- Jul 2, 2004
The thing I don't want to happen Twoflower is Norrefedlt's claim that he is leaving if there are AI cheats in the game to effect the decision on whether or not the event is accepted. Call that whatever you like. I was just being blunt. Besides currently there are 5 nation specific AI cheats already in the game and the 2 big ones make AIs do things they can do but often don't, which is exactly what my event in question here does. So if he wants to leave then let him, because my event is just yet another one not the first one.Twoflower said:IDLF, I don't think any HC member would be enough of a dick to use threats of leaving to push his ideas through without any sensible reason. Norrefeldt has said this not to influence the decision, but has stated by this that a mod that employs AI cheats like this isn't something he feels he would like to play or work on, for several very serious reasons.
I think a better way of describing it is to say that it stabilizes intended flow. Something that was supposed to happen often doesn't and this event corrects that because the engine working through the medium of the events we have forced on it has trouble making it happen correctly.Twoflower said:I share not all, however most of these concerns, which you can safely consider the concerns of most old EEPers and also of large parts of the mp community. It concerns the EEPers because such cheats are outright against the EEP's philosophy, which was based on enhancing the game rather than dramatically altering the way it works and flows, which such AI cheats would definitely do,
This is an invalid argument. The event effects only 2 AIs involved. If one is a human than it won't kick in. Therefore concerns that it will mess up a MP game are invalid.Twoflower said:and it concerns the MP people because they would hate such things having an influence on their game, because they can always in some way give one player an unfair advantage and another an unfair disadvantage - imagine for example a game where one person is playing England and helping Portugal and another person is France and allied to Castile, and these two alliance fight a war that ends with Castile taking Oporto, but nothing more, because English support has saved Portugal - how silly and unfair would it then be to have Portugal vassalized to Castile (or, if you'd leave the vassalization out, how annoying would it be for France to see his province that he has helped him get return to Portugal for no apparent reason).
Yes but my point is that every seemingly good reason for why this event should not be allowed in the game I have already solidly refuted. That ought to count for something. Instead objection after objection is given with the same results. Once again even here your new objections are soundly refuted. So what is the problem? If their was a good argument against it that would be a good reason to reject it. But this is not the case. So why must it be rejected then?Twoflower said:For these reasons, I regard these cheats as a special type of cheats that I really don't want to see.
Yes they do go against the game's flow. And so do the Mameluke and Castile events I've pointed out but these were accepted already. So why can't mine be accepted by the same logic?Twoflower said:These cheats are "subtractive", they try to make something that already has happened in the game undone in order to "correct ahistorical development" and thereby go against the game's flow.
But the Mameluke and Castile events don't do this. The AIs can accomplish on their own what they accomplish for it more easily. It's just that they often don't. And it's the exact same way with my event.Twoflower said:Cheats that I would consider acceptable are "additive" cheats, i.e. those that allow the AI to do something that it otherwise would not do or would not be able to do; they try to make something that should happen, but cannot happen in the game happen and thereby support the game's flow.
Then why don't you propose that these other similar AI cheat events be removed? I've pointed this out already.Twoflower said:I hope this differenciation is understandable to you, you shouldn't think that I'm just hypocritically trying to make up fake arguments against your proposals - I had to make up my mind myself why I feel that this particular type of cheats is bad.
Pause for a moment and withdraw yourself from this debate. Look at it from a 3rd person's viewpoint who doesn't have a strong desire one way or the other. OK now let's analyze the results of this debate shall we?
The purpose of this event is to enforce historical developement that is not happening greater than 50% of the time. No one has disputed that it shouldn't happen greater than 50% of the time. Therefore it is a desireable outcome because this has more or less been stated in this thread and many others in the past. The overall consensus among the AGCEEPers is that majors need to form 75%-95% of the time. This is not currently the case with Portugal. Therefore it is a given that increasing this percentage is desireable. So this particular result of this event is universally desired by the AGCEEP community.
OK now I have laid down facts as to why Portugal does not form in excess of 50% of the time. You have rejected the premise that it doesn't form more often than this. I however have playtested it extensively and proven that this is false and indeed you and Norrefeldt have apparently stopped disputing this claim. Or at least are assuming that if it is innacurate that it isn't off by much and that lack of Portuguese AI formation is an accepted fact of the current condition of this mod.
Norrefeldt and you have given numerous objections as to why it would cause harm to the game. All of which I have soundly refuted.
You two have also claimed that you don't want AI cheats in the game or don't want AI cheats quite like this one in the game. I have pointed out that AI cheats like this one are already in the game. Therefore unless you are going to make a proposal for their removal there is no justification for rejecting the event on the basis of it's being an AI or cheat or that it is a certain degree or type of AI cheating that should not be in the game.
All of your objections in this post have been refuted too.
Now if this debate is going to come to any fair, logical, and rational solution then please tell me why the event should not be allowed in the game?
If I made points that you couldn't refute and you made points that I couldn't refute that would be different or if I made points that you could refute and you made points that I could refute that would be different too. But instead all of your points I have refuted and all of my points you were unable to refute. Do you see know why there is no excuse for it not to be added?
The purpose of the regional threads is to debate proposals for the AGCEEP. But if these debates result in people saying I disagree with your proposal and don't want it in the game but I can't refute your reasons for why it needs to be in the game and you have refuted all of my reasons for why it shouldn't be in the game but I still oppose it's addition to the game then we have made a farce out of the purpose of these threads now haven't we?
If debates in these threads cannot be resolved because the debate doesn't have to meet any logical, consistent, fair, and/or balanced criteria than what is the point of even debating proposals at all? Why don't we just put proposals right in the submissions thread and have the HC vote on every single one of them?
You see one of the dangers of you and Norrefeldt's not concedeing to at least tolerate this event being added to the game is that the whole concept of the regional threads being used as a means to debate proposals has been reduced to a meaningless concept. This debate is horribly onesided. Even you haven't disputed this and no doubt it would be folly for you to do so as I could easily counter with a list of all your objections that are no longer being used because the debate has shown that they are invalid and a list of all of my points that you have yet to refute.
So you need to weigh very carefully whether or not this debate should resolve the issue of this event being added or not. You may not like the event, but given the course of this debate it would be an extremely destructive precedent for you to set in the modding to community to continue to oppose it given the results of this debate.