Subsidies and Aggressive Trading Practices

Those things you mention aren't exploits, they're unbalanced (or overpowered) features. Not the same thing.

Zombie69 said:

Those things you mention aren't exploits, they're unbalanced (or overpowered) features.

Click to expand...

The CFC staff defines them as exploits. RBC defines them as exploits. The term "exploit" was introduced precisely to describe this sort of thing.

You can of course insist that the rest of the Civ community are all wrong in how they use the word "exploit", and they should choose some completely different word. But this is the word they use, and this is how they use it.

Well, maybe the word exploit doesn't mean the same thing in the Civ community as it does for every other videogame in existence.

Everyone's real world analogies do not work in the context that's being discussed. Why? Because if you have an advantage in life, people below, no matter how slim, have a chance to adapt. Period. (Ignoring obvious things like "winning" a foot race against a man with no feet. If you call that winning, well good luck to you.)

The Tennis example about exploiting a opponents weakness is null, because the opponent has the capability to adapt. Whether the opponent comes to this self realisation isn't up for discussion, because the possibility simply exists. He has the chance to correct his "weakness".

In this case, the above tactic the orignal poster discusses is an exploit, by virtue of the fact that the A.I. has absolutely no chance for self realisation (e.g. lack of programming) of what is occuring. It's simple people.

So yes, choosing your map settings, picking your Civ, warring against the A.I. civ who cannot properly adapt in general are all exploits giving the human player an advantage over A.I. Plain and simple. The fact is, we tolerate these "exploits" because there are real world limits to what programmers can do in order to make an A.I. perform, and most of all some of us like to play a Archipaelo map with Tokugawa and rule the world under our thumb. Developers allow us these choices/advantages, because their first and foremost objective is for us to have fun, while offering us as much of a challenge as possible. In essence, the liberty to choose our Civ, map settings etc. is the exact reason a Deity level exists. In order to balance out not only our inherant human advantage, but to afford us the above options, without removing the challenge.

The arguments stands then as such. Does this advantage/exploit constitute a need for a difficulty level higher then deity, such that it no longer becomes an advantage to the player? That's the context of the argument, arguing semantics surrounding it is pointless.

For some, the game may ALREADY need a new difficulty level. They may have mastered Deity to such a degree that exploits serve no purpose other then to speed up their games (I think this is where Zombie69 is at for example). For others, it's offering them the chance to defeat a difficulty level that they would not be able to defeat if the option did not exist. That's the standard for defeating a difficulty and "truly" mastering it.

I emphasize again that people understand that their are limitations to how an A.I. can perform and output compared to a human. So yes, we are all exploiters in our own manner, we are the people running a footrace against the man with no feet. Only on deity level, our man with no feet actually has a jet pack.

Zombie69 said:

Well, maybe the word exploit doesn't mean the same thing in the Civ community as it does for every other videogame in existence.

Click to expand...

Exploit:
A form of cheating so tedious, it gives the player a sense of entitlement when performed.

Not.Bad said:

Everyone's real world analogies do not work in the context that's being discussed. Why? Because if you have an advantage in life, people below, no matter how slim, have a chance to adapt. Period. (Ignoring obvious things like "winning" a foot race against a man with no feet. If you call that winning, well good luck to you.)

The Tennis example about exploiting a opponents weakness is null, because the opponent has the capability to adapt. Whether the opponent comes to this self realisation isn't up for discussion, because the possibility simply exists. He has the chance to correct his "weakness".

In this case, the above tactic the orignal poster discusses is an exploit, by virtue of the fact that the A.I. has absolutely no chance for self realisation (e.g. lack of programming) of what is occuring. It's simple people.

So yes, choosing your map settings, picking your Civ, warring against the A.I. civ who cannot properly adapt in general are all exploits giving the human player an advantage over A.I. Plain and simple. The fact is, we tolerate these "exploits" because there are real world limits to what programmers can do in order to make an A.I. perform, and most of all some of us like to play a Archipaelo map with Tokugawa and rule the world under our thumb. Developers allow us these choices/advantages, because their first and foremost objective is for us to have fun, while offering us as much of a challenge as possible. In essence, the liberty to choose our Civ, map settings etc. is the exact reason a Deity level exists. In order to balance out not only our inherant human advantage, but to afford us the above options, without removing the challenge.

