I recall SS making the same argument as yours regarding an * by Motti's game.  Both are valid.  At the time SS was critically dismissed.  In the end I agreed with Motti.  Even though Motti saw SS's point, the criteria is Y0 and Motti found a more creative way to post a higher score.  As Maiden has.

What did Motti do that no one else at the time had done?

IIRC the principles of a standard ARC which is the only thing that I know that Motti used that could be considered questionable had been fully published and publically discussed including being brought to Cari's attention. If I'm not mistaken neither of these statements can be made regarding the "special ARC" that enables the Dread Lords.

As such even if the usage of ARC was questioned at the time then the argument can be made that everyone else had sufficient knowledge to do the same thing. Again that's not an argument that could have been used in this case either.

However now that I happened across the documentation and made note of it within this thread then it *now* is fair because now anyone interested in doing it can do so. This is of course assuming that what I published even works as I haven't bothered to try it out because that's not the style of game in which I'm interested. I've also mentioned it to Motti but I doubt he's interested enough to bother playing the game again. However even if he does then I would submit that would be a good thing.

So unless I'm mistaken and there's some secret Motti used that I don't know about then I see these two things totally differently, but if I am mistaken then please let me know.

The only thing Motti really did was play it out beyond the classical 12 week game.  Still technically a Year Zero.

Personally, I still think the 12-week game is a cooler concept.

I welcome any game Motti would chose to play.  His Evil Twin was an inspiration.  But that is not the issue.

Do I misunderstand or are you now the arbiter of what is fair?  Had you not thought of it, out of bounds?  Pfft.

 

Just as Sole Soul was free to express his opinion then, I am free to express my opinion now. If I'm "critically dismissed" as SS was then, so be it, however you have no right to imply that I overstepped my bounds merely by expressing an opinion.

I am also free to publish information that I discovered from my own effort even if others had previously considered that information "empire secret".

This is not about your "rights", and this is not a courtroom. This is about *why* you're flaming against me, and trolling this thread??? This is why you're using wild-guess, hear-say, hypocratical lies, lies, and more lies to dis-credit me??? Can you explain yourself??? (and without lying, because I have enough of them by now).

Whatever "your bounds" are - since several years you are not an active MV player anymore, according to your own words you have abandoned GalCiv2. Besides, you've not even played a single ZYW in your entire "career", and in this light raises some suspicion about the ligitimacy of your real motives. You're nothing but jealous about my current game, because it took you so long to break the Million, and now here comes a newb like me and doubles that in half a year playing time. This is your real motive, you're going against my game, because your infantile and egocentric mind can't stand the fact that the KzintiEmpire is currently declassing everything that has been played previously.

And this has nothing to do with cheating or an un-even playing field. In fact, you yourself have confessed many times to use an un-even playing field in order to take the benefits from it, things that most will consider *cheating* or unfair game, things you knew from others for many years (and never made public) and you expressed yourself to be willing to use these methods, too.

You know these things I talk about very well. But if you like, I'll take myself the time to point them out within this thread: the decision is yours, as well as you have started this.

As far as I can tell I "flamed" no one. It's you that seem to be all up in flames.

As to never having done a ZYW in my career that's not quite true. In fact I did at least one ZYW during the Metaverse League. And I'm also in the process of doing one right now. However whether I have or have not or may or may not in the future do a ZYW, really has nothing to do with it.

The only thing that has to do with it is that I heard of something that I thought *might* be questionable and simply publicly brought up the topic. If you get so upset and consider that my merely bringing up the topic is in some way a "flame" against you, then it seems you are the one that is presuming that it's such a negative thing, not me.

I never once used the word cheating and by no means consider that this even approaches cheating. Cheating is hex editing a save game file and defeating the checksum protections, no one has suggested this is anywhere even close to that. I have used the word fair, and in my *opinion* the comparison I made between how the use of the original form of ARC was introduced in a public manner and how this "special ARC" was not, is apropos.

This is not a personal attack against you even though you seem to want to treat it that way.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

---

As far as I'm concerned the issue is over and done with. I've mentioned it publicly along with the method that I *think* can be used to replicate it.

