This is your chance to provide some feed back.

I was under the distinct impression that we already had rules :D Are you asking whether players would like to vote on repealing those rules? Please clarify.

It's not a question about specific rules. :)

Just if they think there should be rules.

In that case, I am in support of the current system. Rules (ie. not allowing reloading, not allowing certain exploits, etc...) enforced by Matrix and volunteers where possible, and honor system where enforcement impossible. Amendments to be discussed and judged by popular vote. Works for me.

I like the current format, with the tournament having rules to create different variant games, and the GOTM having only enough rules (like no cheating) to provide a common frame of reference.

Yes, because their needs to be clarity about what methods and techniques are allowed in the GotM competition. I think the current format of discussing possible "expoits" in the forum before they are put on the rules list is pretty good, as this gives players more understanding about why a rule is enforced in the GotM competition and thus a better chance that it will be followed in an actual game.

Thankfully there is now a GotM police team that can expel those who want to ruin the competition for others from the results.

However, even though these volunteers are doing a great job, honor still plays a major role as it is impossible to check on every possible way to cheat. It is too bad some people seem to have no honor at all, and spoil the results by cheating.:mad:

I voted for some with honor .

I was tempted to vote for anything goes but some of the exploits are so powerful that there is no chance to compete against them. I look forward to MP to see if, for example, the supermountain city fed by workers is do-able head to head.

It will ALWAYS be possible to cheat in single player in some form so we we always ultimately have to rely on honor.

No rules?!?

That would be . . . that would be . . . anarchy. :eek:

yes - but only for 7 turns or so ....

You full timers know better than I but I can see too many rules and what not might discourage some people from playing.

Blatant needs to go but anything else should be assumed as good.Paranoia is a bad thing for any game/competition and/or site.

It is just a game after all.

Originally posted by Smash
You full timers know better than I but I can see too many rules and what not might discourage some people from playing.

Blatant needs to go but anything else should be assumed as good.Paranoia is a bad thing for any game/competition and/or site.

It is just a game after all.


Sorta what we've got, Smash! Problem is, some of the cheating does appear to be pretty blatant!

Voted Yes but too restrictive rules may harm the game more than help it.

For example I found tournament rules not to my liking (this was two months ago and never revisited the forum since).

I'm curious to see your point. What rules are you talking about ?

Honour system, as few rules as possible.

The existing ones seemed pretty good to me. CB, are you planning to list them all again and/or propose modifications and additions?

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Smash
You full timers know better than I but I can see too many rules and what not might discourage some people from playing.

Blatant needs to go but anything else should be assumed as good.Paranoia is a bad thing for any game/competition and/or site.

It is just a game after all.[QUOTE]


I agree that it is just a game, but the rules need to be modified just a bit. There is a lot of evidence that there is blatant cheating going on. While it may not matter much if you cheated and game in the bottom half of the results, it does affect the top finishers of the game.

It is not fair for someone who honestly acheived the fastest conquest to be ranked third because the other two ahead of him reloaded to get their results or file edited. It also leads to the point where we loose players from trying to have these styles of games because they cannot compete with the cheaters. That is the biggest loss. :mad:

There needs to be a balance between having fun in the game and ensuring that people play fairly. Currently not everyone plays by the same rules.

Well the results to this point are fairly clear. At this point 86% think there should be rules of some sort. This number may change quite abit but in reality most contests do have rules.

I guess that participants should be more aware that the games are actually posted for others to download. These games are reviewed from time to time by other players and sometimes questions do arise.

With respect - the issue is not whether we should have rules. The issue is - can we enforce those rules. If the answer is no then that has a considerable effect on the rules that it is realistic to have.

We can say we operate with honour. But in the end we will have to accept that some will cheat and we will not be able to detect them.

We need to grasp this fundamental truth. Some will cheat. Whatever.
And we will not be able to tell.
Whatever.

Emotionally this outrages our sense of justice.
Pragmatically we need to accept it and move on.

I voted for yes. Should we have rules? Absolutely!! Will there be cheaters? Absolutely!! Can we enforce the rules? Yes, but only to a limit. After all this competition is for the enjoyment of the game, and the participation has grown dramatically over the last few months.

