Banned Exploits - Discussion

[Moriarte]

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.

Her style was highly competitive up until the day she left. She was in top 3 all the way. Care to explain how her 'no-exploit' style miraculously turned into bad/stupid play given her shiny results?

For all i know, people like Maxym follow similar way of play today and achieve top places. The fact that you don't know how it's done doesn't mean it's impossible, also, it doesn't mean everyone 'must' use Ribannah's approach, just because it's role - playing value is supposedly high.

And if you mean me

No, i didn't mean You.

Couple of patches like this and we'll have a very decent AI.

Amen.

 

[glory7]

@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.

I have no idea what you are trying say here. As far as I understand, you state that if there is an argument that does not make sense to you then you treat people who think that argument make sense as "parrots" or "loyal followers". Clearly not helpful at all for constructive discussion.

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.

Oh really? I was a deity player (who could win standard/standard deity maps with at least 50% probability) but I didn't know that such blatant DoW would work before I saw his results and youtube videos. I didn't expect emperor AIs to offer favorable peace deals even though we didn't even have a single battle. I knew that Deal and DoW was possible but I didn't know that a player could manage it several times. I still can't do that Deal and DoW strategy at deity, btw.

I don't think all players agreed to play a certain style and playing another is not fair - in that case, all competitive games should follow that rule. For example, self-pilliaging and reloading considered like that. However, GotM doesn't, which clearly shows that your argument is wrong.

Moreover, I never said that HoF rules should be changed to permit a certain strategy. All I said was we need a clear set of rules. Experienced players like Tabarnak, Maxym, Moriarte, and I did interpret the rules in a different way - enough said.

I have no problem with banning 'deal and DoW' or whatever other strategy as long as it is clear to everyone and everybody is playing under the same restrictions.

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.

I think you just didn't understand the topic or intentionally interpreted it in a wrong way. The argument between me and Peet was not at all about whether certain playstyle is permitted or not.

It was about

Player 1 states that certain tactic does not work at deity and provided examples, including GotM, DC, and HoF.
Player 2 states that "if I use that tactic, I could win deity easily", without any explanation.
Player 1 asked for evidence.
Player 2 says that he has not tried the tactic. Moreover, he has not won any standard deity game.
Player 1 argues that in that case, player 2 should not make an argument about deity games and whether certain tactic works or not at the deity level.
Player 3, who has lots of HoF deity entries, agrees with Player 1 that the tactic does not work at deity, and player 2's opinion merely shows that he does not play deity.
Player 2 says that he was unclear about it, so the conversation stopped.

Unless you call making an argument based on actual examples is "aggressive, on a verge of bullying", Player 1 did not say any improper/offensive/abusive words so his argument is far from bullying.

The most annoying thing is that there are some people who don't understand the topic or cannot provide concrete examples but make strong arguments without any evidence and sometimes even call people with other opinions with offensive words.

 

[The Pilgrim]

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.

I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're speaking about HoF in general, then you're probably right. I was talking more about gauntlets. If that's what lead to misunderstanding, my apologies.

Her style was highly competitive up until the day she left. She was in top 3 all the way. Care to explain how her 'no-exploit' style miraculously turned into bad/stupid play given her shiny results?

That's what some big mouthed players keep repeating all the time. And others repeat after them either explicitly or not.

For all i know, people like Maxym follow similar way of play today and achieve top places. The fact that you don't know how it's done doesn't mean it's impossible, also, it doesn't mean everyone 'must' use Ribannah's approach, just because it's role - playing value is supposedly high.

If anything, the only thing I do know, is how to play without exploits. Since you insist to call the refusal to compromise on game play quality a role playing, so be it. I don't care about terms. However, in this case it's inevitable to take it one step further and call everything that is not a pure MP as role playing. Because due to this definition AI is clearly a redundant element that is beyond repairable and has to go.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I have no idea what you are trying say here. As far as I understand, you state that if there is an argument that does not make sense to you then you treat people who think that argument make sense as "parrots" or "loyal followers".

Only when they use exactly the same wording and rely on the same logical fallacies. In such case one can't help but start wondering whether they're more influenced that they realize or are willing to admit. There is a defined group of arguments that haven't been heard before and now they are heard everywhere. I don't believe in epiphanies.

