Firaxis, please fix the "steal-worker-exploit"!

For the record I would argue stealing from a major civ is much worse because it totally breaks the AI on a fundamental level. Try DoWing Deity AIs on like turn 10 and see if they don't have a mental BSOD.

MadDjinn said:

Stealing a CSs worker is not an exploit. To call the act of aggression against a CS an 'exploit' means that you also call any full war against the CS an exploit (game mechanics wise). It's not the act that is the problem, it's the 2ndary mechanics around it that is a problem.

Worker stealing has real consequences at higher difficulty levels. You don't play in a bubble, and others will notice the war. You only get '1 free war' wrt to the AIs warmonger ratings (as long as you don't wipe someone out) if those AIs have higher warmonger hate. Ofc, in MP there's no viable preventative mechanic and frankly, CSs are just cities you haven't gotten around to taking yet.

So, that said, I'm absolutely in favour of changes to the peace/war cycle mechanics getting changed. Those are very exploity, especially if you don't care about CS opinions (and the quick drop to permanent negative resting points with all CSs if you keep it up).

what is horribly 'exploitive' and needs a change is the on/off war button. You can DoW, attack and make peace on the same turn and the CS can do nothing about it.

So what 'should' happen is that wars with CSs last the same minimum number of turns as with major civs, and peace with them lasts the same number of minimum turns as with major civs.

So you can DoW them to worker steal or whatever, but you can't turn off the war right away within the same turn. As well, once a war is stopped, you can't restart it for some time.

2ndly, I'd even go so far as to have Pledge to Protect force trigger a direct war between the major civs. There are currently major diplo penalties for PtP civs, but there's no actual impetus for those civs to do anything other than get mad at you, diplomatically.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree here. I don't see it as an exploit and frankly I don't really care if I'm in the minority because mob rule isn't balance and democracy isn't always right .

Stealing a worker from a CS makes it very difficult diplomatically even if it doesn't make people hate you in itself(and it often will even if it doesn't show right away), it ties your hands later. If you steal the Worker and then need to stop a heavily expanding neighbor by attacking him, your reputation is wrrrrrecked.

I haven't experienced it in BNW because PtP always acts as a deterrent anyway, but I found in G&K that the civ would get so mad at you that it effectively DID cause them to do you eventually. I think an immediate DoW by PtP civs, though, would be counterproductive because the AI does NOT do well when it gets thrown into war without planning esp in the early game.

I would support fixing the peace making restrictions but not removing this entirely. This doesn't rise to the level of exploit like, say, citadel bombing a human player and telling him to move his troops from your borders(that you stole from him) or couping a CS from someone you're at war with.

Not that the AI does those things or anything...

DemonMaster said:

What surprises is MD for example, why he is doing this type of gaming, he should be "good enough" to play without it.

Click to expand...

I hate this argument. People shouldn't tell good players how good they should be. They work with the system they've given. There's players I know that exploit the living hell out of the AI and stuff WAAAAY beyond what I would ever do(you know who I mean ) but I still know they're good players and probably much better than me.

There's criticism of stuff I've done wrong or could have done better, that's one thing.That's legitimate even if I think it misses the mark or wasn't the correct call. But after 3 Deity LP's when someone says something I did wasn't "hard enough" or I had it easy or something, I just think of the immortal words in this commercial: "They say those who can't play, coach. Apparently those who can't coach sit 30 rows back, shirtless, shouting obscenities."

I know it's not what a lot of people mean but it's kind of annoying to have people chip at your work over things that are, in the long run, relatively small.

pkf said:

This and obviously MadDjinn's post, as always.

Please don't go around and make threads about "exploits".

Click to expand...

Oh come on. MadDjinn says something against it and that's why it's ok? Please ...

To elaborate further on negative diplo modifiers. When you steal a worker before you meat an AI, do you even get negative multipliers with that AI? They don't know anything about your past actions before they've met you. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Only thing that happens here is that you have one less chance to DOW CSs before they all hate you. And that's pretty much negligible.

Also, look at MadDjinns current Venice LP. He steals a worker from a CS right near Arabia and a few turns later, Arabia signs a DOF with him, even after expanding towards him. That should tell you enough, really. I certainly can't see any valid negative effect. And again, if the negative modifiers are that serious, why does he steal a worker in every LP he uploads ....

Not to mention the additional relevance of this exploit in multiplayer.

Overall, it sounds like a bad excuse to me. No offense. Sorry that I pick on you here, Djinn, but your words seem to have the most weight on these forums.

RealHuhn said:

Oh come on. MadDjinn says something against it and that's why it's ok? Please ...

To elaborate further on negative diplo modifiers. When you steal a worker before you meat any AI, do you even get negative multipliers with the AI? They don't know anything about your past actions before they met you.