The arguments stands then as such. Does this advantage/exploit constitute a need for a difficulty level higher then deity, such that it no longer becomes an advantage to the player? That's the context of the argument, arguing semantics surrounding it is pointless.

For some, the game may ALREADY need a new difficulty level. They may have mastered Deity to such a degree that exploits serve no purpose other then to speed up their games (I think this is where Zombie69 is at for example). For others, it's offering them the chance to defeat a difficulty level that they would not be able to defeat if the option did not exist. That's the standard for defeating a difficulty and "truly" mastering it.

I emphasize again that people understand that their are limitations to how an A.I. can perform and output compared to a human. So yes, we are all exploiters in our own manner, we are the people running a footrace against the man with no feet. Only on deity level, our man with no feet actually has a jet pack.

Click to expand...

Whta's your point? It's a game, not real life. Why do you compare real life with games?

An advantage isn't exploit. If it was, why would the word "advantage" exist?

This is a strategy game, your supposed to do what you call "exploit". But I call it "use a strategy to give yourself a n a dvantage. Youi work to get it, it doen't come for free. If it's free, then it's exploit.

Do you know Zombie69? Can you prove he can beat Deity Without Exploits? If you can't what are you trying to do??????

What do people mean by the "pop-rushing" bug and the "whipping bug"?
Just a terminology check here...

ohioastronomy said:

What do people mean by the "pop-rushing" bug and the "whipping bug"?

Click to expand...

The pop rushing bug is caused because the number of citizens you need to sacrifice to complete the current project, and the hammers generated by sacrificing those citizens, are calculated independently and inconsistently. Sacrificing X citizens should give you X*Y hammers, where Y depends only on the game speed and the production bonuses for the current project. It does work this way if you don't have any production bonuses. But when you do have production bonuses, the relationship breaks down, which can either help or hurt you.

Rumor is that this will be fixed in C4: Conquests.

DaviddesJ said:

The pop rushing bug is caused because the number of citizens you need to sacrifice to complete the current project, and the hammers generated by sacrificing those citizens, are calculated independently and inconsistently.

Click to expand...

To see the bug in action, build a city with just a forge and run all the basic civics except for slavery. Start building a military unit until it has 31 hammers left to go for completion. Save the game. When you rush the unit at that point, you'll receive 60 hammers for only one population. Reload and wait one turn. Now when you rush the unit, you get 30 hammers for one population.

As David mentioned, the handling is extremely inconsistent when tried with different production bonuses, game speeds, and amounts of hammers remaining in a project. There is also supposed to be a penalty for rushing wonders or rushing anything on the turn it is started, but this too is inconsitently applied.

With production bonuses greater than 100%, the whipping bug can be combined with the overflow bug and it moves out of the "micromanager's edge" column and into the "totally broken exploit" column. Cities with a sustained production of >100 hammers/turn are feasible by around 0BC.

Saying "Exploit" on CFC is like saying "Bomb" in an airport. It just causes alot of chaos.

Paeanblack said:

To see the bug in action, build a city with just a forge and run all the basic civics except for slavery. Start building a military unit until it has 31 hammers left to go for completion. Save the game. When you rush the unit at that point, you'll receive 60 hammers for only one population. Reload and wait one turn. Now when you rush the unit, you get 30 hammers for one population.

As David mentioned, the handling is extremely inconsistent when tried with different production bonuses, game speeds, and amounts of hammers remaining in a project. There is also supposed to be a penalty for rushing wonders or rushing anything on the turn it is started, but this too is inconsitently applied.

With production bonuses greater than 100%, the whipping bug can be combined with the overflow bug and it moves out of the "micromanager's edge" column and into the "totally broken exploit" column. Cities with a sustained production of >100 hammers/turn are feasible by around 0BC.