Oh really? I was a deity player (who could win standard/standard deity maps with at least 50% probability) but I didn't know that such blatant DoW would work before I saw his results and youtube videos. I didn't expect emperor AIs to offer favorable peace deals even though we didn't even have a single battle. I knew that Deal and DoW was possible but I didn't know that a player could manage it several times. I still can't do that Deal and DoW strategy at deity, btw.

You just don't get it. People don't want to use exploits at all, let alone master the abuse. So Tommy mastered the abuse of a bad design. Sure. But that's not the point. The majority of players avoided using these tactics in the past not because they hadn't known how 'awesome' they were, but because they were cheesy. And still are.

I don't think all players agreed to play a certain style and playing another is not fair - in that case, all competitive games should follow that rule. For example, self-pilliaging and reloading considered like that. However, GotM doesn't, which clearly shows that your argument is wrong.

Moreover, I never said that HoF rules should be changed to permit a certain strategy. All I said was we need a clear set of rules. Experienced players like Tabarnak, Maxym, Moriarte, and I did interpret the rules in a different way - enough said.

I have no problem with banning 'deal and DoW' or whatever other strategy as long as it is clear to everyone and everybody is playing under the same restrictions.

And we all have agreed on that.

I think you just didn't understand the topic or intentionally interpreted it in a wrong way. The argument between me and Peet was not at all about whether certain playstyle is permitted or not.

I understood it very well. The thread was about possibility to exclude exploits and you turned it into picking on Peets based on one not very well phrased sentence while completely ignoring every point he and others have made. Please let's not turn this discussion into analyzing that thread. It's just an example to why trying to find a common ground with 'new school' players is sometimes extremely frustrating.

 

[glory7]

Only when they use exactly the same wording and rely on the same logical fallacies. In such case one can't help but start wondering whether they're more influenced that they realize or are willing to admit. There is a defined group of arguments that haven't been heard before and now they are heard everywhere. I don't believe in epiphanies.

Where are the logical fallacies you mentioned? point it out.

And I have no idea what you are trying to say for the latter two sentences. Be clear and concise please.

You just don't get it. People don't want to use exploits at all, let alone master the abuse. So Tommy mastered the abuse of a bad design. Sure. But that's not the point. The majority of players avoided using these tactics in the past not because they hadn't known how 'awesome' they were, but because they were cheesy. And still are.

You just don't get it. People want to learn how to improve their games and want to compete under the same conditions. That's it. Stop trying to impose what you think to others.

I understood it very well. The thread was about possibility to exclude exploits and you turned it into picking on Peets based on one not very well phrased sentence while completely ignoring every point he and others have made. Please let's not turn this discussion into analyzing that thread.

I think you totally missed where that conversation started. Go back and read it again if you need to. I wrote long paragraphs about a strategy and its limitation based on real examples. And somebody wrote ONE strong statement, totally refuting what I wrote, without any evidence nor explanation. And I politely asked him for the evidence or reasoning behind it. So who's picking on whom?

He made only ONE point about what I wrote - how can I ignore other points he made if he didn't make any other points? and I have no idea what you mean by "ignoring every point others have made", as it was him who tackled what I said. I only replied to what he said about what I wrote - why do I need to respond what other people said, as it is totally irrelevant for the conversation I had with him? I replied to Mesix separately when he joined the conversation, but there was no need to combine other points.

I also do not want to talk about it again, but I think I should clarify if somebody distorts the meaning of the conversation that I was involved in.

It's just an example to why trying to find a common ground with 'new school' players is sometimes extremely frustrating.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here again. Who are (or what is) 'new school' and what is the point of dividing players into 'new school' and other in discussing these issues?

 

[Max M.]

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.

->

So if you ask me I would be much more happy if it was "A third option would be: No Petra. Ever."

Lump sums are not different.

->

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 in our first "no-lump-sums" gauntlet some of us will get this totally "out-of-nothing" 20 turns ahead advantage by rerolling to meet 2 religious CS on turn 3. What would be your next proposal - disable City States?
Within the current gameplay, that RNG boost is not a significant OP simply because the gold from luxury trading goes much earlier than gold from beliefs. And yet it just an example (there're of course a lot more sources of gold and many of them may become OP after disabling lump-sum trading).

