It's an ability we've been discussing in the rules thread. It's an acronym that's been coined for changing a small set of race characterstics in the raceconfig file located in My Documents\My Games\GC2DarkAvatar. These changes are Metaverse legal. The ones that have an effect on the game are starting alignment, home planet, and super ability.

Whoa, wait a minute, so you could set the stock races to all super spy? Or worse take away their super abilities and replace with none and yet keep SAs on? Give yourself Korx starting worlds and everyone else Altarian starting worlds? Set every race to good and then play as Altarian and let Super Organizer do all the defense for you?

This seems.... abusable.

It also seems weird because it is done in the file and out of the normal game interface. I can't explain exactly why that rubs me the wrong way.

Hmmm. Well, I'm not going to use it, and I'm no commissioner. I guess whatever the league decides on it is going to be the rule...

Seems a bit dodgy, though,
~ Wyndstar

You can catch all the discussion on it in the rules thread and voice your opinion there, here's the thread.

Agreed. Strangely, most people who have commented here seem to have no problem with this. Myself, I'm surprised Stardock allows it at all.

Although its mention in this thread pertains to its use in the league alone, it bothers me that this is allowed in general. It makes metaverse scoring a lot less meaningful.

Since nobody seems to have mentioned it, ARC stands for "Advanced Race Config". (Or "Absolutely Ridiculous Cheat" teehee.)

Man, with the ARC cheat in things are simple. I just managed a 1 year victory with these settings in about 2 hours, where as my last attempt was a 60 hour struggle.

There is, it seems to me, an obvious best-case setup if you are going to use ARC "just to change your own character". Its a combo so gross though, I can't believe its considered fair.

~ Wyndstar

I think my one year took 3-4 hours without ARC (which I have not yet ever used, though I intend to start a game doing so today). I used Altarians optimized for max research, got to the extreme worlds first, chose good civs + Korx as opponents(so super organizer took care of much of my defense) and found it all went pretty smoothly (though clearly I had a wierdly good starting position, with a +700% research tile on my homeworld and a +700 manufactoring on a toxic world I colonized, as well as having more than my share of the galaxy's colonizable worlds close to my home world). So that at least is possible even without ARC (though clearly there is an enormous difference in real time when using whatever method you found with ARC and without).

As to the best case set up, would you perchance be speaking of super-breeder krynn? 4x pop growth with +50 morale is undeniably strong. I think depending on settings though Altarian super anihilator, Krynn super diplomat and Korath super hive or super breeder are reasonable alternatives.

I also have had reservations about ARC. To be honest, I, like wnydstar, find it at least dodgy, as it requires manipulation of files outside of the game interface. This is probably the distinction to make and that wyndstar finds objectable.

That said, I also admit that I played this round with an ARC Altarians.

As someone who comes from the FPS e-sports scene (though a few years back), I am frightenly familiar with toeing the line between obvious cheats and 'almost but not entirely illegal' modifications*. It's simple. If ARC is allowed, it means that more or less everyone has to use it in order to stay competitive. The difference wyndstar notes in his game speak for itself. However, as it doesn't trip the cheat flag, we would have to depend on the honour system if we disallow it.


I therefore propose the following possible solutions:

- Explicitly allow ARC (open season)
- Explicitly ban ARC (honour system)

- Partially allow ARC in the following way: The round setup is posted together with the raceconfigs that can be used. The honour system would see that every player either uses stock races or the ARC provided by the commish. This would also allow players who know nothing about ARC themselves to not be disadvantaged. I know that silverbeacher has experience in modifying the raceconfigs, so that should not be an issue.


Whatever the decision is, I'd suggest a ruling before the beginning of the next round.


(*) It is my opinion that during internet matches there was always at least one player that either used still undetectable cheats or modified resources to gain an advantage. As a server admin I spent a lot of time testing cheats and cheat detection software and therefore also knew exactly what was possible at any given time.

One thing to note is that, through creating custom opponents, you can do quite a lot without leaving the interface. You can set super ability, race pick points, starting technologies and AI. This can potentially have a greater impact on the game than editing your own race via the xml. I think though that this should probably be taken to the MVL rules thread, where there is already quite an extensive discussion of this issue.

I was unaware Ghostwes was in this round. Not in the team listing. Not that it matters of course. And is Califdude out? I'm not sure his comments were clear on the point.



No and yes. An ARC cannot be done to a stock race xml file, that will trip the cheat flag. Changes made to the customrace.xml though are permitted, which of course you can base on a canned race. Many of the other changes you mention can be made in game via create an opponent.





