Banned Exploits - Discussion

[Max M.]

Firstly, the only intention behind protecting the poor fellow AI is making the game more enjoyable for all someones involved

We're not developing a Civ6 here... I sympathize your ideas about helping a poor fellow AI but this thread is not titled "Making the Game More Enjoyable" either (despite the fact that it will become more enjoyable with all those exploits eliminated). Like it or not, "luxurie-to-lump-sum trading" is the part of Civ5 and its gameplay. So when you propose to ban this feature as the only way to stop the exploits it is OK, but when you insist on the ban (and arising gameplay changes) as just a trick to fix some AI problems (which is the whole big story on its own) that causes quite understandable "resistance". Let me rephase it: Do you really think the poor AI is the most important problem of the HoF?

If you want a real "human-to-human" balance, you need to play MP.

Sorry, I don't play war-games. (Besides my style of civ playing may take up to an hour per a turn )

 

[iggymnrr]

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

I was playing devil's advocate regarding RNG. The most basic HoF rule is RNG in a nutshell: only one person is allowed to play a given map. The map I may draw is not the same as the one someone else draws. I would contend that if RNG is to be eliminated then this rule has to go. I am also of the opinion that the HoF has gotten this concept right in a big way. It keeps people playing. Perhaps (devil's advocate speaking) the HoF should require maps to be purchased from the site. If a person wants to play for a fastest conquest slot, he or she could buy a certain quantity of maps (in, say, increments of 100?) for the attempt. The usual disclaimers would apply. e.g No refund for any unused maps, your results may vary, etc.

 

[Mesix]

Since this discussion is based on previous discussions which all of the participants may not have read, allow me to restate a couple of things from the previous thread.

It is a clear and indisputable abuse to receive lump sum gold in trade the same turn that you DOW an AI player. If you use it regularly, I'm sorry, but you are cheating a poorly designed element of the game.

Here is the crux of the problem...

This exploit had a disproportional effect the higher the difficulty level. At Settler level, the AI will not have enough gold for you to abuse the game mechanic. At higher difficulties, the AI players are swimming in gold because they receive a handicap for the difficulty level. Using this exploit essentially transfers a benefit which is designed for the AI player to the human player. Higher levels are supposed to require more skill from the player to win.

In past versions, the HOF used a mod which patched some of the exploits in the game. I am strongly in favor of a HOF mod which makes it impossible for a player to abuse this cheesy game mechanic the way that the GOTM players routinely do.

Fixing the DOW/trade exploit would be relatively easy. Making trade agreements into binding peace agreements would prevent abuse of the lump sum payments. The mechanic for doing this already exists in the game since a peace treaty at the end of a war effectively prevents both parties from DOW for a period of turns based on game speed. The same mechanic could be applied to peacetime deals, effectively preventing war for a fixed duration of turns if the players enter into a trade agreement. Implementing this would put a big damper on diplomatic backstabbing though, which might remove some of the tension and excitement from the game. Having Monty or Alex nearby might not be quite the same if they no longer have the ability to backstab the player.

 

[Mesix]

However, i like the challenge presented by the HoF, so i play deity exclusively lately (to restrict myself from reloading and for a good feel of accomplishment ). For sure i am going completely offline in my SP games if proposed changes will ever be realised. I can see where your cause is noble, i just think the problem is too deep to be solved, so i enjoy it as it is. And, hopefully, we'll be dealing with completely different game in July. Just my opinion, Pilgrim. With all due respect.

You are saying in one hand that you like the difficulty of playing at the highest level, and in the other hand that you are in favor of abusing a poorly designed game mechanic which makes the game easier at the higher level. If you truly like the challenge of playing at a higher difficulty, try playing without transferring the AI designed benefits (i.e. extra gold) to the human player. Just a suggestion. If you find the game more enjoyable to play with this mechanic, by all means play the game that way. Please don't force this type of game play on the community because that is your preference though.

 

[Moriarte]

If you truly like the challenge of playing at a higher difficulty, try playing without transferring the AI designed benefits (i.e. extra gold) to the human player. Just a suggestion.

