Banned Exploits - Discussion

Option 1:

The following behaviour is prohibited and will disqualify your game from the HoF:

• Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) for a lump sum of gold and pillaging or allowing Barbarians or other civs to pillage the resource or trade route to break the deal.
• Selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) or Gold per Turn (GPT) for a lump sum of gold and declaring a war that breaks the deal.
• Combining resources (luxury, strategic, etc.) and Gold Per Turn (GPT) on your side of a deal for a lump sum of gold on the other side of the deal unless you ensure that the resources are protected until the deal is finished. If such combined deal is broken from loss of the resource, your game is disqualified.
• Declaring war and recapturing a city that you have sold to your oponent. (You may reconquer cities that you have gifted to your oponent for free.)

Option 2:

The following are not allowed:

Declaring phony war to end per turn deals
If you have an active per turn deal where you received a lump sum from the AI you can only declare war if you capture their capitol or half their cities.

Deliberately allowing resource tiles to be pillaged
You cannot ignore barbarian and/or enemy AI units within range of pillaging a resource currently involved in a trade.

Selling a city and recapturing it
If you received something in exchange for the city you cannot (re)conquer it

Peets said:

Exploits involving trading for Lump Sums of Gold

• You are allowed to sell cities, but you may not recapture any city after selling it.

Things not considered a Lum Sum Gold exploit:

• Gifted cities can be recaptured if you weren't paid for them

Click to expand...

I just noticed a good suggestion to change this to an easier rule:

Exploits involving trading for Lump Sums of Gold

• You are allowed to sell cities, but you may not recapture any city after selling it if you were paid for them.

Peets said:

Exploit involving trading for Lump Sums of Gold
Systematically making and breaking agreements for lump sums of gold with the AIs is not allowed. It is considered an exploit when there is a clear pattern of activity beyond normal play.

...

Exploits involving trading for Lump Sums of Gold

• You may not combine resources (luxury, strategic, etc.) and Gold Per Turn (GPT) on your side of a deal. Or if you do, you must protect your resources until the deal is finished.
  [*]If a resource deal is broken, you may not resell the resource until the original deal would have expired.
  [*]*NEW If you declare war to break a GPT for gold deal, you may not make peace until you capture the enemy capital or at least two cities.
• You are allowed to sell cities, but you may not recapture any city after selling it.

Click to expand...

This is the crux of the confusion for me. Are the things on that list banned exploits, the same way that rebuilding oxford or getting free settler/worker/GA from switching trees are? Or the things on that list permitted as part of 'normal play', and only become a problem when done systematically?

I struggle with the concept of "phony war" and "systematically". One example that could do with some clarity comes to mind.

Many of us will buy an early worker with the proceeds of a gpt loan (e.g., as soon as you hit 200 gold, sell 5 gpt to an AI for 112 gold and buy that first worker). Some number of turns later, you see an opportunity to steal a worker or settler from that same AI. Assuming no shenanigans on the turn you DOW the AI (i.e., no new abusive lump sum trade), is it a "phony war" to DOW the AI (auto-canceling the earlier gpt loan) and steal the worker? Or, might that qualify as a "phony war," but it's OK if you only do it once (i.e., not "systematically")?

I also have a question about what qualifies as a lump sum deal. Even if you want to do a full gpt deal, the numbers don't allow you to have a pure gpt deal, unless you pay a balance of gold to the AI or leave some gold on the table.

For example, "full price" for a luxury on a gpt basis is 20 gold + 7 gpt from the AI (or 8 gpt from the AI and 12 gold from you). 20 gold is, of course, trivial, but is a lump sum element of a predominantly gpt deal. Similarly, individual strategics are (IIRC) 12 gold + 1 gpt. Are those gpt deals (and OK to break with a DOW) or does the trivial lump sum element spoil that? If a predominantly gpt deal with a trivial lump gold element qualifies as a gpt deal, at what point does the lump sum cease to be trivial (e.g., any lump sum above the 20 minimum?). Clarifying what is a "safe harbor" gpt deal would be helpful.

to me there are two things that can be heavily abused that the rules are trying to prevent:
gpt + resource + barb pillaging for massive gold,
gpt + phony war for massive gold.

the barb pillaging exploit is the worst because there are no repercussions.

vexing said:

to me there are two things that can be heavily abused that the rules are trying to prevent:
gpt + resource + barb pillaging for massive gold,
gpt + phony war for massive gold.

the barb pillaging exploit is the worst because there are no repercussions.

