Banned Exploits - Discussion
- Thread starter Peets
- Start date
The whole point of DoW with lump gold involved as an exploit is that you break the deal and there is a difference between what you get and what the ai gets. I've said it before, in another thread, and i"ll suggest it here as well:
If you DoW and break a deal involving lump sum gold, you have to either return the full amount of the lump sum to the AI OR calculate the total of which you would now owe the AI based on simple mathematics. Turns completed divided by length of deal, multiply that by the lump sum that's involved and *voila* you now have the exact difference in gold that you need to pay the AI, prior to DoW.
Some people don't want to do math? Then that's why I say give them the option of returning the lump sum in full. Is that something that can be exploited in and of itself? No, because you don't actually gain anything extra from the broken deal. At MOST you would basically create an advanced loan from the AI, and when you pay it back prior to DoW, you are square.
If you DoW and break a deal involving lump sum gold, you have to either return the full amount of the lump sum to the AI OR calculate the total of which you would now owe the AI based on simple mathematics. Turns completed divided by length of deal, multiply that by the lump sum that's involved and *voila* you now have the exact difference in gold that you need to pay the AI, prior to DoW.
Some people don't want to do math? Then that's why I say give them the option of returning the lump sum in full. Is that something that can be exploited in and of itself? No, because you don't actually gain anything extra from the broken deal. At MOST you would basically create an advanced loan from the AI, and when you pay it back prior to DoW, you are square.
Can you update the OP, or just post the proposed new version in full on this page please?
BobiB420 said:
I think that there are two potential problems with this. First is whether it's possible to check that you did pay the money. The second is how to remember exactly how big the lump sum you received is. I can't remember whether the deal history page ingame shows the entire deal, or only the per-turn parts. I'm fairly certain it doesn't show trades that don't involve a per-turn component, like gifts of gold, or selling a city for a lump sum.
I'll do that tonight or tomorrow, I have to go to work now
Yes, you can see all the deals in the diplomatic overview.
How do they check the games in the first place then? If you can't tell that someone freely gave the money, how can you check other things like if barbs were pillaging, etc.?
I've been curious for a while now how they can check an entire game off of 4 files.. Any insight, Staff?
Also, like I said in another thread, it would be good practice to avoid those kind of deals in the first place, but for some players, like myself, who are not l33t super-Civ-Masters, squeezing every last drop out of a deal is vital, and we don't always have the foresight to see a necessary DoW coming at us in the future.
Maybe I just suck at Civ, maybe all my emperor wins mean jack-squat, but for me, and maybe others out there, making and breaking deals is a part of surviving, and ultimately winning, a tough round of Civ. Do I intentionally DoW "just to break the deal," no, never. I see that for the cheating it is.
I've been curious for a while now how they can check an entire game off of 4 files.. Any insight, Staff?
Also, like I said in another thread, it would be good practice to avoid those kind of deals in the first place, but for some players, like myself, who are not l33t super-Civ-Masters, squeezing every last drop out of a deal is vital, and we don't always have the foresight to see a necessary DoW coming at us in the future.
Maybe I just suck at Civ, maybe all my emperor wins mean jack-squat, but for me, and maybe others out there, making and breaking deals is a part of surviving, and ultimately winning, a tough round of Civ. Do I intentionally DoW "just to break the deal," no, never. I see that for the cheating it is.
Same way you get a notification saying the deal has ended, that'll appear in the game log/history/replay/etc. If the deal ends early without a war, that must be down to pillaging.
Based on what you've said, I think you're being a bit enthusiastic about what makes a declaration necessary. Like a settler going past, or a couple of missionaries turning up. You've always got the option of not declaring war over things like that.
Agree. Just because AI behavior may be infuriating, doesn't mean you have to indulge your fury.
it would be nice if with BNW they make it possible to capture missionaries without having to declare war but instead placing a big diplo hit on you.
and one way to fix the barbarian exploit (and im sure its been mentioned somewhere) is that all HoF games have barbs disabled. yes you lose the CS quests and unit promos (and Honor opener benefit) but you for sure remove the lux exploit. and you also gain the ability to send out a settler/worker without an escort, most of the time anyway.
(sorry if any of this has been mentioned already. i only skimmed most of this thread after coming to this from another thread.)
and one way to fix the barbarian exploit (and im sure its been mentioned somewhere) is that all HoF games have barbs disabled. yes you lose the CS quests and unit promos (and Honor opener benefit) but you for sure remove the lux exploit. and you also gain the ability to send out a settler/worker without an escort, most of the time anyway.
(sorry if any of this has been mentioned already. i only skimmed most of this thread after coming to this from another thread.)
Not really, no. Luxuries can be disconnected by starting a fortress on the tile.
yeah, i forgot about that but is that something HoFers still try to get away with? the barbs thing is something that can unintentionally happen more than once and nullify a submission.
I don't know.
To be honest, I don't like the idea that you can use the exploit one time but not more. The exploit should either be allowed or not allowed. Allowing it one time provides the greatest benefit as the amount of gold you can receive in a trade for a resource and/or GPT becomes less relevant later in the game. Being able to buy that extra settler on turn 20 (or earlier) by stealing the bonus gold that the Emperor+ level AI is supposed to get as a handicap is the most abusive use of this exploit. It is game changing to get the extra expansion (or perhaps a couple of extra military units to capture an AI capital) for free very early in the game. Getting the same amount of gold on turn 100 does not create the same level of benefit.
I've stated this before but I will say it again. The entire reason this discussion has come up is the belief that the rules as they are push people away from playing. This proposed rule adds a level of bookkeeping and tedium that I believe would only further push people away.
