An exploit to possibly ban from use in HOF: (perpetual anarchy to prevent unit loss from upkeep costs)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152148&page=3

(although you've probably come across it already ;))

As was pointed out by Smirk, you have control of your player name. I don't know which does which but by setting them as below. My player and save files have my name automatically.

Thanks Denniz!:) Thanks Smirk!:) I figured that out after I read what Smirk said.

An exploit to possibly ban from use in HOF: (perpetual anarchy to prevent unit loss from upkeep costs)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152148&page=3

(although you've probably come across it already ;))

Did you know that I haven't yet broken any HOF rules?;) I hope you guys think carefully before banning the game that has been played according to the known rules or you may scare someone from sharing their secrets.;)

Did you know that I haven't yet broken any HOF rules? I hope you guys think carefully before banning the game that has been played according to the known rules or you may scare someone from sharing their secrets.

It is the beta hall of fame. No one should expect any of their games to stay on the tables when the real one starts up. Personally I'm hoping that barbarians will be required to be on with the real hall of fame. If that's the case then about 90% of the beta hall of fame will be disqualified.

I've split these posts into a new thread to keep the old one on topic.

For the Beta Hall of Fame, this exploit is not banned. It might however get banned for the permanent Hall of Fame when we start that up, so feel free to discuss the pros and cons!

Anything that's not against the original rules is fine with me.

I hope you guys think carefully before banning the game that has been played according to the known rules or you may scare someone from sharing their secrets.;)

Moonsinger does raise a good point. The caveat that we've made (which I'm not particularly comfortable with, but have made is neverthess) is that we reserve the right to disallow games retrospectively where a tactic has been used that is later ruled to be an exploit. As such, if the players are unsure, then the onus is on the players to contact us for a ruling before the tactic is actually used in a submitted game.

BTW - We've banned the anarchy 'strategy' in the GOTM (there are only two 'exploits' on the table - anarchy (disallowed) and changing production to ensure that forest chops go to settlers / workers (allowed).

It's hard to come up with any reasons not to ban this exploit. Try a game doing what she did and you'll see how completely overpowered it is and how obviously unintended the methodology is. Some make the claim that while in anarchy you're losing out on city growth and production, but in actuality it doesn't even affect you. Each forest chop is producing another praetorian just about. You can still be churning out several praetorians per turn while in anarchy, until you run out of forests, but you should have won by that point This is basically an automatic win strategy on deity. Anarchy is not intended to save you 500+ gold per turn. It's supposed to be a penalty for changing civics. I expect this to be patched in a future patch but I also think it should be banned from the HoF, even the beta hall of fame. While I give major props to Moonsinger for inventing such a creative strategy, once you know how to use it it does not take any skill to pull off.

Hi Shillen,

Don't forget the ability to pop-rush too!;) Those newly captured cities from the AI are usually very large in size. If you don't pop-rush them, they are going to die of starvation anyway. Therefore, the forests aren't the only source of production. Note: Every pop-rush will make the city unhappy for like 10 turns or something like that, but who care. Unhappiness doesn't matter in anarchy.:)

If you ask me, it's the dumb city maintenance that's overpowered (against the human), on higher difficulties. Not pop rush or chopping.

The caveat that we've made (which I'm not particularly comfortable with, but have made is neverthess) is that we reserve the right to disallow games retrospectively where a tactic has been used that is later ruled to be an exploit.
Equally true for the Hall of Fame, even if unspoken in the rules.

It's hard to come up with any reasons not to ban this exploit.
Actually, banning the exploit would completely grain against the intentions of running a Beta Hall of Fame.

By allowing it, it'll actually get used and I'm kind of hoping it will. By having this temporary environment where exploits are not only allowed, but encouraged, we can find them and explore them faster. Hopefully, this will help Firaxis in patching better and faster.

Rather than dump Moonsinger's games, I thank her and salute her!

The larger intent is benefit for the Hall of Fame further down the road. During the initial patches of III, HOF games were retroactively withdrawn and at least once the entire tables scrapped. With a Beta Hall of Fame, we can simply wait things out and then start the permanent one when we're ready.

(So no, for those who were wondering, no Beta games are going into Quatro. However, we won't simply delete them, we'll likely archive Beta and save it for XP releases.)