Click to expand...

If there even a way to detect if the barb thing happens?

You don't need the below rule, given you have all relevant cases covered by less confusing individual rules titled "examples".

Peets said:

Systematically making and breaking agreements for lump sums of gold with the AIs is not allowed. It is considered an exploit when there is a clear pattern of activity beyond normal play.

Click to expand...

Peets said:

• Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)
• Repeatedly selling Gold per Turn (GPT) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)

Click to expand...

I don't like these rules because they allow you to use what is deemed an exploit as long as you EITHER do not do it repeatedly OR follow it up with a real war. That seems inconsequential. If it is an exploit, why should you be allowed to do it once? Why should you be allowed to do it if you start a real war afterwards?

The way it is, it becomes almost imperative in domination games to "rob" your target before declaring war. It also makes a lot of sense to "rob" a particularly rich player in non-domination games with a phony war, but just once. These rules are an invitation to do something your rules actually seek to prevent.

I would suggest to delete the word "repeatedly" and the phrase "(i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)" from each of the rules.

Alternatively, I would also be happy if you remove these rules altogether. Either way, be consequent about what you want to achieve.

This applies mutatis mutandis to the city-resale rule.

Thirdly, what is the purpose of the Phrase "or otherwise bring about a war"? What other way is there besides declaring war?

Combining my posts above (and assuming war can only be brought about by declaring it), the entire rules on trade exploits could be condensed to the following:

The following behaviour is prohibited and will disqualify your game from the HoF:

• Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) for a lump sum of gold and pillaging or allowing Barbarians or other civs to pillage the resource or trade route to break the deal.
• Selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) or Gold per Turn (GPT) for a lump sum of gold and declaring a war that breaks the deal.
• Combining resources (luxury, strategic, etc.) and Gold Per Turn (GPT) on your side of a deal for a lump sum of gold on the other side of the deal unless you ensure that the resources are protected until the deal is finished. If such combined deal is broken from loss of the resource, your game is disqualified.
• Declaring war and recapturing a city that you have sold to your oponent. (You may reconquer cities that you have gifted to your oponent for free.)

Happy to discuss if anyone thinks I unintentionally removed important parts from the original rules version.

Here comes my interpretations and thoughts:

Peets said:

Hey all,


Exploit involving trading for Lump Sums of Gold
Systematically making and breaking agreements for lump sums of gold with the AIs is not allowed. It is considered an exploit when there is a clear pattern of activity beyond normal play.

Click to expand...

Right here I think is one of the biggest problem areas. What is systematic and a clear pattern? Doing it twice in quick succession? Twice over the course of the game? Four times over a moderate amount of time? Doing it at the beginning of every submission?

To a lot of people each of those would classify both as systematic and not. I think it needs something concrete, so I would suggest a very straight forward approach.

It becomes an exploit if it is done more than once in all circumstances

There is no ambiguity, no reading into, and allowing it once covers accidents.

Examples of tactics used:

• Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and pillaging or allowing Barbarians or other civs to pillage the resource or trade route to break the deal.
• Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)
• Repeatedly selling Gold per Turn (GPT) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)
• Repeatedly selling Cities and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war so you can take them back. (i.e. low risk, low cost war just retrieve the cities for resale to another civ.)

Click to expand...

Point 1 I think needs a slight revision: Deliberately allowing pillage is forbidden. I don't think it would be fair to punish someone because a different AI declares, a horseman rushes in and pillages.

