"Boudica of the Romans" an exploit or not

[UnspokenRequest]

Relax, that is just not true. Some people are insane. I don't even know what we should argue about.

Exploits, if not from a bug, are generated by other functions of the game, mostly without the programmers knowing or without a way around it.

Now, Civilization comes with the option in-game to use unrestricted leaders, why the heck would that be an exploit?? Hahaha, give me a break.

YOU, YOU PLAYED A GAME WITHOUT BARBARIANS, YOU CHEATER!!!!!!123!!!1shift+1!!!!!!!111111

Heh.

The intention was never to put blame on anyone here. No one is pointing fingers saying "you're a cheater". Most of us use features like No barbarian, unrestricted leader, etc., which can make the game easier and/or give you greater advantages. This is not some moral crusade. So you don't need to ask for a break. You always had it. No one is telling: "this is the way the game should be played". It's a game. You do what you want to have fun and that's more than fine.
The idea was not to accuse, but to assess with an open-mind the action we can all do once in a while.

I didn't know it was so hard to discuss exploits and cheating over here, without people feeling judged. If I had known people would be so touchy about it, I probably would not have posted this poll. Maybe, I was naive...

BTW, calling those that don't share your opinion "insane" is not very sympathetic, nor very open-minded. Especially considering the fact that you misunderstood the position of those you call insane (mine for example).

Some people accused me of calling everyone a cheater with this thread. That was never my intention. When I check Unrestricted leader to get a very powerful combo, I have no doubt in my mind that I'm bending the rules of the game in my favor. To me, this is kind of cheating (or at least exploiting the game options in my favor). I always thought that the Unrestricted Leader option was like the Worldbuilder: it is an option Firaxis gave us to have fun with. It gives us the freedom to cheat, to abuse, to exploit (etc.) the games mechanic all we want. To me these options are there for us to have fun at the expense of the real game rules.
Still, even though I recognize that I'm cheating by using such options, it doesn't mean I won't have fun doing it
I'm just aware that this game won't represent my real ability as a civ player. I'm just lucid about it all.
I'm stacking the deck in my favor (to me this is cheating) and it can be fun.

And, in the end, I prefer to be called a cheater than being called insane... but that's just me...

 

[UnspokenRequest]

The word Exploit comes from French and it has a completely different meaning. In fact it has a positive acception, not negative. An exploit is most commonly an heroic deed, but it literally means to take out the best (from you or from something). In this case it is a slang word used in online gaming, and actually it's just the abbreviation of "Exploiting a bug", the word "exploit" alone in the meaning we intend would be silly because it would have a negative meaning for no apparent reason.

Just a little and unimportant precision:
I'm Quebecer (French canadian). You're confusing the word "exploit" with the verb "exploiter".
The english word exploit is based on the verb exploiter (which means "to exploit).

Nope, the effect on the game is not the same because the game is not the same. Before there was no option, now there is, different game.

The gaming experience is not different enough between warlord and BTS to claim that the effect of Unrestricted leader versus the effect of modding an existing leader is not the same. With all due respect, I think this is nonsense.

It has exactly the same game effect: in both case, you get an Agg/cha Praetorian... Something which doesn't happen in normal games. That is a fact.

The intention of the players would also be different, before they would be going against the game rules in order to take an advantage, now they would use at best one possible game rule to take an advantage.

1) "going against the game rules" or "using [...] game rule" as you say are not intentions. They are actions.
2) The intention is revealed by asking: what was the player's purpose by the observed action? Whether the observed action is "using the game rule" or "going against the rule" doesn't change the intention.
As you recognize it (see bold), both actions are done "in order to take an advantage". That is the intention...
In both case, the aim is: getting an advantage. Whether the mean to get this advantage is provided through an option or through modding is ultimately irrelevant to determine the intention. The intention is still to get an advantage...

The definition of cheating IS breaking rules, it's not "based" on it.

Strictly speaking yes. But words often have more than one meaning don't they?



On a sidenote: there are still people who are asking how you can cheat against an AI. This question has been addressed at the beginning of this thread.
Just an example to illustrate the obvious: if I use programmed cheat codes (that is how they are called after all) found on the Internet to pass a generic single player game, this is still cheating, even though the game's AI won't cry about it.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Boudica/Rome would have a terrible economy and would be hard to keep any of the cities you could take outside of a MP teamer game - in which it is a good choice.

