It would be nice if we were technically allowed to play against Cardotron and the other GM's! (Disclaimer: This post is technically serious, but only "technically." If you really care about your time, maybe don't bother reading this.) I can barely read the TOS because the font is so small, but I think it said we shouldn't: "Take deliberate and repetitive advantage of bugs." Previously, Jon has posted a policy that says we have to try to win Ranked games. (Flaxative clarified it was ok to play "silly builds", but that we have to still try to win the match with them once it starts.) I think the two policies combined create a catch-22, which means we all should never check the "Allow GM Opponents" box, because: On one hand, Cardotron and other GM's are so bugged, that if you don't resign against them, you'll probably be taking advantage of their repetitive bugs because their logic and moves have so damn many of them.... But on other other hand, you can't not-try-to-win as per Jon's policy on the game begins, so you can't just let your self lose either when they inevitably flake out. So, Catch-22 - You probably can't play Ranked vs. GM opponents while simultaniously respecting the policy and the TOS. (If I read the tiny-font TOS correctly.) I guess we also shouldn't equip Ready-to-Strike on the Mitternacht maps because the guys there bug out like crazy and repeatedly slaughter themselves via Vengenance. Yes, I hope and assume that policy won't be enforced. Yes, I'm not "100% serious", but my lawyer told me that we should write what we mean, and mean what we write, and I am serious (but not too insistent) that the TOS (if it does say that) ought to be worded better or have that part removed. Perhaps it could say: "If you think you've discovered an obscure bug that the developers might not be aware of, please report it to them. If the developers have acknowledged any bugs which you should not take advantage of, you should observe that request." I'm pretty good at writing legalese (slowly and painstakingly) so that's not my best example of such... I'd consider a more serious effort to write a better one in the unlikely event that anyone really cares and someone in Knights asks for a better suggestion. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and even though I'm smarter than most of them, you should always consult a lawyer and not believe my suggestions because the actual Judges and lawyers have made "laws" saying that I'm not allowed to give "legal advice" and so I'm not actually giving any.)
GMs play monsters for our mutual story-telling enjoyment. Monsters make bad decisions at times. GMs, despite all of Melvin's hemming and hawing, aren't that skilled at PvP. Gary's young and inexperienced. Melvin, skill, heh. We don't really know Amy, unless *someone* (who's more about splash than strict mechanics) enters competition under a pseudonym... Cardotron is just a poor computer; we can only expect so much from it. And Mom? *pssh* P2W, clearly. She's totally welcome to play, just like anyone else, but let's not even count that wallet warrior in this particular discussion. Feature—not a bug. $:^ D
Yea, I guess you got me there - the stupid NPC's really are a "feature", not a "bug". But, I heard rumors that over the past few days, people were getting chests that didn't have enough items in them, allowing them to play longer with less fear of improving their collections to the point that they have so much of the good stuff that new (normal-size chests) are less exciting than they used to be due to the increased chance of dropping extra/"unusable" items. So, that really really doesn't sound like a "feature" to me, and so those people were probably repeatedly "exploiting bugs" and violating the terms of service.
I imagine you're trying to be cute, but there's definitely no in-game flavor for chests missing items, hence the devs hotfixing it and dumping a whole bunch of apologetic items on us all.
