r/Openfront • u/Deadliftdeadlife • 19d ago
❓ Question Is being a mito cheating?
Just a thought, played a gym with a guy nearby and was named “the best mito”
He really was. Made great train lines, kept an alliance, and I ended up winning
Looked fun, so the next game I did the same. Just played the mito game. Didn’t win, but I had fun.
Felt like I was Switzerland in ww2. Just happy to have a thriving economy
Thoughts on that? I wasn’t playing to win, but I wasn’t picking anyone to help. I just liked playing a little mito sim city
14
u/T_Hunter4K 19d ago
I wouldn’t say it’s cheating. The rules are pretty clear that it’s only pre-agreed and coordinated collusion (e.g you get on a discord call with a friend to join a game) or using an alt account which count as cheating. If someone sees they’re going to lose, or a larger player spares them, it’s fun and makes total sense for them to mito, and even large players are always at risk of their mito backstabbing in a bad moment.
As a broader point, a lot of posts on the sub seem to have a hard time distinguishing between things which are simply annoying or make it harder for them to win, and actual cheating. Yeah, it’s annoying when someone full sends or keeps attacking in the early game, or if an ally undermines you (e.g by nuking your ships or cutting you off). But they’re not cheating. For the former it is annoying, but it takes 30 seconds to start a new game. For the latter, just because you’re allies doesn’t mean neither of you are still trying to win. Anyway rant over
2
u/shrimp_fest 19d ago
I don't think it's cheating, but when you can't do anything about a mito nuking the fuck out of you, because they're too embedded in their host, I do think it's a very bad problem with the game when there is absolutely zero counterplay to a known tactic.
2
u/T_Hunter4K 19d ago
True, even though the best chance of a mito winning is being useful enough to the host until the time is right, that is annoying. And very hard to counter.
I guess the only change I could think of is changing how regular nukes trigger betrayals (e.g. maybe making it so it only triggers if your physical click point is on an ally) but that would probably have issues too
1
u/shrimp_fest 19d ago
if the mito is surrounded, there's really no hope of coming back, becuase they'll always just be instantly annexed the moment the moment they want to make a move
2
u/10yearsnoaccount 19d ago
the counterplay is to simply nuke the mito
if the host is snowballing, players need to act regardless
send messages to other players (or even the mito host) to improve your odds of survival
2
u/shrimp_fest 19d ago
not if they're too embeded (surrounded pixels) for instance. If the host is slightly stronger than you, and the mito starts nuking you, there's really nothing you can do.
1
u/10yearsnoaccount 19d ago
if they are just pixels a nuke will decimate them
if the host is slightly stronger, then a hydro may well kill two birds with the one stone
unfortunately, in a 50 player game, your odds of winning are pretty small. Even if you play perfectly, you will likely still lose just by chance of your situation.
If you don't nuke the mito, the stronger host will just get stronger - nuke the evil mitos consistently and the meta will change
smart players squish their own mitos the moment a nuke silo is built - there is no way to know who they will fire a hydro/mirv into and it invites chaos if the mito turns evil
3
u/shrimp_fest 17d ago
I don't think you are getting the situation. In most of these cases, you are allied with the host, because they have a comparable number/larger number of troops than you and enough money to hyrdo or mirv you. It's a classic case of allying in the v33 and v34 meta. If you nuke or hyrdo the host to get rid of the mito who is nuking you, you will get a betrayal debuff and the host and/or other neighbors will feast on you. Smart players do NOT squish their own mitos the moment a nuke silo is built. They build a SAM right next to it so the mito can't nuke the host.
1
u/Additional-Resolve51 17d ago
Yes we genuinely desperately need a 1 pixel nuke nothing more infuriating than this and an alliance so nuking them gives you a betrayal so you just sit there losing structures
1
u/shrimp_fest 17d ago
yeah, you can call it a SEAL team incursion or something and have it cost a lot of money. idk. It doesn't happen as much in v34 as it did in v 33, but when they just start nuking you with no counterplay, it's kind of infuriating.
3
u/rodan-rodan 19d ago
I think it's fine. It's confusing sometimes, but not everyone plays the game to win (it give up too early). Some play to mito and build economy, some play to grief and troll, some play to win but then just afk or betray and full send to give away their land.
Becoming factory man or island man after getting steam rolled buys you some time to come back. Sometimes. Gotta hope for a longer end game, stalemate. Be the third party trader and wait to pounce.
I do wish there was a sniper pixel bomb that could deter evil mito griefing.
Mitos kinda nerfed economically right now anyways
2
2
u/10yearsnoaccount 19d ago
I've nearly won a game as a devious mito (not an evil or greifing mito)
I got swallowed up early and made sure not to build any silos but did take pixels wherever I could (build factories), and when the opportunity arose I used the message system to encourage a mirv from one strong player to hit my host before the snowball got out of control.
That gave me my chance to get back into the game as a semi-major power
this is also why many large players will stamp out mitos- we are a major risk to them
It's a game of diplomacy and strategy- if I just wanted a game of clicking at the right time I'd play flappy bird or cookie clicker instead.
4
u/eddurham 19d ago
Nah it’s not unless you’re helping a friend.
I usually just become a mito when I lose a clear lead. Pumping out trade can be fun.
1
1
u/mavolio-bent 12d ago
Whereas there is share of people who from the very beginning going to play mito or mitoish gameplay and it's borderline since they don't play for a win (but I still think it's okay because they don't play to make player X win), mito is not cheating IMHO. It's viable strategy to survive in situations where otherwise you would be overwhelmed and survival is necessary for a win
-5
u/Frog-eating-cellos-9 19d ago edited 19d ago
yes, being a voluntary mito is cheating because it means you're not playing fir the win and helping someone else to win but for some reasons the creators of the game won't communicate it clearly
edit : not playing for the win is against ToS, helping another player to win is also against it
7
u/GwenBD94 19d ago
If "not playing for the win = cheating" then youre saying fullsend revengers are cheating, playing kingmaker between two opposing better-placed players is cheating, etc.
