"Boudica of the Romans" an exploit or not

[Venger]

I'd also like to point out that using loose definitions for words like "cheating" is bad because of the seriousness of the accusation. What if your government decided to use a very loose definition of "treason?" You'd certainly object to your government's opinion of what "treason" really meant. All I'm saying is that we should be careful when throwing these terms around.

I don't think anyone is throwing these terms around, and since we are talking about a game, attempting to equate a PC game with government coercion is just a wee bit over the top. I think the combo discussed goes past fair gamesmanship, inasmuch as you can when playing the AI - if playing Boudica as the Romans is how you like to play, so be it, anymore than constantly reloading the map until you get a favorable start. I think it's demonstrated that the combination gives a player a better than median chance at victory.

Whether you roll 3d6 or roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die...

I come back to the language - you've obviously equated the "cheat" notion with a draw down at a Wild West poker table. It's a computer game, it just ain't that important. But if you take the time to line up the game to give you the most advantage possible going in, even if it is using the game mechanics as intended, I vote cheat.

We'll agree to disagree it appears.

Venger

 

[gettingfat]

Allow me to be a bit blunt: What is the significance of this thread, besides for the pure sake of argument?

This is not in the standard game. Random leaders is about experimentation for fun. To be honest, this feature is to give you a chance to exploit, if you really want to use this term, to get more fun. So what's the fuss?

If you play Boudica of the Romans to win a diety game and then brag about the victory without mentioning your choice, then that's a problem. Otherwise this is just one more option for the customers, nothing worse than picking Vikings or Dutch in an island map to increase the odds of winning.

 

[weregamer]

Thanks for you opinion Liberi.
But I don't agree and you won't convince me.

So you are just a troll. OK, noted.

Moderator Action: Warned! - Flaming. Don't refer to someone as a troll.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Bhruic]

"to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage" - From Merriam-Webster.

You know, I once saw someone post that "anyone who needs to quote a dictionary definition in an argument has effectively lost it". I can't help but believe that that applies here. Because even if we accept that definition as apt, then we are left trying to determine definitions for "unfairly" and "meanly".

Bh

 

[Bhruic]

I think it's demonstrated that the combination gives a player a better than median chance at victory.

Wait, your definition of cheating is anything that gives a better than median chance of victory? You don't think that that's just a little too broad a definition?

Bh

 

[hoopsnerd]

What you are thinking of[as far as I can tell definition wise] is an exploit in the field of computer security; but even that is sometimes labeled as an exploit of an exploit[thus the hacker/program is exploiting a bug witch in turn exploits the game to its fullest advantage unethically].

What I'm thinking of is the term "exploit" in the context of this coversation about video games. Your anecdote about the particular MMORPG aside, it's commonly excepted that "exploit" means using a bug to gain an advantage, but whatever.

As for cheating - "To violate rules deliberately, as in a game". So anyone who violates a rule deliberately is cheating. This doesn't mean it has to be an rule built into a game. It can be a rule ascribed to the game[thus boudica of the romans can easily be cheating in MP if the supplementary rules ban it].

Right on.

 

[hoopsnerd]

Wait, your definition of cheating is anything that gives a better than median chance of victory? You don't think that that's just a little too broad a definition?

Bh

That's what I'm trying to say, but I'm unable to be nice about it . Don't forget that his definition of cheating also applies to "bad sportsmanship" as well.

Edit: ^^^ with the Wild west card game thing... isn't it better to just error on the side of caution than to call people "cheaters" when they are not truely cheating?

Also, just for the record, I wouldn't play Boudica of Rome anyways because it wouldn't fit my playstyle. If somebody picked that against me in MP I would probably anticipate a Praet rush and build accordingly. In fact, I'd prolly play Churchill of the Native Americans just to make sure the "cheap" (NOT cheater) player doesn't succeed in his little plan. I mean please, you can't predict that the guy who takes Boudica of Rome is going to rush you? You'd prolly have more luck selecting Random and hoping for Boudica of Rome so that people wouldn't know exactly what to expect from you.

 

[bardolph]

I probably wouldn't ever pick "Boudica of the Romans" in a single-player game (since I always play random leaders anyway), but in a multiplayer game, why the heck not? It's balanced because every player can pick the same combination if they want to.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I probably wouldn't ever pick "Boudica of the Romans" in a single-player game (since I always play random leaders anyway), but in a multiplayer game, why the heck not? It's balanced because every player can pick the same combination if they want to.

If someone in MP selected Boudica of the Romans I would refuse to play. I'm sorry but that is just cheap.

So I guess that's one reason why you shouldn't pick Boudica of Romans.

Plus, as hoopsnerd pointed out, picking that combo makes it very obvious what your strategy will be so it would be easy to anticipate the rush.

Come to think of it, I don't really ever play unrestricted leaders anyway.