Yeah that's one way. Another way is to make game difficult elsewhere: playing as India or Denmark. Or switching off city states, barbs, religion, victory conditions, reducing number of AIs, while lowering sea level, put every AI in same team, don't use culture, prioritise useless techs or play with one eye closed and a hand tied behind your back, etc., etc. I know the game can be won even in these conditions, but it's not the game i like to play.

Please don't force this type of game play on the community because that is your preference though.

No. It's the other way around, mate. I am just playing a game created by developers, while you and Pilgrim try to force your role - playing fantasies on everyone else.

 

[iggymnrr]

I think I tend to agree more with Moriarte on the issues mentioned. This may be based on more emotional (impatience) considerations. It seems like a lot of the problems of Civ III have come back in Civ V. Why are we having to revisit these same things? I guess I'm more tempted to say, "Nuts" to the whole thing. Once was enough. I don't like to have to clean up the same mess twice.

 

[Mesix]

I am just playing a game created by developers, while you and Pilgrim try to force your role - playing fantasies on everyone else.

And yet you are the one trying to get the rule changed. The HOF staff have labeled exploiting gold per turn deals as a violation of the rules. The only thing being discussed is exactly what constitutes an exploit...where should the line be drawn? Saying that all gold per turn being nullified by DOW is fair game because that is how Civ 5 was designed is asking the HOF community to change the existing rules to make it easier at higher levels.

Perhaps the HOF should also allow Oxford to be built two times since that is the way the game was developed?

 

[pkf]

Perhaps we should allow Oxford to be built two times since that is the way the game was developed too.

Do you know how the exploit works? If so, do you think it is a plausible technique usable in regular games? Because it's not.

And furthermore, it does not belong in the same category as the issue at hand (see Pilgrim's post above).

Luckily, Max and Moriarte have miraculously not lost motivation to discuss this - yet. I have. Why?

Because I want to play my best game possible. OR, I want to play a game restricted by self-imposed rules that are the same for everyone.

Either way is fine for me - perhaps I will not find the latter way as enjoyable, but maybe other people will and that's okay.

But I will not continue to post here and try to impose my way of "how the game is supposed to be played" on others, as you and Pilgrim do.

 

[Mesix]

But I will not continue to post here and try to impose my way of "how the game is supposed to be played" on others, as you and Pilgrim do.

Actually, we are just trying to explain the existing rules to players who would like them to be relaxed.

The following exploits are not allowed.

Exploit involving trading for Lump Sums of Gold
Systematically making and breaking agreements for lump sums of gold with the AIs is not allowed. It is considered an exploit when there is a clear pattern of activity beyond normal play.

This rule is vague. It is vague, not because it is considered fair play to trade with the AI for a lump sum of gold and then DOW to cancel the deal effectively stealing the gold from the AI without paying anything. This practice is labeled an exploit in the rules.

What is vague is when the HOF staff will exclude the game and when they will allow an occurrence of this exploit to slip though.

 

[pkf]

Actually, we are just trying to explain the existing rules to players who would like them to be relaxed.

One could consider this mildly offensive to the other discussants' intelligence.

 

[Moriarte]

And yet you are the one trying to get the rule changed.

Mesix, you keep mis-reading me. I am not trying to force or change anything. I am participating in a discussion, whether lump sum deals should be abandoned altogether or not. Perhaps you can re-read my posts twice in future to avoid confusion. The fact that i expressed this opinion regarding exploitation does not mean i am asking to change existing rules, it simply is my perspective on the game, to which i am entitled.

It is actually pretty funny, because i only expressed my opinion, while you say:

It is a clear and indisputable abuse to receive lump sum gold in trade the same turn that you DOW an AI player.

So, who is trying to force/change things?

I am fine with current rules, i don't care if anything is called exploit or not, i am playing against you in HOF, not against silly AI who will always lose. If lump sum deals will be banned, i'll quit, that's all i'm saying. I am pretty sure you won't even notice .

 

[Mesix]

There are two regular competitive games on this forum...the GOTM and the HOF.

