Is he cheating?

That is fair and i have used it myself

if you are stupid enough to accept it then serve you right

we have enough limitations on trades

don't add to them because you are too lazy to check what you are getting and giving

I don't think it qualify as cheating, since players can either refuse or ignore it completely and instead relies on the gullibility and greed of players for it to work, which falls under the category of "diplomacy". Personally i think the game can add a confirmation feature on trades which would makes trades clearer, but no, trade shouldn't be restricted further.

How about the part where you can accept right of way 6 times in a row? In some games that would be called abusing a game mechanic. I don't see a reason to let someone accept the same diplomatic status infinite amount of times.

sirva wrote:

How about the part where you can accept right of way 6 times in a row? In some games that would be called abusing a game mechanic. I don't see a reason to let someone accept the same diplomatic status infinite amount of times.

I’ve seen that trick tried several time. Never tried it myself, I usually keep a low profile in games, until my expansion makes my presence obvious.

6thDragon wrote:

sirva wrote:

How about the part where you can accept right of way 6 times in a row? In some games that would be called abusing a game mechanic. I don't see a reason to let someone accept the same diplomatic status infinite amount of times.

That’s normal too. When you’re on a map with alliance mates or some coalition partners, extreme resource trading is very common. Sometimes you’re just giving away the resources you don’t need. Sine you have to put something in the trade for field, most players just use the current diplomatic relationship.

I’ve seen that trick tried several time. Never tried it myself, I usually keep a low profile in games, until my expansion makes my presence obvious.

I don't think it's cheating, but I do think it makes him look like an asshole and I'd immediately rule out cooperating with him in the future.

jubjub bird wrote:

I don't think it's cheating, but I do think it makes him look like an asshole and I'd immediately rule out cooperating with him in the future.

jubjub bird wrote:

I don't think it's cheating, but I do think it makes him look like an asshole and I'd immediately rule out cooperating with him in the future.

sirva wrote:

I'm not sure if it's allowed, but in my opinion a player is cheating and abusing a game mechanic. What he's doing is sending 6 offers to every player in the game. 6 Right of way offers and is asking for all 5 types of resources and cash. In his own words, 90% of players fall for this thinking he's GIVING resources away. But actually, he is ASKING for resources in exchange for the right of way. Now imagine the amount of resources this guy "steals" per game and the advantage he gets? Also, he's abusing the mechanic, where you can accept "right of way" 6 times in a row. You shouldn't be able to accept the same deal 6 times over.

sirva wrote:

Or just trade whatever you want for 1 grain for example? I still don't see why we need to be able to accept the same diplomatic status over and over again.

Caveat Emptor (in Latin) or Buyer Beware. How is it cheating? Does he SAY in a message before or after the trade offer that he is GIVING resources? That said I personally would not do this. If this happens I would suggest either being proactive and write to other players warning them of a players attempt to do this or post in th4e Newspaper. I would also look to form a coalition against this player and attack them as soon as possible before they can use the resources to build and expand.

It is indead not really fair, because the player is relying on noobies and way more important, the bad display of player-to-player trade-offers. Those are really confusing. I know that in fact the diplay of trade-offers in the past were even worse.

I am wondering about all the unasked design-changes, but to really have an easy understanding of a simple trade transaction.

I don't see why anyone would want give away all their resources within 5 minutes of joining a game. Clearly something wrong here.

If someone says they are leaving but they are not, that's very misleading especially to new players. I bet the company loses many new players this way who feel immediately "cheated".

It's a sleazy way to take advantage of players who don't understand the UI, which is confusing.

And it's also a way to deny Bytro the gold that these resources would otherwise cost.

If that's not a convincing reason to fix this problem, then nothing is.

On the one hand, tactics that rely on trickery should be allowed, as misdirection and diplomacy are important parts of the game. Players who can't handle being tricked should probably look elsewhere for amusement.

On the other, I feel that this sort of conduct crosses the line. It's less about tactics and more about abusing the interface, or others' lack of familiarity therewith.

With other tactics (for example, arranging for right of way with a nation, moving a lot of units into their territory, and then declaring war), it's something that could actually happen in a real war, although it would be a dirty trick and the repercussions would be severe. However, a real nation couldn't trick another into giving them free resources when they think they'll be receiving them.

This is spot-on.

People want to fantasize about someone giving them their wealth. When they think they do, they will agree. When they find it works the other way, they cry. It is in the greed about accepting this; people offering are just playing on that.

You are acting like you are the least-gullible person ever, ain't no reason, and no way, you are, and i reckon you have fallen for things we would all balk at as well, so its best not to critisize people for simple mistakes.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

People want to fantasize about someone giving them their wealth. When they think they do, they will agree. When they find it works the other way, they cry. It is in the greed about accepting this; people offering are just playing on that.