pvtjava
The Grey Cat
That's awesome. I was trying to say it half in jest, but I could not find a smilie for "mischievous twinkle in eye."
Banned Exploits - BNW
- Thread starter sanabas
- Start date
You can sell the city under the circumstances you describe.
-------
One of the hardest concepts to communication with people is the different between doing something in the normal course of play and exploiting a bug or design weakness.
Selling a city you captured back to that Civ later isn't anything to worry about. Doing it over and over as a means to accumulate large sums of gold is. Especially, if it is the same cities many times.
It is exploiting when you are doing something as a tactic to get around game balance. Exploits that allow the accumulation of large sums of gold is among most unbalancing things I can think of in Civ5. The Science overflow bug is of a similar scale. About as much fun as tanks against warriors, IMO.
Unfortunately, people don't deal well with gray areas. Absolute limits are demanded. Or you have to draw a line for the rules lawyers that will pick apart any rule and jump on any loophole they can find.
(It is only cheating if you get caught, right? 
)If anyone feels the need to debate or argue with the above, please do me a favor, start a new thread. Please don't clog up this one. Thank you.
------
Argue all you like. As long as you follow the forum rules no one is going to bother you or hold it against you.
Despite rumors to the contrary (Salomo), I don't think anyone on the HOF Staff enjoys arguing. Especially the same arguments over and over.
------
Yep, CK = Crusader Kings, and they also do EU. Just mentioned it because you like to combine the strategy with roleplaying. Which it's very good for.
I have a question, if you don't mind. In your 300AD/turn 127/Prince/China/Pangaea/Standard/Standard win, did you use Sacred Sites, and, if so, could you tell me exactly what the bonus is for this belief? I have never tried it, so I am not sure what it does.You said you were not warmonger, so I'm guessing it was not a domination hybrid.
I did, and it is 2 tourism for every faith-bought building, i.e. pagodas/mosques/cathedrals. So basically build lots of cities, buy 2 x religious buildings in each, get 4 tourism per city. If you look at the game log at http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ5/game_info.php?show=generallog&entryID=6173 you'll see I didn't declare war on anyone, and founded 12 cities. Or just download the saves and have a look.
denniz said:
Depends what sort of mood I'm in.
p.s. please feel free to split this tangent about CK, sacred sites, etc off into a separate thread so the exploit thread stays on topic.
Jayhawks
Chieftain
It's only on the higher levels that you can do this and is not that big in the beginning of your game.
Most people have already won by then (when you reach aluminum) so it not a game breaker. It is good for the weaker players so they can also win deity. (like me)
Also you have to be friends which is not possible early in the game to do it at many opponents.
I realized this after making a post here and another non-stickied thread. If it doesn't lead to a faster finish date then no one will really care. On standard settings the only way to get an AI with a lot of gold early enough to set any HoF records is if you can get one or two AI to runaway with it early on giving them an unusually large amount of gold and gpt. You could of course likely befriend them with a joint DoW so you could later backstab them, and in doing so probably befriend the rest of the world so you can backstab them when their time comes.
The question is though, did you win because of that backstab which allowed you to upgrade all your units and/or buy more, or did it simply aid you in winning, like your diplomatic efforts and enemy Civ selection to get a runaway AI in the first place, or your clever management of city states, policy selection, exploration technique, build path, research path, resource selection, luck, etc.
I dunno... but, to me, if it feels like cheating then it probably is, and this feels like cheating to me. Yes, selling gpt for gold can be very powerful for legitimate purposes like buying workers or settlers or a tile or library or something. However, there is only one outcome for deals involving massive lump sums of gold for gpt et al, and that is to be cancelled immediately via DoW.
Edit: sorry Denniz, I didn't see not to post here anymore until after I posted, this will be the last one.
Not to worry. Just what to keep this thread on topic as much as possible. Easy to find answers to questions asked by others if there aren't a lot of debate going on. Plenty of room for that elsewhere.
Dennis:
Thats total nonsense, following this argument every clever action in playing d be exploiting. Repeadiatly buying settlers for gold, allways selling excessive lux and res.
Allways outmoving ai in wars, allways fullfilling city state quests.
