Proposal for standard "no cheating" challenge rules

[zarakon]

To reduce the amount of loophole abuse and nitpicking about challenge rules, I propose that we set some standard "no cheating" rules that should apply to all challenges without needing to always explicitly state them.

These would of course not apply if the challenge rules specifically state otherwise.

1. No "hack gravity"

2. No "infinite fuel" (including infinite RCS or EVA)

3. No absurd part modification. The challenge should state whether mods are allowed or not, but it should be assumed that using blatantly overpowered parts or modifying parts to be blatantly overpowered is not allowed. For example, if mods are allowed you can use something like the B9 Aerospace pack, but you can't use a Mainsail that you've modified to have 1000000 thrust and consume no fuel.

4. No excessive abuse of infiniglide. If your plane happens to infiniglide a bit, that's probably fine. But if you're using it to accelerate to supersonic speeds or if it obviously circumvents the spirit of the challenge (such as in a glide distance challenge), consider it cheating.

5. No Hyperedit, save file modification, or other things of that sort.

Edited May 6, 2014 by zarakon

[TechnicalK3rbal]

Aye!

However, modify it for no infinite RCS or infinite EVA fuel.

[Zeroignite]

Works for me.

Also, for challenges that are atmo-heavy, "if you use FAR, that goes in a separate category" is often a good idea.

[Kasuha]

1 and 2 are clear and can be collected under "no cheats"

3 is unclear. Where does "absurd" start?

4 is a bit narrow-sighted. There's no point in concentrating on infiniglide when there are other bugs to abuse.

5 is unclear again. What is "of that sort"? Hyperedit and save file modifications are two quite different things.

What I'd propose:

- no debug menu use, neither in design nor in flight

- stock game with no physics affecting modifications (except for known bugfixes), no extra parts, no extra functionality (plus exception for "informative" mods? It's not like it is possible to prove somebody used them)

- no abuse of physics flaws and bugs (Kraken drive, ladder force, infiniglide, ...)

- no teleports or mass transport, such as ships or Kerbals relocating or resources magically appearing or disappearing to/from containers except for what built-in resource transport allows.

And then it'd be up to each individual challenge to override what's needed. Such as specifying which mods are ok, or which debug menu cheats can be used, when, and under what conditions.

[SkyRender]

Should probably also have a variant of the universal no-cheating clause that also includes "no MechJeb". That one tends to come up a lot, particularly for challenges where MechJeb could basically complete the challenge for the player. In the case of challenges like that, MechJeb really IS cheating!

[PlasmaticInc]

Aye, although part clipping isn't cheaty though right? As long as it's not completely exploitative, I don't really consider part clipping for aesthetics to be "cheating".

[cantab]

I feel a complete debug menu ban is too draconian. In the VAB, whether a part places or not is often so incredibly arbitrary and random that enabling clipping is quite justifiable to avoid annoyance. In flight I routinely use the "flight debug stats" to monitor game performance, and people may need to use it for actual debugging.

Edit: Also, I'm not sure we should have such a "global" ruleset. While it may be a bit silly for every challenge to be basically repeating the same rules, it's a good way to separate a well-considered challenge that's had effort to put in from a random idea someone decided to throw up in two minutes.

If there is to be, I think some more should be:

Don't rules-lawyer where the intent should be obvious.

The challenge setter's word is final on entry admissability. Don't argue when your clever loophole abusing entry is disqualified, and don't argue about the eligibility of other people's entries. Challenge setters, don't be too quick to disqualify an entry that's within the rules just because it's not what you had in mind.

Edited May 6, 2014 by cantab

[EdFred]

Should probably also have a variant of the universal no-cheating clause that also includes "no MechJeb". That one tends to come up a lot, particularly for challenges where MechJeb could basically complete the challenge for the player. In the case of challenges like that, MechJeb really IS cheating!

I don't think it's cheating at all. I can actually get better dV usage doing things manually over MechJeb. But, I don't want to sit and babysit a 20 minute fuel burn.

[Red Iron Crown]

Should probably also have a variant of the universal no-cheating clause that also includes "no MechJeb". That one tends to come up a lot, particularly for challenges where MechJeb could basically complete the challenge for the player. In the case of challenges like that, MechJeb really IS cheating!

Yes, it seems like there should be separate rules for challenges that focus on piloting and those that focus on design. Kasuha's guidelines seem reasonable to me as a baseline for both, with the challenge writer free to make exceptions.