Now, I'm not exactly seeking out controversy here, but analysis and honest debate now will just make the permanent Hall of Fame even stronger. Once I consider the game "finalized" and ready for the long haul, my only priority will be our competitive environment, so if Firaxis doesn't fix this in a patch before then, it will be banned for Quatro.

(So no, for those who were wondering, no Beta games are going into Quatro. So you're keeping the Q? :) Or was that just a mistake :(?

Yeah, I'm really starting to like the letter Q. Quatromaster's Challenge sounds so much better than Cartographer's Challenge, doesn't it?

We're going to have Quantlets and semimonthly qupdates and I think Denniz is baking qupcakes...oh nevermind.

By allowing it, it'll actually get used and I'm kind of hoping it will. By having this temporary environment where exploits are not only allowed, but encouraged, we can find them and explore them faster. Hopefully, this will help Firaxis in patching better and faster.

I think once the exploit is found there's no need for people to use them anymore. It just clutters up the tables and people will play out that exploit instead of trying new strategies and possibly finding other exploits. If the beta hall of fame gets filled with 350,000 point anarchy exploits games, then people will not bother even trying to get on the table without using that exploit, because they can't.

True Shillen.

I mean, those Anarchy conquest/domination games are pretty cool to jack up your score every now and then, but the true test comes in maintaining a standing empire; it's the sole purpose of the game. For the BHoF, I submitted a bunch of Anarchy games to see how high I could get my score on the tables, but I also played games just for the purpose of seeing how high a score I could get with Cultural, Diplomacy, and Spaceship victories, as these wins get their own categories of scores ( even more so once Quatro is fully active).

It's fun to compare how your wins stack up to others with every type of strategy/exploit, which is why I'm afraif others won't diversify their skills and just not say "hey, this is allowed, so lets fill up the tables with one type of game". The true measurement of skill are high scoring wins with multiple victory types done with empires to (quoted too much, but here goes) "stand the test of time".

I've got far to little time to play, to play around an obvious exploit. Unlike slug I'm not going to salute Moon, her strategy post should have been posted directly to the bugs forum. Come on.

At any rate, after this has been allowed, and after a patch fixes this, how are you going to keep the "beta" integrity without a complete wipe, or an examination of each high scoring game?

At any rate, after this has been allowed, and after a patch fixes this, how are you going to keep the "beta" integrity without a complete wipe, or an examination of each high scoring game?
The "wipe" is going to happen when Beta ends. Now if that means Moonsinger's games sit there, untouchable for a while, so be it.

The main integrity we're concerned about right now isn't the Beta overall, but the Gauntlet competition.

I've got far to little time to play, to play around an obvious exploit. Unlike slug I'm not going to salute Moon, her strategy post should have been posted directly to the bugs forum. Come on.

At any rate, after this has been allowed, and after a patch fixes this, how are you going to keep the "beta" integrity without a complete wipe, or an examination of each high scoring game?

I think you may be a little bit over-reacting here. First of all, I was the one who discover that anarchy exploit and I was the one that publish it. If didn't discover it or if I didn't publish it, you wouldn't have anything to complain about, would you?;)

Since this was a "beta" mumble jumble, I was just learning the game and trying something new and I did just that. If you look at the submittion date of my other games after that, you will see that none of them using that "anarchy" exploit. The bottom line, even myself don't use that exploit right after I discovered it. I don't mind if Superslug remove it today. In fact, by removing it, my other games that didn't using any exploit may surface. I was just playing other games for fun too; their scores weren't high either. I'm sure someone else could easily outscore them. The only reason I submitted them was because the HOF table at the Deity level was pretty much empty at the time.

Last but not least, none of my game has violated any HoF rules. Since I have been playing Civ4 for less two weeks until that point, I didn't really know much about Civ4. That anarchy exploit was uncovered by accident while I was messing around on Deity level. I didn't really know how to benefit much from it until after I posted an article about it. That 280K of mine was just a fast game and I wasn't even trying for anything. If you look at that game, the anarchy exploit didn't happen until toward the end. In the beginning, I was messing around with razing cities. If I have seriously used the anarchy exploit to aim for the highscore, I may have ended up with 350K or more.

