrible.

And that's why you can't counter it, I guess.

 

[MMXI]

Of course I can counter it.

Is 6 players sharing 6 characters an exploit? No.
Is 5 players sharing 6 characters an exploit? No.
Is 5 players sharing 5 characters an exploit? No.
Is 4 players sharing 6 characters an exploit? No.
Is 4 players sharing 5 characters an exploit? No.
Is 4 players sharing 4 characters an exploit? No.
Is 3 players sharing 6 characters an exploit? No.
Is 3 players sharing 5 characters an exploit? No.
Is 3 players sharing 4 characters an exploit? No.
Is 3 players sharing 3 characters an exploit? No.
Is 2 players sharing 6 characters an exploit? No.
Is 2 players sharing 5 characters an exploit? No.
Is 2 players sharing 4 characters an exploit? No.
Is 2 players sharing 3 characters an exploit? No.
Is 2 players sharing 2 characters an exploit? No.
Is 1 player sharing 6 characters an exploit? No.
Is 1 player sharing 5 characters an exploit? No.
Is 1 player sharing 4 characters an exploit? No.
Is 1 player sharing 3 characters an exploit? No.
Is 1 player sharing 2 characters an exploit? No.
Is 1 player sharing 1 character an exploit? No.

 

[mondblut]

Whatever makes you comfortably sleep at night. Have fun doing speedrun wins in Civilization by picking all nations in hotseat then resigning all but one

 

[MMXI]

So this is the thread where mondblut realises you can make your own party in BG and goes ballistic?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I don't give a slightest fuck about make-believe "i-am-an-individual-so-i-will-only-play-singleplayer" bullshit, because there is only me and me, and neither of us cares.

 

[Sceptic]

Newsflash: a vast majority of strategy games (the good ones, anyway) feature diplomacy and allied victory, making cooperative play viable and legitimate feature. Next.

No not next, same. Of the "vast majority of strategy games (the good ones, anyway)" you picked exactly one to use as an example: Warlords. Good. Let's go with it. Is cooperative play a viable and legitimate feature? Is there ANY play in the game if you start it with all sides under your control? no. It is therefore a completely false analogy to the BG example.

Thank you for continuing by the way

 

[mondblut]

ITT, Sceptic never played strategy games with allied or diplomatic victories.

Relax, folks. By no means I endanger your enjoyment from some small cheating in games. Hey, when I play soccer management sims, I always start as a bunch of teams and pool all cash and best players into one I like most. But if somebody asks me, "give me some soccer management sims where a manager can rip off his own team and sell it out to another for, well, nothing really", I won't bring forward my experiences, because I am well fucking aware that's not the way a game is supposed to be played.

And neither is MULTI-player mode supposed to be played by SINGLE player. End of story.

 

[Surf Solar]

I am actually with mondblut here. Even if there are some tooltips showing you that this is possible, the game was clearly built around one character+npc party system. I don't consider it as an exploit to create a full party, but it's pretty cheesy nonetheless. Who cares though, shitgame is shit.

 

[Roguey]

ORLY? I just browsed the BG2 manual and never found any suggestions the like of "if you want to play a game with a fully customized party, just start it as a multiplayer session". Apparently it never occured to them somebody could be forever alone so much he would play a multiplayer game alone

"In a multiplayer game, between one and six players may adventure together, cooperatively controlling both created characters and NPC’s that join the party."
It's a vaguely worded statement but you can definitely play with six, so I don't see how you could claim the first number is meant to be excluded. I agree that it was clearly balanced with the intention that you run through it with the followers they provided, but they didn't care if you chose to break it with six well-built characters (one could say that's what difficulty settings are for but all that does is give monsters double damage).

 

[Mastermind]

I think it's also important to remember that nobody forces you to stuff your party full of min-maxed kensai thieves and berserker wizards either.

 

[Johannes]

Yeah, you need a ranger/cleric also.

 

[DraQ]

I am actually with mondblut here. Even if there are some tooltips showing you that this is possible, the game was clearly built around one character+npc party system.

+1