And espacially allways keeping scientists for late game bulbs.
All this is stuff (and more) ai isnt able to do and therefore DOES shift game balance towards human player
Thats total nonsense, following this argument every clever action in playing d be exploiting. Repeadiatly buying settlers for gold, allways selling excessive lux and res.
Allways outmoving ai in wars, allways fullfilling city state quests.
And espacially allways keeping scientists for late game bulbs.
All this is stuff (and more) ai isnt able to do and therefore DOES shift game balance towards human player
Things quoted out of context frequently don't make a lot of sense. Which why people do it.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Maybe I should have written "doing something like that" it would have drawn your attention back to what was written before that sentence.
Please at least try to understand what's someone is trying to communicate before you reject it out of hand. You might surprise yourself by finding some common ground you can agree with.
Also, its just rude.
while I maybe used 1 rude word you make 3 sentences not even touching the discussion point.
The point is that there are LOADS of actions which some see as clever gameplay while others see it as exploiting and majority isnt even able to think beyond corners to even understand some clever actions.
Its impossible to draw lines.
Memoryjar
Emperor
Sometimes, I imagine Sheldon Cooper somewhere in central Europe, playing civ V.
Xaviien
Chieftain
This page should probably be updated to reflect the above information.
I know I'm probably being pedantic, but with the amount of times CiV has been on sale over the last few months, we are likely going to see a few more new players looking for a good challenge, so having things as clear as possible would be good.
OldEarthRelic
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 190
I'm on the thread because I was about to start my first HOF game. I just read about the science bug which takes a lot of gloss away from my (non-HOF) Diety science wins when I get Optics etc. very, very late. I've also beelined architecture for PT before getting Mining. Scholars in Residence would help reduce SV times even without the bug, if filling out the top late anyway.
Q1. Now I know about the bug, would I have to change my tech order to avoid the problem for an HOF game?
Q2. If I sell/give away Oxford U, I can't build another one. What if the city gets captured?
Being an HOF moderator must be a nightmare - we appreciate everything you do.
Q1. Now I know about the bug, would I have to change my tech order to avoid the problem for an HOF game?
Q2. If I sell/give away Oxford U, I can't build another one. What if the city gets captured?
Being an HOF moderator must be a nightmare - we appreciate everything you do.
1) Selling Cities
I pay Civ A to war with Civs B, C, and D. Then I Dow Civ A with the intention of capturing cities and selling to Civs B, C, and D.
I capture Civ A city #1 and sell to Civ B. Civ A recaptures city #1. City #1 is in my way, blocking access to cities #2-4, which I want to capture and sell. I capture City #1 again. Is it a banned exploit for me to sell city #1 a second time within the 30 turns that the first trade deal is still in effect (meaning I would have to give it away for free, as I don't want it)?
If city #1 capture includes a Liberate option, would it be a banned exploit for me to sell it upon the first capture and then, within 30 turns, re-capture it as described above and Liberate it?
2) Trading resource for lump sums
I improve and sell resource (sale #1). Nearby barbarian approaches and pillages my resource. I kill them, repair the resource, sell it again (within 30 turns of the first sale), and clear their camp. I trust this is perfectly fine up to this point, as there is no attempt to establish a repeated pillage/sale situation of my own construction.
AI units enter my territory and pillage the same resource. Let's say it's just 1-2 units, a minor response from an early worker steal kind of scenario. If I fend them off and repair the resource, can I sell it within 30 turns of the very first sale (sale #1), which would be a 3rd sale within a 30-turn window? Again, this would not be a repeated pillage/sale situation of my own specific construction, but a sequence of events that might happen within a 30 turn stretch.
3) Restarting from initial autosave to preserve city state composition
I play a game far enough to become aware of the composition of all city states; it is a favourable composition. If I load the initial autosave and Restart, the new map will include the same city states - and of course the same AI, which notably can be pre-selected. I don't see this mentioned, so I will broach the topic and ask whether a subsequent game played knowing the composition of these city states would be accepted by the HoF?