The person who loses the occasional random battle that they thought they should win, and therefore reloads (logic here is that the game 'cheated', why shouldn't I?) may slightly improve their results. If their final game is in the large middle of the submitted games, it has minimal impact, and really shouldn't be a concern, nor should any effort be expended to root them out and expose them. After all, if I'm the 25th fastest conquest, and the 24th fastest conquest game was cheated, it doesn't matter much to me that I should have been the 24th fastest conquest game.

Of the people who consistantly reload, trying to change multiple random results to their liking, the vast majority of them will also have only a modest improvement on their final scores (anyone depending on this mode of play is just not that competent to turn in a really good game). If you can detect this mode of play, with minimal effort, than it may be worthwhile to do so.

Finally, there are those who are good players who use the banned exploits and other cheats, and turn in a fantastic result, or at least a top game in one of the categories. These are the players who need to be identified and exposed, and the review of the top games accomplishes this. The review wont catch every massively cheated game, but it will make it more difficult for that player to submit future cheated games, and it allows the moderators and reviewers to look for patterns in the player's style.

Will all this matter in PTW, for instance? Maybe not in general, but any tournament sets up guidelines for play within the tournament and GOTM is no different. And any participant within the tournament should abide by those guidelines or face whatever consequences are present.

The tournament must has the rules.
The main goal of this rules is setting the players in equal starting position and equal possibility. The start is the same for all. As equal possibility I mean the same rules for building and development: using some utilities changes the game rules isn't allowed.

About reloads: if reloading does the result unbelievable without it then it's a cheat and not be allowed. For example, continuously taking 10-15 cities with 1-2 units for each (attacker isn't much better power from defender) or direct moving units to the earlier unknown cities I mean is a cheat. But if the player several times in the hole game replays the UNIPORTANT battle it's a shame but for that don't need stamp the player. The game strategy must be calculated without replaing.

I vote: Some with honor system.

I vote no..."obediance to the unenforceable" is too fragile. The gotm really is just casual. Perhaps there can be an "open class" where cheaters can declare themselves and compete for the best cheat!

I don't play the GOTM because, I have a mac and 1.29 is not out for Mac (grrrr), so I only pop into this forum to see if Zachriel's latest post about the GOTM is out (wheeee! :D ).

I saw this and I just had to contribute my $.02, but feel free to tell me to take a flying leap since I haven't participated in a GOTM yet.

Personally, I like this statement from Serg: "The main goal of this rules is setting the players in equal starting position and equal possibility". While I'm not sure I agree with his philosophy this statement supports my assertion. If an exploit is an exploit in Civ, its an advantage for EVERYONE. If Cartouche can do it, I can do it. What we are doing is comparing one persons ability versus another with as many variables being equal as possible. If we use the same game and the same version, then there is no reason why we can't all use the same exploits. Dogpile if you like, its not like I can't do it to. It's what you do to win. Works like that in the real world, unfortunately. :P

That being said I think there is only one rule to be followed and it should be the honor system. That is that no one should quit and restore a previous save. This could be a "just because" rule. It makes it more challenging. Anyone depressing enough to actually take advantage of restoring simply to get a better score in a GOTM just doesn't bother me that much, because there is no prize other than bragging rights at the end of the day.

What you could introduce is a self policing system. Anyone who wants to review other people's games should be free to do so, and if you find someone who cheats, post your evidence to this forum. This might make a little more work for the admins to make sure it doesn't turn into flame wars, but I think it would take less than having people policy dozens of games to make sure no one was cheating.

Its simply a matter of equality and efficiency to me.

Originally posted by Hellfire
Personally, I like this statement from Serg: "The main goal of this rules is setting the players in equal starting position and equal possibility". While I'm not sure I agree with his philosophy this statement supports my assertion. If an exploit is an exploit in Civ, its an advantage for EVERYONE. If Cartouche can do it, I can do it. What we are doing is comparing one persons ability versus another with as many variables being equal as possible. If we use the same game and the same version, then there is no reason why we can't all use the same exploits. Dogpile if you like, its not like I can't do it to. It's what you do to win. Works like that in the real world, unfortunately. :P

I agree with you completely, but fact is that some cheats are so effective that they spoil the game. Take the early pop rushing for example. It was removed with the first patch. All you had to do was be in despotism and "buy" a unit whenever you can. You were able to build big armies and going to any other government except communism was a dumb thing to do. Effectively, the other government types were useless. That didn't really contribute to the fun. ;)

Rules? Of course. Otherwise, I'd just play my own maps.