Let me summarize it for you: the balance of the current gameplay is far from ideal, but we need to be very cautious when deciding to change anything otherwise "your new game" comes up even worse. Especially when we propose to change a feature quite deeply incorporated into every other aspect of the game (and that's where lump sums are very different from Petra, DF or Spain UA). We should analyze all possible consequences first.
And so far the only reason you stated as a basis for the "lump-sum-trading" removal was that "it's quite unfair to AI" (btw., that way "luxury-for-gpt" trading is pretty much equal in its "AI fairness" - you should insist on banning that kind of trading as well).

 

[Mesix]

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.

I agree with Max. The current rule quoted above clearly states that trading for lump sums of gold and then DOW to "steal" gold from the AI is an abusive exploit. Before the rule is changed to allow this tactic in HOF play, careful consideration should be made about how this would affect the competitive play of the game.

 

[Peets]

Player 2 says that he has not tried the tactic. Moreover, he has not won any standard deity game.

I didn't know that if you didn't won a standard/standard game then it qualifies as not tried the tactic So all the other types of game does not qualify.
Though they qualify in the HoF.

 

[glory7]

I didn't know that if you didn't won a standard/standard game then it qualifies as not tried the tactic So all the other types of game does not qualify.
Though they qualify in the HoF.

First, I am not trying to be personnal.

If one claims that "a strategy is valid at deity", I believe that it is general understanding that the strategy works for significant probability (say, at least 1/3) at standard settings.

For example, say somebody says "you can get sub 200 science win at deity easily" - and when asked, he says "You pick Spain and reroll until you get GBR and one more NW nearby." Or, say somebody says "You can win deity with only CBs easily - don't even need Xbows" - and when asked, he says "I only play duel map." If you find these guys to be convincing, well, I guess we are just totally different.

Moreover, keep in mind that all of those threads started as you stated

"If I abuse, I can easily win deity."

Later, you backed out and said it was a grammer mistake and you could win deity and now don't play deity. And when another player asked (he implicitely assumed that you were talking about standard settings too), you said that when you played deity before you played only duel/tiny maps.

I took it as a valid excuse and did not talk about your mistake again.

Instead, I told you that it might have worked before the patches (as I was not sure when you played it), it just does not work after the fall patch at standard settings. It may work at duel/tiny maps, but it's not because it's "valid", but because if you are a deity player you can win duel/tiny maps with basically any tactics - it does not matter w/e you do, including play peacefullly or go all-in CB rush or play aggresively or use deal and DoW to all opponents and fight against all of them.

I do not insist on you playing your own civ games in a certain way. My point is that if you have not tried a certain tactic, then it is certain that you don't know whether it works or not, so don't state about something you don't know and you haven't done, especially as a counter-argument for someone's detailed explanation that is backed up by concrete examples.

 

[The Pilgrim]

People want to learn how to improve their games

Here's an example. Abusing exploits does not mean playing good or better. Stop trying to impose what you think to others.

I also do not want to talk about it again, but I think I should clarify if somebody distorts the meaning of the conversation that I was involved in.

And you keep nitpicking. 'Win on deity easily' is not the point, Peet's experience, which you try so hard to dismiss, is not the point. The only point is that this abuse reduces the difficulty significantly on any level. An indisputable fact which you completely ignore. Sorry, I distort nothing.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here again. Who are (or what is) 'new school' and what is the point of dividing players into 'new school' and other in discussing these issues?

A group of players who think abusing the exploits is a good or a smart play. This division is evident enough without discussing it and is the main reason why it's so hard, almost impossible, to find a common ground and decide on HoF rules.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Let me summarize it for you: the balance of the current gameplay is far from ideal, but we need to be very cautious when deciding to change anything otherwise "your new game" comes up even worse.

I think you overestimate balance vulnerability. There are no lump sums in MP and there are no balance issues. I also have tried playing this way in SP. Harder - yes, slower - yes, unbalanced - no. Again, I'm not saying, that it will not affect other aspects, but the implications are not as dramatic as you might think. However, if that will cause some of HoF members to reroll 500 times for El Dorado, so be it. I'm more inclined to believe people will be encouraged to hard build things rather than reroll endlessly.

