Banned Exploits - Discussion

[BobiB420]

i resold it to the same AI, minus more lump gold, at same gpt as before pillage, unfortunately, a few turns later the AI who I sold it to DoW's me

Then convinces all the other AI's who we met to DoW as well, gotta love that cascading evil AI effect. What's that? i'm a warmonger for DoW'ing once? What about all those innocent CS you conquered, Atilla? What about those two civilization's you destroyed, France? Don't you get a diplo hit for that? No? Wow, thanks game.

 

[Denniz]

A third option would be: "No trading for a lump sum of gold. Ever."

 

[The Pilgrim]

A third option would be: "No trading for a lump sum of gold. Ever."

Yes please.

 

[Mesix]

If the mechanic doesn't improve, I would favor this rule for BNW when HOF eventually supports it. I wouldn't support changing it for Vanilla/G&K because that would just seal the current table leaders in cement as new entries would not be able to compete under most circumstances.

 

[kirbdog]

Is that kind of info really in the save files? Lump sum received turn 23?

I like the idea of a mod to enforce things, in theory, but it'd reduce participation even more.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Is that kind of info really in the save files? Lump sum received turn 23?

In deals history.

I like the idea of a mod to enforce things, in theory, but it'd reduce participation even more.

Didn't reduce in Civ4. In theory, if anything it should only increase the number of participants, since allegedly many are not eager to take part in HoF atm due to unclear rules.

 

[TractorBoy]

If the mechanic doesn't improve, I would favor this rule for BNW when HOF eventually supports it. I wouldn't support changing it for Vanilla/G&K because that would just seal the current table leaders in cement as new entries would not be able to compete under most circumstances.

VANILLA and my experience.
Every patch that was introduced made things tougher for the players.

Examples;

1 - Research Agreements changed drastically.
2 - Diplomatic victories adjusted to take a lot longer.
3 - The courthouse bug was finally fixed.

There are hundreds of smaller adjustments, the combination of which made some of the early entries untouchable. If for instance petra was down graded, all those early entries submitted by the best players will become untouchable anyway. Bearing this in mind, I don't think a change in the rules is going to make a great deal of difference to the natural course of events!!

I would welcome the change. Like The Pilgrim has stated, this is the sort of clarity of rule definition that is needed, and could be good for the HOF.

 

[Max M.]

Well, "No lump sum ever" will dramatically increase rerolls for El Dorado and gold ruins...
(Find the one and you have your second city, do not and you sit and wait till... mmm.. 500/5gpt -> turn 100? Seriously, are you ready?)

 

[The Pilgrim]

Well, "No lump sum ever" will dramatically increase rerolls for El Dorado and gold ruins...
(Find the one and you have your second city, do not and you sit and wait till... mmm.. 500/5gpt -> turn 100? Seriously, are you ready?)

Stuff can be hard built, you know. That was the intention in the first place. People with excessive spare time on their hands and patience will always have an advantage - it's part of the format. Take it or leave it. Of course, number of rerolls can be minimized by disabling ruins and OP NW if that's what players want, but I seriously doubt they do. Ideally no lump sum deals would be implemented in code. Rants against devs are better than rants against HoF stuff. I just don't see this happening.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Disabling ruins or other rules that level the playing field, such that the advantage of rerolling starts is drastically reduced would go a long way towards making the Hall of Fame more popular for the vast majority of players.

With regard to existing games played with earlier versions of Civ V and/or less restrictive rules, it may be desirable to add optional filters that remove such games from the HoF tables being displayed based on the preferances of the player viewing these tables on their own screen.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Unresolved]

As someone who does not play the HoF, but has considered doing so, perhaps I can offer my perspective on why more people don't play in these competitions. The rule set isn't what keeps me away, though it is fairly vague and ambiguous. The necessity to re-roll is what prevents me from doing any of the games. I'm a fairly decent player myself and I'd imagine that I could post some pretty competitive times if I chose to compete; but re-rolling until I get an amazing start does not appeal to me. Neither does cooking the map until you have the perfect combination of wonders/opponents/terrain. For these reasons I prefer the GoTM and challenge threads because the predetermined map nullifies the need to conjure a perfect start and it becomes more about how you play the map. Of course, I don't know how I would fix this problem in the HoF without turning it into another GoTM series. Just my two cents, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