I also would like to see a second catagory, added for those who did 'cheat' and are willing to state how, ie reload, restart, spoiler thread. However, I understand if those in charge aren't interested in taking the time and effort to publish the results of 'tarnished' games.

I would also like to see an Amnesty for cheaters. If a person stole 1st prize from another player by cheating, give him the opportunity to conceed the victory without banishment. Win - win situation.

Otherwise, Matrix, thanks for the games.

Greg

Originally posted by sp3
I vote no..."obediance to the unenforceable" is too fragile. The gotm really is just casual. Perhaps there can be an "open class" where cheaters can declare themselves and compete for the best cheat!

I have been thinking along a similar idea. Just a game of the whatever which is published for everyone to upload. No prizes, no awards, no rules.

Just a forum available from day one to discuss progress and strategies.

How the game and forum evolves is totally up to the participants
:D

Originally posted by Matrix

I agree with you completely, but fact is that some cheats are so effective that they spoil the game. Take the early pop rushing for example. It was removed with the first patch. All you had to do was be in despotism and "buy" a unit whenever you can. You were able to build big armies and going to any other government except communism was a dumb thing to do. Effectively, the other government types were useless. That didn't really contribute to the fun. ;)

Matrix,

Actually about ten minutes after my post I started leaning in the opposite direction with you on this. I hadn't gotten around to total rethinking this until now.

Here's the opposite site of the debate.

I used to play Diablo 2 (I know! I played a game other than Civ! I'm sorry! :( ). Throughout about 80% of the life of the game, it was almost always about "which character build was the absolute best." It was never about trying different strategies, being creative, and thinking about the game. It was about "I want to be the best player in the world, just like everyone else." This was because usually there was one character that was better than other character classes. First it was the sorceress because she had one unbalanced killer skill. Then the Barbarian because he killed the fastest. Then it was the Amazon because of the change in the way her skills worked in the expansion, then it came back to the sorceress because the changing of the way items dropped and who dropped the best items exposed the usefulness of some of her previously less than useful skills. It was always about playing this one best character.

Same thing with Civ. What's the point in playing different strategies when one strategy will always ensure you the fastest and best victory. So yes, I'm starting to go the other way in that there should be rules. This way you're guarenteed a better variety and the one with the best strategy wins over he who simply got the luckiest because he used the 3L337 strategy which OWNZ ALL jOOR CIVS and got the best result.

Enforcement is a different matter, considering that its taking the admins too long to "check" all the games. This is why it was asked if we should just use the honor system as well. I personally would never have asked these guys to put out all the wonderful work they have done so far if it ment taking them away from friends, family, sports, and beer. :cool: :p ;)

Just voted yes. Otherwise there's no challenge. But the question is little strange in the sense that I don't understand the difference between "yes" and "some but honour system". By "yes", do you mean the rules we have now with people to check if highest scores have been cheated? Because right now, there are rules. Are you asking if we want more rules?

Anyway, here's my 2 cents. I think the rules in themselves are fine. Just as col said, it's all a matter of enforcing them. I'm really happy that some volunteers are checking the games but I wouldn't do it (don't have time). But I don't completely agree with you Col when you say we should just accept that some people will cheat and not do anything about it. The checking that has been done has had at least two big positive impacts on the GOTMs:

1- I recall one or two people who have been banished from blatant cheats. That made me fell a little less of an incompetent (especially after almost a full year of playing civ3).

2- The big discussion going on about Alain's game also showed me the power of building chariots followed by a massive upgrade (I usually do it with warriors->swords). Not a big deal but I guess my point is that by checking those super early finishes, we can learn a lot.

Also I think the way to set up new rules is fine as it is. It's brought up by someone, discussed, and then banned or not. If some of you guys want to play a game with no rules, go ahead. My kid brother does that all the time. His big fun is to cheat at any game all the time. He usually plays for a few days and them becomes bored. He doesn't like a good challenge or playing with (AI) opponents on the same field. I feel like this is what some people are kind of asking for. My take on it is this: remember kournetski's game, where he used some sort of cheating program and he had research labs in the BC's? Well, if you find that fun go ahead, I don't.