Points 2 and 3 could be condensed as simply: Declaring war to end a per turn deal (except open borders) is not allowed. If war is declared the AI capitol or half the AI cities must be captured.

Throughout this list I highly recommend getting rid of the word "repeatedly". One person repeatedly is different from the next. What is the time span allowed to not be doing it "repeatedly"?

The first 3 items could then fall under the not more than once rule I stated.

Things not considered when looking for a pattern related to the Lum Sum Gold exploit:

• Trades for Gold per Turn (GPT) is not considered an exploit under this rule.
• Trades active at the end of the game are not considered broken.

Click to expand...

This either needs expansion to include trades of majority GPT (and lump sum for the fraction of a GPT as stated earlier in the thread) or a clear "Trades for strictGold per Turn" change.

Exploits involving trading for Lump Sums of Gold

• You may not combine resources (luxury, strategic, etc.) and Gold Per Turn (GPT) on your side of a deal. Or if you do, you must protect your resources until the deal is finished.
  [*]If a resource deal is broken, you may not resell the resource until the original deal would have expired.

Click to expand...

• After rereading the base thread this section is implied to not actually be a rule but a certain interpretation of how to handle the rules. Personally I think it is quite tedious to say you have to protect or not make the deals. There are a number of scenarios where this seems very clunky and unreasonable. It is also just derivitive of the pillaging rule above. As for the red section, this may be just me, that seems to add a level of tedium that would push me away.
  

  [*]*NEW If you declare war to break a GPT for gold deal, you may not make peace until you capture the enemy capital or at least two cities.

  Click to expand...

  Why the change to capitol or 2 cities?
  

  [*]You are allowed to sell cities, but you may not recapture any city after selling it.

  Click to expand...

Things not considered a Lum Sum Gold exploit:

• Strict resource for GPT deals can be broken and remade any time.
• Gifted cities can be recaptured if you weren't paid for them
  [*]*NEW If the AI declares war on you, it is not considered under any rules.

Click to expand...

This last portion seems fine. I will try and later repropose my changes in a less rambling fashion.

Wow lots of response, nice!

sanabas said:

This is the crux of the confusion for me. Are the things on that list banned exploits, the same way that rebuilding oxford or getting free settler/worker/GA from switching trees are? Or the things on that list permitted as part of 'normal play', and only become a problem when done systematically?

Click to expand...

At this moment it becomes a problem when doing systematically.

Browd said:

I struggle with the concept of "phony war" and "systematically". One example that could do with some clarity comes to mind.

Many of us will buy an early worker with the proceeds of a gpt loan (e.g., as soon as you hit 200 gold, sell 5 gpt to an AI for 112 gold and buy that first worker). Some number of turns later, you see an opportunity to steal a worker or settler from that same AI. Assuming no shenanigans on the turn you DOW the AI (i.e., no new abusive lump sum trade), is it a "phony war" to DOW the AI (auto-canceling the earlier gpt loan) and steal the worker? Or, might that qualify as a "phony war," but it's OK if you only do it once (i.e., not "systematically")?

Click to expand...

At this moment it is ok to do it once.

Browd said:

I also have a question about what qualifies as a lump sum deal. Even if you want to do a full gpt deal, the numbers don't allow you to have a pure gpt deal, unless you pay a balance of gold to the AI or leave some gold on the table.

For example, "full price" for a luxury on a gpt basis is 20 gold + 7 gpt from the AI (or 8 gpt from the AI and 12 gold from you). 20 gold is, of course, trivial, but is a lump sum element of a predominantly gpt deal. Similarly, individual strategics are (IIRC) 12 gold + 1 gpt. Are those gpt deals (and OK to break with a DOW) or does the trivial lump sum element spoil that? If a predominantly gpt deal with a trivial lump gold element qualifies as a gpt deal, at what point does the lump sum cease to be trivial (e.g., any lump sum above the 20 minimum?). Clarifying what is a "safe harbor" gpt deal would be helpful.

Click to expand...

