"No scout rush" rule. Does it affect games where scout is enabled on game start?

[Matty]

Yes I understand that some players will complain about anything they are not used to, like scout trick. It's just a bit sad that fast-pace games are getting changed for people who have played it few times. Like not only I stopped doing scout tricks and I feel like provoking when trying to box the opponent, but also I'm not using rams anymore, essential for my rush, just because people extend that YES_RULES to fast-pace games as well. Also this scout trick is in reality a fast-pace game thing and rarely useful in med-pace, because there you often don't know when the opponent is going to get a territory and, even if you manage to spot the building construction site, in order to exploit the situation you must have planned to build a cc in that terr too.
So, basically, scout trick has very little to do with medium-pace games but its destiny depends mainly on med-pace-only players.

[Dr.MonaLisa]

I understand what you mean, but I need to clarify few things so other players don't misunderstand the situation:
Nothing is getting changed. The new possibilities are being added which are preferred by most of new players, but also by the old ones, since if it wasn't a thing, they wouldn't agree with new players and force their vision anyway.

Theoretically we have the following possibilities now:
- Scout trick allowed / disallowed.
- No rules / Yes rules.
- Crowns and Leaders System enabled / disabled.
- New "Low + Tech Points" starting resources option.

All this can be decided by the host.

Every player can be a host. MonaNAT has 100% of success ratio, even if sometimes the first attempt fails. I know that it's faster to join players with the open port, but still that's not a problem. Batuzay, with the worst possible Internet connection is the best example of it. He's very often hosting games, and everyone needs few NAT attempts to join him. But they join. And he usually hosts "no rules" games in r-r.

So, basically, scout trick has very little to do with medium-pace games but its destiny depends mainly on med-pace-only players.

It depends. I remember Peppar's videos on YouTube where he managed to stop the enemy from building barracks for very long seconds (if not minutes). He could then get army sooner and micro on economy better. However, in my opinion it was more understandable settings than for example r-r. Because if enemy has a powerful civilization, and scouts tricks you so you can't construct anything, then rushes you with the unique unit, then you most likely lose the game due that you couldn't even produce a single unit to counter it. However, in medium pace, the enemy's scout can be attacked (even by citizens) because ceasefire is not active. That's why I wouldn't find it as a big problem. And this is why the scout is still being enabled in most r-r games that I remember.

But anyway, let's focus on what to do with the "no scout" rule more than move back to the history. It would be nice to know the opinion of more players.

[KennetRP]

Reviving this thread now because yesterday I played a 1v1 game against Wilparra where (in typical COLM and uRs fashion) he attempts an outpost rush on my starting base. The game in question was set in epoch 15 which meant I had to face the strongest possible outpost. He mass gathered stone and wood, claimed the territory right next to me and began building the outpost on the border of my base. Meanwhile, I had just built an airport and thus did not have the resources to counter his "border defspam" with my own outpost, which means I was practically defenseless unless I took a desperate measure to stop him from finishing that outpost (I calculated that by the time my smart plane would finish producing, it would be already too late). As you may (or may not) have guessed by now is that "desperate measure" I'm referring to involved me using my scout (it was enabled on game start btw) to kill Wilparra's citizens building said outpost on my border. He complained about it in chat of course, but I countered with that it was not really a "scout rush" because it was purely a defensive action, unlike the aggressive use of a scout attacking/harassing the opponent's citizens in their starting base. Furthermore, I've had players do similar to me in the past, attacking my city center builders when trying to claim territory. I feel like I've discovered a grey area regarding the "no scout rush" rule. Thoughts?

[Dr.MonaLisa]

This seems to still be a problem as I recently observed a game where someone used the scout, and another player started complaining that the rules were broke.

I have the following proposition to solve this issue. We could decide about it in the new "Regulation" from the Department of Control & the Department of Justice.
This would be WITHOUT extra voting and WITHOUT creating the new Amending Act, which is a bit more complicated and time consuming procedure. The Amending Act also wouldn't allow us to revert the Regulation quickly in case something "went wrong" and new unpredicted problems were detected.

So my proposition (as from the Department of Control), which also needs to be approved by the Department of Justice is:

- If scout is DISABLED (if the Host player selects the "Starting Forces" -> "Basic" Citizens option with the "no Scout" suffix):
* In yes_rules: It's disallowed to produce Scouts to attack / rush players with newly produced Scouts, and it's disallowed to use the Scout Glitch on players.
* In no_rules: It's allowed to produce Scouts and attack / rush players with newly produced Scouts, however the Scout Glitch on players is still disallowed, as it's decided by the starting option and is displayed in the message on game start.