Only thing that happens here is that you have one less chance to DOW a CS before they all hate you. And that's pretty much negligible.

Also, look at MadDjinns current Venice LP. He steals a worker from a CS right near Arabia and a few turns later, Arabia signs a DOF with him, even after expanding towards him. That should tell you enough, really.

Click to expand...

Well it is rather ridiculous to get upset about someone using the game as designed. It's not a glitch or something only a few people know about or can execute. Everyone can do it once and beyond that you're labeled a warmonger with severe diplomatic reprocussions. As spiderman says, everybody gets one.

DeutschDachs said:

Well it is rather ridiculous to get upset about someone using the game as designed. It's not a glitch or something only a few people know about or can execute. Everyone can do it once and beyond that you're labeled a warmonger with severe diplomatic reprocussions. As spiderman says, everybody gets one.

Click to expand...

Remember when you used to be able to abuse Research Agreements with tech blocking? People used the "just using the game as designed" argument then too.

I don't think this is as extreme mind you. As people have said the penalties just have to be tougher, or something.

RealHuhn said:

Oh come on. MadDjinn says something against it and that's why it's ok? Please ...

To elaborate further on negative diplo modifiers. When you steal a worker before you meat any AI, do you even get negative multipliers with the AI? They don't know anything about your past actions before they've met you.
Only thing that happens here is that you have one less chance to DOW CSs before they all hate you. And that's pretty much negligible.

Also, look at MadDjinns current Venice LP. He steals a worker from a CS right near Arabia and a few turns later, Arabia signs a DOF with him, even after expanding towards him. That should tell you enough, really. I certainly can't see any valid negative effect.

Not to mention the additional relevance of this expolit in multiplayer.

Overall, it sounds like a bad excuse to me. No offense.

Click to expand...

There's three possibilities there:

1)it's possible that in this particular game Arabia was a bit friendlier and cared about city-states a bit less. They may have also changed things so that the AI doesn't know you've attacked a CS they haven't met(which they SHOULDN'T be able to know).
2)Harun was testing the waters and was going to attack him if he hadn't accepted it.
3)Backstab incoming And with the lack of units on MD's side I would not be surprised to see it coming.

SammyKhalifa said:

Remember when you used to be able to abuse Research Agreements with tech blocking? People used the "just using the game as designed" argument then too.

I don't think this is as extreme mind you. As people have said the penalties just have to be tougher, or something.

Click to expand...

That wasn't an exploit either, though, it was just horrid design of Research Agreements(which have changed about 6403 times over the course of the game because of what a pain they are).

I don't see it as an exploit.

Light Cleric said:

There's three possibilities there:

1)it's possible that in this particular game Arabia was a bit friendlier and cared about city-states a bit less. They may have also changed things so that the AI doesn't know you've attacked a CS they haven't met(which they SHOULDN'T be able to know).
2)Harun was testing the waters and was going to attack him if he hadn't accepted it.
3)Backstab incoming And with the lack of units on MD's side I would not be surprised to see it coming.

Click to expand...

It's pretty simple actually. If you conquer your entire continent before Astronomy, you don't get any negative warmonger multipliers with AIs on other continents, seperated by ocean. Same applies here.

DeutschDachs said:

Well it is rather ridiculous to get upset about someone using the game as designed. It's not a glitch or something only a few people know about or can execute. Everyone can do it once and beyond that you're labeled a warmonger with severe diplomatic reprocussions. As spiderman says, everybody gets one.

Click to expand...

I'm not upset. It's only a game.

It's only sad that it's still in the game. I really enjoy to discuss strategies/read different opinions about optimal BOs etc. and this opening destroys the even playing field. It's easy to fix.

RealHuhn said:

It's pretty simple. If you conquer your entire continent before Astronomy, you don't get any negative warmonger multipliers with AIs on other continents, seperated by ocean.
At least, I don't think so.

Click to expand...

I...what? I think I'm missing something because I don't see what you're getting at here, as in how that's relevant to this

ptoss1 said:

I don't see it as an exploit.

Click to expand...

Well, I just look at the other ways you can get workers--you can spend a lot of hammers and a lot of time building one, or you can invest into culture and get one in liberty, pour resources into your economy and buy one, or I suppose you could go wonderbuilding and build the Pyramids. All of those methods require a bit of effort and investment. The developers obviously thought that getting a worker should require some decision-making and work.

Getting a worker from a CS is essentially free. It should require approximately as much effort with military as the other methods require with your culture or building. You should have to fight longer, take a harder diplo hit, etc..

SammyKhalifa said:

Getting a worker from a CS is essentially free. It should require approximately as much effort with military as the other methods require with your culture or building. You should have to fight longer, take a harder diplo hit, etc..