As someone who does not play the HoF, but has considered doing so, perhaps I can offer my perspective on why more people don't play in these competitions. The rule set isn't what keeps me away, though it is fairly vague and ambiguous. The necessity to re-roll is what prevents me from doing any of the games. I'm a fairly decent player myself and I'd imagine that I could post some pretty competitive times if I chose to compete; but re-rolling until I get an amazing start does not appeal to me. Neither does cooking the map until you have the perfect combination of wonders/opponents/terrain. For these reasons I prefer the GoTM and challenge threads because the predetermined map nullifies the need to conjure a perfect start and it becomes more about how you play the map. Of course, I don't know how I would fix this problem in the HoF without turning it into another GoTM series. Just my two cents, take it with a grain of salt.

i think this is a good reason for both to exist. this kind of preference is pretty common (as well as the rules) for why some dont play HoF. GotM has it's own issues with why some HoFers dont play there as well so it works out that both fill a niche for certain kinds of players.

 

[iggymnrr]

Disabling ruins or other rules that level the playing field, such that the advantage of rerolling starts is drastically reduced would go a long way towards making the Hall of Fame more popular for the vast majority of players.

This assertion is wrong on two counts.

1) The playing field is already level.
2) The whole point of RNG, gambling, is to keep the punter punting. Stopping one punter from punting will stop him from playing the game.

And why be selective about ruins or NWs? Why no make all RNG go away like with combat odds or diplomacy or wherever it resides?

 

[Max M.]

Stuff can be hard built, you know.

OK, let me try to explain it more in detail. The problem is that the whole game is somewhat a "lump sums of gold oriented". OK, you disable ruins and NW and I start to reroll for more desert and more religios city states to rush to Initiation Rites and still get my "lucky gold". You'll disable faith and I will reroll for something else that can give "a lot of turns of advantage" simply because the others will (you know - while we hard build our first settler they have their three cities, finish all key wonders and grow twice bigger) etc. etc.
The only way to stop these "rerolls for out of nothing advantage" is to disable rush-buys completely, disable any other "lump sum" depended stuff (such as RA) and finally to remove the gold from the game entirely (you don't need if you can't spend it) . I oversimplify things of course but my point is: there're a lot of critical "lump sum" depended aspects in the game so by removing one of those aspects (such as "lump sum trades") we just increase disharmony of others (yet again rush-buys, RAs etc.)
Despite all those abusing possibilities, the positive side of the lump sum trades is that you can use them to compensate one random factors with others (like "OK, I don't have too many desert hills near river around and I don't meet 2 religious CS on turn 3, but - look - I have a lot of luxuries here so maybe I'll be able to catch it up with faster expansion?")...

So if you ask me I would be much more happy if it was "A third option would be: No Petra. Ever."
(Though I can imagine all the tedious time and hard work the HoF stuff spends on tracking of all those "lump sum" rules in games...)

 

[The Pilgrim]

As someone who does not play the HoF, but has considered doing so, perhaps I can offer my perspective on why more people don't play in these competitions. The rule set isn't what keeps me away, though it is fairly vague and ambiguous. The necessity to re-roll is what prevents me from doing any of the games. I'm a fairly decent player myself and I'd imagine that I could post some pretty competitive times if I chose to compete; but re-rolling until I get an amazing start does not appeal to me. Neither does cooking the map until you have the perfect combination of wonders/opponents/terrain. For these reasons I prefer the GoTM and challenge threads because the predetermined map nullifies the need to conjure a perfect start and it becomes more about how you play the map. Of course, I don't know how I would fix this problem in the HoF without turning it into another GoTM series. Just my two cents, take it with a grain of salt.

