A very serious exploit in this game - must be fixed

[lordsurya08]

I make this trade with Suleiman on turn 305:
SULEIMAN: 6219 gold.
ME: 2100 something gold, 40 gpt for 90 turns (total 3600 gold), 5 luxury resources.

Turn 306:
* Entering Suleiman lands will declare WAR! Are you sure you want to continue? "Yes"
* Gold per turn to Suleiman ended *
* Dyes to Suleiman ended *
* Sugar to Suleiman ended *
* Ivory to Suleiman ended *
* Marble to Suleiman ended *
* Cotton to Suleiman ended *

So if I can do this to the AI, what's to say he can't do the reverse to me?

 

[Rohili]

I must say I use this exploit all the time on richer neighbours. They fall for it every time (they might be less generous the second or third time you try it on them and demand more in return for less, but if you declare war immediately after the trade, it makes no difference). And if they are on another continent, they will never bother attacking you, so there is practically no downside. If you like, you can even use the thousands of gold you got from them to rush-buy lots of units and attack them!

So yes, it is a very serious exploit. I think a good and realistic AI should only let you do this to them one time - and then forever refuse to pay you lump sum gold in return for per-turn offers. Also, your dishonest reputation should spread such that all the other AI will refuse to make such trades with you too.

 

[Rohili]

So if I can do this to the AI, what's to say he can't do the reverse to me?

For one, the AI is too stupid to do it. For two, you actually have a functioning brain and will very soon learn to tell when an AI is trying to cheat you.

 

[BobDole]

I must say I use this exploit all the time on richer neighbours. They fall for it every time (they might be less generous the second or third time you try it on them and demand more in return for less, but if you declare war immediately after the trade, it makes no difference). And if they are on another continent, they will never bother attacking you, so there is practically no downside. If you like, you can even use the thousands of gold you got from them to rush-buy lots of units and attack them!

So yes, it is a very serious exploit. I think a good and realistic AI should only let you do this to them one time - and then forever refuse to pay you lump sum gold in return for per-turn offers. Also, your dishonest reputation should spread such that all the other AI will refuse to make such trades with you too.

Yeah, I don't know if there's a good way to close a loophole like this, so I guess the best way would be to make it like Open Borders in Civ III. You could use Open Borders to sneak attack a civ, but if you did it, it was near impossible to secure Open Borders with anyone you had contact with at the time again, unless you beat the everliving hell out of someone in a war and basically forced them to let you in. In this case, the AI could just be insanely stingy in basically all trades if they heard about it.

 

[atteSmythe]

I was shocked to see civs offering lump-sums of cash for per-turn resource deals. I can't imagine why they didn't keep the Civ IV system of primarily (only?) offering per-turn trades in exchange for other per-turn deals.

 

[Abegweit]

So yes, it is a very serious exploit. I think a good and realistic AI should only let you do this to them one time - and then forever refuse to pay you lump sum gold in return for per-turn offers. Also, your dishonest reputation should spread such that all the other AI will refuse to make such trades with you too.

Like in civ3 , you mean?

 

[Rohili]

Like in civ3 , you mean?

Yeah. Wonder why they didn't implement such a diplomatic system this time. It's like they were so intent on creating a brand new game that they ignored past wisdom totally.

 

[kaltorak]

It's like they were so intent on creating a brand new game that they ignored past wisdom totally.

This is a very good point. Even making new games, use the wisdom you gained. Even from other games.

For example in mmos, if you make a totally new game, but lets say, the chat in your other game was great, don't do a frikin new chat window lacking all the extras you added in patches.

Or a civ example, doing a brand new design, don't remove the frikin info windows like top5 or graphics everybody loved, that has nothing to do with doing a new game design.

 

[jacktannery]

There is another interesting factor: say you trade cotton for 5gp per turn to an AI civ, then your cotton resource gets pillaged. What used to happen (in Civ IV) is that the trade ended, and often-times you were blamed. Her in Civ V, the trade does not seem to end. You continue getting 5gp per turn. When your cotton eventually gets repaired, it goes straight back out as an export until the deal ends.

What this means, is that if you have barbs in your territory, try and steer them away from your farms and pastures and into your plantations/gem mines. When they are about to pillage them, export the resource. Then, take your time in rebuilding them.

 

[Jharii]

When I find bugs like this (read: that open up exploits), I report them and expect them to be fixed. I then do not take advantage of said bug/exploit moving forward.