Can you tell me why would a Roman Boudica have a worst economy than a normal Boudica.
Heck, at the moment Augustus' traits are not too economic either...

BTW The question is both for SP and MP.

 

[Silence101]

Can you tell me why would a Roman Boudica have a worst economy than a normal Boudica.
Heck, at the moment Augustus' traits are not too economic either...

BTW The question is both for SP and MP.

Traits aside, I would agree with it more from the standpoint that the player who is going to do a Praet rush is going to be focusing their research on things like BW and IW, instead of say... Pottery. And, they'll be focusing production on military, likely at the expense of other things like Courthouses, settlers, workers... to a degree anyway. Early production is limited, so there's going to be a sacrifice in economy to build and sustain a large and powerful military early. That said, I think a Praet rush with Boudica is somewhat of a gambit, personally. If things don't go exactly your way... if you lack iron, or you don't get your builds right, and experienced human player might be able to clean your clock come mid-game when you find they've beat you to macemen and crossbowmen. Then again, I don't play MP, but this is just my initial impression.

Edit: By the way, if I was going to try to exploit an early military advantage with unrestricted leaders, I'd probably choose Boudica of Greece before Boudica of Rome.

 

[PieceOfMind]

People are giving definitions for the verb exploit which is different to what you're all talking about.

You should be talking about the commonly accepted meaning for the noun "exploit" which relates to computer games in general. The "notable achievement" definition is obviously out of place here (sorry onedreamer), and the verb "to exploit" in ordinary English has too neutral a definition. (I talk about exploiting things all the time in a neutral manner. eg. to exploit the properties of some function (in maths) to prove some corollary or whatever - obviously you can't be mean or unfair to an abstract object! )

@UnSpokenRequest,

In SP I really don't care whether one wants to call it an exploit, cheat, a cheap trick, a game rule etc. because every person has the right to impress their own attitudes and beliefs on their own games.

In MP games or SP games in a competitive context (eg. Hall of Fame games), the issue has more substance. In these situations I don't believe it is any more an exploit than, say, a jaguar rush on a small pangaea. These are not exploits but they are not very impressive and do not reflect any real skill.

As I said earlier, I would not play against a Boudica/Roman player in MP because by choosing that combination they would be indicating to me that they are either sly in choosing an overpowered combo, have a narrow-minded objective or at best are ignorant of the combo's strengths.

I suppose someone could get upset if they had independently realised they liked the combo and then got told in MP by someone like me that their combination was cheap and I would refuse to play them. However, I think someone with the intelligence to recognise the power of such a combo would understand the advantage it gives, and would hopefully not be so dependent on a particular combo for enjoyable gameplay.

If we played unrestricted leaders and someone randomly got given Boudica/Romans, I'd just have to bite the bullet.

EDIT
I would avoid calling it an exploit ever (even in MP) because that is a misleading categorisation. Do you absolutely need an agreement on whether it is an exploit or not? I think it's clear already this will remain a divisive issue however well your argument holds up.
Perhaps it could instead be called a soft exploit or pseudo-exploit.

 

[bardolph]

I didn't know it was so hard to discuss exploits and cheating over here, without people feeling judged. If I had known people would be so touchy about it, I probably would not have posted this poll. Maybe, I was naive...

The poll itself is loaded. I can't answer "neither" without admitting "I think it's quite fair to other players/AI, actually." My actual response is that I think that it's neither an exploit or a cheat, and I don't really care how "fair" it is to the AI because it's irrelevant. You did not give us that option. Adding "attitude phrases" to your poll options like that is really just a type of trolling.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

@Bardolph

It's the second time here someone calls me a troll. Really, that is a shame because it was never my intention to create a controversy. People can criticize the poll all they want. I have no problem with that, but calling me a Troll attacks my person and my integrity and I won't take any of it. How can I not take such accusation personally?
I repeat what I already said in many different ways: it was never my intention to cause a flame war, some sort of controversy or any other kind of problem associated with trolling. You judge me on the intents you presume I had. In French, we call that "un procès d'intention". There's no way to translate that expression very well in English. You presume my intentions were to cause problem and then, I become guilty of being a Troll. I reject these accusations based on such speculations. Criticize my poll, criticize my position, but not my person.