 

[Moriarte]

A group of players who think abusing the exploits is a good or a smart play. This division is evident enough without discussing it and is the main reason why it's so hard, almost impossible, to find a common ground and decide on HoF rules.

HoF rules are already decided, yet there is a group of players who strive to change them, proposing a radical restriction in gold mechanics. So we can say that there is a group of players (both old and new school) who need to find common ground with others (including HoF staff) in order to adjust rules.

By the way, it's impossible to tell who is old and who is new. Would you consider tommy & glory new school if they play civ since 1990'ies?

 

[Peets]

For example, say somebody says "you can get sub 200 science win at deity easily" - and when asked, he says "You pick Spain and reroll until you get GBR and one more NW nearby." Or, say somebody says "You can win deity with only CBs easily - don't even need Xbows" - and when asked, he says "I only play duel map." If you find these guys to be convincing, well, I guess we are just totally different.

Yes, that is convincing.
HoF is not only standard/standard. So duel, tiny, large, ... are all equally worth.

 

[The Pilgrim]

HoF rules are already decided

You mean rules that

Experienced players like Tabarnak, Maxym, Moriarte, and I did interpret the rules in a different way - enough said.

?

So we can say that there is a group of players (both old and new school) who need to find common ground with others (including HoF staff) in order to adjust rules.

Of course. Different PoV should be equally weighted. I was not suggesting otherwise, just pointing out the fact there is a clear division.

By the way, it's impossible to tell who is old and who is new. Would you consider tommy & glory new school if they play civ since 1990'ies?

Yes I would. They claim that tactics that were traditionally considered as bad and cheesy should be considered as good and smart. It's new.

 

[Max M.]

I think you overestimate balance vulnerability. There are no lump sums in MP and there are no balance issues.

Doh! I don't think I really should say anything if you don't even see that CivMP and CivHoF are simply different games. Finally, I already gave all the arguments and examples above - it just won't make sense to roll it over again. I see my mistake now, you're mostly an MP player who have tried a few HoF domination gaunglets - so anything I was talking about is just out of your interests in a HoF context.

I'm more inclined to believe people will be encouraged to hard build things rather than reroll endlessly.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I don't think I really should say anything if you don't even see that CivMP and CivHoF are simply different games.

I see that perfectly. You're are the one who tried to convince me HoF is only about human vs human competition while AI plays no part in it.

you're mostly an MP player who have tried a few HoF domination gaunglets - so anything I was talking about is just out of your interests in a HoF context.

 

[Moriarte]

?

Moriarte: For example, i steal a worker on turn 20. Turn 30 the Civ i stole from comes back and offers sweet deal. Can i accept it? Or should i insist on 'white peace'? Or i can't take peace at all until i get some cities from them? A bit confused here..

Denniz: Yes. Take the deal if you like. There are no restrictions with regards to worker stealing. Do as you choose.

The phony war restriction only relates to Gold Per Turn deals being being broken.

Moriarte: Thanks Denniz. I think it's quite exploitative then.. Like, i DoW everyone as soon as i meet them, steal their workers too and on turn 40 i have 1k gold + 30 gpt cause they all came back to me with sweet deals. Never done it in my previous HoF submissions, but if you say it's legal.. i can finish much faster.

Source.

EDIT: nvm, Pilgrim, I misread what you wrote.

 

[glory7]

Here's an example. Abusing exploits does not mean playing good or better. Stop trying to impose what you think to others.

Did I impose anything about how others should play? I don't even feel the need to respond who just tries to distort the meaning.

And you keep nitpicking. 'Win on deity easily' is not the point, Peet's experience, which you try so hard to dismiss, is not the point. The only point is that this abuse reduces the difficulty significantly on any level. An indisputable fact which you completely ignore. Sorry, I distort nothing.

READ the post again. He only wrote "If I abuse, I can easily win deity." So I asked about it. Nitpicking? he made only one point regarding my post. And how can I nitpick if there is only one issue?

The main point, actually the only issue, of the conversation was

Whether so-called tommynt style works at deity or not.

And I (and Moriarte) said NO, and Peets (and Mexis), and now also you, said YES and indisputable.

Moreover, I have not tried at all to dismiss other player's experience in regarding the issue. Where did I say that? In fact, I asked him for experiences/evidence for the deity level.