I personally feel that allowing players to pre-select their AI opponents, rather than requiring random opponents to be HoF eligible, sets a precedent in favour of allowing such a restart. The advantage of knowing the CS composition before your AI opponents meet them would be similar to the (allowed) advantage of knowing the AI opponents you pre-selected before they meet each other.
I pay Civ A to war with Civs B, C, and D. Then I Dow Civ A with the intention of capturing cities and selling to Civs B, C, and D.
I capture Civ A city #1 and sell to Civ B. Civ A recaptures city #1. City #1 is in my way, blocking access to cities #2-4, which I want to capture and sell. I capture City #1 again. Is it a banned exploit for me to sell city #1 a second time within the 30 turns that the first trade deal is still in effect (meaning I would have to give it away for free, as I don't want it)?
If city #1 capture includes a Liberate option, would it be a banned exploit for me to sell it upon the first capture and then, within 30 turns, re-capture it as described above and Liberate it?
2) Trading resource for lump sums
I improve and sell resource (sale #1). Nearby barbarian approaches and pillages my resource. I kill them, repair the resource, sell it again (within 30 turns of the first sale), and clear their camp. I trust this is perfectly fine up to this point, as there is no attempt to establish a repeated pillage/sale situation of my own construction.
AI units enter my territory and pillage the same resource. Let's say it's just 1-2 units, a minor response from an early worker steal kind of scenario. If I fend them off and repair the resource, can I sell it within 30 turns of the very first sale (sale #1), which would be a 3rd sale within a 30-turn window? Again, this would not be a repeated pillage/sale situation of my own specific construction, but a sequence of events that might happen within a 30 turn stretch.
3) Restarting from initial autosave to preserve city state composition
I play a game far enough to become aware of the composition of all city states; it is a favourable composition. If I load the initial autosave and Restart, the new map will include the same city states - and of course the same AI, which notably can be pre-selected. I don't see this mentioned, so I will broach the topic and ask whether a subsequent game played knowing the composition of these city states would be accepted by the HoF?
I personally feel that allowing players to pre-select their AI opponents, rather than requiring random opponents to be HoF eligible, sets a precedent in favour of allowing such a restart. The advantage of knowing the CS composition before your AI opponents meet them would be similar to the (allowed) advantage of knowing the AI opponents you pre-selected before they meet each other.
The spirit of the rule is not to exploit the AI by selling cities for gold or GPT. The 30 turns thing was an attempt to quantify something that can't be quantified.
It is a question of intent. If you are letting the barbs do it so you can exploit the AI for gold or GPT then it is against the rules. In other words, don't let the barbs pillage stuff like that.
We can't tell why someone reloaded the initial autosave, so we don't allow it.
Beyond that, I am not sure I would agree with your argument since the developer would have provided that ability if they had want to. Without a simple means to select them, players without the time/willingness to use your method would be at a disadvantage. We have always tried to level the playing field to for people.
Thanks Denniz. I hope you can clarify further.
1) Selling cities
The guidance I was looking for from HoF staff was how to deal with scenarios in which the city that I captured/sold (as permitted, i.e. "You may sell cities to the AI") has been captured by the civ I am at war with. If the proper course of action upon 2nd capture of the city is "give it, for free, to the AI you had sold it to less than 30 turns ago," please state this and, if this situation arises, that's exactly what I will do.
The reference to 30 turns was the time duration after which both parties have received full value from their trade, and thus the spirit of a rule aiming to avoid orchestrated, repeat sales could no longer be a valid exploit concern.
I expect that "players without the time/willingness to use your method" could apply to quite a number of strategies, but if the official response is not to restart from a known initial autosave, then I will not submit any games to HoF that do so.
1) Selling cities
The guidance I was looking for from HoF staff was how to deal with scenarios in which the city that I captured/sold (as permitted, i.e. "You may sell cities to the AI") has been captured by the civ I am at war with. If the proper course of action upon 2nd capture of the city is "give it, for free, to the AI you had sold it to less than 30 turns ago," please state this and, if this situation arises, that's exactly what I will do.
The reference to 30 turns was the time duration after which both parties have received full value from their trade, and thus the spirit of a rule aiming to avoid orchestrated, repeat sales could no longer be a valid exploit concern.