If you really do wish to continue the discussion then I'll certainly respond to anyone's questions or concerns, but as far as I'm concerned I have no need to beat a dead horse.

You've quoted my posts way too much, and put your infantile ROFL/LOL-copter under it, and that leaves not many ways open to interpret the intents of your posts, other than hostility. Especially when one keeps in mind that you've contacted me previously through PM in order to get some help from me regarding your current game... The truth is, you only wanted to "sound me out", and after I've let you down you've written another message and tried to put pressure on me... which didn't work, thus you started to post here in such disrespective and accusing manner, which is unfounded, by the way.

Lots of stuff you said above is only circumstantial, hear-say, absurd accusations etc etc. What proofs do you actually have about that what did happen?

Still, I am interested why your above posts fill this thread with deceit and disinformation, as your last posts is nothing but evasive.

All info's concerning what you posted above from the wiki was already public since years, and this applies to the info that lead to the NB strat as well. Contrary to what you say this info is even available at your forums at the ToE-site, where you are an administrator with some ~900 posts, and by that couldn't have simply overlooked it.

Although it is NOT sufficient to say that just because something has been posted somewhere in a thread, or hosted on a site, that this guarantees an even-playing field for all MV-players, which your message seems to imply. Essentially *fair* is when all participants do play to the same rules, and this does imply also the most up-to-date version of the game. Point is, the DL ARC glitch can happen to all gamers by accident, and while this is sheer luck you'll be surprised how many times a chaotic factors determines a game. It's beyond all our control and nobody's fault. However, if someone revers to an old and outdated version of the game it'll need a good explanation why an *un*-even playing-field had been chosen. Your thoughts.

I vouch for Maiden's authenticity and honesty 100%.  In recent months his research efforts have revealed numberless details about game mechanics.  He is a tireless and devoted researcher who has made many excellent discoveries.

Mumble, as always you are a master at crafting posts designed to both inflame, while yet preserving plausible-deniability that to do so was not part of the intent.  A very familiar tactic from you, but not convincing to those of us who are familiar with it.  How tiresome.

Sentient species taste better...

I see you wish to continue this discussion. OK, if that's what you want.

I'm sorry I didn't know there was a quote limit. I simply quoted those posts in this thread that discussed the "special ARC" and use of a Dread Lords opponent.

Apparently 2 quotes is "way too much" since I only quoted you twice, GmOOnii twice and KP once. Unless of course you're merely an alternate identity of either GmOOnii or KP in which case it would be more, however I would have no way of knowing that.

Since you brought it up, I'll comment on that.

Yes. I contacted both you *and* KP by PM but not because I wanted help in my current game, but simply because I had questions about the legitimacy of this "special ARC". I specifically contacted you and then KP by PM because I really had no desire to cause you or the Kzinti Empire any possible embarrassment, even though I didn't think the "special ARC" was all *that* big of a deal, or would be sufficient to cause you all that much embarrassment.

Since your response was that it was an "empire secret" and KP chose to essentially ignore my request, I felt free to find out what I could on my own and to publish that here in the thread dedicated to ZYW's since the "special ARC" is pretty much specifically tailored to ZYW.

That is correct. However that doesn't mean that I or anyone else knew about it. I only found it by doing a site specific search of the wiki site for "dread lords" and the only reason I did such a thing was because of it being mentioned here. It was tucked away under the cheat codes section and I had never encountered it until the day that I posted the information here.

You apparently know more about the ToE forums than I do. So much for "empire secrets" eh?

However you are mistaken on three counts. One is I've 852 posts (although I suppose 900 is close enough), secondly I'm a moderator *not* an administrator and thirdly I have *never* seen any discussion of any kind of ARC that uses the Dread Lords as an opponent. It was also a surprise to Motti who did not know how it was done either.

However as a member of the Kzinti Empire that seems to know more about the ToE empire private forums than I as a member do then please by all means point out where this information exists on the ToE forums. I do know that Motti greatly helped you out when you were getting started with all kinds of "empire secret" information, a fact that you have acknowledged in this very thread so perhaps you paid more attention to this than I did.

I assume you mean "revere" as in "to show devoted deferential honor to".

