The Three Mountains UNLOCKED!!!!!

[TheMeInTeam]

For playing 1444-1821, 12 hours would mean (12*3600)/(12*377) = 9.55 seconds per game month.
Assuming a pretty early 1700 victory, it goes up a bit to (12*3600)/(12*256) = 14.06 seconds per game month.

That's like speed 3-4 without ever pausing, right?
What's your average play seconds/game month, TMIT?

I haven't measured. I typically do playthroughs in less than 20 hours, but how much less I don't know.

What I do know is that the post I quoted did not say Ryukyu WC, but rather WC at all. Considering people are getting finish dates in the 1600's, I find it very difficult to believe that a skilled player couldn't complete WC in 12 hours of play time with HRE abuse. Even if you lose some optimization to leaving the game running, the cushion is so large.

Keep in mind of course that if you do some game months in 4-5 seconds, you can float 20+ second months also.

 

[yerm]

I haven't measured. I typically do playthroughs in less than 20 hours, but how much less I don't know.

What I do know is that the post I quoted did not say Ryukyu WC, but rather WC at all. Considering people are getting finish dates in the 1600's, I find it very difficult to believe that a skilled player couldn't complete WC in 12 hours of play time with HRE abuse. Even if you lose some optimization to leaving the game running, the cushion is so large.

Keep in mind of course that if you do some game months in 4-5 seconds, you can float 20+ second months also.

The original stipulation was the 3 mountain achievement, which is why people are especially up in arms. WC with Austria seems juuuuuust a tad easier right now.

 

[EU3NOOB]

What is the three mountains achievement?


I tend to ignore achievements...

 

[hajutze]

WC with Ryukyu

 

[TolHydra]

What is the three mountains achievement?.

WC as Ryukyu.

emu'd.

 

[Duruial]

Cheating is a very abstract concept. He might have cheated at the game, but does not necessarily translate to him having cheated at the bet. If he got the achievement, and the means for getting the achievement were not laid out, then he did not actually cheat at the bet. You should be a person of your word and pay up.

 

[rayyuri]

It's pretty hard to prove someone cheated. At the same time, it's not difficult to cheat to get it using a save editor, steam achievement manager, or even some kinds of save scumming.

12 hours is pushing it a bit, but yes it is in theory possible (albeit difficult) to do it in that timeframe.

Even with save scumming, it is still very difficult to do The Three Mountains. Not to say only 12 hours.

 

[Tom013]

Cheating is a very abstract concept. He might have cheated at the game, but does not necessarily translate to him having cheated at the bet. If he got the achievement, and the means for getting the achievement were not laid out, then he did not actually cheat at the bet. You should be a person of your word and pay up.

It's a moot point. He didn't do it legit, but he did do it.

Original post:


He got the achievement. Hell, maybe he thought the whole idea was just to get it for the bling who cares how, and didn't even think the OP would care if it was done legit or not until he realized that his free game was on the line if he cheated.

I know if 13 year old me was given the same bet, I'd demand payment either way!

I'd argue that this is still up to interpretation. He got the icon on Steam that indicates that he got the achievement. Do we define that as getting the achievement? Is that icon itself the achievement? Or do we define "getting the achievement" as "completing the task specified in the achievement files of the game?" I'm not saying he doesn't have an argument, but I would say it's not a completely unarguable point. It doesn't even say that HE got it, just that it's on his Steam account. What if DDRJake stole his password and did it while he slept? Does that count?

Without further specificity in the bet, I am not sure you could say: Steam saying you have the achievement equals "getting the achievement." All it says is that you have something that says your Steam account got it. Obviously cheating isn't in the spirit of the bet, and when you start basing an argument on semantics, you must have an unassailable argument. This is not some legal contract where we favor the one who did not write the contract...

 

[yerm]

I'd argue that this is still up to interpretation. He got the icon on Steam that indicates that he got the achievement. Do we define that as getting the achievement? Is that icon itself the achievement? Or do we define "getting the achievement" as "completing the task specified in the achievement files of the game?" I'm not saying he doesn't have an argument, but I would say it's not a completely unarguable point. It doesn't even say that HE got it, just that it's on his Steam account. What if DDRJake stole his password and did it while he slept? Does that count?

Without further specificity in the bet, I am not sure you could say: Steam saying you have the achievement equals "getting the achievement." All it says is that you have something that says your Steam account got it. Obviously cheating isn't in the spirit of the bet, and when you start basing an argument on semantics, you must have an unassailable argument. This is not some legal contract where we favor the one who did not write the contract...

Good and fine sir, if obtaining the corresponding icon and update on steam is not what "getting the achievement" is commonly held to mean, what is? I am afraid I must wholeheartedly disagree with you. Having steam update and show the achievement is EXACTLY what "getting the achievement" means unless you specifically add to that description with more specific definition. What if he didn't use some kind of hack or editor, but did exploit bugs? What if he broke the ai and got stacks of units stuck in constant attrition? What if he save scummed, which IS commonly accepted as against the spirit of ironman mode? What if he took a break to poop?