Same here, but there is no way to fix it without turning it into another GotM. This format is not everyone's cup of tea and there is nothing to do about it.

And why be selective about ruins or NWs? Why no make all RNG go away like with combat odds or diplomacy or wherever it resides?

Actually, this was discussed not a long time ago. We concluded that the only 'fair' settings is no RNG at all. No religion, no combat, no ruins, no trade, no RA's, no CS etc. I don't anticipate a lot of buyers for some reason.

The problem is that the whole game is somewhat a "lump sums of gold oriented".

It really isn't. We made it this way. It's supposed to be production/science/culture oriented, but since robbing AI of its gold is so easy we play the game not necessarily the way it's intended to be played. Lump sum deals have nothing to do with rerolls. In fact, your post is a perfect example to why rerolls can't be eliminated. There is endless list of the things that can and will be rerolled by those who are willing to do that. Earlier Mesix explained pretty well what's wrong with lump sum deals. AI's advantage should stay AI's advantage and not automatically transform into player's advantage. That's all.

 

[iggymnrr]

We concluded that the only 'fair' settings is no RNG at all.

The conclusion may be moot. Interviews with the developers have indicated that the RNG route is preferred for the civ series. Randomness takes priority over pure strategy. If you happen to be playing a good game and a meteor kills your computer. Tough cookies.

Personally, I think the real problem with attracting people to the HoF is the requirement to finish games. Most people abandon a game when its outcome is obvious. New game. (The new game doesn't have to be civ.)

 

[TractorBoy]

Well, "No lump sum ever" will dramatically increase rerolls for El Dorado and gold ruins...
(Find the one and you have your second city, do not and you sit and wait till... mmm.. 500/5gpt -> turn 100? Seriously, are you ready?)

I personally don't ever do lump sum gold for GPT, having said that I don't have any sort of gripe with those that do. I have been reading these posts and I fully understand where some of you guys are coming from. If you have honed your skills around the poor design of the game and have been playing this way for a period of time, then it must be very difficult to in effect - take a step backwards.

If Denniz has suggested "No lump sum deals" as a possible solution to the ambiguity of the current ruling, then there is a distinct possibility that the (volunteer) members of staff are under intense pressure checking submissions since the G&K started. New players are probably pushing the boundaries, but if this rule was set, then at least we would all know where we stand, and I would imagine the volunteer staff would have a better time of it!!

 

[Max M.]

I have been reading these posts and I fully understand where some of you guys are coming from. If you have honed your skills around the poor design of the game

You mean you think I do exploit AIs for lump sums in my games (like they do in GoTM)? Ah, thanks.

 

[Mesix]

If the HOF could get a mod (like Civ 4 had), I think an easier (and less extreme) fix to the problem of lump sum gold abuse would be to disable gold until Currency is researched. This would prevent the player from abusing the mechanic early on when it has the most potential benefit. The early game would become more about building/researching and rush buying/trading for gold wouldn't become a viable game mechanic until the late classical era when players could have 4+ productive cities up and running. It would also be interesting to see how many players change their strategy/tech order to prioritize Currency early on.

 

[Max M.]

>>"lump sums of gold oriented". It really isn't. We made it this way.

Nope, developers did. Till you can get significant boost with rush-buying culture/science buildings, cities (settlers) and raw science (RA) the lump sums are in the core mechanics. I'm fine with banning all of this all together and would like to play pure food/hummers/beakers game. But what I anticipate: by disabling *the only* legal non-RNG method to have a needed lump sum in time you keep only all the RNG-gold there (not only those direct RNG stuff like ruins but also a lot of indirect but still random sources of gold like desert or city-state faith) and it's nothing but pushing even more "lucky start" hell.
OK, yet again, I understand the problems of the HoF stuff and I won't argue when you say "it's impossible to keep current lump sum rules under control so we just ban that and that's the only reason" - honestly that's just enough - you really don't need to contrive any game mechanics related reasons (they all will be very arguable).