Lastly, I wrote it several times already, but it seems that you just never understand what I wrote. I clearly limited the focus of the discussion to the deity level games. I did not ignore the issue at all - actually, I faced the main (only) issue from the beginning and only talked about that issue. I only said that tactic does not work at deity, at least from my experience, and Moriarte confirm it later.

It is far from indisputable that if you use the "abuse", or tommynt style, that it "reduces difficulty significantly at deity level". It is actually contrary - if you DoW lots of times at the beginning to get lump sum gold, it's hard to win. I mentioned several times before that I usually play by HoF rules at deity level as it is much more effective than tommynt style. And it is not only limited to my experience: Moriarte also confirms this. See 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. This goes to Peets too. Obviously, the difference between duel deity and standard deity (not to mention large deity) is more like difference between emperor standard size maps and deity standard size maps.

Any amount of cash you'll be able to squeeze out of deity AI in so called exploitative manner at early stages will be a drop in the ocean and will spoil your relationships forever. That means you'll need 4 times the military to fight AI hordes and you will never get good prices on your trades if you go down this road. Oh, yeah, no one will be begging you for peace with your little 8 CBs. You'll have to fight AI's allied CS too. So, where is the AI advantage being jeopardised?

If, on the other hand you play nice at opening stages of the game you'll gain access to lots of cash through trades, powerful RAs, etc, meaning: you will probably win faster without what you call 'exploits' on deity.

And I did not even try to impose my own experience on others, like you do, by saying "it is indisputable". When Peets refuted me, I asked him for evidence. Unlike someone, who just keeps saying "it is indisputable".

Thus, show me (and other readers of this thread) counter-examples. Stop imposing your mere opinion here. I showed I am a deity player by participating at GotM, HoF, and DC - all of them followed HoF rules as I could not win with tommynt style at deity so I used the peaceful approach. And I also showed that I am good at applying tommynt style at emperor or below by earning several recent GotM medals in that way.

But I cannot apply tommynt style at deity, and you say using that tactic reduces the difficulty significantly and it is indisputable. If you show me that you can get faster/stable victories at the deity level with so-called tommynt style, I will accept your opinion.

However, as far as I remember, I do not even see any of your games/strategies/results at GotM, HoF, and DC. If I missed some, let me know by citing the links. I am always open for other strategies/tactics and am ready to learn if those are good.

A group of players who think abusing the exploits is a good or a smart play. This division is evident enough without discussing it and is the main reason why it's so hard, almost impossible, to find a common ground and decide on HoF rules.

You just keep trying to switch the topic. Again, did I say anything that HoF rules should be changed to in a certain way? I think (almost) everyone who participated in this thread agreed that we are looking for a clear set of rules so that all players interpret them in the same way.

The issue I discussed with Peets before and now with you is

Whether so-called tommynt style works at deity or not.

Did I say that "abusing the exploits" is a good or smart play? it's opposite - I said "abusing the exploits" is NOT a good/smart/effective play at deity. I have tried it and Moriarte has tried it and we reached the same conclusion - it does not work.

If you still want to argue that the tactic reduces the difficulty significantly at deity level and it is indisputable, show us examples of how you get it done, preferrably using DCs. I appreciate it in advance. As it reduces the difficulty significantly, I naturally expect fast finishing times.

 

[glory7]

Yes, that is convincing.
HoF is not only standard/standard. So duel, tiny, large, ... are all equally worth.

I didn't say that HoF is only standard/standard - I said when you say that "a tactic is valid", without any further explanation, it is natural to assume that it is valid at standard/standard. Also, I did not say anything about worth of the games.

Anyway, it seems that we found what caused difference between us.

 

[glory7]

Her style was highly competitive up until the day she left. She was in top 3 all the way. Care to explain how her 'no-exploit' style miraculously turned into bad/stupid play given her shiny results?

That's what some big mouthed players keep repeating all the time. And others repeat after them either explicitly or not.

Where is the logic here? According to Moriarte (I assume he checked the previous results), a player with a certain playstyle was highly competitive. And he asked given the result, how can you say that her style became "bad/stupid" if she kept earning the medals? and your response is "that's what some big mouthed players keep repeating"? where is your answer except calling other players as "big-mouthed"?