Ya know, until SD labels this process illegal and sets the MV to trip the flag when it sees an ARC we should not be labeling it cheating. It is a well known setting that has been around since the start of DA. I have always believed it to be on purpose by SD as the custom race as it is in game is very weak. The "straw dogs" that can be made in game are far more unbalancing than an ARC.

I will often use an ARC, they are very unique, especially to play against.
By calling it cheating you call anyone who has used it a cheater. Personally i don't like being labeled a cheat. Be it indirectly or not.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to call the fellow MVL players cheaters. This obviously is a widespread practice - and was common this round.

It DOES significantly change the difficulty IMO though, and not by setting up straw dogs. Sorry I came to this discussion late, I did not mean to cross pollinate a MVL rules thread into the MVL round 7 thread. I can switch threads for a further discussion.


It matters little now. I submitted my game for this round, and I did it before I knew this was possible. I'm still happy with my score and effort, and I wish everyone else the best.

And now, off to the other thread *poofs*

~ Wyndstar

Yeah, I don't know why I wasn't in the list. I dropped out of last round, but said nothing about not participating in this one. Nevertheless, I may not participate given this current issue, so whatever. Cross that bridge when I come to it.



Meh. I think it's pretty clear I was joking. It's really more of an exploit than a cheat, anyway.

Well, let's see what Cari says about the issue. I'm content to wait.

Guys, I think a little calming down would be good here.

Also, I'm not trying to criticise but this had been well discussed and it had seemed to settle down then suddenly erupted as if it was a brand new issue.

This seemed to coincide with Wyndstar's sudden realization of a topic that been discussed for close to two weeks before he noticed it. Again not trying to criticise but this input would have been real helpful the first time around and if it had been present then we probably wouldn't need a second time around on this topic that now seems inevitable. Oh well.

I personally heard nothing about Califdude and although I do have Ghostwes listed as "dropped out" that is most likey simple ignorance on my part as to what his current status is/was.

Oh, it almost certainly is my fault. I try and stay up on everything, but I admit to skimming a lot of posts and topics. It obviously changes nothing for this round, but while I'm sorry for re-opening an issue that may have been closed, there seems like there is still plenty of time for discussion before the next round's rules are finalized.

~ Wyndstar

What has changed, and necessitated a second time around this discussion, is that a very skilled player has stated quite strongly that he feels this to be a more significant advantage than what I can recall anyone on either side suggesting it was when we first talked about it. Wyndstar is a much better player than I am, and personally I'm inclined to give a lot of weight to his opinion on how much something effects game balance (possibly a few others do as well). If he is correct in his assessment of how much of an advantage ARC could be when used to the full, then this whole issue may well have simmered until it came up again when it became clear that people using ARC were consistently having better results than those that didn't.

So far, this does not appear to be happening. I made a post in the rules thread breaking down how there does not seem to be a notable advantage for likely ARC players this round so far when compared with non-ARC players. However, it's possible that ARC is still new enough that the strongest ways of playing the strongest combinations are not yet worked out and widely known. It would be nice if the issue had been closed. If the issue was actually still a problem though, maybe it's for the best it's being hashed out now.

I did preface my comment as an attempt to not be overly critical yet I did want to make the slightest of admonishments that this topic was discussed for an extended period of time and that I did everything in my power to focus all discussion on it during that entire period.

Obviously people have lives. Also people that may have to play 20 games to get one they like might miss some things that others don't.

Anyway please take the comment as it was intended, a good natured poke in the ribs to please pay a bit more attention in the future, schedule permitting of course.

Certainly I agree there is plenty of time left to discuss this and I also want to make it clear that I prefer to have your input perhaps a little late than not at all.


I agree. I'm not saying we shouldn't reopen the discussion I was just trying to suggest that in a perfect world everyone would have participated in the first discussion thus precluding the need for a second. However I'm fully aware we don't live in a perfect world and that everyone has a real life as well as a metaverse life.

A very important point of order:

I really think we should not be talking about "straw-dog" opponents, but instead refer to them as paper-tigers!



ROAARR!!

Tigers are so much cooler...

Sentient species taste better...

Being labeled a cheater is a pretty big insult to me. I understand none of you guys made that accusation on a personal level but we should be aware of how comments can be perceived in this format.



Now that would be a much better avatar Kzinti. Or perhpas tigers scare you little kitty cats a little too much....
:LOL:

I think what we have here is a tempest in a teapot. I've been playing the Altarians and other non-evil races as evil for ages, just by creating them first as custom opponents where you can change the alignment, then going back and selecting them as the player race. Everything except changing the super ability and home star can be done in that screen.

As for players who do alter those settings outside the game, that really fits into the same category as creating a host of wimpy opponents to play against. The end result, I guess, is that you can potentially achieve a higher score in a shorter amount of time, and probably play at a difficulty level above what you could normally. If the difference in scores and times achieved playing against normal vs. weakened opponents is significant, the player himself is somewhat of a paper tiger, and knows it.