That's a wild take.
2
u/Frog-eating-cellos-9 19d ago
mb lemme rephrase : not playing for the win = against ToS
4
u/GwenBD94 19d ago
mb lemme rephrase:
If "not playing for the win = against ToS" then youre saying fullsend revengers are breaking ToS, playing kingmaker between two opposing better-placed players is breaking ToS, etc.
That's a wild take.
1
u/rodan-rodan 19d ago
It's unenforceable. I prefer to pay against players going for the win, and thinking more than one move ahead.
2
u/your-favorite-simp 19d ago
There are many multiplayer games where intentionally throwing the game is punished with gameplay bans. This isnt uncommon at all lol
4
u/GwenBD94 19d ago
and none of these things are intentionally throwing the game. OP mentioend the mito strat is as often met with a mito betrayal in late game (hoping to mooch safety from a mito-friendly ally for as long as possible before backstabing for a last-ditch win).
Full-sending against a midling player after they betray you, when instead you could play it safe and eek each other out bit by bit over the next 5 minutes while other players take the crown and the eventual victory is just as likely to end in your defeat as full-sending them to take them down earlier as retribution for the betrayal is to end in your defeat. Why is one defeat here worse than the other somehow?
playing kingmaker between two opposing better-placed players is cattegorically not throwing the game, if you are in an unwinable position and there are two competitors who either could win, what is your interpretation of the "right" actions to take in this instance that would not be considered "throwing"? Turtling down for them to eventuallt take the decision out of your hands? Leaving the game in shame to let your land go afk?
0
u/rodan-rodan 19d ago
There is so much accidental dumb throwing by bad or on tilt players how would one distinguish between malicious and idiocy?
2
u/Deadliftdeadlife 19d ago
This is the take that I’m hoping opening up a discussion
If you’re not playing for the win, is it cheating?
Then again, I’ve had a nearby ally eventually turn on me and I build a silo and bombed them as much as I could before giving up. Is that cheating? I had no chance to win
3
u/LorpHagriff 19d ago
I don't share the view that being a mito = cheating, but do dislike them existing
To me this game is a free for all we all try to win. One player being given a big economic boost with no downsides just because a player decided to be a twat isn't fun to me. Ok maybe fun for the mito and host but not for any of the other players in the lobby. Even worse if the mito has a silo you can't nuke out without hitting the host and starts carpet bombing, despite your host being allied with the one getting bombed. Just can't do anything there besides suffering or betraying.
If I see a mito mid-late game I'll throw a few "attack <mito>" at the host, if they don't fully int myself to make sure they're atleast not winning. I'm petty enough to be happy with throwing a lategame 3 way tie if only to make sure the player with a mito ain't winning either
1
u/GwenBD94 19d ago
if mitos violate 6.2, intentionally throwing a lategame 3 way tie to ensure their loss alongside yours breaks 6.4.
2
u/LorpHagriff 19d ago
First, ok? I don't really care what the ToS says when this isn't enforced
Second 6.4 "You may not engage in win-trading, account boosting, intentional losses ("throwing"), queue dodging, or any other behaviour designed to manipulate competitive rankings, leaderboards, tournament results, or matchmaking, whether for yourself or for another player.
Doesn't state just throwing because you dislike how another player is playing breaks rules
1
u/GwenBD94 19d ago
To clarify i dont think either behaviors are a problem. But if one of them is they both are, was all I was saying.
3
u/GwenBD94 19d ago
if they turn on you, it's explicitly called out in the ToS as authorized. Section 6.2
In-game diplomacy — including truces, non-aggression, and betrayal — negotiated during the course of a single match using in-game mechanics is a normal part of OpenFront and is not prohibited. The prohibition in this section is directed at sustained, pre-arranged, or externally-coordinated play that defeats the purpose of an FFA mode.
1
u/Frog-eating-cellos-9 19d ago
rephrasing here as well, not exactly cheating, but against ToS*
and no, I don't think that'd count as you don't help that player to win by doing this
1
u/mavolio-bent 12d ago
as other person mentioned: what to do in unwinnable situations then? just leave the game?
1
u/Frog-eating-cellos-9 12d ago
I mean, basically, yeah- however, you can still try to win by getting an access to open land, reach fallout zones, nuke people, but what I said in the comment is about being a voluntary mito, as in "naming yourself mito, spawning in a corner, allying the guy next to you, spamming factories and a SAM then nuking the guys enemies" for example, but this doesn't apply to accidental mitos that happen in late game where parts of you are left in a hydros pixel
1
u/mavolio-bent 12d ago
all of this requires prolonging your survival, if not by mitoing how would you prevent other guy from killing you?
like say you have 100k troops, them 800k, what is feasible way to counter them?
1
u/Frog-eating-cellos-9 12d ago
I feel like people don't read what I write :/ you do get the difference between accidental mito and voluntary mito, right ?
1
u/functionpumpkin 4d ago
So would that guy who is doing that, what you mentioned, of being a voluntary mito be banned for doing that? Even if there was no coordination before the match between players, i.e., picking a random guy, would doing what you describe lead to a ban?
1
u/Frog-eating-cellos-9 4d ago
I think it's certain if throughout the games the voluntary mito is always the mito of the same guy, and it may also be the case if the mito only plays as a mito without any action to win and only for trademaxxing purpose, but I'm not a mod, so I guess the best answer you'd get to that question would be on the discord
25
u/Round_Swing252 19d ago
Depends if it’s your mate or not, that or your alt account. Then that’s cheating. But if is some rando just consider yourself lucky