Stats Hiding

Krill · Jun 17, 2009

Kaleb said:
I've got a point I'd like to raise for discussion and then put to a team vote:

Early on in the game, it's possible to decipher bits of info about what other teams are up to, even what they are researching, based upon their stats in the demographics window.

However, with this being a turn-based pitboss it's possible to conceal your actual figures by simply changing your tech rate, tech target, or swapping around tiles after you hit end turn. And then just re-arranging things back to how you want just before you end your next turn.

In team Kaz we mulled over doing this early on in the game but decided not to as we considered it quite a cheesy tactic. But one's man's cheese is another man's sauce... (an ancient Kazakh proverb by the way)

Later on down the line, as espionage starts to become part of the game, it is possible to see what another team is researching if you have enough ESP against them. Of course, again, it's possible to hide what you are actually researching by simply switching your priority and/or your rate after hitting end turn. Easy to do.

Now if all teams decide to play with these tactics we are effectively going to be removing an element of the game that was added with the BTS expansion (and I for one was looking forward to seeing how it would work in the MTDG).

More importantly, if some teams decide they want to "play fair" and let other teams gather intel on them as they should within the game and others want to take advantage of the consecutive turn mechanics to hide information then this isn't going to be fair.

I'd like to know what the general consensus is on the above. Perhaps we could also agree between the teams which way we want to play the game, just so we are all operating on the same basis...

I should probably explain...Kaz have enough ESP points to see our research, and can check out our GNP in the demographics, and the graphs...so Memphus, at the end of every turn changed the slider to show us getting closer to HBR whilst we were infact research currency. Seems like they didn't appreciate the misdirection.

The problem is that the only war to outlaw this is to force each team to not moving anything after they end turn.

Personally I think this is a legit defense against espionage and an integral part of a consecutive turn game (and possibly proof that those people who think consecutive turns doesn't have it's own bugs are wrong, but that's a different issue).

Dreylin · Jun 17, 2009

Well really this comes down to the same point as the crashing out of negative events; it's entirely unenforcable.

I think some sort of response along the lines of:

"Aw, did the poor little Kazakh think big bad SANCTA were researching something else?"

Krill · Jun 17, 2009

Spoiler :

Someone improve this...I'm also tempted to state that altering the rules now is moving the goalposts after we have already planned to use this, and as such is bad sportsmanship on their part.

IamJohn · Jun 17, 2009

Personally I think it's gaming the system. The fact is is that they earned the espionage points to get the ability to see what we're researching, and we're effectively wasting their points, and in fact using them to deceive them in a way that we normally wouldn't be able to do. The question however is that if this any different then lieing to a team, or breaking a diplomatic agreement or something along those lines. Sure it isn't nearly so dramatic, but it is effectively in the same category.

I really do think that they are making a huge deal out of something that really isn't worth the attention that Kaz/Cav are forcing on it, but nonetheless, it is a shady tactic, and I really don't think we can honestly call it anything else.

AutomatedTeller · Jun 17, 2009

Well, they aren't wasting their points. Seeing what a team is researching is nice, but espionage is a lot more than that...

I'm fine with either way, having it or not. The discussion isn't really focusing on whether we, as 5 teams want it - it's turning into veiled character attacks, and that's never good.

Memphus · Jun 17, 2009

IamJohn said:
.... it is a shady tactic, and I really don't think we can honestly call it anything else.

Sure but is one none the the less. Krill makes great points as to why it should be allowed.

IMO this is the sequence of events that happened (and why Kaz brought it up)

1. We sent a Letter to them saying back off at Angle or we go to war and will pump out HBR and ruin thier chances at the game.
(at this point they had enough espionage to see our research)

2. They Don't back down so we declare war and start swaping to HBR at the end of every turn.

3. They start building spears anticipating our attack on them.

4. We get Currency

5. They go WTH where is HBR (because not only did we switch but we made it look like we were getting closer to it each turn)

6. They lose at angle

7. They get mad that we tricked them, and post that thread.

It would be the same as if they beat us by 1 turn to Liberalism later in the game, we could go back to the fact that the used a "Shady" tactic to get beauro 1 turn and thus that made all the difference.

The biggest point is (which we have been very poised to NOT bring up in the main thread) is that it only start with the slider....and techs If a rule comes out to ban that then it better be inclusive, because there are other ways to hide it... (making everyone a citizen for example)

The only effective rule that would eliminate everything is:

1. you can only log in when it is your turn. After hitting enter you must exit without touching anything else. (effectively making it a PBEM)

But woudl that be any fun? no one could log in at thier leisure to look around?

Kjara · Jun 17, 2009

Just my 2 cents(I'll avoid adding fire to the flames, but here's a counter argument to niklas "its clearly an exploit since the developers didn't intend you to do it" arguement):

If you want to argue intentions of the developers, with niklas' definitions, talking to each other via email is an "exploit" since the game developers gave you a chat box to do that with, and you can do things via pm and email you can't do with that chat box(i.e. send images, which is allowed in the rules with the discovery of paper). Its clear the developers intended you to chat using the chat box they spent the time coding. I'm pretty sure all of the teams are abusing this feature by alt-tabbing or logging out of civ to send each other emails.

Feel free to work it into your replies if its at all useful.

Edit: Oh and I love how sulla was pretty much spot on on the cav/kaz side(and possibly the saturn side) about voting across alliances, and how everyone tries to deny it.