I choose not to participate in the GOTM, because I know that to get a competitive finish, I must master and maximize the early game exploitation of extracting as much gold from the AI as possible. Without resorting to this tactic, it is impossible to compete with the players in the GOTM who can milk every last coin from the AI to buy early settlers, units, and key infrastructure much earlier in the game than would be possible otherwise.

I like to play in the HOF because this same tactic is not required to compete. It is clearly labeled an exploit in the current rules.

I have never posted in the GOTM forum asking the staff to change the rules to suit my style of play. I instead chose to play in the HOF. I think it is quite nice that the rules in the two competitions are different. It allows players with different play styles to find a field where they can compete.

 

[Moriarte]

I choose not to participate in the GOTM, because I know that to get a competitive finish, I must master and maximize the early game exploitation of extracting as much gold from the AI as possible.

Ribannah, (who had won GOTM gold few times) would disagree with you. She didn't use gold exploits (and many other exploits) and still beaten everyone, including tommynt. So it's not impossible. Yet needs a hell of a brain .

 

[glory7]

Since this discussion is based on previous discussions which all of the participants may not have read, allow me to restate a couple of things from the previous thread.

I have no idea why you repost this from the old thread, but then I will quote my previous reply to this one so that other participants can see why this does not make any sense.

Fixing the DOW/trade exploit would be relatively easy. Making trade agreements into binding peace agreements would prevent abuse of the lump sum payments. The mechanic for doing this already exists in the game since a peace treaty at the end of a war effectively prevents both parties from DOW for a period of turns based on game speed. The same mechanic could be applied to peacetime deals, effectively preventing war for a fixed duration of turns if the players enter into a trade agreement. Implementing this would put a big damper on diplomatic backstabbing though, which might remove some of the tension and excitement from the game. Having Monty or Alex nearby might not be quite the same if they no longer have the ability to backstab the player.

If you think trade/DoW is really exploit, I will show you how your suggestion gonna lead to a real exploit. I just came up with this right after reading yours and above post, so other players can find more for sure.

suppose that any gpt trade is like peace treaty so both cannot DoW. Actually, it also works when I restict that rule to that the party who gets the lump sum gold cannot DoW. Then, I would offer neighbor (or all) AIs that I offer each AI gives me 1 gpt and I give him 26 gold (standard speed). They will accept it. So for 25 turns, I basically buy peace with any AI with 1 gold! If you "buy" peace" for 7 AIs, it costs you 7 gold per 25 turns. Isn't this ridiculous? no worries, no threats. I can basically have no army for the whole game. Now I can play sim city while others kill each other.

I am not trying to be personnal here. I just want to mention that making one's own rules and enjoy them when one plays his own games is totally fine, but enforcing them on others or even worse, enforcing them on certain competitions are just ridiculous at best unless they are clear for all paricipants.

I hope you understand (at least now) that your suggestion would make the game much worse.

It is a clear and indisputable abuse to receive lump sum gold in trade the same turn that you DOW an AI player. If you use it regularly, I'm sorry, but you are cheating a poorly designed element of the game.

Here is the crux of the problem...

This exploit had a disproportional effect the higher the difficulty level. At Settler level, the AI will not have enough gold for you to abuse the game mechanic. At higher difficulties, the AI players are swimming in gold because they receive a handicap for the difficulty level. Using this exploit essentially transfers a benefit which is designed for the AI player to the human player. Higher levels are supposed to require more skill from the player to win.

In past versions, the HOF used a mod which patched some of the exploits in the game. I am strongly in favor of a HOF mod which makes it impossible for a player to abuse this cheesy game mechanic the way that the GOTM players routinely do.

clear and indisputable. Very strong statement. Other people already mentioned about this so I would not talk about this here again.

and in addition to this, you said,

The bonuses given to the AI are supposed to make the AI more competitive. This exploit effectively transfers the bonus gold the AI receives to the player making it an advantage to the player. This is especially true very early in the game when the player can abuse this mechanic to get a much faster start in the game. The exploit becomes more effective at higher difficulties because the AI has more gold for the player to steal. At Settler, the AI is generally broke and cannot trade. At Prince, the AI may have some cash, but not as early so the exploit has negligible effect on the outcome of the game. At Emperor level, the AI has significant gold to allow the player to buy settlers or units which the player would not be able to obtain this early in the game by any other means. At Deity level, abusing this tactic could mean the difference between winning and losing.