Sorry, but if the bet is to "get the achievement" and the commonly held notion of what "getting the achievement" means is having it obtained on steam, then he most certainly did fulfill his end of the bet. We're talking about a 13 year old kid here; of course he's going to cheat. I work in the legal field now, but I used to teach 14-15 year olds - believe me, this is exactly the kind of thing kids that age do. Unless you said something specific about not using an editor, not hacking, not corrupting files, not forcing through someone else's save, any of these stipulations... he won the bet.

 

[unmerged(48571)]

http://gib.me/sam/

 

[Tom013]

Good and fine sir, if obtaining the corresponding icon and update on steam is not what "getting the achievement" is commonly held to mean, what is? I am afraid I must wholeheartedly disagree with you. Having steam update and show the achievement is EXACTLY what "getting the achievement" means unless you specifically add to that description with more specific definition. What if he didn't use some kind of hack or editor, but did exploit bugs? What if he broke the ai and got stacks of units stuck in constant attrition? What if he save scummed, which IS commonly accepted as against the spirit of ironman mode? What if he took a break to poop?

Sorry, but if the bet is to "get the achievement" and the commonly held notion of what "getting the achievement" means is having it obtained on steam, then he most certainly did fulfill his end of the bet. We're talking about a 13 year old kid here; of course he's going to cheat. I work in the legal field now, but I used to teach 14-15 year olds - believe me, this is exactly the kind of thing kids that age do. Unless you said something specific about not using an editor, not hacking, not corrupting files, not forcing through someone else's save, any of these stipulations... he won the bet.

Meh. I don't really care. It's someone else's bet. The parameters are up to them unless they're taking each other to court over it.

The more interesting question is whether he actually did it or how he cheated and all this mincing of words just impedes that discussion.

 

[No idea]

No.
The in-game time required even for a seasoned player is 20+ hours, guessing between 40-60 hours. That is ignoring the fact your friend has to learn the mechanics and how to exploit them, hence no. SAM or CE.

This. Tell your friend that he is a cheater.

 

[Sjakie]

There's a very easy way to check whether he cheated. Did he get the achievement? If yes, then he cheated.

That achievement is impossible to get without cheating and it has been that way since the release of the game.

 

[cpm4001]

There's a very easy way to check whether he cheated. Did he get the achievement? If yes, then he cheated.

That achievement is impossible to get without cheating and it has been that way since the release of the game.

DDRJake begs to differ

 

[Sjakie]

DDRJake begs to differ

If you bothered actually reading that you'd see him explain exactly how he cheated and how much he cheated.

 

[AurochsAway]

If you bothered actually reading that you'd see him explain exactly how he cheated and how much he cheated.

Defining certain game mechanic interactions as cheating is subjective, changeable, argumentative, and thus inherently flawed. A cheat engine on the other hand is outside of game mechanics.

 

[Duruial]

Meh. I don't really care. It's someone else's bet. The parameters are up to them unless they're taking each other to court over it.

The more interesting question is whether he actually did it or how he cheated and all this mincing of words just impedes that discussion.

But a philosophical conversation on the nature of achievements sounds like a much finer use of our time. Especially as I procrastinate on writing my Roman history paper.

What we must ask ourselves, is what is the nature of video game achievement. If it were just the completion of the task, would an icon be necessary on Steam? Would not the completion of the three mountains be its own reward? Clearly, the achievement must be something more than just the task. Rather, I would propose to you that the achievement is the icon, the ability to show others that you have received it. The methodology by which you get it, if not specified ahead of time, is merely unimportant in a truly pragmatic way. Achievements are icons that give the user bragging rights, not actual accomplishments of tasks.

 

[AurochsAway]

But a philosophical conversation on the nature of achievements sounds like a much finer use of our time. Especially as I procrastinate on writing my Roman history paper.

What we must ask ourselves, is what is the nature of video game achievement. If it were just the completion of the task, would an icon be necessary on Steam? Would not the completion of the three mountains be its own reward? Clearly, the achievement must be something more than just the task. Rather, I would propose to you that the achievement is the icon, the ability to show others that you have received it. The methodology by which you get it, if not specified ahead of time, is merely unimportant in a truly pragmatic way. Achievements are icons that give the user bragging rights, not actual accomplishments of tasks.

An interesting analogy to steam achievements is perhaps sports medals and trophies. It's a shiny thing you stick on a shelf (or steam profile). However, it is the process of obtaining of the medal people admire. The recognition, be it medal or steam achievement, is a nice token of recognition, but implied in the recognition is the idea that the token is a reward for a difficult task done.

 

[Junuxx]

An interesting analogy to steam achievements is perhaps sports medals and trophies. It's a shiny thing you stick on a shelf (or steam profile). However, it is the process of obtaining of the medal people admire. The recognition, be it medal or steam achievement, is a nice token of recognition, but implied in the recognition is the idea that the token is a reward for a difficult task done.

Agreed. The icon/trophy is also supposed to serve as proof for those who weren't there to witness the task being completed.

 

[Sjakie]

Defining certain game mechanic interactions as cheating is subjective, changeable, argumentative, and thus inherently flawed. A cheat engine on the other hand is outside of game mechanics.

No, it's not. Bugs are mostly objective, crystal clear and eventually get recognized by the game creators and get patched as a result. Whether they are changeable or static is completely irrelevant. Bug abuse is cheating, there's no grey area there at all.