Exploits and AI Abuse
- Thread starter Tabarnak
- Start date
While this is not the thread to discuss this, is this exploitive?
If so, I will open a thread to discuss it and we can decide whether such tactics should be banned?
killerloop
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2003
- Messages
- 168
Leif wrote
Please do, because I always played GOTM according HOF rules..., naively I thought they were the same.
Not that it will help me beating Tommynt or DaveMcW
Please do, because I always played GOTM according HOF rules..., naively I thought they were the same.
Not that it will help me beating Tommynt or DaveMcW
and keep on discussing if RAs should be banned, or war at all as AI cant handle wars?
or get rid of diplo wins as ai obviously dont figure it have to spend its gold to CS?
Civ5 was patched now like 5 times - if devs dont want people be able to get ais gold they d have changed trade system.
To add more infos about HoF rules :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10439845&postcount=1
and
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10439859&postcount=2
But the question is why?
It says ''beyond normal play''. I don't really understand either, maybe some of you guys can explain why since my english is not good enough to clarify everything.
Only Oxford built multiple times is not allowed for GOTMs.
Personnally i like these rules and i always followed them for GOTMs. I like them because it ''should'' be like that. Devs are probably too lazy to make this game more balanced, but nothing can stop us to make our proper rules.
Tommy uses the Lump sum gold ''exploit'' as he described here :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11034382&postcount=33
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10439845&postcount=1
and
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10439859&postcount=2
But the question is why?
It says ''beyond normal play''. I don't really understand either, maybe some of you guys can explain why since my english is not good enough to clarify everything.
Only Oxford built multiple times is not allowed for GOTMs.
Personnally i like these rules and i always followed them for GOTMs. I like them because it ''should'' be like that. Devs are probably too lazy to make this game more balanced, but nothing can stop us to make our proper rules.
Tommy uses the Lump sum gold ''exploit'' as he described here :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11034382&postcount=33
Call me naive, but I did not know about the Oxford exploit. Most of the others I am aware of and frown upon them. I have watched them being used in YouTube videos and I do not approve. It seems to close to cheating to my mind.
Having said all this, can anyone explain how this can be effectively policed? For example, if I sell a luxury and immediate DoW that AI, how can this be picked up by others unless I own up to it?
Having said all this, can anyone explain how this can be effectively policed? For example, if I sell a luxury and immediate DoW that AI, how can this be picked up by others unless I own up to it?
DaveMcW
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 6,489
Deals are recorded in deal history, and wars are recorded in the replay. It's a pain to check, but easy to prove once you find the evidence.
But what if someone hacks the save file to remove the evidence? That's why I'm keeping my expectations low until we have DLL support for a GoTM mod.
Starting this thread as we have some disagreements over what constitutes exploits. There are actions in Civ4 that are considered exploits. Some of these were corrected with the Hall of Fame Mod.
I understand that some things have been labeled as exploits on the HoF, although I have not yet read why. If someone could explain why they are considered exploits, that would be very good.
We have had some of this discussion before and it has gotten rather heated. The best way to have this discussion is to try to be fact based and not let your passion for your argument run away. So, please keep it civil.
I understand that some things have been labeled as exploits on the HoF, although I have not yet read why. If someone could explain why they are considered exploits, that would be very good.
We have had some of this discussion before and it has gotten rather heated. The best way to have this discussion is to try to be fact based and not let your passion for your argument run away. So, please keep it civil.
DaveMcW - thank you for the clarification.
By the way, is anyone gonig to tell the AI about playing fair? It should cut both ways. How many of us have signed RA's with so-called friendly AI's only for them to declare war a few turns later?
By the way, is anyone gonig to tell the AI about playing fair? It should cut both ways. How many of us have signed RA's with so-called friendly AI's only for them to declare war a few turns later?
killerloop
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2003
- Messages
- 168
As said, I wasn't aware that in CIV5 GOTM isn't played to the HOF-rules, as I was used to in CIV4.
Apparently not all players were aware, so now they are.
I'm ok to have a "everything's allowed competition" exploiting everything the game allows. This requires no policing, and to my opinion, makes competition fairest, till the DLL get's opened up. Results really get as comparable as they can be this way.
Foulplay, like manipulating the save file, prereading the map, etc. can never be prevented, thats always up to the player.
Apparently not all players were aware, so now they are.
I'm ok to have a "everything's allowed competition" exploiting everything the game allows. This requires no policing, and to my opinion, makes competition fairest, till the DLL get's opened up. Results really get as comparable as they can be this way.
Foulplay, like manipulating the save file, prereading the map, etc. can never be prevented, thats always up to the player.
There was never a reason why something is a exploit and something else isnt in HOF.
at some point some moderator there just said: 1,2,3 is a exploit 4,5,6 isnt - afterwards 3/4 of people participating in HOF stoped doing so as well - i dont know - maybe most had same reason as me:
Why change your gameplay just cause some (dumb) dude wants you do so?
In fact its pretty easy:
exploits are things which are hidden for a normal player and possibly even the devs, so you do something abnormal which is not planed to do from devs.
whats abnormal and unwanted is actually pretty open to discussion in a nonpatched game.
But in a game patched multiple times and 1,5 y old its pretty its only stuff which is "bugy" (like selling library from gl was - or the oxford "bug") anymore - as obvioulsy it d have been patched otherwise.
Sadly AI being dumb in multiple ways wasnt ....