It would be easier to just say gpt is gpt and when there is a lump sum in it then it would classify as a lump sum trade.

Xger said:

If there even a way to detect if the barb thing happens?

Click to expand...

yes, it is possible.

Salomo said:

You don't need the below rule, given you have all relevant cases covered by less confusing individual rules titled "examples".

Click to expand...

What you mean with this?

Salomo said:

I don't like these rules because they allow you to use what is deemed an exploit as long as you EITHER do not do it repeatedly OR follow it up with a real war. That seems inconsequential. If it is an exploit, why should you be allowed to do it once? Why should you be allowed to do it if you start a real war afterwards?

The way it is, it becomes almost imperative in domination games to "rob" your target before declaring war. It also makes a lot of sense to "rob" a particularly rich player in non-domination games with a phony war, but just once. These rules are an invitation to do something your rules actually seek to prevent.

I would suggest to delete the word "repeatedly" and the phrase "(i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)" from each of the rules.

Alternatively, I would also be happy if you remove these rules altogether. Either way, be consequent about what you want to achieve.

This applies mutatis mutandis to the city-resale rule.

Click to expand...

This would remove the ability for the player to backstab the AI.
That is if I remember correctly the reason why systematically is used.

Salomo said:

Thirdly, what is the purpose of the Phrase "or otherwise bring about a war"? What other way is there besides declaring war?

Click to expand...

I also have no idea

Xger said:

Here comes my interpretations and thoughts:
Right here I think is one of the biggest problem areas. What is systematic and a clear pattern? Doing it twice in quick succession? Twice over the course of the game? Four times over a moderate amount of time? Doing it at the beginning of every submission?

To a lot of people each of those would classify both as systematic and not. I think it needs something concrete, so I would suggest a very straight forward approach.

It becomes an exploit if it is done more than once in all circumstances

There is no ambiguity, no reading into, and allowing it once covers accidents.

Click to expand...

That sounds good for me, what do others think about this?

Xger said:

Point 1 I think needs a slight revision: Deliberately allowing pillage is forbidden. I don't think it would be fair to punish someone because a different AI declares, a horseman rushes in and pillages.

Click to expand...

That is what it should mean, deliberately. Perhaps not phrased well?

Xger said:

Points 2 and 3 could be condensed as simply: Declaring war to end a per turn deal (except open borders) is not allowed. If war is declared the AI capitol or half the AI cities must be captured.

Throughout this list I highly recommend getting rid of the word "repeatedly". One person repeatedly is different from the next. What is the time span allowed to not be doing it "repeatedly"?

The first 3 items could then fall under the not more than once rule I stated.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Xger said:

This either needs expansion to include trades of majority GPT (and lump sum for the fraction of a GPT as stated earlier in the thread) or a clear "Trades for strictGold per Turn" change.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the word strict might be a good addition to make sure everyone understands what it means.

Xger said:

Why the change to capitol or 2 cities?

Click to expand...

It gives enough diplomatic penalties?
Some people find it too strict that is why I suggest to change it. Unless I am mistaken and most of you prefer it capitol or half their cities

Peets said:

What you mean with this?

Click to expand...

You currently have one very abstract "rule" and lots of "examples" to make it more specific. If you just take the "examples" as rules, you don't need the abstract "rule" anymore.

By getting rid of the abstract rule you also get rid of the dicussion whether the examples are adequately in line with the abstract rule, or whether "systematic" and "pattern" need to be consdered when interpreting the example. By removing the abstract rule you do away with one level of interpretation, greatly simplifying things.

Peets said:

This would remove the ability for the player to backstab the AI.
That is if I remember correctly the reason why systematically is used.

Click to expand...

No, it would only remove their ability to rob the AI while backstabbing it.

If you want to insist on allowing players to rob the AI when backstabbing it, keep the "phony wars" phrase, but remove the "repeatedly". I would, however, strongly recommend not to do so for two reasons:

1) If you allow players to rob the AI when backstabbing it, everyone aiming for a good result will need to do so. Any tactic so important that it becomes mandatory, reduces the tactical variety in the game and adds pesky routines.