I think I have made my position clear both in PM to you and scattered throughout various threads on these forums. I stayed with DL v1.4x for as long as I was playing DL exclusively simply because I object to having programs on my PC whose sole purpose is the update of another single program that I own. This went for Stardock Central and even more so for Impulse.

Also from what I know DL v1.4x is pretty much identical to DL 1.5 and beyond with the one exception being that in DL v1.4x being bankrupt actually means something and you cannot  purchase buildings, ships and upgrade ships after going beyond -500bc (as you can in DL v1.5 and above *and* in DA of *any* version). If you want to argue anything you'll have to admit that the DL v1.4x version I played is harder than any DL version 1.5 or above.

However when it became clear that Stardock Central was going away I did break down and install Stardock Central so that I could get to the latest versions of the game that I could at the time which are DL v1.5, DA v1.80g and TA v1.96.

That upgrade actually cost me the ability to submit a 960K DL game because after I did the upgrade I uninstalled StardockCentral which, unknown to me, deleted the game serial numbers from my registry. Once I discovered this I restored the serial numbers but the damage was done and this made games started prior to the uninstall of SDC invalid (not cheat flagged, actually unsubmittable).

So anyway the revs I mentioned above, DL v1.5, DA v1.80g and TA v1.96, will be the revs of any future games that I choose to submit. As far as I know DA v1.80g was the standard for a very long time, is very stable and is a perfectly legitimate version of DA to be playing.

---

As I said previously, it's not my choice to continue beating this dead horse, but as I also said before I will respond to anyone's questions or concerns.

I am denying neither.

As I said I questioned a tactic privately via PM to both Maiden and yourself. He chose to hide behind empire secret and you chose to essentially ignore me.

So I then discovered it on my own and published it. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the story. Or it would be if you weren't insistent on pressing the issue.

...

I am glad to read you acknowledge no impropriety or any previously non-disclosed tactics.  I am however sorry to hear about your horse.

Regards, Jack

Mumblefratz,

as long as you put words in my mouth that I never said I will of course correct you. Simply stop that and I will stop, too.

It is true that MottiKhan helped me greatly in some of my games. I've given credit to him when these games were hosted, as I did to DethAdder, JacklV, KP, SS, GmOOnii, Iztok and also, *you*. I will always thank people whenever I play a game whose main strategy is based on others findings.

However, you *threatened* me to make "stuff" available to the public if I wouldn't hand you over the information you seek for your current game. In said PM, you used the word "cheats" 3 times. Your intent to start this conversation was solely to "sound me out", to quote you. When I didn't respond to that, you kept on quoting my posts and making false statements, putting words in my mouth I never said and which I corrected you previously, yet you continuued on your rampage.

Yes, the KzintiEmpire has some secrets, and as we are an still active empire, we wanna see our tactics preserved. You did act the same way in the past, isn't it?

I told you that part of the NB strat is in your ToE-site. It's a forum posts by Neilo (BMF) where he says something like that it has become routine to upgrade ships in debt. It's the last post in one thread to which even unregistered users have access.

I've told you *multiple* times now that the way I play doesn't include buying ships when being in debt. Why do you still post this dis-information ?

Don't wanna stress this subject too much now, but in November 2009 I took myself the time and plunged through most of the GalCiv2 forums. Judging from that, I got the impression that this isn't approved by the community here. However, I could be wrong, maybe I missed some threads. Could you please provide me a link or two were this subject of using an un-even playing field has been debated and found OK?

I'm sorry for that, in my opinion StarDock should make an exception and host this EndGameSave. DL is pretty much the hardest version of all three, this game probably would translate to 1.5mil in DA.... and the efforts you put in this game should be acknowledged in your MV profile.

Finally, it is not my intent to seek a heated debate, but you have to understand that unfounded (dis)-information cannot stand here without correction - to do so would actually be an admittance to their truthfullness; which isn't there. There might have been some misunderstandings included, but on some issues it is actually hard to see "only" a misunderstanding.

In this sense, good luck with your current game.

 

Maiden,

I'm sorry that you took this to be a personal attack on you or your integrity because it really wasn't intended to be that way.

My motivation for contacting you by PM was really as I stated which was to try to determine whether  or not a tactic that you must admit without knowing anything about it could reasonably be viewed as such, was "questionable". After all the Dread Lords certainly aren't a "normal" opponent that one can select.

