Banned Exploits - Discussion

[TractorBoy]

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

My apologies, I have been a little presumptuous about where the good players on the G&K HOF have arrived here from. I should not have put you in a category.

As far as the exploitation goes, I don't see it as such, if they want to compete with each other on the GOTM then they all have to follow suit. Just because some of us won't do it doesn't make it wrong! I just want to see the HOF flourishing like it should be, for this to happen, then the majority of us will have to agree on rules and the changes that seem to be in the offing!

 

[The Pilgrim]

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.

Fair != enjoyable. RNG is good for fun, but bad for competition.

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.

Domination games on mid-low levels that take less than 100 turns and usually 1 session aren't more popular than other settings.

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.

What is in the core mechanics is bad design which we choose to abuse. We don't have to, but it's easier this way.

However, since

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).

there is no point to dig into this.

 

[iggymnrr]

Fair != enjoyable. RNG is good for fun, but bad for competition.

You mean like poker where even catching, runner runner should be banned?

RNG=Civ RNG is also fair in the long run.

Edit: I don't believe Civfanatics has the tools necessary to administer an HoF for Civ V. The game can be bought on one platform, played on another. A game can be started at home, finished on the road. An HoF eligible game should be updated immediately upon completion via Steam. If Civfanatics cannot handle the modern changes to the game, then administration of HoF should be given to someone who can.

The sidelining of Steam in the current HoF setup is especially troubling. Are games even checked to ensure they were played on a valid copy of Civ V? Should Civfanatics be looking the other way when it comes to piracy?

 

[Mesix]

Edit: I don't believe Civfanatics has the tools necessary to administer an HoF for Civ V. The game can be bought on one platform, played on another. A game can be started at home, finished on the road. An HoF eligible game should be updated immediately upon completion via Steam. If Civfanatics cannot handle the modern changes to the game, then administration of HoF should be given to someone who can.

The sidelining of Steam in the current HoF setup is especially troubling. Are games even checked to ensure they were played on a valid copy of Civ V? Should Civfanatics be looking the other way when it comes to piracy?

To be honest, I think Steam promotes piracy more than Civfanatics. There is a sizable minority of computer gamers who dislike Steam and refuse to have the client installed on their computer. History has demonstrated that the more intrusive the copy protection, the more people will find a way around it. Take a look at Spore, one of the tightest DRM solutions of its time, and was ultimately a commercial failure because people downloaded hacked copies which could run rather than dealing with the DRM. I think the decision to go with Steam was a mistake for Civ 5. I refused to buy the game despite being a fan of the franchise since the original Civ, and only started playing when my brother bought me the GOTY edition for my birthday a couple years ago. I guess there is an argument to be made that the Steam marketplace introduced the franchise to a new generation of players, but the DRM aspect of steam turned off more Civ veterans than it prevented piracy of the game.

...and yes, the HOF staff can check the version of the game which is being played.

Why hasn't Steam developed a ladder system for Civ5?

 

[The Pilgrim]

You mean like poker where even catching, runner runner should be banned?

RNG=Civ RNG is also fair in the long run.

No, I mean like chess where the playing field is really level and players don't miraculously get extra pieces or moves thanks to dice roll. Single Civ game by no means can be considered as long run.

 

[Peets]

If Civfanatics cannot handle the modern changes to the game, then administration of HoF should be given to someone who can.

This is volunteer, remember that.
The modern changes are that people want more and pay less for it. Terrible changes if you ask me.

 

[dpunk]

My most recent game I was able to take Indian capital and sell it to ethiopia for gold/gpt and he would liberate the city. My two military units were in range to siege/capture city at start of every turn and I was able to sell this city back to ethiopia for about 15 consecutive turns until he was out of gold/gpt (about 4000/700 total).

 

[Mesix]

My most recent game I was able to take Indian capital and sell it to ethiopia for gold/gpt and he would liberate the city. My two military units were in range to siege/capture city at start of every turn and I was able to sell this city back to ethiopia for about 15 consecutive turns until he was out of gold/gpt (about 4000/700 total).

Sounds like a good racket!

 

[pkf]

What is in the core mechanics is bad design which we choose to abuse. We don't have to, but it's easier this way.

which still makes it part of the core mechanics whichever way you want to spin it, right?

