CHEAT>>> PLZ PUT STOP TO THIS

[nimby]

Europe and Russia teaming up means that in end-game, in order to win, they'll have to fight each other. Try to get Europe to realize that Russia's better at doing the backstabbing because it's better protected by Europe, while Europe is open to everyone and likely already took some hits. Not to mention it's lost it's fleet.

I played 2 games this week where I was russia and allied with Europe and Asia, then just Europe.

First game I used Europe as a missile shield, and in the end ruined both Europe and Asia, winning me the diplomacy game.

Second game I used Europe as a semi-missile shield, mostly just allied so my nukes/bombers wouldn't get shot down. In the end my 12 subs levelled Europe.



Russia will always have to destroy Europe in order to win a game, because Europe is in the way with it's air defence, unless you abandon Moscow. Thus, a smart Europe player -should- ally with Russia, but only while planning to stab Russia in the gut and make it bleed like a pig!



The biggest problem I can see is that people believe they can 'win' Defcon with an alliance, while only one player is really victorious. Maybe an official ladder would give people an incentive to get the real win, instead of the fake alliance win.

[dawnchorus]

If people are clearly allied before the game starts, you don't have to play them. Try playing only random territories. I much prefer random as it's a roll of the dice and everyone gets a chance, not just the first to join the game. Then if you get Russia you can make a point of refusing an alliance with Europe just to prove your point. If people are jsut sitting back and absorbing nukes, that sounds like a pretty dull game for all concerned. If they are absorbing nukes it must mean that everyone is attacking them. You should attack someone else.

You are under no obligation to attack anyone, and nor is anyone else. In fact, if they have successfully goaded you into firing all your nukes into a heavily defended fortress, they have won the strategic game already. Just ignore them.

[KingAl]

A strategically tough nut to crack does not a cheat make.

(That sentence sounds terribly odd.)

Learn to structure your sentences in gramatically sensible ways, you must.

Wrt 'cheating'- you just need to practice against them. There's no absolute juggernaut, merely strategically favourable positions.

EDIT: Ah! Is the ancient art of sarcasm so neglected that I need make it obvious? Silly person.

[dawnchorus]

A strategically tough nut to crack does not a cheat make.

(That sentence sounds terribly odd.)

Learn to structure your sentences in gramatically sensible ways, you must.

There is nothing wrong with the first sentence: "X does not a Y make" is an accepted structure.

[bOgan_X]

The point that the thread starter is making is valid, euro and west Russia have a
geographical advantage when allied...when i enter a server and see this i exit immediately.

The easy fix is a mirror image type map...6 fictional land masses equal in size, distance from
each other and with identical city placements.

[gumbo]

isn't it a good idea to join the eupoe russia alliance and take there silos out then nuke the rest of them.

[Michaeru]

isn't it a good idea to join the eupoe russia alliance and take there silos out then nuke the rest of them.

I can't think of something that speaks against that idea. Betrayal for the ultra-win.

[wwarnick]

The point that the thread starter is making is valid, euro and west Russia have a
geographical advantage when allied...when i enter a server and see this i exit immediately.

The easy fix is a mirror image type map...6 fictional land masses equal in size, distance from
each other and with identical city placements.

That would get rid of all the strategy. It would be a clickfest with no thought-out strategy, which is what this game is all about.

[Avenged]

euro and west Russia have a
geographical advantage when allied...when i enter a server and see this i exit immediately.

Pussy.

[dawnchorus]

Pussy teaser

[KingAl]

The easy fix is a mirror image type map...6 fictional land masses equal in size, distance from
each other and with identical city placements.

As an alternatve map, great. But as the core, be-all-and-end-all map?

Why destroy a perfectly good opportunity to bomb the crap out of real places?

[prozachar]

I have been playing Defcon for quite some time now and I consider the following to be a cheat, even more so because so many people seem to have discovered it:

Russia and Europe teaming up and concentrating their air defenses in the small European Continent-area. There is NO getting through this fortress. All Russia and Europe-players have to do is team up (which more and more people are doing), ride out the storm, and then when everybody else has expended their arsenals, strike.