- If scout is ENABLED (if the Host player selects the "Starting Forces" -> "Basic" Citizens option WITHOUT the "no Scout" suffix):
* In yes_rules: It's allowed to attack / rush players with the first Scout, as well as use the Scout Glitch on them, but it's disallowed to produce more scouts to attack players. If you lose your first scout, you are disallowed to produce more of them to rush players.
* In no_rules: It's allowed to attack / rush players with the first Scout, as well as use the Scout Glitch on them, and it's allowed to produce more scouts to attack players.


I know that it might be confusing that it would be allowed to attack with the first scout in the "yes_rules" game where initial scout is enabled, but we kind of have a separate rule for it, which is "no scout" option. This would be less confusing and would help avoid reports of new / old players. Why? Because logically, when someone from the past returns to EE2, and sees a message that Scout Glitch is allowed, and has the initial scout at his base, then will attempt to attack players with it, because that's how it always was. However, that player will still be disallowed to produce more scouts for the Scout Rush which might ruin all epoch 13+ games and make them boring.

I know it's a tough subject to touch, but sooner or later something must be done with it.

For now let's see if the Department of Justice approves my idea. Then we will wait for some feedback from players, and if nobody has something against it I can issue a new Regulation.

[smallfish]

wilparra loves scouts

[Matty]

This seems to still be a problem as I recently observed a game where someone used the scout, and another player started complaining that the rules were broke.

I have the following proposition to solve this issue. We could decide about it in the new "Regulation" from the Department of Control & the Department of Justice.
This would be WITHOUT extra voting and WITHOUT creating the new Amending Act, which is a bit more complicated and time consuming procedure. The Amending Act also wouldn't allow us to revert the Regulation quickly in case something "went wrong" and new unpredicted problems were detected.

So my proposition (as from the Department of Control), which also needs to be approved by the Department of Justice is:

- If scout is DISABLED (if the Host player selects the "Starting Forces" -> "Basic" Citizens option with the "no Scout" suffix):
* In yes_rules: It's disallowed to produce Scouts to attack / rush players with newly produced Scouts, and it's disallowed to use the Scout Glitch on players.
* In no_rules: It's allowed to produce Scouts and attack / rush players with newly produced Scouts, however the Scout Glitch on players is still disallowed, as it's decided by the starting option and is displayed in the message on game start.

- If scout is ENABLED (if the Host player selects the "Starting Forces" -> "Basic" Citizens option WITHOUT the "no Scout" suffix):
* In yes_rules: It's allowed to attack / rush players with the first Scout, as well as use the Scout Glitch on them, but it's disallowed to produce more scouts to attack players. If you lose your first scout, you are disallowed to produce more of them to rush players.
* In no_rules: It's allowed to attack / rush players with the first Scout, as well as use the Scout Glitch on them, and it's allowed to produce more scouts to attack players.


I know that it might be confusing that it would be allowed to attack with the first scout in the "yes_rules" game where initial scout is enabled, but we kind of have a separate rule for it, which is "no scout" option. This would be less confusing and would help avoid reports of new / old players. Why? Because logically, when someone from the past returns to EE2, and sees a message that Scout Glitch is allowed, and has the initial scout at his base, then will attempt to attack players with it, because that's how it always was. However, that player will still be disallowed to produce more scouts for the Scout Rush which might ruin all epoch 13+ games and make them boring.

I know it's a tough subject to touch, but sooner or later something must be done with it.

For now let's see if the Department of Justice approves my idea. Then we will wait for some feedback from players, and if nobody has something against it I can issue a new Regulation.

I think the current rules are quite similar to the ones you proposed, but the main issue is that there are 4 different cases (yes_rules and scout enabled, no_rules and scout enabled, yes_rules and scout disabled, no rules and scout disabled) which make things confusing to players and not easy to remember.

Most of the players don't know these rules in detail. Even myself thought there were no limitations in no rules games, even when scout wasn't enabled...

I think a simplification of the rules would be the optimal thing to do, but it would require a good amount of brainstorming and also players should learn the new simplified "rules".

An alternative to this would be focusing on the rule which is "broken" most of the times, which comes from the term "no scout rush" being misinterpreted.