If mods are to be permitted, the author should be explicit in naming the allowed mods, rather than a catchall "any part mods that aren't cheaty" which is open to misinterpretation or outright abuse. If a mod isn't named in the OP, assume it is forbidden.

Aye, although part clipping isn't cheaty though right? As long as it's not completely exploitative, I don't really consider part clipping for aesthetics to be "cheating".

It's a spectrum from aesthetic to outright cheaty. Hard to set a guideline that allows one but not the other.

[8MMW]

I agree with above, there are many challenges allowing subjectively non-cheaty mods, which isn't precise at all. The best solution would be as Red Iron Crown and Kasuha mentioned - stock or mentioned non-stock parts only. At the same time "informative" mods should be allowed (like KER, Enhanced Navball, Navyfish Docking Alignment, maybe MechJeb and others I don't know about).

The rules in OP are in my opinion very obvious, but often mentioned in challenges. So just for convenience it could be better if the challenge poster could just add a link to those, to remove some clutter.

I think the best option now is to focus the discussion on the rules (to make them clear and well-thought) and let the challenge posters decide about their usefulness.

Edited May 6, 2014 by 8MMW

[Pyranz]

I totally agree with this idea, it's so annoying when people say they can use cheats and bugs because it's not stated that they can't, despite how obvious it is. Bugs and debug options are not intended as part of the gameplay, and mods are for changing the gameplay, so it makes far more sense to have all these things banned by default, rather than the poster having to remember to state every thing every time. It's also better for players who are new to the forums and may not be aware of all the things that can be abused, and have their challenge ruined by nitpicking.

[SSSPutnik]

Other problem with mods is that they are fluid. Some change almost daily.

Personally, I use a ton of mods, but it does make challenge rules tricky.

[Kasuha]

Maybe instead of making some set of "common sense rules" it would be better to make a challenge template which anybody who cares could use to start a challenge, fill in blanks and make any changes if needed. These basic rules can be just present in it beside other useful things that challenge starters often forget to do.

Of course that would require cooperation from mods who would make a thread with the template sticky so it doesn't disappear in a day or two after it's created.

[KvickFlygarn87]

I suggest that MJ is put as a cheat. In all but a few cases it is able to plan and execute maneuvers more efficiently than the player.

[Jouni]

I suggest that MJ is put as a cheat. In all but a few cases it is able to plan and execute maneuvers more efficiently than the player.

Not really. MechJeb can plan simple maneuvers optimally, but there are often better ways to achieve the goal than those simple maneuvers.

Besides, anyone with a basic understanding of orbital mathematics can plan the maneuvers as well as MechJeb. It just takes more time.

[Red Iron Crown]

Maybe instead of making some set of "common sense rules" it would be better to make a challenge template which anybody who cares could use to start a challenge, fill in blanks and make any changes if needed. These basic rules can be just present in it beside other useful things that challenge starters often forget to do.

Of course that would require cooperation from mods who would make a thread with the template sticky so it doesn't disappear in a day or two after it's created.

I like this idea. I bet if we came up with something sensible we could get it added to the challenge guidelines.

[John FX]

Don't rules-lawyer where the intent should be obvious.

This is the main one for me. Challenges are being spoiled by the people who go to challenges then make the next page of posts a back and forth between themselves and the challenge maker battling out the rules until it`s not possible to `cheat` or exploit the rules. I`m sure they think they are doing a service for the community but

THAT JUST IS NOT FUN, PLEASE STOP (to those that do it)

If you exploit a loophole you should just be excluded from taking part in that challenge and the final decision should be the challenge makers.

That might stop people from doing it, don`t let them get loads of replies to their posts from disputing rules, just exclude them...

A basic rule framework makes sense especially if you are making one of your first challenges.

I suggest that MJ is put as a cheat. In all but a few cases it is able to plan and execute maneuvers more efficiently than the player.

I don`t, I`d say leave it to the challenge designer. There is enough grey area that a blanket ban does not make sense.

[Red Iron Crown]

I took the liberty of starting a template, please share your thoughts on how it could be improved or should be changed:

Provisional Template:

The Background

Give a little backstory on the context in which the challenge is being performed.

The Objective

Describe, in one paragraph or less, the overall goal of the challenge.

The Details

A more detailed description of the goal, with explicit descriptions of any limitations.

The Rules

List of required mods, if any.

List of allowable mods, if any, all other mods are excluded.

List of exploits & cheats to avoid, e.g. Infiniglide, debug menu.

The Scoring

A detailed description of the scoring system, and any subcategories (e.g. stock vs modded, stock aero vs FAR, etc).