 

[Silence101]

With sufficient understanding of game mechanics and expert implementation, any strategy could be considered an exploit. Granted, the Boudica Praet strategy doesn't take a genius to do, but it's also fairly one demensional. I see a lot of holes in such a strategy... first and foremost that any other human player with an equally good understanding of the game knows what you're going to do. There's something to be said for disguising your technique. As far as the AI goes... I don't think the AI really cares. If you want to play that way in your own games, go for it. Part of getting good at this game is trying different strategies under different conditions and circumstances. If all you do is play Boudica of Rome, it doesn't mean that you're any good... it just means that you've mastered one strategy with circumstances in your favor.

Personally, I think in multiplayer games, what's permitted and not permitted should be fleshed out before hand. If you're going to play unrestricted leaders and nobody says that a certain combo is off limits, then it's fair game in my book.

 

[hoopsnerd]

As far as the AI goes... I don't think the AI really cares. If you want to play that way in your own games, go for it.

Actually the AI does care, there's an algorithm in 'handicap.xml' that specifily says in layman's terms says "If player stacks multiple related bonuses, quit and call him a cheater."

 

[ShunNakamura]

What I'm thinking of is the term "exploit" in the context of this coversation about video games. Your anecdote about the particular MMORPG aside, it's commonly excepted that "exploit" means using a bug to gain an advantage, but whatever.

This is not because exploit means you have to use a bug but because using a bug is always an exploit. That and most exploits are bugs.

Also since Wiki is one of the few places I have found that has an exploit definition purely for online games - "In the realm of online games, an exploit is usually a software bug, hack or bot that contributes to the user's prosperity in a manner not intended by the developers."[I hate using wiki as a source....]

Key word being usually. Though I think developers should be extended to developers or publishers[since the publishers(or rather the players) may spot a use that breaks the game that the developers overlooked or underestimated.... or maybe the developers just wanted to let the players use a game breaking combo/skill/etc whereas the publishers/players[in mmorpgs] would rather it not be available].

In a multiplayer game the same option is available to everyone else playing the game, therefore there is no advantage.

This right here is why in most MMORPG's that nearly all exploits will be bugs. It is hard to be unfair when everyone else can make use of it. The only way that would generally count in MP is if it was decided by the majority that making use of it ruins the fun of the game[that was the issue with the MMORPG that I mentioned. While it couldn't stack the advantage against other players if they also exploited it would make the game less fun because to keep up you had to exploit that or do something very specific that would counter it].



Also I think I lost track somewhere.... I don't really think of Boudica of the Romans as an exploit unless you are talking balance reasons[and the only reason for that exception is because I am fairly certain that the game was initially balanced for Rome to have a Agg/Cha or Imp/Cha Agg/Imp, etc].



And don't get me started on the definition road.... I can write an entire book or more on the importance of uniform definitions in debates or discussions. One must have a common language in order to discuss... dictionary definitions set the standard so that everyone can communicate with one another[slang is of course something that goes around dictionary definitions; but A) you should not be using slang or jargon[to an extend anyways] in a serious debate and B) dictionaries have gotten somewhat better at noting slang and jargon in their list of definitions].

 

[alpaca]

In a multiplayer game the same option is available to everyone else playing the game, therefore there is no advantage. In certain sports one team gets to choose whih side of the playing field to start on: is the team that chooses to have the wind at it's back using an 'exploit'?

In a single player game there are no opponents. That's why they call it single-player. Therefore, again, no exploit.

It is a huge advantage as long as not everyone takes the option. As I said, I agree in that it's not unfair if everybody knows about the situation and it's decided beforehand that people can live with it.

Choosing the side with the wind in your back in sports doesn't give you an advantage on the level that Boudica with Praetorians gives you. Anyways, you switch sides later which in that case would mean the wind is against you - if I take your allegory further that'd mean we switch civs in the game.

And who said you can't have exploits in single-player? If I get an unfair advantage over the AI because I use a combination that is clearly overpowered (i.e. I "exploit" a rule/loophole in the rule of the game that should in my opinion not be there in the first place) for me it's an exploit.

It's very much a matter of opinion, and I'm expressing mine. I'm perfectly fine with differing opinions on the matter because this one's really on the borderline.

ShunNakamura also made a nice point about this in MP: If one player chooses Boudica of the Romans, pretty much every other player would be forced to do that, too, to have a realistic chance to compete. Therefore, it'd ruin the fun of the game since everyone plays the same faction and strategy.

@Nelgirith: Could I kindly advise you to finish reading the sentence instead of just picking half of it out of context and trying to answer something that has clearly not been said

Edit: Besides, as long as we're not in a tournament and special tournament regulations state "this is a forbidden exploit", the definition of an exploit is a very personal consideration and unique to each player. I rank things as an exploit other people would call a minor nuisance.
Similarly, some people call things a game-breaking bug which I call a slight oversight or even a feature.

 

[onedreamer]

Exploit is when you use (exploit) a game programming fallacy to your advantage. There is no fallacy here, everything works as intended. What you describe is an overpowering/unbalancing situation, but not an exploit or a cheat in the slightest way.

 

[ShunNakamura]

Really I wonder where people are getting their definitions. I would really like to see a cited source on that.