Basically, in yes_rules games, so most of the games, it is said "no scout rush", and the real meaning behind it is that it's not allowed to rush with multiple scouts. However a good amount of players thinks it applies also to the first scout, because "no scout rush" is singular, so they always feel like the opponent is breaking rules when it's not the case.

A solution to this might be renaming it to "no multiple scouts rush" or something more clear than the current one.

[Dr.MonaLisa]

The Scout Glitch rule is independent from "yes_rules" and "no_rules". It was actually available before the other rules taunts. So if someone uses the Scout Glitch even when the first scout is disabled by the host in "no_rules" game, it's also punishable.

So I thought about relating the Scout Glitch rule to the usage of the scout for rushing players.

I actually thought that the first scout is disallowed in "yes_rules", that's why the taunt voice says: "no scout rush" instead of "no scouts rush". But then I noticed that "returning" or simply new players get confused with it. If they have an initial scout in the city, it's logical that it should be used...

So I think I worded the Regulation proposition correctly, or messed something up? I think the most important information would be that initial scout usage is allowed in yes_rules if the scout is enabled on game start. At the same time it's clear not to produce more scouts to rush.

[IndieRock00]

In order not to complicate things too much, in my opinion it is better to keep the scout rush and the scout glitch together, and they will only depend on the presence or absence of the initial scout.

Another problematic scenario comes to mind and it is that of a possible "double" or "triple", that is, a combined attack by multiple scouts belonging to the enemy allies. How do you behave? Can it also be defined as a scout rush even if there are only the scouts at the start?

[Dr.MonaLisa]

Another problematic scenario comes to mind and it is that of a possible "double" or "triple", that is, a combined attack by multiple scouts belonging to the enemy allies. How do you behave? Can it also be defined as a scout rush even if there are only the scouts at the start?

Very good point that we discussed earlier, but I forgot about it recently.

So my updated Regulation proposal would be (keep in mind I use many words to fit all details, but that can be re-written later to sound simple, just generic rules need to be long):

Longer, detailed version that should not leave any doubts and could be use as the base in report topics:

- If scout is DISABLED (if the Host player selects the "Starting Forces" -> "Basic" Citizens option with the "no Scout" suffix):

• In yes_rules:
  • It's disallowed to use the Scout Glitch on players.
  • It's disallowed to produce Scouts to attack / rush players with newly produced Scouts.
  • It's disallowed to double/triple, etc. with multiple Scouts produced by different allied players.
  In no_rules:
  • The Scout Glitch on players is still disallowed, as it's decided by the starting option and is displayed in the message on game start.
  • It's allowed to produce Scouts and attack / rush players with newly produced Scouts.
  • It's allowed to double/triple, etc. with multiple Scouts produced by different allied players.

- If scout is ENABLED (if the Host player selects the "Starting Forces" -> "Basic" Citizens option WITHOUT the "no Scout" suffix):

• In yes_rules:
  • It's allowed to use the Scout Glitch on players with the first (initial) scout.
  • It's allowed to attack / rush players with the first Scout.
  • It's disallowed to produce more scouts to attack players. If you lose your first scout, you are disallowed to produce more of them to rush players.
  • It's disallowed to double/triple, etc. with multiple "initial" Scouts that other allied players have.
  In no_rules:
  • It's allowed to use the Scout Glitch on players.
  • It's allowed to attack / rush players with the first Scout and it's allowed to produce more scouts to attack players.
  • It's allowed to double/triple, etc. with multiple Scouts that other allied players have or produced.

Shorter version that should be simple to understand for everyone:

• - If the game starts without the First (initial) Scout:
  • * It's disallowed to use the Scout Glitch no matter when.
    * In yes_rules it's disallowed to produce new scouts to attack enemies, or attack the same enemy with multiple scouts from different allies.
    * In no_rules it's allowed to do everything with scouts, except for the Scout Glitch.

• - If the game starts with the First (initial) Scout:
  • * It's allowed to use Scout Glitch as well as attack players with that scout on game start.
    * In yes_rules it's disallowed to use multiple scouts (produce more), or attack the same enemy with multiple scouts from different allies.
    * In no_rules it's allowed to do everything with scouts with no limits.

[Dr.MonaLisa]

The Gov. Act IV: SGSRR - Scout Glitch & Scout Rush Regulation has been accepted and enters into force on 25.11.2024, 15:33 CET.

I believe this ends the discussion on this subject as everything is now defined in details and no doubts are left on what's allowed and what's forbidden.