If at that time I had known that this was in fact documented in the wiki then we wouldn't be having this conversation now. If at the time you had simply told me the information is freely available in the wiki then again we wouldn't be having this conversation now. I suspect that at that time you might not even have known yourself that this information was in the wiki, but that is neither here nor there..

Also a clear secondary reason of contacting someone by PM is to avoid a public discussion, such as the one we're having now, where it devolves to, he said, she said, and where things that initially might seem questionable turn out to be totally innocuous.

That is essentially the case here. If you or KP had given me even the slightest bit of evidence that would have allowed me to conclude that there was nothing wrong with using the DL as an opponent then I would not have gone public with it because to do so would have meant disclosing empire secret information that I did not discover through my own effort.

I alluded to this which is what I suspect was the "threat" that you reference. The implicit threat was, tell me what's going on with this "special ARC" or if you force me to find out on my own I will publish it and it will no longer be anyone's "empire secret".

You can complain about who am I to make such an ultimatum all you want but I think your choice was pretty obvious, which was to tell me enough about this special ARC to determine whether it was innocuous or not or if you make me go find out for myself then I'll be free to tell everyone else about it.

The essence of both your and KP's response in this regard was to essentially tell me to go pound sand. And so I went out and discovered it on my own and published it.

This is the long version of what I already said above:

If I had my druthers there wouldn't be this "special ARC" in the game, in fact I wish there wasn't even standard ARC in the game and I certainly wish the ability to spend while bankrupt didn't exist.

However, if you wish to compete and compete effectively then your personal preferences about how you "wish" the game was really don't matter. The best you can do is to make Stardock aware of the situation and hope it gets corrected. However when Stardock is informed about things like ARC and decides to do nothing then someone would have to be stupid to not use a feature that results in a higher score simply because one disapproves of the feature.

So let me be clear. Having discovered that the information about using the DL as an opponent has been published in the wiki for quite some time then it's clear to me that it's as legitimate to use as a standard ARC or any other "feature" of the game that we all use.

I further state that I applaud Maiden's 687K ZYW as a significant accomplishment.

But however much you complain there is nothing illegitimate about my disclosing information I discovered due to my own effort.

I never claimed you did. It was you that brought up the revision differences and I simply pointed out what the difference was between DL v1.4x and DL v1.5 and above as well as all versions of DA.

I never claimed you personally used this and whether you do or don't is immaterial. It's not dis-information, it's simply the truth about the differences between those versions of the game.

Again I repeat I never claimed you used this feature or not. Nor did I even imply that the feature was intrinsically good or bad. It just is. It's a feature of the game that everyone is free to use or not use at their own choice.

I never questioned your NB start. I never questioned pretty much of any of the things you've brought up here. There is only one thing that I questioned and that was the use of "special ARC" to be able to use the Dread Lords as an opponent. It was you that claimed knowledge of using the Dread Lords as an opponent was available on the ToE site or at least that was what I thought your claim was because as I said my only question was special ARC of DL opponents.

That 's the only topic that I have brought up here and that is the only question that I asked via PM. I think it was a legitimate question. You were certainly within your rights to not give me any information about it. But I was equally within my rights to find out about it myself and publish the answer that was the fruit of my own labor.

I really don't know why you bring up all this other stuff but it was you that brought it up and anything that I said that was not specifically related to special ARC of DL opponents was only in response to something from you.

just FYI, in no version of DL, DA or TA you can buy ships when being in debt. No such '"feature" exists.

Update your game and see for yourself.

'nuff said.

I'm not sure why my alias is being brought into this, but I'll bite. 

I'm honored if any of my hints were used by Maiden in any of his games.  I've congratulated him on his excellent scores and have never claimed that he did anything untoward, in public or in private.

One thing that we might want to remember is that the Kzinti and Tyranny have always had a friendly rivalry going where we'd take fun jabs at each other.  The operative words here being friendly and fun.  If this degenerates beyond that, I want no part of it.

I've long been a member of both the Tyranny and the Kzinti.  While it's no secret that my loyalty belongs with the Tyranny, I'm still a full member in the Kzinti,  A senator the last time I checked.