Yeah, adding phrases was not my best idea. I agree with that. And I should have made more specific choices.
If I could change it here's what it would probably look like: cheat, exploit, just overpowered, a bit unfair, a fair and valid choice). However, I think MOST polls I have seen here were done that way with what "what you call "attitudes phrases" or "loaded choices". Honestly, polls here are almost never done properly. The "attitude phrases" which you liken to trolling are commonly used here. Are all these people trolls? You're going too far with such accusations.

I'll also remind you that it has no pretension to be a scientific poll, so it doesn't have to be perfect (BTW, the poll still managed to say pretty well that my opinion is not shared by most. Therefore it is not that loaded). Another thing, every time I've seen polls with these kinds of phrases people mostly ignore them if they don't fit with their opinion. They take the closest choice to what they believe and they nuance and specify their position with a post. Again, I'm not saying it was a good move on my part to add the sentences, but you really see too much in a simple mistake.

BTW The reason why I put sentences has more to do with my definition of cheating. I wanted to distinguish those who think it is normal and fair to use Boudica of the Romans from those who don't. In my mind, as soon as it is not fair and it is a deliberate choice of the player to create a situation that is not fair, it's getting close to a cheat or an exploit. It was an awkward way to reflect the definition I wanted to give to the words in my poll. It was poorly done, no doubt about it, but it is not trolling. I strongly reject that.

And you say I'm a Troll because, of what? Because my poll is a poorly phrased? Trolling is related to trying to create a controversy on a forum. There is no controversy here, people are discussing and exchanging opinions and arguments. The thread has not yet descended into a flame war. Actually, the only one accused of flaming here is a guy on page 5 who called me a Troll because I said I was not going to be convinced by a particular poster's argument... And beside the poorly phrased poll, when was my behavior purposely controversial in any way? I never tried to stir the pot once my poll was posted. On the contrary.

BTW, I think calling someone a Troll without proper and clearly identifiable justification for doing so is in itself a type of trolling. You resort to that word MUCH TOO FAST. You may not like my poll, but that is no reason to resort to call me a troll. Just say you don't like it, explain why and stay respectful, because I'll remind you that name-calling can also be likened to a form of trolling too.

 

[Fjordson]

Traits aside, I would agree with it more from the standpoint that the player who is going to do a Praet rush is going to be focusing their research on things like BW and IW, instead of say... Pottery. And, they'll be focusing production on military, likely at the expense of other things like Courthouses, settlers, workers... to a degree anyway. Early production is limited, so there's going to be a sacrifice in economy to build and sustain a large and powerful military early. That said, I think a Praet rush with Boudica is somewhat of a gambit, personally. If things don't go exactly your way... if you lack iron, or you don't get your builds right, and experienced human player might be able to clean your clock come mid-game when you find they've beat you to macemen and crossbowmen. Then again, I don't play MP, but this is just my initial impression.

Edit: By the way, if I was going to try to exploit an early military advantage with unrestricted leaders, I'd probably choose Boudica of Greece before Boudica of Rome.

Right - the first paragraph summarizes the general point I was trying to get across.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Right - the first paragraph summarizes the general point I was trying to get across.

I understand that, but I don't think this situation affects a Roman Boudica more than any other warmongering combo.

Economic problem is part of any warmongering game. It is up to the players to find ways to deal with it. I don't see how it somehow decreases the power of this combination.
To me it is something that can be managed.

Actually, one might argue that with a Roman Boudica, the war will be shorter and will necessitate less units (less will die) and they will take enemy cities faster. All these benefits should be good for the economy.

 

[PieceOfMind]

You do not necessarily need to be capturing and keeping cities to be making full use of the advantage anyway. In MP many wars are fought in which cities are primarily burnt to the ground.

Crippling your enemy is probably the main benefit.