Click to expand...

Ah, that explains it. Many thanks to you and David. This really is a bug - I wouldn't use it. Careful micro, by contrast, is simply squeezing the last drop out of your turns - e.g. swapping tiles to get things to finish earlier. There is nothing wrong with that. Whipping trades food for hammers, which is not overpowered by itself.

Paeanblack said:

Cities with a sustained production of >100 hammers/turn are feasible by around 0BC.

Click to expand...

Can you give an example of that? The only way I can imagine that you can get anywhere near that high is to build the Globe Theatre so you can whip very frequently. Maybe you are also playing at Marathon where the hammers/citizen are much higher than at more "normal" speeds?

Does anybody know if the max GPT a particular (subsidized) AI will give is different for Happy resources compared to Health resources.

If it is different, than obviously the developers put some thought into the code that controlled the caps under each circumstance, which would make me view this as a subsidization strategy.

If the cap is the same for any resource, whether it's a strategic resource, or a happy resource, or a health resource, then I'd view it more as an exploit.

p4 post 79

Nares said:

I feel as though if what you were stating were true, they would have developed a more linear list of offered GP techs in relation to available researchable techs. Given how the list is designed, I can only say that there is no question it would result in the availability of relatively advanced techs while at select points in the tech tree with regards to each Great Person type.

Instead of offering early game techs, then late game techs, then mid game techs, then early game techs, they could have just offered early game techs, then mid game techs, then late game techs, requiring you to progress through the tech tree as it is ordered. That you can blatantly skip certain techs in order to produce more desirable offerings from Great People seems to be a intended feature.

Click to expand...

As usual, I'm comming after the battle... as the US Cavalery in Lucky-Luck comics, and maybe someone already answered the same thing but I wanted to say it now before finishing to read the whole thread.
even with your commentary, using the order of GP tech attribution can be considered an exploit.
Their is a very simple option to have the GP offered tech list designed that way : let see the following exemple:

(I know, the proposed tech sucks but it can still be relevant).
If you are in industrial age, and if from the beginning of the game you have deliberatly skipped "sailing" because you don't have water in your map, it would be very badly programmed that your new GP gives you "sailing" (impact = less than 1turn of research) as a free tech instead of participating to the "robotic tech"(impact of the GP = 2--5 research turns).

therfore, GP tech list HAVE TO give priority to the more advanced tech.
but it doesn't means that the CS slingshot giving CS at a ridiculously early period was intended.

It is not a exploit as you can use it not only for the CS Slingshot, but to discover expensive tech quite early : why not, it is a bonus from the way list have to be made.

The same with the current thread topic, it may not have been intended at first but maybe allowed.

it is as if you say : axemen are over powered, slavery too ==> BW is overpowered : firaxis choosed to do it like that but it limits early developpements to BW rush ==> the game was not designed for every civ to always start for BW + all players start researching for BW, while AI do not always start researching BW ==> lets not research BW as a first tech, it is exploiting the failure of the AI to see that "BW first" is a must do : not allowed :

it seems stupid. but saying this strategy is an exploit is also : maybe it was not intended but if ressource vs gold trading was intended, it never works(out of MP games) (who would give a +1happy to the ennemy for a mere 1-2GP? and it is even more true if it will help him devellop?) so without this "exploit" the game does not work as intended, but neither with it. It is not the same failure : who is to say one is best than the other?

An exploit for me is somthing you can allways do if you work toward it : BW rush is, pop-rush/chopp-bug are, CS may be, stealing early worker is (do you let the Ai steal your worker at beginning of game? does it even try to ==> exploit : you use a technic the AI cannot use) ...etc.

this strategy : it is very hard to disable an ennemy with it, it is not always interesting : why disable the economy of your best friend if he may be sometime in permanent alliance with you; this extra ressource you are selling a high price : won't it be better used to improve relation to an new ally? you have to have a LOOOT of extra ressource to do harm...etc)

So I think it is not an exploit, but I don't think I will be using it that much at prince as it takes time, and may not always be interesting. maybe at higher levels?