Ribannah
Fighter Druid
I guess we now know how some participants always get a huge advantage compared to others in the early game.
Moderator Action: Don't think accusations are helpful here. Need to state why you think these tactics are exploitive, or not.
I'm not accusing anyone, just making an observation. The idea of the GOTM is that games are comparable. If some players use all kinds of exploits while others don't, it is not.
As for what constitutes an exploit: if it feels like one, it probably is.
Moderator Action: Don't think accusations are helpful here. Need to state why you think these tactics are exploitive, or not.
I'm not accusing anyone, just making an observation. The idea of the GOTM is that games are comparable. If some players use all kinds of exploits while others don't, it is not.
As for what constitutes an exploit: if it feels like one, it probably is.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
What this really shows is just how poorly designed the diplomatic trading AI is in Civ5. The AI should not allow players to take all of their lump sum gold in exchange for luxuries and gold/turn credit, but of course you can, followed by immediately canceling the deal by declaring war. That's bad enough, but you can do it repeatedly with each AI with seemingly little penalty, pulling thousands of "free gold" out of the ether. This ties into another design flaw in Civ5, the ability of gold to rush pretty much anything instantly: units, buildings, city state alliances, etc. Everything appears right on the spot if you have enough gold. So high-level play in Civ5 always invariably revolves around bilking the AI out of its gold, and immediately funneling that back into your own civ to speed up your growth curve.
It's a dumb system, but I'm not sure you can penalize players for a poorly designed gameplay mechanic. One thing is clear though: if you aren't abusing the AI this way, you're not even playing the same game as those who are. The value of thousands of free gold pulled from the AI can't be put into words.
It's a dumb system, but I'm not sure you can penalize players for a poorly designed gameplay mechanic. One thing is clear though: if you aren't abusing the AI this way, you're not even playing the same game as those who are. The value of thousands of free gold pulled from the AI can't be put into words.
And this is the crux of the issue. As a community, playing with a common save, do we want to play the same game, or not?
The choices I see are:
1. To teach everyone to play to abuse the AI, thus leveling the playing field.
2. To name AI abuse as exploit (and define it so that we all understand it) and pledge to play without using those tactics, much as the HoF does now.
3. Let each player decide whether or not to abuse the AI and you take your finish dates and scores as they come.
edit - other options?
The point is:
ANY ACTION WITH AI IS ABUSING IT
you obviooulsy only trade if u get a benefit from it, so if you want stop "absusing" ai you would have to stop trading with it at all.
Obviously you will only attack AI if you will win the war - now thats abusing ais war weakness - ban wars?
If u want a "fair" game you have to get rid of huts, barbs, AIs, CS, RAs, Trading -
well this game is there:
Multiplayer duel - come play!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=434095
http://www.civplayers.com/index.php?section=standings&league=3
killerloop
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2003
- Messages
- 168
Tommynt, I agree with you.
Leif:
option 1: not needed to train people, as people could pick this up by reading the forum, so did I
option 2: let's agree to Hof rules, competitions here seem pretty balanced, comparable and fair.
option 3: current situation, for me unwanted because uncomparable
option 4: = option 1: just allow any abuse w/o teaching people
I'd prefer option 2, else option 4 for purposes of comparability
Leif:
option 1: not needed to train people, as people could pick this up by reading the forum, so did I
option 2: let's agree to Hof rules, competitions here seem pretty balanced, comparable and fair.
option 3: current situation, for me unwanted because uncomparable
option 4: = option 1: just allow any abuse w/o teaching people
I'd prefer option 2, else option 4 for purposes of comparability
I agree with killerloop.
But also, rules can repulse some players and reduce the amount of players in a competition. It's hard to check every moves(and some are impossible) and ensure fairness of play from each players. This add a lot of time for moderators to check these games. On the other side, it can make people joining too.
Like Dave said, there is not much we can do until we get the dll files.
Since there is already an HoF competition with rules in place, i think it's better to let GOTMs competition free of any rules. For myslef, i will still play under my 'rules'. I may try to search how to play under tommy's approach just for knowledge.
But also, rules can repulse some players and reduce the amount of players in a competition. It's hard to check every moves(and some are impossible) and ensure fairness of play from each players. This add a lot of time for moderators to check these games. On the other side, it can make people joining too.
Like Dave said, there is not much we can do until we get the dll files.
Since there is already an HoF competition with rules in place, i think it's better to let GOTMs competition free of any rules. For myslef, i will still play under my 'rules'. I may try to search how to play under tommy's approach just for knowledge.
There is another aspect to this. Once the .dll file is released, we will be using the same rules as the HoF and this is called the Training Series of Games because we are preparing for the day when we can have real competitions. The problem with "free of rules" is that we are training for what will not happen.
There are also those who may leave because they see that their sense of fair play makes them non-competitive and who may also leave?
We have to rely on the honesty and sense of fair play of the participants as long as there is no automation to assist us in checking games, thus TSG. There generally isn't much satisfaction in winning if you do so against the standards set by the community?
For my its pretty easy - as soon as some1 want tell me which way a game with clear rules (made by devs) have to be played I will stop doing so - and when looking what happened to HoF some month ago, lot others share this opinion.
If some1 want play without war - let him do so
If some1 want play without RAs - let him do so
If some1 want play without trading with AIs - let him so so
Doesnt mean I have to do same
If some1 want play without war - let him do so
If some1 want play without RAs - let him do so
If some1 want play without trading with AIs - let him so so
Doesnt mean I have to do same