This is kind of reminding me about the time I accidently discovered forcefield. Hey, I didn't violate any scientific rules or caused any body harm with my discovery. It's really up to humanity to decide what to do with my technology. If they decide to use it as a weapon to kill each other, that's not my problem. I don't care if they don't salute me or give me credit for my discovery, but trying to convict me for crimes against humanity was totally unjust.:( Of course, this was just another one of those bad dreams I often have. Sometimes, I wish I could have gone with the Elves at the end of that Lord of the Rings movie. Yes, that would be nice - a journey to into the undying land in the end.:)

I think Moonsinger did a good job, as everyone pointed out, figuring out bugs and unbalances is one reason we are doing a beta.
The earlier we find things like this the better.

Now there was an argument if this should be banned or not for the rest of beta.
I think it should.
If it is banned, this forces people to find other ways of playing and maybe other bugs.
I think of the Beta ruleset as a very evolving thing.
As we find new things that we consider exploit, we add them forcing people to find new ones until we figure we're stable enough,

I think you may be a little bit over-reacting here. First of all, I was the one who discover that anarchy exploit and I was the one that publish it. If didn't discover it or if I didn't publish it, you wouldn't have anything to complain about, would you?;)

I honestly think this was ingenious and deserves some recognition. Incredibly cheesy and totally ruins the game, but ingenious none the less! It took a quick mind, a lot of creativity, and a strong understanding of the game to come up with. Instead of retro banning these maybe we should create an Ingenuity HoF, where the developers of novel strategies/exploits are recognized for being the first to discover them.

This would be a good way to get people to continue to describe new tactics on the boards despite the harsh attacks that are sent their way when they do!

Just my 2 cents. :king:

...Ingenuity HoF, where the developers of novel strategies/exploits are recognized for being the first to discover them.



They have that, its usually contained in the patch readme. :/ Although credit isn't given to any particular person but then just because someone posts a strategy article on CF doesn't mean they were the first or only discoverer of the bug/exploit. There are many other civ fan sites, and many other channels to discuss bugs and exploits.

Now even ignoring the can of worms that would be opened trying to decide who did what first, who even cares? Exploring an exploit and then posting it on bugs and any other channel you care to in order to get the problem fixed deserves credit but its not typically done.


And finally I have no interest in raising up cheating in any form. Why support and reward behavior thats ultimately destructive to the concept of fair play?

And finally I have no interest in raising up cheating in any form. Why support and reward behavior thats ultimately destructive to the concept of fair play?

How is Moonslinger's use of Anarchy possibly a cheat? She followed every rule posted for the HoF and played the game as it was programmed. That's not cheating! That's creativity. It is really sad the way some people react when people think beyond the narrow confines that most others wish to impose.

If the Firaxis decides that wish to change the way the game is programmed or CF changes the HoF rules later on just because Moonsinger is too good at the current version, then so be it. But the constant referring to it as something less than a very ingenious technique is just wrong and uncalled for!

To push your reasoning to the extreme, if some people figured out that if you press a certain combination of keys at the same time, you won and it was programmed that way by Firaxis, we should allow it...

Allow me to disagree.
Firaxis will probably change this themselves eventually...

I give Moonsinger credit for her creativity. That said, if I had found the exploit that she did I would have immediately posted it in the bug forum, not used it to create a bunch of high score games to submit to the Hall of Fame, even if it was the beta hall of fame.

... followed every rule posted for the HoF and played the game as it was programmed.


Using this reasoning; in the release version and until v1.52 the ultimate strategy involved the Ctrl-W key combination. Its in the game, thus is can't be cheating. Right?


If you do actually believe that line of thought you are not right thinking and are an enemy to fair play. Things like the spirit of competition have not been instilled into your thoughts.

I think its a flaw of taking the context too literally. Just because something is called a baseball bat doesn't mean its allowed and equal to all other baseball bats.

The game we play in HOF (and GOTM) is a subgame within Civilization. We aren't playing Civilization, we are playing HOF which is a competition between players within the framework of Civilization. Unlike Civilization when you are playing alone, good sportmanship and fair play should be respected.

Just like you can play with an aluminium bat in little league and you can cork your bat when playing out in the backyard. All of those are fine in some context, but in the Major Leagues neither of them are acceptable.

Of course all I'm talking about is the basic concept of fair play, regardless of the high exposure cheating in major leagues would have people still do it.