 

[Arlborn]

The intention was never to put blame on anyone here. No one is pointing fingers saying "you're a cheater". Most of us use features like No barbarian, unrestricted leader, etc., which can make the game easier and/or give you greater advantages. This is not some moral crusade. So you don't need to ask for a break. You always had it. No one is telling: "this is the way the game should be played". It's a game. You do what you want to have fun and that's more than fine.
The idea was not to accuse, but to assess with an open-mind the action we can all do once in a while.

I didn't know it was so hard to discuss exploits and cheating over here, without people feeling judged. If I had known people would be so touchy about it, I probably would not have posted this poll. Maybe, I was naive...

BTW, calling those that don't share your opinion "insane" is not very sympathetic, nor very open-minded. Especially considering the fact that you misunderstood the position of those you call insane (mine for example).

Some people accused me of calling everyone a cheater with this thread. That was never my intention. When I check Unrestricted leader to get a very powerful combo, I have no doubt in my mind that I'm bending the rules of the game in my favor. To me, this is kind of cheating (or at least exploiting the game options in my favor). I always thought that the Unrestricted Leader option was like the Worldbuilder: it is an option Firaxis gave us to have fun with. It gives us the freedom to cheat, to abuse, to exploit (etc.) the games mechanic all we want. To me these options are there for us to have fun at the expense of the real game rules.
Still, even though I recognize that I'm cheating by using such options, it doesn't mean I won't have fun doing it
I'm just aware that this game won't represent my real ability as a civ player. I'm just lucid about it all.
I'm stacking the deck in my favor (to me this is cheating) and it can be fun.

And, in the end, I prefer to be called a cheater than being called insane... but that's just me...

Why is it cheating playing with unrestricted leaders? The AI will also have unrestricted leaders, opposite to Worldbuilder where only you(this is, if you choose to) gets this option.

If I choose random leaders with unrestricted leaders, is that an exploit?
If I choose Boudica from Roman, but I am a horsehockey warmonger(hey, that is me), how is that going to help me if I will eventually go with culture victory anyway?
If I choose no barbarians, am I the only one getting the advantage?
If I choose no tech trade, it will hurt some AI, but it will also help some others and it may hurt or help me, depending of the difficulty level I play. no?
If I choose to play as Inca to try to go for cultural victory, is it an exploit? And what if I find myself exploring with a quacha(or whatever is his name) and find a AI city empty or only with one archer, is it a exploit if I walk over there? And if I do it on purpose, specially in higher levels than my normal capabilities?
If I choose Darius to try domination, is it a exploit?
If I REX with Joao is it an exploit? And if I choose archipelagos? What about William?

Heyy, those are all options of vthe game, as much as Boudica of Romans.


Now, what happens if I open the WB and give myself 10 Great Engineers?

Please answer this questions one by one, thanks.
Sorry for calling people insane, I admit I overreacted there. But no, my opinion is the same. I gave you facts, if it doesn't change your mind, so there is no point discussion it anymore because we probably won' change our minds.

 

[bardolph]

@Bardolph

It's the second time here someone calls me a troll. Really, that is a shame because it was never my intention to create a controversy. People can criticize the poll all they want. I have no problem with that, but calling me a Troll attacks my person and my integrity and I won't take any of it. How can I not take such accusation personally?
I repeat what I already said in many different ways: it was never my intention to cause a flame war, some sort of controversy or any other kind of problem associated with trolling. You judge me on the intents you presume I had. In French, we call that "un procès d'intention". There's no way to translate that expression very well in English. You presume my intentions were to cause problem and then, I become guilty of being a Troll. I reject these accusations based on such speculations. Criticize my poll, criticize my position, but not my person.

Yeah, adding phrases was not my best idea. I agree with that. And I should have made more specific choices.
If I could change it here's what it would probably look like: cheat, exploit, just overpowered, a bit unfair, a fair and valid choice). However, I think MOST polls I have seen here were done that way with what "what you call "attitudes phrases" or "loaded choices". Honestly, polls here are almost never done properly. The "attitude phrases" which you liken to trolling are commonly used here. Are all these people trolls? You're going too far with such accusations.

I'll also remind you that it has no pretension to be a scientific poll, so it doesn't have to be perfect (BTW, the poll still managed to say pretty well that my opinion is not shared by most. Therefore it is not that loaded). Another thing, every time I've seen polls with these kinds of phrases people mostly ignore them if they don't fit with their opinion. They take the closest choice to what they believe and they nuance and specify their position with a post. Again, I'm not saying it was a good move on my part to add the sentences, but you really see too much in a simple mistake.