No, I mean like chess where the playing field is really level and players don't miraculously get extra pieces or moves thanks to dice roll. Single Civ game by no means can be considered as long run.

why would someone consider a single civ game to be the long run?

anyways, apart from Pilgrim's usual logical fallacies it's really simple:

current rules are too complicated as they offer too much room for interpretation (see thousands of debates across random sections of CFC).

therefore there are two options:
1)ban lump sum trading all together
2)remove all rules regarding trades (except for self-pillage obviously)

both of them very controversial, but the current state of rules is not satisfactory.

also, iggy raised some important points about the ability to ever host a totally "fair" HoF in Civ5 altogether. maybe we should stop hanging on to what increasingly seems to be an illusion.

 

[The Pilgrim]

which still makes it part of the core mechanics whichever way you want to spin it, right?

Wrong. Reloads are also enabled by devs, so they are part of the core mechanics, right? Modding belongs there as well, thus there is no reason not to use In-game Editor to help yourself out from time to time. Multiple Oxfords and switching between Rationalism/Piety aren't patched despite the fact these exploits have been known since day one. Based on your logic they're core mechanics too.

It's about where you draw the line. Most of those who rant loudly about HoF rules want no lines at all, that's how simple it is. And it's quite naive to think one can masquerade this as frustration with rules' vagueness. If there is something good came out of all these threads, is that they made it crystal clear who's pursuing what cause.

why would someone consider a single civ game to be the long run?

You need to ask iggymnrr. He brought statistics up in a context of single game.

 

[The Pilgrim]

My most recent game I was able to take Indian capital and sell it to ethiopia for gold/gpt and he would liberate the city. My two military units were in range to siege/capture city at start of every turn and I was able to sell this city back to ethiopia for about 15 consecutive turns until he was out of gold/gpt (about 4000/700 total).

City selling is another long time known problem which has never got a proper attention. At least now you can't exploit it until late in the game. Used to be even more ridiculous. But it's still ugly in my opinion.

 

[pkf]

Just because you masquerade your "arguments" with populist comparisons they don't become valid all of a sudden.

How are mods a "core game mechanic"? They _alter_ the game and what I thought everyone had agreed on was that we all play the SAME game.

How are reloads a "core game mechanic"? We are talking about _in-game_ mechanics. Do you think rerolls are an in-game mechanic as well? Do you really think reloading is the same kind of game mechanic as trading?

Oxford and Rationalism? How is that a "core game mechanic"? The game explicitly states how much you are supposed to get for it. If you find a way to get more out if, it's likely that's an exploit. Assuming that the devs not fixing it makes it a game mechanic is borderline absurd.

Firstly, you invalidly expanded the point of discussion to a seemingly familiar subject - classic straw man. Secondly, it actually shows what cause YOU are pursuing - you believe to be lumpsum/dow to be as much cheating/exploiting/whatever as is reloading.

For example: "What is in the core mechanics is bad design which we choose to abuse. We don't have to, but it's easier this way." Do you think this choice of words is neutral?


Oh and where did Iggy state he was talking about one game? He said "long run". You somehow assumed someone was thinking long run could refer to one game.

 

[Max M.]

It's a strange discussion we have here in last two pages... What is the point in giving an examples of "abuse patterns" and saying how abusive they are? All these patterns are known since the day 0 and most of them (if not all) are covered by the current rules.
It would make sense to discuss the reason for introducing the new rule instead but now the reason is clear too.

So there's nothing left to talk about except maybe how new rule will change the game and what effect it will have on current HoF strategies or something like that.

---
Btw. I have some suspicions that not every players here realize the full list of trades covered by "No trading for a lump sum of gold. Ever." so let me try to build the full list. Here is the stuff you won't be allowed to sell to AI for a lump sum:
1. GPT
2. Resources
3. Embassy (not so obvious since it's an instant deal for both sides but still: "No trading ... Ever.")
4. Open Borders
5. Peace (the most curious and least obvious "trade" I guess )
6. Cities
7. Sell a DoW on civ B to civ C
8. Sell a peace with civ B to civ C (though I've never seen this feature working in real game)

What did I miss?

 

[sanabas]

strategic resources.

Next two aren't selling to the AI to receive a lump sum, but still involve a lump sum of cash changing hands, so won't be allowed either:

If you're on the losing end of a war, you'll be banned from making peace if the AI is demanding gold.
research agreements.