For HOF purposes "cheating" is whatever the HOF staff says is cheating. We are currently allowing the anarchy exploit, so it is not cheating. Please refrain from labelling other player's as "cheaters".

'Nough said! Thanks you Dianthus!

What wrong with replying?

Your response is offtopic and a bit abusive.
Warned hard for disrespecting moderator authority. Cease the trolling.

My response was towards a suggestion of Chris's thus the "Anarchy exploit" was not materially involved. His suggestion was addressing exploits and cheats in general, those that exist now and in the future.


For HOF purposes "cheating" is whatever the HOF staff says is cheating.

No offense but thats catogorically absurd. Cheating is cheating. What you meant was HOF staff will determine what they allow with regards to cheating and exploits. You aren't redefining cheating, sorry.

What wrong with replying?
Nothing, so long as it's done tactfully without your usual dismissal of other's views or incendiary use of "cheating". I tolerate and even welcome open opinions and dissent within the Hall of Fame Forum, but the CFC rules still apply.

Your response is offtopic and a bit abusive.
See your post again for my response to this.

No offense but thats catogorically absurd.
I and my staff are the judges around here. If you somehow find reality absurd, so be it. No one's forcing you to compete here.

Cheating is cheating, and as long as I am a member here I will reply and discuss it as I see it. You are confusing your rules with something that has a larger meaning in Civ.


I've seen it in many forms in many gaming communities and the people that discuss a topic in light of whats "do-able" in a game are usually the ones that just don't understand fair play and sportsmanship. But thats all just a hypothetical, where was I labelling anyone as a cheater?




No one's forcing you to compete here.


I'm not.

Cheating is cheating, and as long as I am a member here I will reply and discuss it as I see it.

A circular definition of cheating (or anything) is useless. The term "cheat" (in regards to a game) is by definition breaking the rules. To call this tactic cheating is saying that it's use is breaking applicable rules.

The rules in CIV do not disallow this tactic at this time, the rules in the HOF do not disallow this at this time either.

You are confusing your rules with something that has a larger meaning in Civ.

This thread is dealing with the discussion of a tactic and whether it should be allowable in the HOF. The rules of the HOF are the applicable ones to whether or not this qualifies as "cheating" in this discussion. superslug is correct that the HOF rules determine what is cheating here in the HOF. This is the HOF forum, it is for discussing the HOF.

But thats all just a hypothetical, where was I labelling anyone as a cheater?

By definition a cheater is one who cheats. By labeling a tactic as cheating, you are implying that those who use that tactic are cheating.

The use of the term "cheating" is unnecessary (and mostly likely counterproductive) to influence the decisions made here. It is an inflammatory term that doesn't apply. Even if it did apply though, there are less inflammatory ways of conveying the same message.

----------------

I don't think this type of tactic should be allowed in the HOF. I hope Firaxis closes the loophole as it's clearly not good for game balance. I'd recommend losing control of all units over the supportable limit, even for just one turn. With some of those units wandering "aimlessly", some pillaging for their upkeep/support, some disbanding, and some rebelling (going barb or changing sides). Which depending on how deep the financial hole is and/or how long it's been since they were "paid". There should be loss of city improvements, population, and city defections as well if their city maintenance costs can not be met.

(I would also prefer that going into Anarchy not negate support/supply and maintenance/upkeep costs. But that would require a lot more rebalancing to work.)

Going bankrupt should not be a useful thing, neither should staying in perpetual Anarchy.

I don't think this type of tactic should be allowed in the HOF. I hope Firaxis closes the loophole as it's clearly not good for game balance. I'd recommend losing control of all units over the supportable limit, even for just one turn. With some of those units wandering "aimlessly", some pillaging for their upkeep/support, some disbanding, and some rebelling (going barb or changing sides). Which depending on how deep the financial hole is and/or how long it's been since they were "paid". There should be loss of city improvements, population, and city defections as well if their city maintenance costs can not be met.

(I would also prefer that going into Anarchy not negate support/supply and maintenance/upkeep costs. But that would require a lot more rebalancing to work.)

Going bankrupt should not be a useful thing, neither should staying in perpetual Anarchy.

I guess I just performed a varrient of the Anarchy Exploit. I turned in a Chieftain large domination game with the Romans winning in 10 AD that was just published. In that game by the finish I had 51.06% of the required 51% of land area at the finish and was running a deficit of -120 gold but still had 372 at the end.