As I posted in the other thread before, have you ever succeeded in doing this "exploit" at deity level? It does not work, even for experienced deity players. I actually wonder whether you have ever cleared deity level (of course standard/standard - I assume you won't argue that duel or marathon deity is similar to the normal deity games players talk about), as this statement clearly shows your ignorance of the deity level.

You are just making a pure guess and try to insist your opinion based on your own guess. I am not trying to be personal here - all I say is that it does not work at deity for experienced players, including Moriarte. I quote his response regarding this "guess" below.

First of all the whole story of early war declarations, then reselling, then accepting favourable peace does not work at deity, Mesix. Your opinion on this matter only tells us you don't play deity.

 

[The Pilgrim]

We're not developing a Civ6 here... I sympathize your ideas about helping a poor fellow AI but this thread is not titled "Making the Game More Enjoyable" either (despite the fact that it will become more enjoyable with all those exploits eliminated). Like it or not, "luxurie-to-lump-sum trading" is the part of Civ5 and its gameplay. So when you propose to ban this feature as the only way to stop the exploits it is OK, but when you insist on the ban (and arising gameplay changes) as just a trick to fix some AI problems (which is the whole big story on its own) that causes quite understandable "resistance". Let me rephase it: Do you really think the poor AI is the most important problem of the HoF?

We're discussing Civ5 here which still has an expansion and a bunch of patches to go, including (hopefully) a HoF mod. This is very much on topic.
It's not about AI, it's about game balance. Of course it's not the only problem. In my opinion, HoF format itself is the biggest problem and that's the reason why it will never be as popular as GotM. People don't want to reroll, don't want to use the same cookie cutter strategies every time, don't want to play 5 levels beyond their skill and yes, don't want to abuse elements of the game they dislike and consider unbalanced. The fact that after all this time despite all the critique the rules haven't been relaxed, speaks for itself. There are many people who don't want them to be relaxed. Therefore it is indeed a problem.

Players recognize that Petra is OP, that DF is OP, that given a civ of your choice Spain is OP and that's ok to speak about nerfing these elements. Lump sums are not different.

Sorry, I don't play war-games. (Besides my style of civ playing may take up to an hour per a turn )

Well, you don't have to. But if you choose to play SP, AI stays a major factor. By dismissing the necessity to make it better, you're basically saying it's not about Civ, it's doesn't really matter what kind of game you're playing, it's only about competition vs. other humans. And I know you don't mean that.

I was playing devil's advocate regarding RNG. The most basic HoF rule is RNG in a nutshell: only one person is allowed to play a given map. The map I may draw is not the same as the one someone else draws. I would contend that if RNG is to be eliminated then this rule has to go. I am also of the opinion that the HoF has gotten this concept right in a big way. It keeps people playing. Perhaps (devil's advocate speaking) the HoF should require maps to be purchased from the site. If a person wants to play for a fastest conquest slot, he or she could buy a certain quantity of maps (in, say, increments of 100?) for the attempt. The usual disclaimers would apply. e.g No refund for any unused maps, your results may vary, etc.

It's a double edged sword as it keeps some playing and stops others from playing.
I think you got me wrong. I have no problem with RNG and was not suggesting it should be gone. But I also don't fool myself by thinking that playing field is level. Assuming the same skill of two players, the one with more time and willingness to reroll will win. And since none of us can reroll infinitely and each competition is based on a single game rather than a series of multiple games, there is no long run.

you and Pilgrim try to force your role - playing fantasies on everyone else.

Lol. You don't even believe in that yourself.

If lump sum deals will be banned, i'll quit, that's all i'm saying.

