GOTW hacked

[sigmakan]

I think Alexandru nicely laid out why it's not possible and he's yet to be refuted.

To be blunt, its cause he is wrong and not thinking of all the options and tactics that can be employed.

 

[shadowplay]

okie dokie.

So when this gotw becomes old, will the strategy be revealed? I take Elizabeth's word for it, but I'm still incredulous.

 

[drgoats]

hey guys,

just to let you know, grumbles and spencer (the aussies of whom you speak) aren't hacking the game. they have a very specific strategy, but i've tried it out, and it works. it's just really fast!

so rest assured, GOTW is still okay. just competitive.

Okay. Thank you for testing it out for us. If 2000bc domination victories are possible, maybe there should be different leader boards for each victory type. Those civers who like to win by technology will never get a chance to see their names on the leader board. But, that is for another topic.

 

[sigmakan]

If 2000bc domination victories are possible, maybe there should be different leader boards for each victory type. Those civers who like to win by technology will never get a chance to see their names on the leader board. But, that is for another topic.

I can agree with you there.

 

[2K Elizabeth]

okie dokie.

So when this gotw becomes old, will the strategy be revealed? I take Elizabeth's word for it, but I'm still incredulous.

it's their strat to reveal. i only listen so i can tell the dev team. must keep their trust!

 

[civoholic]

this is just all word of mouth, and has not been proven yet, either way.

IF, you people are right, then GOTW is broken and unintresting because people have no lives and play it endlessly until they have the perfect stradegy.

i think you should only play GOTW one time, so there's more challenge in the game

 

[enchanter100]

I also thought of the GOTW being playable only once. I think that's a good idea.

 

[christian_g]

I play on the PS3 as "cristig" and I was 3rd last week with a "normal" game. After my initial reaction - "not possible!", I tried some things and I saw it is possible. Unfortunately the PS3 version have some bugs with the leaderboards and my other results were not saved, but I applied the learnings also this week and it works.

How it is possible:
- use micromanagement to work only the forest from the start and have a warrior in 3 turns
- work then only the water regions and develop horseback riding in 5 turns
- in the mean time conquer the barbarian village on the left (it's only one barbarian unit on turn 5) and you most probably will get a galley;
- put the warrior on the galley and got to Berlin; you will find Berlin empty so you will get your first capital;
- the ranger militia can be used on the way to get some money; buy the first horseman;
- after this start use the barbarian villages to promote the horseman units coming from the two cities and to get money to buy other horseman asap
- you need to be quick with the english, as their capital is on a hill an the archers can be a problem;

I did not get to 2500 BC but I think now that this is possible if you have enough time to perfect your plan.

The only problem with this approach is that GOTW is more like the challenges in Portal, not like you will play real Civ.

 

[sigmakan]

The only problem with this approach is that GOTW is more like the challenges in Portal, not like you will play real Civ.

EXACTLY! I love the challenges in Portal

 

[Hodory]

I am one of those people who initially thought that there were cheating going on in GOTW, but now I firmly believe that all those times posted are totally legit. You can't just think in the limited terms of "5 turns to get warrior, they move 1 tile per turn." There are more things you can do to speed up the process. It takes a lot of creative thinking and some luck to come up with the posted times.

I tried it out myself to see what the fuss was all about, and after doing it myself and seeing it with my own eyes, I firmly believe that there is no cheating. Even 2K has tested and verified this as well.

My time wasn't like super crazy 2000 BC ones, but at least I got one in King before I hit the A.D.

 

[2K Elizabeth]

this is just all word of mouth, and has not been proven yet, either way.

IF, you people are right, then GOTW is broken and unintresting because people have no lives and play it endlessly until they have the perfect stradegy.

i think you should only play GOTW one time, so there's more challenge in the game

that's an interesting idea, the 1 time thing, but we knew some would play the game of the week over and over to perfect the very best strategy for it.

i can tell you that i'll probably never dream up one myself, i usually play it a couple times and move on to other things (so much to do!)

 

[Random Fires]

Civ has been around for along time, it's longtime players have been adapting and perfecting strats with each new version. There's a reason these guys (like grumbles and spencer) are top of the leaderboard.
Now I'm fairly new to the community, but having read posts for the last three months, "before" the console was blessed with this newest version, cheating ain't their style. You don't really need a 2K rep to confirm, but hey, one has.
I'll confess, seeing the leaderboard, I was mighty skeptical, and over the last three days have spent a great deal of time trying to learn, "how was it done" I only know what you cann't do, you cann't use a previous map to up stats to a new map, you cann't lag, or glitch your way up there, and there's no exploit.
I can say through playing this week's board over and over;
I reach Horse tech at 3800BC,
First horse pops out at 3500, Second at 3200BC,
I'm at China door's at 3000BC.
A far cry from dominating at 2800Bc, but hey, I'm doing better at the game now then prior. And I'll keep trying for a bit yet before giving up.
One thing I have learned, Micro management is very much alive in Civ Rev, it's just not as important as in previous versions.(I don't miss making citizens happy!)
GOTW gives us all a common board to play and disscuss, it's for honing skills, gives a gauge on where others are at, and will most likely improve domination skills.I
t needs no improvement other then DRGOAT's mentioned "have a leader board for each victory type", which I think is a great idea.
Keep posting those insane scores boys, I've learned a lot trying to get there!]