ShunNakamura also made a nice point about this in MP: If one player chooses Boudica of the Romans, pretty much every other player would be forced to do that, too, to have a realistic chance to compete. Therefore, it'd ruin the fun of the game since everyone plays the same faction and strategy.

Actually Boudica isn't so powerful as to force that. There are other combos that can block Boudica of the romans fairly solidly. As long as you play a civ with solid defensive you can block Boudica cold[after all that combo's 'overpower' is almost completely focused on a praetorian war]. I believe it was mentioned that Tokugawa of the Native Americans would be a could blocker[Aggressive Dog Soldiers + Highly promoted archers is a tough nut to crack...]. However, I do think that any solid defender could stop it. As long as you can survive through the praetorian age that combo is no longer any more overpowered than Boudica of the Celts.

Which is why I think Boudica of the romans is only an exploit or a cheat when Multiplayer have already agreed to limit it or somesuch.

 

[alpaca]

Exploit is when you use (exploit) a game programming fallacy to your advantage. There is no fallacy here, everything works as intended. What you describe is an overpowering/unbalancing situation, but not an exploit or a cheat in the slightest way.

Yeah but I disagree here, I don't think the game was designed in a way that intended Praetorians together with a leaderhead that is aggressive and charismatic. It's an option but that doesn't mean it's how the game's supposed to be played.
Using obviously overpowered strategies is maybe not an exploit for most people - but for me it is.

Anyways I'm fine with anybody playing a Roman Boudica (although the historical irony should be taken into account, too ) as long as they don't play them against me.


Shun: Yes if you have a good defensive (read: You're protective and spamming archers or aggressive and spamming axemen, you have Bowmen or somesuch) you have a chance to stop Boudica with Praetorians, but then again every player would be forced to choose a faction with such a good defense which severely limits people's options. In my opinion, using a combination that is virtually unstoppable with standard units (Praets without a free combat1 promotion are hard enough to stop as they are) is an exploit

 

[onedreamer]

Yeah but I disagree here, I don't think the game was designed in a way that intended Praetorians together with a leaderhead that is aggressive and charismatic. It's an option but that doesn't mean it's how the game's supposed to be played.

I really would like you to go into details. If it is an option how can it be not intended ? I never played with such option on and will never even try or play in a game where people want to do it. I find this option simply ridiculous, but also unbalancing to some extents, like this particular case taken into consideration (surely there are others). As much as I find it a stupid and sometimes unbalancing option, it can't be considered a cheat or an exploit. When you activate this option, it is for the whole game not just for yourself. Hence if you don't like it just change game. But you can't seriously say that the option is ok for you but not if someone chooses Boudica for the Romans. That's even more silly than the option itself.

 

[hoopsnerd]

Yeah but I disagree here, I don't think the game was designed in a way that intended Praetorians together with a leaderhead that is aggressive and charismatic.

The game wasn't designed in a way that intended Praetorians together with a leader that is aggressive and charismatic? Well, sure it was if you decide to check "Unrestricted Leaders." There's something about the word "unrestricted" that strikes a chord with me here... Can you think of any other reason to create such an option if not to create previously "restricted" Trait/UU/UB combinations?

It's an option but that doesn't mean it's how the game's supposed to be played. Using obviously overpowered strategies is maybe not an exploit for most people - but for me it is.

It's not an "exploit" for most people because we don't just make up our own broad definitions for words. It's "cheap" I agree 100%, but its not an "exploit." To say it is an exploit, you're arguing that the only way you can select Boudica of Rome is to take advantage of a bug. Unrestricted Leaders option is obviously not a bug - therefor no exploit. Further evidence to suggest that it's intended to be that way would be that when the inclusion of the "unrestricted leaders" option was discussed by the development team they undoubtedly considered the obvious "Boudia of Rome" combo -- isn't that the first thing any of us thought of?

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

It's definitely the first thing I thought of. I had modded my own leader to have Agg/Cha with Praets and Forums in warlords. Now, there was no need for that! Also modded a Phil/Indust with fast workers. That was the easiest Noble game I ever played.

 

[ShunNakamura]

By definition alpaca is not inaccurate to describe it as an exploit. Though of course by definition you are free to disagree. With exploits in games it just needs to be enough people to consider it as such[or rather the people in power need to be convinced as such; which large numbers of players can sometimes influence].

I will be waiting for a cited source stating that it ALWAYS has to be a bug in order to be an exploit.



Bug usage is a type of exploit.
Cheating is a type of exploit.
*Bug usage is almost, if not, always cheating.
Exploits do not have to be bugs or cheats.

This is sort of like the square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square deal. Quite frankly to me it sounds like you are trying to make exploit = cheat. Cheat is the more specific of the two, whereas exploit is the broader term. Thus, in general exploiting is less severe than 'cheating'.



*In depth. Bugs -

1. A defect or difficulty, as in a system or design.
2. Computer Science A defect in the code or routine of a program.

A cheat is where you go outside of the rules of a game. In a computer game bugs and their ilk are what allow you to break the inherent rules[obviously you can break arbitrary rules set by groups you are playing with without needing a bug or their ilk].