Or adjust. People were saying courthouse bug is not a bug, but a feature, since it hasn't been patched. It was patched eventually and people get adjusted. RA's and GS were nerfed, slingshots were nerfed and the list is very long. Things get balanced up all the time and we all adjust.

Ribannah, (who had won GOTM gold few times) would disagree with you. She didn't use gold exploits (and many other exploits) and still beaten everyone, including tommynt. So it's not impossible. Yet needs a hell of a brain .

Hasn't she quit GotM due to the increasing popularity of a certain play style which she thought was not consistent with the spirit of fair play and the vastly growing community that's parroting this style? Was she attempting to enforce her role-playing fantasies too?

I know that trying to explain this to tommynt is pointless, his competitiveness is so high and the ego is so bloated, he doesn't care about the process. But apart from him and maybe few of his loyal followers, the vast majority of players do care about the process and refuse to sacrifice it in favor of tommynt and alike. You never stroked me as such player. What do I know...

 

[glory7]

Hasn't she quit GotM due to the increasing popularity of a certain play style which she thought was not consistent with the spirit of fair play and the vastly growing community that's parroting this style? Was she attempting to enforce her role-playing fantasies too?

I know that trying to explain this to tommynt is pointless, his competitiveness is so high and the ego is so bloated, he doesn't care about the process. But apart from him and maybe few of his loyal followers, the vast majority of players do care about the process and refuse to sacrifice it in favor of tommynt and alike. You never stroked me as such player. What do I know...

I have no idea who Ribannah is, so I won't talk about it. I participated at GotM since gotm46 and haven't seen his/her name or games.

But from what your have written here, I would say that you are the one whose "ego is so bloated", as you used the term "parroting" and "loyal followers" to people who tend to use similar strategy/playstyle that you do not like or you are unable to use effectively.

If you call people who uses other strategies as "parroting" or "loyal followers", it basically shows that you live in your own world and are not suitable for constructive discussion.

According to your word usage, as I usually play tradition 4 cities for standard speed sci/diplo games, I am "parroting" Tabarnak and I am one of his "loyal followers". And I know that lots of people use that strategy as it is effective in many cases. Under your terms, there are tons of parrots.

The same thing goes to so-called tommynt style. As you noted, many people adopted that approach, but it is not b/c those players "parrot" someone or become a "loyal follwer" of him. It is only because it is more effective in achieving faster victories in most cases, like tradition 4 cities opening. He showed it with the results and he submitted save files and even youtube videos so that others can check and learn.

If someone shows his/her results with a certain strategy that works very well, people will try to adopt it to their games and if they found it to be useful, they use it. For example, so far, I haven't seen any other strategy more effective than this one at emperor or below. For immortal and deity, I use other strategies as tommynt style does not fit for me.

I am not talking at all about his manner/personnal discussion style/ego/etc, but only the strategy itself. It is just proven to be (one of) the fastest way so far. In addition to GotMs, Moriarte already found that even within the current HoF rules so-called tommynt style can be applied and used it for faster victories.

 

[Moriarte]

Was she attempting to enforce her role-playing fantasies too?

And she was upfront about it. So she quit after her motion was denied. It didn't look like her style was jeopardised by growing community of people trying out another style. If you don't like the term 'fantasies' then tell me, how would You call it if someone suddenly decides that everyone should play the way this person plays, and when most people refuse, that person quits the party, hmm?

That, obviously, doesn't mean you have to master certain tactics to do well there, which was a piece of information i thought Mesix might find curious.

This brings me to another point: one thing is restricting double oxford, self pillaging and reloads, but restricting lump sum gold deals altogether sounds like i will be playing with one eye closed. I can try, but i already dislike the idea of switching off an important part of the game, just like i don't like playing Boreal maps (where you start in the middle of tundra with 2 unique luxes 25 hexes in each direction away from the capital) . Fun for some, i get it, not my 'design' though. What if this lump sum intervention will narrow down the list of available competitive start up strategies? Do you think that's remotely possible, Pilgrim? What other sides of the game will be negatively affected? Which balancing issues will arise? Etc. Right now you only speak of the bright side.