My most recent game I was able to take Indian capital and sell it to ethiopia for gold/gpt and he would liberate the city. My two military units were in range to siege/capture city at start of every turn and I was able to sell this city back to ethiopia for about 15 consecutive turns until he was out of gold/gpt (about 4000/700 total).

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.)

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

 

[Max M.]

strategic resources.

Fixed.

Next two aren't selling to the AI to receive a lump sum, but still involve a lump sum of cash changing hands, so won't be allowed either:

I guess this is debatable (As the purpose of the rule is to prevent you from taking a lump sum from an AI - not in opposite)
(Hehe, unless you're planning to exploit it by signing RA with an AI in more advanced era than you are (by taking 100 when giving away 200..300)).

 

[The Pilgrim]

Just because you masquerade your "arguments" with populist comparisons they don't become valid all of a sudden.

Just because you don't like certain comparisons, they don't become populist all of a sudden.
Lump sum deals are not equal to multiple Oxfords which are not equal to reloads etc, but yes, I do think they all are on the same scale of exploitative elements. It comes down to where you draw the line. Nobody can say that his or her threshold is better than others', therefore it's stuff's job. And if someone doesn't like the threshold they set, he or she is welcome to move on.

Assuming that the devs not fixing it makes it a game mechanic is borderline absurd.

Funny. Isn't this the exact argument for lump sum deals + DoW's and lump sum deals in general? It's there, so it's part of the core mechanics. While deep inside everyone knows how unbalanced and senseless this 'mechanics' in its current state is.

Firstly, you invalidly expanded the point of discussion to a seemingly familiar subject - classic straw man. Secondly, it actually shows what cause YOU are pursuing - you believe to be lumpsum/dow to be as much cheating/exploiting/whatever as is reloading.

Firstly, I've done nothing. I just stated that personally I'd like lump sum deals to be banned, the lively reaction of fellow civvers isn't something you can blame me for. If they have a problem with my likes and dislikes, well, that's their problem.
Secondly, I do believe lump sums are exploitative. Grats, you exposed me!

For example: "What is in the core mechanics is bad design which we choose to abuse. We don't have to, but it's easier this way." Do you think this choice of words is neutral?

Am I obliged to use neutral words? Sorry, didn't realize that. If you still have doubts: yes, I don't like lump sum abuse. Are we on the same page now?

Btw, if you're not too sidetracked by trying to expose me, you can notice that I use 'we', meaning that I use lump sum deals too. But I prefer to admit that I'm too lazy an not good enough of a player to play without them rather than pretend they are balanced, make sense and are used in the way they are supposed to be used.

Oh and where did Iggy state he was talking about one game? He said "long run". You somehow assumed someone was thinking long run could refer to one game.

Aren't we discussing HoF rules? Each HoF competition is a single game.

It's a strange discussion we have here in last two pages...

It's strange in a sense people are tilting at windmills because they are so frightened to lose their favorite crutch. The amusing part is that it's not going to happen anyways . I'd like that, but that's not my call. Shows how much they rely on it though.

not so obvious since it's an instant deal for both sides but still: "No trading ... Ever."

You're carried away. No lump sum deals means no trading ever to you? If so, I rest my case.

 

[The Pilgrim]

(Hehe, unless you're planning to exploit it by signing RA with an AI in more advanced era than you are (by taking 100 when giving away 200..300)).

AI doesn't pay per era penalty.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

2)remove all rules regarding trades (except for self-pillage obviously)

In my opinion, this is the only option. Play the game as the developer released it, fixing only those few exploits that effectively give the player a win.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Max M.]

It's strange in a sense people are tilting at windmills because they are so frightened to lose their favorite crutch.

I'm getting tired of your accusations. I will just ignore your posts right from now.

 

[Moriarte]

In my opinion, this is the only option. Play the game as the developer released it, fixing only those few exploits that effectively give the player a win.

Sun Tzu Wu

I believe there are none. If someone wants a quick win, he or she has better things to do than self pillage, double Oxford or re-sell the same resource and declare war on everyone. Same effect (and even faster times) can be achieved legitimately. This is how the game is balanced.

People in doubt can try beating t.171 diplo win with Babylon using all the dirty tricks .