BTW The reason why I put sentences has more to do with my definition of cheating. I wanted to distinguish those who think it is normal and fair to use Boudica of the Romans from those who don't. In my mind, as soon as it is not fair and it is a deliberate choice of the player to create a situation that is not fair, it's getting close to a cheat or an exploit. It was an awkward way to reflect the definition I wanted to give to the words in my poll. It was poorly done, no doubt about it, but it is not trolling. I strongly reject that.

And you say I'm a Troll because, of what? Because my poll is a poorly phrased? Trolling is related to trying to create a controversy on a forum. There is no controversy here, people are discussing and exchanging opinions and arguments. The thread has not yet descended into a flame war. Actually, the only one accused of flaming here is a guy on page 5 who called me a Troll because I said I was not going to be convinced by a particular poster's argument... And beside the poorly phrased poll, when was my behavior purposely controversial in any way? I never tried to stir the pot once my poll was posted. On the contrary.

BTW, I think calling someone a Troll without proper and clearly identifiable justification for doing so is in itself a type of trolling. You resort to that word MUCH TOO FAST. You may not like my poll, but that is no reason to resort to call me a troll. Just say you don't like it, explain why and stay respectful, because I'll remind you that name-calling can also be likened to a form of trolling too.

Fair enough. I thought you were calling me "touchy," so I was trying to explain where I was coming from. You're right. Implying that you were trolling is a bit harsh. I apologize.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Why is it cheating playing with unrestricted leaders? The AI will also have unrestricted leaders, opposite to Worldbuilder where only you(this is, if you choose to) gets this option.

True, but the players can choose carefully his overpowered combo*. The AI can't and can easily end up getting an underpowered combo.
*BTW, the fact that the player consciously chooses to play an highly powerful and highly synergetic combo has always been implied here.

If I choose random leaders with unrestricted leaders, is that an exploit?

In my mind, for a player's action to be called a cheat or an exploit, there must be an intention on the part of the player to gain an advantage (this condition in itself is not enough, but it is an important condition for something to be called a cheat).
Very few people here deny that Roman Boudica gives an advantage. If someone chooses Roman Boudica on purpose, he knows he's getting a great warmongering advantage.
If everything is random (UL with random leaders), as your question asked, there is no intention. Therefore, it can't be cheating. Such randomness is fair.

If I choose Boudica from Roman, but I am a horsehockey warmonger(hey, that is me), how is that going to help me if I will eventually go with culture victory anyway?

A horsehockey warmonger will be a less horsehockey warmonger with Roman Boudica. It's situational. A cheater can still end up loosing if he doesn't play well. IMHO, whether I make good use of the advantage I give myself or not is rather irrelevant to determine a cheat or an exploit.*

*UNLESS it was my intention from the start to try a cultural win with a Roman Boudica. In this very particular and odd case, the player is not looking for an advantage, but for a way to handicap himself. He is challenging himself by playing a weird kind of game. Intention is important again.
**Unless specified, it is always implied in my posts that the UL option is used by the player to get an highly powerful and synergetic combo. I am well aware that it is possible to get combinations which are actually less powerful than the one originally intended by Firaxis, but that is not what I'm discussing here.

If I choose no barbarians, am I the only one getting the advantage?

No you're not.
However, I remember this has been discussed somewhere else. One of the conclusion of this discussion was that no Barbarian was usually more advantageous to players than to the AI. I can't recall why and I can't find the thread, but I remember having read this. When I have more time, I'll make some research.
I woudn't call no barbarian a cheat, btw (the problem here lies with my perception of Unrestricted leader as a very different kind of options than "no barbarian. More on this in the following question)

If I choose no tech trade, it will hurt some AI, but it will also help some others and it may hurt or help me, depending of the difficulty level I play. no?

This is related to my perception of the option "Unrestricted leader (UL)".
To me, it is different to most other option provided by Firaxis in the game. It can't be compared to No Barbarian or No trade.
First, in my mind, it doesn't have the same legitimacy as other option which existed from the beginning of Civ 4 (or even of the civ serie).
In previous Civ4 versions, doing the equivalent of UL was against the given rules. Now, it is permitted through customization of your games.