 

[zimmah]

For one, the AI is too stupid to do it. For two, you actually have a functioning brain and will very soon learn to tell when an AI is trying to cheat you.

would be fun to have AI trying to cheat you with deal occasionally.

 

[kaltorak]

When I find bugs like this (read: that open up exploits), I report them and expect them to be fixed. I then do not take advantage of said bug/exploit moving forward.

I do the same.

But the point is, this could happen in civ4 too, so they implemented something to avoid it. In civ5, it's not that anything is failing, its they "forgot" to implement what they saw in civ4 to be necessary.

Just saying that you should learn from previous games even if you want to create a "new" one.

 

[zimmah]

There is another interesting factor: say you trade cotton for 5gp per turn to an AI civ, then your cotton resource gets pillaged. What used to happen (in Civ IV) is that the trade ended, and often-times you were blamed. Her in Civ V, the trade does not seem to end. You continue getting 5gp per turn. When your cotton eventually gets repaired, it goes straight back out as an export until the deal ends.

What this means, is that if you have barbs in your territory, try and steer them away from your farms and pastures and into your plantations/gem mines. When they are about to pillage them, export the resource. Then, take your time in rebuilding them.

who sais the other person does not recieve your recourse?

maybe you'll be on -1 and they'll still recieve it.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I think I know a good solution to this. 30 Turn(or whatever it is on other speeds) enforced peace treaties should be available. Whenever an exploitable trade (one with a lot of instant gold being given to the player) is offered the AI should refuse to do so without such a treaty as part of the same package.

Problem solved.

 

[Jharii]

I do the same.

But the point is, this could happen in civ4 too, so they implemented something to avoid it. In civ5, it's not that anything is failing, its they "forgot" to implement what they saw in civ4 to be necessary.

Just saying that you should learn from previous games even if you want to create a "new" one.

It's a new game. There are all new mistakes to make and to learn from. Some people forget this.

 

[kaltorak]

It's a new game. There are all new mistakes to make and to learn from. Some people forget this.

No, I think that shouldn't happen. Look for example at wow now. I take it only as an example because how long it has been beeing patched.

In a patch they added 4 years after release, they implemented chat scrolling with mousewheel. Yes, it took them so long.

So now, they release a new mmo, and you think they will not add chat wheelscroll just because it's a new game? Do we have to start with all the functionallity patching again?

No, a new game doesn't mean we forget everything weve learned while programming past games.

 

[onedreamer]

I really can't believe this is back in, and without even the reputation system that was present in Civ3. There must be a catch, isn't there?

 

[zonk]

No, I think that shouldn't happen. Look for example at wow now. I take it only as an example because how long it has been beeing patched.

In a patch they added 4 years after release, they implemented chat scrolling with mousewheel. Yes, it took them so long.

So now, they release a new mmo, and you think they will not add chat wheelscroll just because it's a new game? Do we have to start with all the functionallity patching again?

No, a new game doesn't mean we forget everything weve learned while programming past games.

I think you're spot on -- and it's really the flaw with the whole "V is just vanilla; BTS was a 2nd expansion fully patched!" -- there are a lot of flaws in the V implementation that were readily foreseeable because we've seen them in previous Civ iterations.

This is a big one -- and I think the beaker overflow issue is another.

Going in a new direction is no excuse to re-open old bugs.

 

[AlpsStranger]

This is a big one -- and I think the beaker overflow issue is another.

I still can't fathom the lack of beaker overflow. It may not be the biggest black mark on Civ5, but it remains the most inexcusable and inexplicable.

Going in a new direction is no excuse to re-open old bugs.

That depends on the bug. Some of the stuff is a direct consequence of the new direction, but I must admit you are spot on for some of the other bugs.

 

[Jharii]

No, I think that shouldn't happen. Look for example at wow now. I take it only as an example because how long it has been beeing patched.

In a patch they added 4 years after release, they implemented chat scrolling with mousewheel. Yes, it took them so long.

So now, they release a new mmo, and you think they will not add chat wheelscroll just because it's a new game? Do we have to start with all the functionallity patching again?

No, a new game doesn't mean we forget everything weve learned while programming past games.

No, it doesn't. But I am sure that you have created one version of software and then created a new version of the software and never missed a single thing, correct? I am also sure that you have managed a complex project involving directing many employees and never missed a step, no matter how routine something has become.

*shrug*

People are people. They are fallable. Obviously, to some people, they are not allowed to be. Sheesh, and some people say that the "fanboys" deify the developers.

Oh... Blizzard is not beyond making "mundane" mistakes either.