In a game just submitted, I played as the Egyptians at the settler level on a large world and finished in 410 BC. In that game I eliminated as many of the 17 AI opponents as I thought were needed to win and then just built settlers to fill in most of the blanks for a mass city building project when I thought I had enough. Last night I tried this but didn't have enough settlers and played to about 150 AD waiting for the cities to expand enough to get the required 51% area. It was never going to happen so I went to bed and started another world this morning. When I won I had 56% land area so I overdid it but my gold reserves were down to 0 and I was running a -176 gold deficiit. Before the mass city building project I was running a slight deficiit only because I accidently built a few cities instead if fortifing the settlers but had a healthy gold reserve. Needless to say at -176 my gold reserve was depleted well before the ten turns needed to expand about 35 new cities. The result of this was everybody went on strike and a few military units were disbanded each turn until the win. As long as you are a peace with everybody when this happens no problem but a couple of weeks ago when this happaned I was at war and it was a disaster.

The use of the term "cheating" is unnecessary (and mostly likely counterproductive) to influence the decisions made here. It is an inflammatory term that doesn't apply. Even if it did apply though, there are less inflammatory ways of conveying the same message.Exactly. :goodjob:

I don't think this type of tactic should be allowed in the HOF. I hope Firaxis closes the loophole as it's clearly not good for game balance.The irony here is that superslug has already said that the tactic will be disallowed in the Offical HoF should it not be fixed in the meantime.

Banning it now just creates a lot of work monitoring for it and we would just be debating where to draw the line. I think it is better to just wait and let Firaxis draw the line for us. :D

There are lots of tables where that tactic should be of no use. Plenty for everyone.

I guess that running a deficit budget isn't really neccessary to achieve the victory I referenced in my previous post. I reran the game from the 1000 BC save and played to finish with fewer cities so I got only 52.13% of the land area and finished 100 years (10 turns) earlier. I planned for the big increase in city cost by researching currency last and set all cities to wealth for the last 10 turns. At the end I was running a -15 gold deficit and had a 1336 gold balance so didn't have the general strike that the submitted game had. The score was even slightly higher 74239 versus 73032. For the record I can't submit this game since it has already been submitted. I know that the majority of you already know that but I'm just letting those few who might want to know if they can also do what I did and try to submit the game.

Cheating is cheating, and as long as I am a member here I will reply and discuss it as I see it.
If you want to say a particular HOF rule "should be against the rules", you can do so in this forum as much as you like. If you label it "cheating", you'll risk confusing new players and be deemed as disruptive to the environment.

You are confusing your rules with something that has a larger meaning in Civ.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, so I'll just stick with pointing out I make rules on what I deem good for a Civilization Hall of Fame, not Civilization.

But thats all just a hypothetical, where was I labelling anyone as a cheater?
Your use of the C word very heavily implied that Moonsinger was a cheater in your eyes. I somehow doubt that was your intention, but that was the conclusion more than one of us were left with.

I'm not.
I know, but I'm obviously open to feedback and criticism from nonplayers, especially such long-standing HOF III experts such as yourself.

It's worth keeping in mind that we do agree that the anarchy exploit should be banned. We just disagree on when.

A circular definition of cheating (or anything) is useless. The term "cheat" (in regards to a game) is by definition breaking the rules. To call this tactic cheating is saying that it's use is breaking applicable rules.


Its not a circular definition, and the reason is because its not a definition. Call it a truth. (A is A)


So as to not get more sidetracked, please read the following bold text.

My response above was addressed to an offtopic posting by a new member and not directed towards the thread topic, so was also offtopic.




On other news I consider using an exploit to be cheating. I doubt anyone playing Civilization will be confused by someone's opinion in a message board and Official Rules. And I doubt there is anything anyone could say to me for me to think my fellow Civ fans are that dense.

You are basically saying we can't discuss cheating because the staff decide what is and isn't allowed, but thats the very issue of debate. For any such discussion to avoid particular words because of someones sensitivity is going to be arcane at best and uncomprehensible at worst.