EDIT: page of quoted post

hmm, it seems what I said already be said in following posts...

but it still means something : if something is meant to be 1:1 but in reality the programation makes it 1:0.. is it an exploit to make it become 0:1... using force and petition and HoF or other thing to make the programers do 1:0 is wrong!
you are wrong when saying it is an exploit that has to be fixed by forbidding it. the only thing you may say is : "OH! the ressource trading is brocken, we cannot obtain 1:1, we can only do 1:0 or 0:1. May you do something for this? we have some ideas..."

saying "it is brocken, some people can cheat and use an exploit giving 0:1 instead of 1:0! make it so they cannot reach 0:1" is futile and infantil IMHO.

think about the balance : what is best for an AI civ : "to not be exploited by the ressource trade and not have enough essential ressources to devellop" OR "be sometime exploited by the player but having those essential ressource?"
both are bad. but the second of the two is less bad in most of the cases.

And you know, I only trade ressources for ressources with the AI, nothing else is interesting. So poor country will never have any of my sur-abundant ressources and will always stay small. Furthermore, the develloped countries you really want to disable are quite immune to that: either they do not like you enough, either they have already plenty of ressources from their empire and their friends. Therefore this exploit is only overpowered in the sens that it may give a lot (50-100) of GP to the player...who almost have GNP of 500-1000.. why not?
an advantage less than 10% is no more overpowered than the axe rush the AI never does. (it only does -for me- attacks of lone axe and rarely if I have no contact of cultural borders).

ohioastronomy said:

Ah, that explains it. Many thanks to you and David. This really is a bug - I wouldn't use it. Careful micro, by contrast, is simply squeezing the last drop out of your turns - e.g. swapping tiles to get things to finish earlier. There is nothing wrong with that. Whipping trades food for hammers, which is not overpowered by itself.

Click to expand...

You would, and do use it, even if you don't realize it. The programming is so faulty that if you don't get a production bonus from it, you'll actually be losing production from it compared to what you'd get if it was coded properly. For example, with 31 to 38 hammers left to production and a 25% bonus, you'll get 60 hammers with one pop instead of 37 hammers. With 39 to 59 hammers left to production, you'll get 30 hammers from production instead of 37. No matter what you do, you'll never get the proper amount.

gdgrimm said:

Does anybody know if the max GPT a particular (subsidized) AI will give is different for Happy resources compared to Health resources.

If it is different, than obviously the developers put some thought into the code that controlled the caps under each circumstance, which would make me view this as a subsidization strategy.

If the cap is the same for any resource, whether it's a strategic resource, or a happy resource, or a health resource, then I'd view it more as an exploit.

Click to expand...

They give the same for happiness or health resources, but for strategic resources, they may give you a happiness or health resource on top of the gold, and you can then trade that new resource to another AI for some more gold.

Zombie, your last comment makes me more and more feel as if this subsidiary thing is less of an exploit and more the transformation of a bad bug into a less bad bug ...

Your analytic skills always amaze me

What an absolutely marvellous practice. In the past I have made small gpt deals for 2-4gpt ie whatever the AI had available then I renegotiated whenever they had another surplus and 10 turns were up. This way I slowly gain increased payments but it was all rather tedious to get their payment up to a decent level and easy to miss the turn when they might have a surplus.

Now all I have to do it set the max they will give when I make the deal and hey presto.

I don't think this is an exploit at all - its just setting up the initial trade with a discount to manufacture a market and a demand and then exploit the market later. It's actually quite realistic. The real problem is that the AI never cancels the deal like a human would if it could get a better one elsewhere.

I do hope this is not totally nerfed in the next patch (whenever that might be). IMO if changes are made to make it less exploitative, the AI should be allowed to renegotiate the deal if they could get a better one elsewhere ie they are more friendly with another civ that also has the resource spare.

I wonder if this still works in Warlords...