List of things that add points, in descending order.

List of things that subtract points, in descending order.

Scoring need not be in points, it may be more appropriate to use vessel mass, part count, cost or some other measure.

Scoring is optional, some challenges are more about doing interesting things in interesting ways than direct competition, feel free to create scoring-free challenges.

The Submissions

List of images or other proof required for a qualifying entry.

The Leaderboard

Challenge will remain open until $Time, $Date, $Timezone.

List of leading entries, separated into categories as required. Please link to the post of each player's entry.

Only necessary if a scoring system is used.

It is the responsibility of the challenge writer to keep this updated.

The Example

Pics and description of the challenge writer's attempt to complete the challenge.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Added some suggested items.

[Kasuha]

I would add Background Story as first item. Many challenges (objectives & rules) make better sense if they're put in reasonable context.

I'd also add a remark that scoring is optional. At least in my experience, challenges which did not involve scoring were the most fun of all.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Kasuha

[Red Iron Crown]

Thanks, I've updated it with your suggestions and a couple of other things that occurred to me.

[John FX]

I would add Background Story as first item. Many challenges (objectives & rules) make better sense if they're put in reasonable context.

I'd also add a remark that scoring is optional. At least in my experience, challenges which did not involve scoring were the most fun of all.

I`d agree with this. Some of the most fun challenges are just ones where you see if you can do it at all and a bit of background story is always nice. I like knowing we have to go out there for a reason, usually a funny one.

[cantab]

I agree with above, there are many challenges allowing subjectively non-cheaty mods, which isn't precise at all. The best solution would be as Red Iron Crown and Kasuha mentioned - stock or mentioned non-stock parts only.

My counterargument to this approach, as opposed to the less-specific approach of permitting "non-overpowered" (or similar) mods, is that it will limit challenges to stock plus the popular mods, and deny entries from interesting less-known mods, reducing the diversity of what we see and having a wider negative effect on mod development.

Restrictions on the types of mod parts are workable for some challenges. To give an example, suppose your challenge is to build a plane with the best glide ratio. You've reason to restrict aerodynamic parts, you've reason to put stock and FAR entries in separate categories, but you don't need to ban mod engines and structural parts since they'll have little or no effect on the performance of entries.

I suggest that MJ is put as a cheat. In all but a few cases it is able to plan and execute maneuvers more efficiently than the player.

Only in a few challenges - typically those focussed on building a lightweight ship or completing a task with the minimum delta-V or fuel used - will the difference made by MechJeb be at all important.

[Superfluous J]

I think the challenges would be better served by coming up with "types" that all have similar restrictions. What follows are examples, not suggestions.

Type A: All stock. No mods. No hacking. I don't care that Texture Replacer doesn't change anything. Uninstall it.

Type B: Mostly Stock. No part mods, or info/autopilot mods. Keep Visual Enhancements, but RSS is out.

Type C: Stockish. No part mods where the parts give you functionality. Mechjeb and KER are fine as their parts don't actually help your ship. No physics changing.

Type D: Wild West: Part mods are okay but no Alt-F12 menu. The challenge may specify specific mods that are okay and no others are, to keep someone from hacking in a 5 bajillion ISP engine.

Type E: Anarchy. Anything goes. First Kerbal to Hyperedit Minmus inside Jool wins.

[Raven.]

I think the challenges would be better served by coming up with "types" that all have similar restrictions. What follows are examples, not suggestions.

Type A: All stock. No mods. No hacking. I don't care that Texture Replacer doesn't change anything. Uninstall it.

Type B: Mostly Stock. No part mods, or info/autopilot mods. Keep Visual Enhancements, but RSS is out.

Type C: Stockish. No part mods where the parts give you functionality. Mechjeb and KER are fine as their parts don't actually help your ship. No physics changing.

Type D: Wild West: Part mods are okay but no Alt-F12 menu. The challenge may specify specific mods that are okay and no others are, to keep someone from hacking in a 5 bajillion ISP engine.

Type E: Anarchy. Anything goes. First Kerbal to Hyperedit Minmus inside Jool wins.

I like this setup, although I think it may need to be expanded and refined a little bit. For Type-D you could list two different sub types, Type-D Restricted (where only specific mods are allows) and Type-D Open (where any "balanced" mod is allowed).

[Fengist]

If there's one thing that's apparent, everyone has their own opinion on what should and shouldn't be included.

HOWEVER... what I think is, we should make a list of basic 'rules' like he has proposed, that can be easily copied and pasted into challenges. I've already used 3 of these in my latest challenge.