Dreylin · Jun 18, 2009

Probably a stupid question, but is it possible to switch from sequential to simultaneous turns in the middle of the game? That would effectively make this particular point moot, and it may even help to speed the game up....

Ronnie1 · Jun 18, 2009

Short answer is NO!

sooooo · Jun 18, 2009

Well this time I think kaz/Niklas is right. The timing of Kaz's complaint isn't coincidental and maybe this should have been sorted out at the beginning of the game, but this tactic is highly dodgy and not one to be proud of using. Arguing that it's OK because DaveMcW used a similar tactic to hide spaceship parts in a previous game is no excuse! That should have been clamped down on too and presumably wasn't because DaveMcW can be very persuasive/stubborn at times and probably no one wanted to have that argument. One previous dodgy tactic doesn't authorise the use of any future dodgy tactic surely.

I think people are trying find semantic reasons to pick apart arguments from the in-game opposition, rather than stepping back and looking at the case in point.

Ronnie1 · Jun 18, 2009

For the record....I would probably vote to NOT use the tactic if it comes to an all or nothing vote. My biggest concern is that it will be VERY DIFFICULT to enforce, and abuses will probably still occur. Memphus also made a good point about Kaz getting CS while technically not on their turn, and that is potentially unbalancing also!

When we build the GLH and Pyramids on consecutive turns, that will surely piss them off even more!

Krill · Jun 18, 2009

I'd go look up gamesmanship sooooo.

We've not really made a semantic argument; there is only 1 way to police this and it requires the admin to be right on top of the game at all times. I'm not going to go into what the rule would have to be for various reasons, but sufficed to say that if any half measures are taken drafting a rule to prevent this, the rule can be circumvented without breaking it without any problems. The cure, as it's said, is worse than the disease.

One previous dodgy tactic doesn't authorise the use of any future dodgy tactic surely.

Actually this is the exact same tactic; that's why bringing it up now instead of 2 years ago when it was found is fairly dodgy. It's an argument against disallowing it because it's been known about for along time, and accepted for what it is. If it had been brought up at teh start of the game that would have been very different; each team could have planned around it. Personally I've been expecting to use this tactic and hence haven't argued for devoting more resources to espionage; changing the goalposts in the middle of the game is basically bollocks, and that is the main achievement if the rule is changed.

Krill · Jun 18, 2009

Ronnie1 said:
For the record....I would probably vote to NOT use the tactic if it comes to an all or nothing vote. My biggest concern is that it will be VERY DIFFICULT to enforce, and abuses will probably still occur.

I don't follow; you'd vote to not to use it because it's difficult to not enforce using it?

AutomatedTeller · Jun 18, 2009

why do we have to worry about enforcement? do we think that other teams will use it when it's been banned?

Krill · Jun 18, 2009

Anyone remember the argument for the events? That not ignoring the events could lead to paranoia amongst the teams?

Well, sufficed to say that there are ways of hiding tech trades, bulbs and research (sometimes, at least) that could lead to false accusations that teams are breaking the rules of hiding research even when they aren't. More paranoia and angst could be created, which we really don't want.

why do we have to worry about enforcement?

See above, but also remember that there are other techniques that muddy the water. If all of them were banned...this game wouldn't be fun at all, because the side effects of the enforcement are so stringent.

Ronnie1 · Jun 18, 2009

Let me rephrase....

I can see the argument that the tactic goes against the "nature" of the EP function that is inherent to the game itself. That is why I would probably vote to NOT use the tactic if everyone agreed to ban its use.

My concern about the "ban" itself, is that it will be very difficult to enforce, and there are already tactics in use (force quitting out of bad events just to name 1) that go against the "nature" of the game.

I never thought of it as a possibility, (this is my 1st sequential turn pitboss), so I can also see the argument for using it, especially if you knew about it ahead of time and planned on using it specifically because it was not "explicitly" banned.

azzaman333 · Jun 19, 2009

I wouldn't use it myself, but I am not opposed to it being used. There are definately some major risks associated with using it, and there is no ingame advantage to doing it. It's the same bucket of fish as lying to other teams through diplomacy IMO.

Memphus · Jun 19, 2009

there is huge ingame advantage to using it.

regoarrarr · Jun 19, 2009

I'm with soooo - regardless of enforcability, I find the tactic lame and am somewhat embarrassed that we are using it

Memphus · Jun 19, 2009

Obviously everyone knows where I stand on the issue. :mischief:

Now We have 2 team members that are agaisn't it so I think a poll should be started If the team votes to stop using it, then we will stop plain and simple.

But on that note, there is a chance we may have played differently (I.E. focused mroe on raw :commerce:

) so that we are in a better position for :espionage:

As it stands now, we can't compete with Cav or Kaz on the :espionage front.

So in that regard it would be like saying in a Football (Soccer) Game Team A is Fast, and Team B is slow but with very good ball handling skills.

Team B is keeping the game close on Team , so Team A decides to announce that you can no longer "handle" the ball, as this is a shady tactic. Well now they can run faster, so Team B has no defence.

Stats Hiding

Deity

Cousin Itt!

Deity

(was)?

Frequent poster

Deity

Warlord

Cousin Itt!

Deity

Emperor

Deity

Deity

Deity

Frequent poster

Deity

Deity

meh

Deity

King

Deity

Similar threads