Last night I saw a couple of extremes of this. I entered servers where 2 people were already logged on, and they had picked Europe and Russia as territories, and they had already allied. \

Another extreme was a server where people also knew about this 'Fortress'-cheat and so there we all sat, waiting. Even when the end-of-game-timer had started, Russia and Europe did not move; only in the last couple of minutes did ICBMs start flying, but the game ended before air defenses got into action.

I already found it quite ridiculous to see that air defense systems can so easily shoot down ICBM warheads in this game; that, plus the 'Fortress'-cheat, do not make this game a lot of fun to play on.

Looks like someone needs to get off the wahhhmbulence and go read Sirlin's "Play To Win" essays.

http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... nPart0.htm
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... nPart1.htm
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... nPart2.htm
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... nPart3.htm
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... xample.htm

From part 1:

In the world of Street Fighter competition, we have a word for players who aren’t good: “scrub.” Now, everyone begins as a scrub—it takes time to learn the game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, that one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game before he’s chosen his character. He’s lost the game even before the decision of which game is to be played has been made. His problem? He does not play to win.

The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevent him from ever truly competing. These made up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. In Street Fighter, for example, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” So-called “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone often called cheap.

...

As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield which will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.

[rippedcap]

A strategically tough nut to crack does not a cheat make.

(That sentence sounds terribly odd.)

Learn to structure your sentences in gramatically sensible ways, you must.

Wrt 'cheating'- you just need to practice against them. There's no absolute juggernaut, merely strategically favourable positions.

EDIT: Ah! Is the ancient art of sarcasm so neglected that I need make it obvious? Silly person.

Learn to use the force, you must....

[JoshB]

Looks like someone needs to get off the wahhhmbulence and go read Sirlin's "Play To Win" essays.

http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... nPart0.htm
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... nPart1.htm
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... nPart2.htm
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... nPart3.htm
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_ ... xample.htm

Prozachar, those articles are great. Thanks for the links.

[dawnchorus]

The articles are pretty enlightening in that they get into the mind of a very competitive person. Sadly, the only example he can find in the "real" world is Survivor, where the prize was a substantial amount of money and a degree of fame. Most gamers aren't playing for the same stakes, which is why it's a really inappropriate example. Most gamers play to win, and most will practice a bit to get better, and scale the learning curve with a light heart. Other people get a bit more anal about it. Sure, if gaming is your living (like the chess players at the start of the article) you'll no doubt be playing against other people whose living is made from gaming, ergo games will be very competitive. Well, most people aren't like that. They fancy a little amusement at the end of a working day.

You only have to look at football to see where overcompetitiveness leads us. The last World Cup in particular will be remembered for the cheating, hoodwinking of the referee and several of the most stultifying games in the history of the competition. Forwards have found ways of going down after a challenge where it's technically a foul by the more strict reading of the rules. This leads to free kicks and penalties. We now have "free kick specialists" such as England's ex-captain, who practice set pieces until they can have a film name inspired by their trajectories(and who statistically only scored a tiny percentage of what he supposedly specialised in). This is dull. This is taking the rules to the nth degree and using them to win at all costs. Great for the winning fans. For the future of the game in question, however, it shows startling short-termism. As humans are demonstrating so well with their misuse of the earth's natural resources, we're a short term kinda species. They'll take their mansions now as by the time the public wakes up to the abuse they'll be retired. (If you want to see some great international football, watch women playing it. You'll be reminded of why people were first drawn to the game.)

Playing someone a bit better than you and winning through a little flash of inspiration is a great feeling. Being trounced by people who basically just practise too much is not. If two such people want to play each other, fine. They'll surely have great fun. But nearly every online game I have ever fallen in love with has eventually been ruined by the people who take it *too* seriously. You either have to join them or stop playing. Once a game has been "mastered", what is the point in playing it? Games with minimal degrees of randomisation usually have short shelf lives.

It seems as if it is the author of the features who is advocating the mindset he so despises, as he is just as guilty of making up his own set of rules as are the "scrubs". But he's a pretty good rhetoritician, and makes his points forcefully. Good games are balanced. Balance needs leagues or divisions, yet online games tend to pitch all sorts against one another. He's basically saying he's better at gaming than me. I am fine with that. I'll come to terms with it, difficult though it will be.

If I want to eat a well-cooked, lovingly prepared meal, that's my choice. If you want to eat junk food, that's yours. There ARE different ways of playing a game. It's just a case of finding the right tablemates.