 

[slugster]

Hmm .. wouldnt a 'have a leader board for each victory type' just result in games where the people who perfected the domination route, would just copy that to the other victory types and stop prior to conquering the last city? That would leave you with the complete map, 6-7 cities and minimal AI comptetion, by the year 2X00 BC. I cant imagine a better start for ANY victory type.

So, what I'm saying is that it unfortunately wont solve anything. It will be dominated by the same players for the same reasons. They just have to play some more games.

All this is just theory. And I might be totally wrong. In any case I think when you just view Game of the Week as Puzzle of the Week, then it is actually quite fascinating (I'm at 2400BC on Chieftain still trying to better it). It's just not Civ as we know it.

 

[Random Fires]

Good Point.

 

[drgoats]

Hmm .. wouldnt a 'have a leader board for each victory type' just result in games where the people who perfected the domination route, would just copy that to the other victory types and stop prior to conquering the last city? That would leave you with the complete map, 6-7 cities and minimal AI comptetion, by the year 2X00 BC. I cant imagine a better start for ANY victory type.

So, what I'm saying is that it unfortunately wont solve anything. It will be dominated by the same players for the same reasons. They just have to play some more games.

All this is just theory. And I might be totally wrong. In any case I think when you just view Game of the Week as Puzzle of the Week, then it is actually quite fascinating (I'm at 2400BC on Chieftain still trying to better it). It's just not Civ as we know it.

Excellent points. I agree with how it is more like a puzzle of the week rather than a normal game of civ, but I would like to see my scores compared to other players scores when the game is played like normal civ.

I think if we add some rules we may be able to accomplish this. Some ideas:

- a peace treaty till a certain year
- a mode where you cannot declare war (I'm not a fan of this idea being that it will stop people who want a normal domination victory)
- you can only take out one civ before AD

When you load up your game of the week you can choose either to play it with no rules (for the quick domination puzzle people), or with the rules (for people trying to get other victories or a long domination victory). You then have two different leader boards for both styles.

These are just ideas I came up with in a few seconds, so please take it easy on me.

 

[drgoats]

I just wanted to add that their strat is definitely legitimate. I just got a 26 or 2700BC victory on chieftan. I would have been faster if it wasn't for some unlucky combat.

 

[christian_g]

Hmm .. wouldnt a 'have a leader board for each victory type' just result in games where the people who perfected the domination route, would just copy that to the other victory types and stop prior to conquering the last city? That would leave you with the complete map, 6-7 cities and minimal AI comptetion, by the year 2X00 BC. I cant imagine a better start for ANY victory type.

So, what I'm saying is that it unfortunately wont solve anything. It will be dominated by the same players for the same reasons. They just have to play some more games.

All this is just theory. And I might be totally wrong. In any case I think when you just view Game of the Week as Puzzle of the Week, then it is actually quite fascinating (I'm at 2400BC on Chieftain still trying to better it). It's just not Civ as we know it.

It's not the usual civ, but a puzzle that will help you to learn. You can try the same approach in real games, but you must be careful with risks: other players may be trying the same thing as you .

What I like about civrev is that we are back to simple rules and more fun. I hope that the things will stay simple and we will not follow the same path to complexity. Even if there are some strategies that can help you in some games, I am sure that it's not so simple for everyone to understand and follow them.

My hope is that 2K will work on improving the maps for GOTW (as they learned how the maps until now can be won in under 30 turns on deity) and they will not start complicating the rules.

 

[InFeRnOgTiTaN]

I don't own this yet (see my other thread - Should I buy this if I'm a Civ 4 veteran?) but I certainly don't like the sound of people winning in 15 turns.

I personally like Civilization for, you know, building up your civilization and taking down others. Obviously sometimes barbarians or opposition pressure you early on and yes they might beat you, but if this becomes a consistent thing (i.e., Player A does strategy X every time) I would be pretty annoyed (like a previous post said, no technology victories on leaderboards, etc.). I think Civ is at its best when you can choose and adapt your strategies to win and when you can really explore the freedom you have to achieve victory.

I would be especially annoyed if this "super-fast" victory strategy was unavoidable - if it's nearly impossible to protect against this strategy (as it may be), I would assume the only way to protect against it is to do the same strategy. Thus, a game full of freedom becomes a battle of one strategy.

 

[Killer Moogle]

Hmm .. wouldnt a 'have a leader board for each victory type' just result in games where the people who perfected the domination route, would just copy that to the other victory types and stop prior to conquering the last city? That would leave you with the complete map, 6-7 cities and minimal AI comptetion, by the year 2X00 BC. I cant imagine a better start for ANY victory type.

So, what I'm saying is that it unfortunately wont solve anything. It will be dominated by the same players for the same reasons. They just have to play some more games.

All this is just theory. And I might be totally wrong. In any case I think when you just view Game of the Week as Puzzle of the Week, then it is actually quite fascinating (I'm at 2400BC on Chieftain still trying to better it). It's just not Civ as we know it.

You make a really great point. I think it is definitely more "Puzzle of the Week" for people to try and crack it ASAP. I don't think the mode takes away anything from the rest of the game, and certainly helps people come up with different strategies (as other posters have said). There are many different games modes...GOTW is just one of them.

 

[Masquerouge]

for GOTW to become interesting to me, it will have, as other pointed out, to have separate leaderboards per victory condition.
As it stands today, domination is the only way to top the rankings.