Its not a circular definition, and the reason is because its not a definition. Call it a truth. (A is A)

A circular definition is exactly that. "A is A". It is a useless definition because it provides no insight into what A actually is. It relies completely on the pre-definition of the term. If the pre-definition of the term is obvious enough to stand on it's own, there is no need to further define it. If the pre-definition of the term is not obvious enough to stand on it's own, then it is pointless to re-define the term with it's pre-definition.

So as to not get more sidetracked, please read the following bold text.

My response above was addressed to an offtopic posting by a new member and not directed towards the thread topic, so was also offtopic.

The post I responded to was one where you quoted and responded to superslug.

On other news I consider using an exploit to be cheating. I doubt anyone playing Civilization will be confused by someone's opinion in a message board and Official Rules. And I doubt there is anything anyone could say to me for me to think my fellow Civ fans are that dense.

You are entitled to your opinion. superslug is entitled to rule your expression of your opinion violates forum rules. The rest of us are entitled to disagree or agree with your opinion as we see fit.

It is not "dense" to assume that calling something "cheating" implies that those who do it are being called "cheaters". That is using the actual definitions of the terms.

You are basically saying we can't discuss cheating because the staff decide what is and isn't allowed, but thats the very issue of debate. For any such discussion to avoid particular words because of someones sensitivity is going to be arcane at best and uncomprehensible at worst.

It is not "cheating" until it is against the rules. Using the term "cheating" implies it is against the rules. Which is patently false if it isn't against the rules.

If you cannot see a way to argue whether the tactic should be against the rules or not without using the term "cheating", then here is a pointer. In a discussion about what should be allowed/disallowed, address whether the issue should be allowed/disallowed, then list the reasons why it should be allowed/disallowed. (Hint: "Cheating", which presupposes that it is already disallowed, is not an argument to support it being disallowed.) That is clear and comprehensible. Far more so than relying on a circular definition of an inflamatory term.

You are basically saying we can't discuss cheating because the staff decide what is and isn't allowed, but thats the very issue of debate. For any such discussion to avoid particular words because of someones sensitivity is going to be arcane at best and uncomprehensible at worst.
It's not about sensitivity, it's about making sense. What the rest of us are calling oranges, you're pointing at and saying apple.

It's not about sensitivity, it's about making sense. What the rest of us are calling oranges, you're pointing at and saying apple.

You know...during the last two hundred years, people have been mistakenly calling the Native American as "Indian". Why? Because when Columbus discovered America, he thought he had landed on India. Go figure! After two hundred years, you think people would stop pointing at the oranges and saying apples.;)

Btw, I'm sorry for posting the anarchy tactic. I really didn't think much at the time. By the time I realized what I was doing, it was almost toward the end of my game; therefore, I really didn't benefit much from it. With the exception of Julius Ceasar, all my other games were without using this exploit. Especially as Catherine and Washington, I have always maintained a positive income. Anyway, to avoid any more complains, please remove my top two high score games as "Julius Ceasar" from the HoF. Thanks!

You know...during the last two hundred years, people have been mistakenly calling the Native American as "Indian". Why? Because when Columbus discovered America, he thought he had landed on India. Go figure! After two hundred years, you think people would stop pointing at the oranges and saying apples.;)
Clever, but I think the term Native American is getting used more those days. Besides, people once thought the world was flat, but the round idea is gaining in popularity.

Anyway, there's a difference between the HOF forum and America at large. I haven't taken over America....yet.


Btw, I'm sorry for posting the anarchy tactic. I really didn't think much at the time. By the time I realized what I was doing, it was almost toward the end of my game; therefore, I really didn't benefit much from it. With the exception of Julius Ceasar, all my other games were without using this exploit. Especially as Catherine and Washington, I have always maintained a positive income.
I'm personally glad you found it and posted about it. Discoveries like that were exactly why I wanted to run a Beta HOF. The game is still young and patchable, and who better to find and break bugs and exploits for all their worth then Hall of Famers? :D :goodjob:

Anyway, to avoid any more complains, please remove my top two high score games as "Julius Ceasar" from the HoF. Thanks!
:shakehead I'm sorry but I can't do that. They're legal games with no need to be removed. If you really want them off the tables, you'll just have to push them off with better submissions. :mischief:

Besides, I believe the truly passionate debate here has been about exploits in general, not the anarchy one in particular. ;)

:shakehead I'm sorry but I can't do that. They're legal games with no need to be removed. If you really want them off the tables, you'll just have to push them off with better submissions. :mischief:

Thanks!:) I didn't think they're illegal either. I'm looking forward to the next update; I have a feeling someone will soon break 400K fair and square without using any type of anarchy business.;)

It is not "cheating" until it is against the rules.