To date, none of this has been addressed in any "official" rules of the MVL. What the MVL does have in spades is the sense of being on an honor system. There is no objective measure of how many opponents players are actually playing against, what their star and planet settings are, etc. What we have is players' word that they are playing the game as specified for the round. What's to stop a paper tiger player from altering these settings to suit himself, as well?

Whether we discuss this for one page or for ten, whatever is decided, we still end up playing on the honor system. If we vote to insert language to the effect that only unaltered, canned opponents are to be used in MVL games, and/or to disallow modifications made outside the game, I'll probably support it, because those ideals serve to encourage a level playing field. What we have to keep in mind is that if people seriously want to use these mechanics, there is no way to actually stop the practice.

In the end, we're in the pre-drug-testing era out here; it's up to each of us to make up his own mind whether to play honorably or to submit padded scores at otherwise unreachable difficulty levels.

I totally agree with this assesment but at the same time I do see a purpose and benefit of what people are trying to accomplish here by trying to come up with a more specific rule.

If I'm interpreting this correctly it seems to be saying pretty much the same as I said with my proposed rule of requiring people to submit games that accurately represent the reported difficulty level.

I agree that asking people to do this and asking people to select 4 opponents this round instead of just two both equally count on the honor system for them to work. But at least the requirement of having 4 opponents this round is a concrete requirement that no reasonable person would have any doubt about.

I think that people are perfectly fine with following the honor system but simply want a simple rule requiring no individual interpertation. Perhaps just saying no custom race editing (i.e. ARC) and no alteration of opponents stock abilities (i.e. no straw men) is the best way to go. It's a simple direct rule not subject to interpretation and even though it still requires the honor system for enforcement it should leave no doubt in anyone's mind as to what is and what is not allowed.

This may not be what those that would like a "reasonable use" of ARC and straw men would like to hear but perhaps both sides of this can't be satisfied.

The real question is if we do have to choose, and it appears that we do the longer this discussion goes on, then which choice leaves the league in the best shape. On one side we would have half of the folks feeling that they may be taken advantage of and on the other side we have half of the folks that aren't allowed to quite play as they would like to.

As an almost unbiased observer playing DL I would have to say that I wouldn't feel great about not letting people play the way they want to but I would feel absolutly awful if I felt that some folks felt they were being taken advantage of.

On that basis it's my opinion that the best interests of the league are served by disallowing customrace xml files and also disallowing the changing of any opponents stock abilities or super abilities.

There is also the consideration that DA players using altered opponents is unbalancing vis-a-vis DL players' inability to do so - part of what I was alluding to when I said "level playing field" - and the introduction of TA into the mix is bound to bring quirks of its own. For this reason alone, I would be supportive of adding a non-alteration clause to the MVL ground rules.

And in other news...CalifDude is alive and well. He has survived the unfairness of Round 7 enabling mega events in DA, and is back on the job carrying the water bucket and towel for Team A.

Great to hear CalifDude!!!!



Well i agree completely, as it seems many others do also. If we could get a confirmation from FB as vice commish on this that would tie this up nicely.

Regardless of the legality of ARC's, it is in the best interest of the league that these and the "straw dogs" be banned. Let's get it in a the rulebook before round 8 so that we can move forward with the league.

Califdude, don't you mean the Beer Bucket?

Well we really have two options. One is to see if we seem to have consensus and then write it up as a proposal and wait for a week to see if anyone objects and the other is to simply take it to a vote which should also run for a week.

As far as either vice commissioner or even commissioner just making a pronouncement and calling it a rule I think this goes beyond what should be handled in that manner.

In fact I think this is of sufficient magnitude that I really believe the only definitive option is to have a league wide vote on the issue. Assuming we do have pretty much league wide support then a vote with an overwhelming majority is the best way to close the issue.

It could be a simple vote between the approval or disapproval of a new rule to ban these practices.

One issue I have is that I don't feel knowledgeable enough to write the simple and complete rule since I'm unfamiliar with the workings of DA.

Also writing such a rule is not the trivial thing that I assume most people imagine. Everyone knows what they think such a rule means but a well worded definition needs to be short, needs to cover all the possible options, not leave any loose ends, and needs to not be subject to second guessing. It's actually a very difficult thing to do.

As a lawyer I would expect Wyndstar should be able to come up with the best possible wording for a proposal for a new rule to add.

Good points Mumble. I'm just keen to see the matter put to rest as the damage this has caused the league is troubling to me and the sooner we put it to bed the better.

I'll have an extra dose of patience on my cereal this morning.