2) Your rules can be more simple and clear when you do not need to draw a line between "phony wars" and real wars.

Peets said:

That sounds good for me, what do others think about this?

Click to expand...

Still too complicated. What do you need all those abstract rules with explanations on what they shall mean when you can instead just say it clear, precise and simple?

Peets said:

That is what it should mean, deliberately. Perhaps not phrased well?

Click to expand...

phrased well enough imo.

Peets said:

Yeah, the word strict might be a good addition to make sure everyone understands what it means.

Click to expand...

I think it is sufficiently clear without a "strict" in there. Anyone who tries to outsmart the rules by doing a part gpt / part lump sum deal will do so only once assuming the submitted games are checked for rules violations.

As a general note, having less words often makes rules simpler and easier to understand than having more words.

Peets said:

It gives enough diplomatic penalties?
Some people find it too strict that is why I suggest to change it. Unless I am mistaken and most of you prefer it capitol or half their cities

Click to expand...

This problem is caused by an exception you don't need. Do away with having to distinguish phony wars from real wars and you do away with this problem.

Peets said:

That is what it should mean, deliberately. Perhaps not phrased well?

Click to expand...

As it is currently phrased, if I lose a lux to a barb several times even if I am trying to defend it, it would be an exploit. I don't think that someone attempting to defend should be punished, nor do I believe that to be the intent of the rule.

It gives enough diplomatic penalties?
Some people find it too strict that is why I suggest to change it. Unless I am mistaken and most of you prefer it capitol or half their cities

Click to expand...

That one doesn't phase me much I was just curious. I generally either take the capitol or every city but the capitol to cripple the AI so the rule doesn't do much to me. The only concern is the cases of a civ with 2-3 cities. With two, it's capitol or bust, with 3 it might be a decent city and a rather bad one.

Xger said:

As it is currently phrased, if I lose a lux to a barb several times even if I am trying to defend it, it would be an exploit. I don't think that someone attempting to defend should be punished, nor do I believe that to be the intent of the rule.

Click to expand...

The current rule is: "Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and pillaging or allowing Barbarians or other civs to pillage the resource or trade route to break the deal."

Attempting to defend is quite the opposite of "allowing".

Salomo said:

The current rule is: "Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and pillaging or allowing Barbarians or other civs to pillage the resource or trade route to break the deal."

Attempting to defend is quite the opposite of "allowing".

Click to expand...

So what about if you don't know a camp popped and don't have any military around early on? And if that happens a few times?

I have always read the rule to mean a very deliberate action of ignoring it. "Allowing" it to be pillage could be stretched by some to include not having military around at all times to put up an instant defense, hence I wanted the added clarity.

Here's my attempt at a new rules post (I would also think this could just be "rules" as opposed to "banned exploits" since people often argue some of isn't an "exploit"):

Salomo said:

Combining my posts above (and assuming war can only be brought about by declaring it), the entire rules on trade exploits could be condensed to the following:

The following behaviour is prohibited and will disqualify your game from the HoF:

• Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) for a lump sum of gold and pillaging or allowing Barbarians or other civs to pillage the resource or trade route to break the deal.
• Selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) or Gold per Turn (GPT) for a lump sum of gold and declaring a war that breaks the deal.
• Combining resources (luxury, strategic, etc.) and Gold Per Turn (GPT) on your side of a deal for a lump sum of gold on the other side of the deal unless you ensure that the resources are protected until the deal is finished. If such combined deal is broken from loss of the resource, your game is disqualified.
• Declaring war and recapturing a city that you have sold to your oponent. (You may reconquer cities that you have gifted to your oponent for free.)

Happy to discuss if anyone thinks I unintentionally removed important parts from the original rules version.

Click to expand...

This would be awesome.

It's also very different to the current rules, and would make a few current #1 times unbeatable. Which doesn't bother me, but will likely bother some.