First off, I have no idea what I am even defending. I can't directly respond to the original sidetrack because as was noted above thats against TOS for adequate reasons.


So I reread a previous post and now see this diversion of Chris's:



Originally Posted by Smirk
And finally I have no interest in raising up cheating in any form. Why support and reward behavior thats ultimately destructive to the concept of fair play?


Chris105 Quote:
How is Moonslinger's use of Anarchy possibly a cheat? She followed every rule posted for the HoF and played the game as it was programmed. That's not cheating! That's creativity. It is really sad the way some people react when people think beyond the narrow confines that most others wish to impose.


This poster raised the connection with Moon's exploit which I was not addressing, I was addressing his earlier idea of some sort of Best Exploit Hall of Fame or something. And I was responding in pretty general terms, as was my previous post on the same topic. Exploits are gonna exist, and its great when people find them, but for playability concerns its even better when they are fixed.



But I consider this segment pretty telling "It is really sad the way some people react when people think beyond the narrow confines that most others wish to impose."


Yeah, if you haven't heard that logic a million times on every cracker and warez site in this hemisphere then count yourself lucky.


If you wish to "improve" your game with exploits then there is ample fodder in the bugs forum, some I myself have posted. But I can assure you, none of those were found due to creativity, most of it was accidental and dumb luck.




Anyway, back to the apples. If someone would like to propose a replacement verb that describes cheating in terms of concepts of fair play and the spirit of competition please do. I'm at a loss because to me violating concepts of fair play and the spirit of competition is cheating.

My point is that staking that only on a set of rules is folly. Rules are the things that violate fair play at any given time, but the future in unknowable. So what I am saying is that while HOF has a set of rules, and not obeying those rules is cheating, there is a much larger cheat-space that have yet to be quantified. And how would one discuss this cheat-space and articles within it, without using the word cheat?

Keep in mind, every game from the beginning of time has had two sets of rules:

1) Written, explicit rules
2) Unwritten, implicit rules

For an example:

1) You collect $200 when you pass GO in Monopoly.
2) You cannot threaten other players with a knife to get their money.

When you violate either set of rules, you might be playing a game, but you're no longer playing Monopoly.

In computer games, we have the luxury of having rule set #1 hard-coded and unarguable. However, this should not imply that rule set #2 does not exist.

- Bill

Hi all,
Whatever the released version of the game allows is fair, till it's possibly fixed in a subsequent patch imo.

I wish they change the whole 'chop thing' tho. How is it real that chopping a forest suddenly produces an army unit? I can understand a settler unit (they need the wood to go and build a new town etc), maybe even the wonders to a degree.
But to build a fighting unit should take from the city's population imo and not be helped by chopping. Eg. If you want 3 units, that would be -1 population. Then also the option to receive it back when disbanding, scaled down by the unit costs...(so you dont disband 3 warriors in 2000 for an immediate 'pop')

It would mean going back to basics, even for me.

Or at least giving an option to turn the forest chops off for millitary, as it's very unrealistic.

But as it is now, play as to whatever gets your skirt up. You want to sit there for days structuring a tech victory, go for it.... You want to build a rushed army and finish the game before it clicks into AD, feel free.

After all, it's just a silly game, albeit an addictive one :)

Cheers

First off, I have no idea what I am even defending. I can't directly respond to the original sidetrack because as was noted above thats against TOS for adequate reasons.

I quoted the statements you made in response to superslug. You responded to my statements dealing with what I quoted. That is what we were discussing.

Anyway, back to the apples. If someone would like to propose a replacement verb that describes cheating in terms of concepts of fair play and the spirit of competition please do.

You've already loaded the requisite definition with the term "cheating". You aren't asking for a non-"cheating" replacement, but a confirmation of your use of the term "cheating". By definition, the term "cheating" does not apply. Another term to say the same thing would also not apply.

I'm at a loss because to me violating concepts of fair play and the spirit of competition is cheating.