I expect that "players without the time/willingness to use your method" could apply to quite a number of strategies, but if the official response is not to restart from a known initial autosave, then I will not submit any games to HoF that do so.
Giving it back would be best. Especially as an alternative to selling back to them again.
Ah, but capturing and reselling a city after 30+ turns is also against the spirit of the rule. The 30 turns has more relevance with GPT deals for resources, etc. How many cities or how many times is too much? There are differing opinions. The exploit is making a business of farming the AI for gold.
Very true.
All the more reason not to add more than we have to. 
(please move to new thread if this is going off-track from purposes of this thread)
The strategy of selling resources, World Congress votes, captured cities, etc. are all meant to generate gold from the AI, while giving them return value. Both parties derive value from such a trade, whether it's a single resource or 5 captured cities. Exploits such as repeatedly pillaging/selling are meant to INCREASE the value we receive by increasing the frequency of sales, while decreasing the relative value to the AI trading partner. Surely trading the AI for gold and giving them return value is the strategy, whereas bypassing the 30-turn trade deal - thus altering the balance of value derived between player and AI - is the exploit.
Re-capturing and reselling a city after the 30 turn trade deal has expired does not exploit the structure of a 30-turn trade deal. Just as we should make an honest effort in defending our resources from being pillaged by barbarians, it would be fair to say that we shouldn't be blocking our trade deal partners units in a specific effort to allow our common enemy to capture the city we sold, with the intention of re-capturing and re-selling. However, should the common enemy capture that city through a normal course of events (just as a barbarian can sometimes pillage our resources before we are able to kill them), to cite a re-capture/sale after the 30 turn trade deal has expired seems to be going down the road of saying "selling cities is okay, just don't make too much money from it."
If the developer wanted certain exchanges - like a city trade - to last longer than 30 turns, they could have established that format in game, as was done for Friendship duration (50 turns).
Anyway, I've been close to having to recapture cities in some recent games, and will be sure to give them (for free) to the AI I had originally traded with if this happens. Most likely, this will occur in far fewer than 30 turns, and that aspect of this exchange will remain theoretical.
The strategy of selling resources, World Congress votes, captured cities, etc. are all meant to generate gold from the AI, while giving them return value. Both parties derive value from such a trade, whether it's a single resource or 5 captured cities. Exploits such as repeatedly pillaging/selling are meant to INCREASE the value we receive by increasing the frequency of sales, while decreasing the relative value to the AI trading partner. Surely trading the AI for gold and giving them return value is the strategy, whereas bypassing the 30-turn trade deal - thus altering the balance of value derived between player and AI - is the exploit.
Re-capturing and reselling a city after the 30 turn trade deal has expired does not exploit the structure of a 30-turn trade deal. Just as we should make an honest effort in defending our resources from being pillaged by barbarians, it would be fair to say that we shouldn't be blocking our trade deal partners units in a specific effort to allow our common enemy to capture the city we sold, with the intention of re-capturing and re-selling. However, should the common enemy capture that city through a normal course of events (just as a barbarian can sometimes pillage our resources before we are able to kill them), to cite a re-capture/sale after the 30 turn trade deal has expired seems to be going down the road of saying "selling cities is okay, just don't make too much money from it."
If the developer wanted certain exchanges - like a city trade - to last longer than 30 turns, they could have established that format in game, as was done for Friendship duration (50 turns).
Anyway, I've been close to having to recapture cities in some recent games, and will be sure to give them (for free) to the AI I had originally traded with if this happens. Most likely, this will occur in far fewer than 30 turns, and that aspect of this exchange will remain theoretical.
This is an old debate that we are not going to solve. We are talking about individual events/actions that happen within the game. It is when we view multiple such events/actions that we might see a pattern that can be interpreted as an exploit. Trying to say which action is okay vs not okay becomes a game of whack-a-mole. Exploiting the AIs to obtain massive amounts of gold breaks the game. That is what we are seeking to eliminate from HOF games. It always devolves into to: "How much is too much?". Which leads us to trying to quantify things and our game of whack-a-mole.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