Click to expand...

I think that is the issue...
If you had to Pay for CS peace (ie option of military bullying them into accepting peace OR pay them off)

Then starting a war with a CS ~20 hexes away would probably last for a while.. the CS would be crippled, since it would worry about troops before getting a new worker, but it would reward other players that denounced you, and cut off your scouting.

Light Cleric said:

I...what? I think I'm missing something because I don't see what you're getting at here, as in how that's relevant to this

Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. Wrong quote. I was talking about the argument that you get negative diplo hits against all the AIs but in reality you only get a diplo hit against AIs you've already met.

And this modifier is far too low anyway. It's really nothing compared to the benefits of an early worker.

I think it's fine as is. You can declare war and steal a worker once, but if you try it twice, all CS will grow wary, do it 3 times and they'll all be at war with you. I actually rely on it quite a bit.

These threads always have the same problem people don't agree what counts as an exploit. Which of the following are not fair? I doubt many people would pick exactly the same list. (assuming deity)

1) selling lux for money (AI don't need them ever)

2) selling lux then declaring war.

3) offering to sell lux and using the price to work out if they are likely to backstab you.

4) selling lux then pillaging/building a fort over them

5) accepting a peace offer from an AI that is losing a war to another AI but is nowhere near you. (I got offered 7k gold despite me having zero units near him)

6) using production focus to get hammers from the citizen that was born this turn


Where do you draw the line? I could probably do a bunch more and I'm sure there are others some people would consider exploits that I can't even think of

While I can't comment on Deity (and thus the general trend), the AI has a LOT less Happiness than in G&K, so 1)'s basis in fact is no longer solid.

I think this particular 'exploit' is fine where it is, I've done it before and then thought 'crap!' because the next turn I found another one of their workers in a barb hut they wanted gone and could have used it for influence with them if I wasn't in the negatives. Sometimes there is a downside, but I guess not all of the time.

I agree with the ideas that war against CS should last atleast 10 turns and 10 turns after peace to declare war again. Also that CS should protect their workers, especially on higher levels where they have more units anyways.

Well, I just look at the other ways you can get workers--you can spend a lot of hammers and a lot of time building one, or you can invest into culture and get one in liberty, pour resources into your economy and buy one, or I suppose you could go wonderbuilding and build the Pyramids. All of those methods require a bit of effort and investment. The developers obviously thought that getting a worker should require some decision-making and work.

Getting a worker from a CS is essentially free. It should require approximately as much effort with military as the other methods require with your culture or building. You should have to fight longer, take a harder diplo hit, etc..

Click to expand...

I also completely agree with this...well said.

Personally, I think the whole discussion about whether it's an exploit or not is irrelevant (although the discussion about what actually makes an exploit and what doesn't is indeed interesting from a theoretical point of view, I think that should be decoupled from this thread). I think what we should discuss is what we think would make the best game - and neither what game the developers intended, nor whether the current game matches the developers' intentions (or is a result of oversights).

Ulthwithian said:

While I can't comment on Deity (and thus the general trend), the AI has a LOT less Happiness than in G&K, so 1)'s basis in fact is no longer solid.

Click to expand...

Before BNK the deity AI had 40-50 spare happiness so they will really have needed to cut it down an absurd amount for this to matter.

I'm not a fan of any of these exploits to be honest.

I think the game should track if you sold them a committment to provide a luxury for 30 turns, and failed to follow through this commitment: and it should provide you a negative modifier - both with them, and (a smaller modifier, maybe even hidden) with other civs. The only exception would be if they DOWed you.

Re the city state worker, this probably isn't quite so bad, as the penalties are clearly there for the transgression. I would never do it myself, but then, I prefer not to play on Deity level where the game is quite unfair, and arguably forces players into, shall we say, innovative strategies in order to compete with boosted AI civs.

stii said:

Before BNK the deity AI had 40-50 spare happiness so they will really have needed to cut it down an absurd amount for this to matter.

Click to expand...

Let's put it this way. I was doing ICS spam, and I had 13 Happiness on turn 140 or so in a Huge (12 Civ) game. I was 7th on the Happiness scale, so 5 Civs were below me.

They certainly seem to have much lower Happiness overall, to the point that I think I've seen a few negative, and not because of ideology.

So, basically, simply selling a luxury to a Civ should be a trade, nothing more nor less. For the record, I don't consider simply selling a luxury to a Civ to be an exploit, as the only reason they don't have to worry about Happiness is because of AI buffs. I think the best solution is to actually have the AI put a value on how much they 'need' Happiness, and price your luxuries accordingly. This would fix the situation no matter what the AI buff level is.