Then use, "I think this tactic violates the concepts of fair play and the spirit of competition." It may take a little while longer to type than "cheating", but it actually makes your point rather than obfuscate it. In the long run it would probably save you time to be clear and precise, and thus avoid the type of discussion we are having now.

My point is that staking that only on a set of rules is folly.

For the purposes of the HOF it is the HOF rules that matter. They can be changed, but at any given time what is "cheating" is defined by the current rules.

Rules are the things that violate fair play at any given time, but the future in unknowable.

And so the rules change when deemed necessary.

So what I am saying is that while HOF has a set of rules, and not obeying those rules is cheating, there is a much larger cheat-space that have yet to be quantified.

It is not a "cheat-space". It is an area as yet undefined by the rules.

And how would one discuss this cheat-space and articles within it, without using the word cheat?

You could look to everyone else involved in the discussions about the rules who are not using the term cheating for pointers on that.

Anyway, back to the apples. If someone would like to propose a replacement verb that describes cheating in terms of concepts of fair play and the spirit of competition please do.
It's good to see you backing off the C word. Thank you.

Aeson responded very eloquently to this question already, but I'll go ahead and remind you of my own (nonverb) replacement suggestion:
If you want to say a particular HOF rule "should be against the rules", you can do so in this forum as much as you like.

I'm at a loss because to me violating concepts of fair play and the spirit of competition is cheating.
And to me, fair play and the spirit of competition can overlap, but quite often diverge.

If you wish to "improve" your game with exploits then there is ample fodder in the bugs forum, some I myself have posted. But I can assure you, none of those were found due to creativity, most of it was accidental and dumb luck.

I have already heard this type of arguement a long time ago. Shortly after Columbus discovered America, some people have argued "what's the big deal about discovering the New World? If Columbus doesn't run into it by dumb luck, someone else would".

I have already heard this type of arguement a long time ago. Shortly after Columbus discovered America, some people have argued "what's the big deal about discovering the New World? If Columbus doesn't run into it by dumb luck, someone else would".
I think the key thing is that he then told everyone about it.

There is some suggestion that it was discovered by others (chinese is the latest that I've seen evidence presented for) - but its really moot, because they're not the ones who published it widely, and they're not the ones that will be remembered for it (even if it was true).

[/threadjack]

I have already heard this type of arguement a long time ago. Shortly after Columbus discovered America, some people have argued "what's the big deal about discovering the New World? If Columbus doesn't run into it by dumb luck, someone else would".


Its as true today as it was at the beginning of recorded history: History remembers those who historians remember. Self promotion is where its at.


But in fact, what is the big deal about discovering America? As far as I can tell, and keep in mind I wasn't there, there were natives already residing on the land we call America, thus it seems blantantly obvious that some other group of people "discovered" it long before Chris.
I'd suggest the only reason we remember or care is that it legitimized some claim on the land in which we reside. (Manifest Destiny...)



Please note I do not in any way equate finding bugs in Civilization to any meaningful pursuit in life, like "discovering" new land to conquer.

Then use, "I think this tactic violates the concepts of fair play and the spirit of competition." It may take a little while longer to type than "cheating"...


I think you are confusing me for someone that actually cares about any of that. I'm not going to hedge and pontificate as I am under no pressure to do so, I am not staff, and as such I do not have to speak for the game or site in any professional or in this case dogmatic manner.

I think you are confusing me for someone that actually cares about any of that.

You are incorrect in that assessment. What you care about is irrellevent to me. What you have posted is what I have addressed.

You posted a question asking how to address the issue, presumably without using the term "cheating". I addressed a problem with the manner in which you posed the question. Later in the same post you made a statement dealing with you being "at a loss" about how to seperate the use of "cheating" and "concepts of fair play and the spirit of competition". I responded to that statement as to how you can accurately address the issue rather than use the inapplicable term "cheating".

If you do not care about how to address an issue properly, so be it. Admitting that is hardly a point in your favor.

I'm not going to hedge and pontificate as I am under no pressure to do so, I am not staff, and as such I do not have to speak for the game or site in any professional or in this case dogmatic manner.

This is a good example of your tendancy to avoid the actual issue by use of labels. Just because you throw out "pontificate" and "dogmatic" does not mean they apply. If you wish to actually address my statements, they are still there for you to do so.

This is going nowhere. Thread closed.