Contemplating further, one might come to conclusion that the real cause behind assumed HOF imperfection is - bad AI. By fixing it, the need to restrict gold deals will disappear, because, suddenly, you would have to deal with intelligent opponent, who spends ALL the cash (and will refuse some trades) and does many other things, smart AI should be doing. As of now, injection of stimulators won't help AI who is already in coma. The patient needs total overhaul .

 

[The Pilgrim]

@glory

I'm sorry if my choice of words is offensive to you or anyone else, but it's very hard to find other words when you're facing almost identical quotes of Tommy's so called arguments presented with pretty much the same attitude. Even though they make no sense no matter who says them.

Tommy didn't invent the wheel. Deal and DoW exploit was known since day 1. Everybody is aware of that. The thing is that exploiting bad design in such blatant way was traditionally considered bad taste and in conflict with the spirit of fair play. Tommy just said screw fair play, screw HoF rules, I'll play the way I want. And competitive players were forced to follow his example to stand a chance. The most annoying thing, however, is not even that you choose to play this way, it's your choice and I couldn't care less. But the aggressive stance, on a verge of bullying, many of those players take each time the issue arises. Your recent argument with Peets in one of the threads is a prime example.

 

[The Pilgrim]

And she was upfront about it. So she quit after her motion was denied. It didn't look like her style was jeopardised by growing community of people trying out another style.

She refused to keep participating in a competition where something that has been considered a fair play since ever suddenly turned into bad play, stupid play and so on. And she gets all my respect for that.

If you don't like the term 'fantasies' then tell me, how would You call it if someone suddenly decides that everyone should play the way this person plays, and when most people refuse, that person quits the party, hmm?

It's the other way around. Ribbanah has been around for a decade longer than Tommy and many others.
And if you mean me, I did not decided that lump sums are bad all of a sudden. I'm saying that forever. And while perhaps you don't know this, but you do know I'm not a role player by any definition.

This brings me to another point: one thing is restricting double oxford, self pillaging and reloads, but restricting lump sum gold deals altogether sounds like i will be playing with one eye closed. I can try, but i already dislike the idea of switching off an important part of the game, just like i don't like playing Boreal maps (where you start in the middle of tundra with 2 unique luxes 25 hexes in each direction away from the capital) . Fun for some, i get it, not my 'design' though. What if this lump sum intervention will narrow down the list of available competitive start up strategies? Do you think that's remotely possible, Pilgrim? What other sides of the game will be negatively affected? Which balancing issues will arise? Etc. Right now you only speak of the bright side.

Of course it's possible and it's a valid point. And we'll keep giving feedback and the devs will keep balancing things up untill we're satisfied. IIRC, last BtS patch came out 2 years after release. We still have two years to tweak things, one year to play a perfect game and then move on to horribly unbalanced Civ6.

Contemplating further, one might come to conclusion that the real cause behind assumed HOF imperfection is - bad AI. By fixing it, the need to restrict gold deals will disappear, because, suddenly, you would have to deal with intelligent opponent, who spends ALL the cash (and will refuse some trades) and does many other things, smart AI should be doing. As of now, injection of stimulators won't help AI who is already in coma. The patient needs total overhaul .

And who is fantasizing now? C'mon. Fall patch did more than all previous patches altogether. Couple of patches like this and we'll have a very decent AI.

 

[iggymnrr]

I think you got me wrong. I have no problem with RNG and was not suggesting it should be gone. But I also don't fool myself by thinking that playing field is level. Assuming the same skill of two players, the one with more time and willingness to reroll will win. And since none of us can reroll infinitely and each competition is based on a single game rather than a series of multiple games, there is no long run.

There will always be a long run. The nature of the HoF is indirect competition. This is in contrast to an XGOM where competition is more direct. There is a distinct change in the questions being answered. In an XGOTM where competition is more direct, the question is more that of who can beat whom? In the HoF where competition is indirect, there is a distinct change. The question becomes more that of what is possible? What is the best possible result? Head-to-head competition for the sake of direct competition means nothing to me. I'd rather see the HoF tables filled with results where the maximum has been obtained.