It may remove some confusion but it adds annoyance and tedium.
I changed mine to a completely disallowed viewpoint mainly because of what was stated here. The post I proposed included it that way.
IDK, I guess I am just peeing in the wind here after all 
I would think that if someone were to go through all the trouble of rerolling for a legendary start, a little "bookkeeping" would be a trivial thing to do, in comparison. I'm not a physicist or an engineer, I'm by no means an expert in math, got up to statistics in college, but the math im talking about is really simple, it's division and multiplication, something I learned in the 6th grade, and im sure kids now a days learn it earlier than that.
My reasoning behind wanting this? Well, maybe I am a little gung-ho about DoW on the AI, but I can't play a "perfect" game. I can't afford to have a soldier on every front or have my coasts lined with workers/scouts to prevent any and all settler/missionaries from entering my lands. Sorry for not being that good of a player, that the AI makes me feel uncomfortable when a see a settler or city of theirs pop up damn close to me.
Besides, that extra tedium is only there if you want it. Nothing is forcing you to take a lump sum deal but your own feelings on the situation and personal strategy. I take the deal because, like i've said before, I need to squeeze every last drop out of a deal to make it worthwhile. Do I have to? No, but that's why I'm willing to do some minor "bookkeeping." I just dont see how hard it is to admit that paying back the AI prior to DoW is fair. How is it NOT fair?
Say DoW with lump sum is illegal, great! Just add an extra line "If you do DoW, you MUST pay back the AI prior to DoW."
I would think that if someone were to go through all the trouble of rerolling for a legendary start, a little "bookkeeping" would be a trivial thing to do, in comparison. I'm not a physicist or an engineer, I'm by no means an expert in math, got up to statistics in college, but the math im talking about is really simple, it's division and multiplication, something I learned in the 6th grade, and im sure kids now a days learn it earlier than that.
My reasoning behind wanting this? Well, maybe I am a little gung-ho about DoW on the AI, but I can't play a "perfect" game. I can't afford to have a soldier on every front or have my coasts lined with workers/scouts to prevent any and all settler/missionaries from entering my lands. Sorry for not being that good of a player, that the AI makes me feel uncomfortable when a see a settler or city of theirs pop up damn close to me.
Besides, that extra tedium is only there if you want it. Nothing is forcing you to take a lump sum deal but your own feelings on the situation and personal strategy. I take the deal because, like i've said before, I need to squeeze every last drop out of a deal to make it worthwhile. Do I have to? No, but that's why I'm willing to do some minor "bookkeeping." I just dont see how hard it is to admit that paying back the AI prior to DoW is fair. How is it NOT fair?
Say DoW with lump sum is illegal, great! Just add an extra line "If you do DoW, you MUST pay back the AI prior to DoW."
I see your point and agree that there is an element in the rule that is quite open to interpretation.
It would be good to find a way to fix this. Adding the word "deliberately" does not seem like a particularly effective solution though.
Ideally we should get away from having an element of intent, as that is very difficult to prove and detect. I'm too tired to come up with a good solution right now, though.
Well, perhaps a quick and dirty way would be to take screenies when you see that's going to happen, but I suppose that could be argued both ways rather easily, cause although you may have a picture, that doesnt explain how the picture came to be, ie just because you have a screenie with barbs in it, doesnt mean they showed up without you knowing it, without your "allowing" of that situation to come about. Then again, if your screenie shows barbs and in your screenie no camps are visible in the fog of war, that could sorta count i guess.
Not the best suggestion, by far, but it's a step in a direction, dunno if that's the right direction, but it's definately a step lol
No one is saying that those measures are what you should take nor that those are what the "best" players do. Simply saying that everything the AI does doesn't necessitate a war. There are two primary ways to prevent missionary/prophet conversion:IDK, I guess I am just peeing in the wind here after all
I would think that if someone were to go through all the trouble of rerolling for a legendary start, a little "bookkeeping" would be a trivial thing to do, in comparison. I'm not a physicist or an engineer, I'm by no means an expert in math, got up to statistics in college, but the math im talking about is really simple, it's division and multiplication, something I learned in the 6th grade, and im sure kids now a days learn it earlier than that.
My reasoning behind wanting this? Well, maybe I am a little gung-ho about DoW on the AI, but I can't play a "perfect" game. I can't afford to have a soldier on every front or have my coasts lined with workers/scouts to prevent any and all settler/missionaries from entering my lands. Sorry for not being that good of a player, that the AI makes me feel uncomfortable when a see a settler or city of theirs pop up damn close to me.
1. Leave an inquisitor in the city. With it there you cannot have religion forcibly spread.
2. Missionaries/prophets cannot pass through any unit not owned by the same civ. You can place 6 units around the city (or 2-4 with moving them each turn).
I have never claimed that your proposed method was fair or unfair. I am simply saying that this change is in my opinion counterproductive to the point of the discussion which is to lower the barrier of entry. Fairness is not what is being discussed (at least as far as I can tell).
We have two option, since no new options were given shall we make a vote thread to see which one we would prefer?
I have updated the original thread.
Option 1:
The following behaviour is prohibited and will disqualify your game from the HoF:
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
I have updated the original thread.
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
So in my game, it's very early and barely have 3 units out, trying to fight off barbs, and they pillage a lux involved in a trade with lump gold. this is diety, i need every penny and did not intend to break the deal.
Is my game going to be excluded for this? Let me know if I should just quit playing and start a new one, i'd hate to actually win a diety game just to have it be denied.
Is my game going to be excluded for this? Let me know if I should just quit playing and start a new one, i'd hate to actually win a diety game just to have it be denied.