If my name is brought into this then I, like Maiden, have the full right to defend myself and will do so.

My top score for the ZYW was simply the DL version played in DA with ARC and more modern strategies added.  I did a DL version of it long before, without ARC, albeit with a much lower score.  Nobody seemed to have a problem with that one, even though it went well into December of Year 0.

Maiden has taken it to a new level and should be encouraged to continue.  I see nobody else stepping up and offering any serious competition to his scores. 

I'm confident in the legitimacy of his games. 

Yes you can.

In *all* versions of DL *above* v1.5 and certainly in DA v1.80g and I *believe* all versions of DA above that as well you can indeed buy ships while in debt in exactly the same manner as how you can buy buildings while in debt but perhaps that's an empire secret that you haven't learned yet.

Try it yourself on your version of DL or DA. Get into debt and queue a ship on a planet. Of course you can't go to the planet screen and buy the ship there just as you can't buy a building from the planet screen. You have to go to the colony list of your Civilization Manager and then you can buy all the ships you want directly from the Starport column just as you can buy buildings while in debt from the Building column.

There you go some free empire secrets.

I'm pretty sure *all* versions of TA correct this.

Plus this has nothing to do with the question I raised. This is merely an attempt to obfuscate the issue. The only issue I raised was using the "special ARC" to get Dread Lord opponents. As fully discussed to death above.

The only reason I used your name was that Maiden claimed that the ToE had full knowledge and use of this "special ARC" to get Dread Lord opponents. Here's where he made that claim.

Now perhaps he had meant the info that lead to the NB strat was on ToE but you can see how I took this to mean the info from the wiki (i.e. the knowledge of how to create a Dread Lord opponent) was on the ToE site.

It was this assertion, that the knowledge of how to create a Dread Lord opponent was on the ToE site that caused me to make the following response.

That was the only usage of your name that I have made in this thread.

So one more question if I may. Is this a true statement? Did you or did you not indicate to me on the ToE forums that you did not know how to use the Dread Lords as an opponent?

Actually I stand correctly. I also used Motti's name in reply #52 in response to Jacklv's mention of SS's questioning Motti's game in reply #51.

And I used his name a 2nd time in my reply #60 as well.

.

You failed to answer the question. Maiden claimed the ToE knew precisely how to replicate the special ARC used to get a Dread Lord opponent.

My only claim is that you indicated to me that you may have known *of it* but did not know precisely how it was accomplished.

I know that you have no interest in using the DL ARC yourself and I don't see how anything that I've said impled that you did just that you or anyone else in the ToE did not know precisely how it was done.

I've just tried on DA v2.01 and in DL 1.53; doesn't work. Sorry. And I doubt my games are bugged, I've verified both.

Yes, exactly. 

 

Well that's at least one misunderstanding explained.

I'll try to verify this but it's really painful for me to do so.

First I have to make a disk image of my current drive. Only then would I be willing to install Impulse on my machine. Then I could do an upgrade and run the test for myself. Finally I could undo everything by restoring my original disk image. It would take some time to do and I'm not sure it's worth the effort to me.

Firstly because all of this is not particularly germane to the initial point I raised. Secondly you're questioning only one of the three separate purchasing functions (and the least important of the three) that I claim can be made while bankrupt. I assume you're not denying that you can purchase buildings and upgrade ships while bankrupt in these versions only that you can't directly buy ships, right?

In any case since this seems important to you I will make the test but I also suggest that we move the discussion of version differences to another thread. I'll open up a new one tomorrow.

---

As far as I'm concerned the question I opened up is done with. Can we at least agree on that?

Given that the information is freely available on the wiki I can acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with using the Dread Lords in a special ARC.

However can you at least acknowledge that it was not unreasonable of me to initially question the legitimacy of the Dread Lords ARC and once I did discover how it was done on my own to publish this information?

If so then there is nothing more for me to say here.

And I definitely am interested in understanding what significant differences exist between the revs I currently have and the ones people are currently playing but I'll leave that to another thread.

Ahhhhh, back to the ZeroYearWin-l ve!

How Agt. Smith looooves to built all those StarBases everywhere; in a Tiny Galaxy that's the real neat thing