Also, as I said earlier, it's a flavor option given by Firaxis which only has the purpose of giving more freedom to the player.
It's there solely to experiment, to abuse the mechanics (the normal rules), to try all weird and wild combos and ultimately to have fun at the AI's expense.
Of course, balance and fairness takes a direct hit, from this enhanced freedom. In sum, UL is not like playing a normal game. It breaks one of the game's basic feature and I don't think there is any other option that achieve this as much as UL (except maybe OCC, but that is simply a very different kind of thing).
The fact that UL was added only in BTS leads me to believe that my interpretation of the option is rather correct.
It breaks the regular games' mechanics and balance. It's a flavor and marginal option that throws all matter of fairness overboard. It allows the player to stack the deck in his favor like very few other options can.

If I choose to play as Inca to try to go for cultural victory, is it an exploit? And what if I find myself exploring with a quacha(or whatever is his name) and find a AI city empty or only with one archer, is it a exploit if I walk over there? And if I do it on purpose, specially in higher levels than my normal capabilities?
If I choose Darius to try domination, is it a exploit?
If I REX with Joao is it an exploit? And if I choose archipelagos? What about William?

I would say a nuanced no, because these are all options available in the normal core game, unlike UL.
Using an available advantage provided by the regular game mechanics can hardly be called cheating. Slightly stacking the deck, maybe, but a clear cheat, probably no.
The only one I really consider too overpowered would be Van Oranje on a archipelago maps. Financial + his UB is just too much for me (imho). I haven't tried him yet though, but I'd tend to think it crosses my personal limit between a fair advantage and an unfair advantage.
Still, unlike UL, it is an option available in the core game...

Heyy, those are all options of vthe game, as much as Boudica of Romans.

See above. Unrestricted leader is not like any other options to me.

Now, what happens if I open the WB and give myself 10 Great Engineers?

A major cheat.

Now,
1) What if I open the WB to give myself a single coast tile instead of an ocean tile?
A minor cheat. Most will agree with this, I think.

2) What if I use UL (with my perception of this option in mind) to get a Roman boudica or any other overpowered combo?
I say a minor cheat/kind of a cheat. However, most here say it is neither a cheat nor an exploit.

Still, which one of the two situation affects fairness the most? Which one gives the player the best advantage? Number 2 of course.
Both are done with the intention of getting an advantage. There is no doubt about it.
But, the advantage of situation #2 is bigger.
Still, situation #1 would be considered a cheat by most, but not #2.
Why? Simply because now UL is an option that is now available, while the Worldbuilder is considered cheating as soon as you enter it.
It is only a question of legitimacy of the option given to the players. WB is not a legitimate option, while UL has become one, it seems.
People consider UL more legitimate than the Worldbuilder. This definition of cheating is based solely on the rules. It is the legalist definition I was referring to in one of my earlier posts.

Of course, rule has importance to determine a cheat or an exploit, but I think that we also have to take into account the intention of the action (does the player want to give himself an advantage) and the effect of the action (how big an advantage has the player given himself?).
I also think UL is not as legitimate as any other option provided in Custom game (this undermines the legalist argument, which says that since the option is available, it is not a cheat). That is of course based on my perception of this unusual option. In the end, it is only my opinion.

Sorry for calling people insane, I admit I overreacted there.

For insane, that's fine. I can get pretty passionate too sometimes.

But no, my opinion is the same. I gave you facts, if it doesn't change your mind, so there is no point discussion it anymore because we probably won' change our minds.

Yeah, we probably won,t change our mind. But before this thread, I had a hard time understanding why there were people who considered Boudica of the Roman a valid and fair game choice. Now I understand it better (even though i don't agree with it).

In the end, it always depend on what people consider cheating and on how they see the UL option.
These are all point of views, both have their underlying arguments and facts.

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Fair enough. I thought you were calling me "touchy," so I was trying to explain where I was coming from. You're right. Implying that you were trolling is a bit harsh. I apologize.

Glad this is solved.

I didn't want to call you touchy. With this messages to which you reacted, I just wanted to say that if I had known this discussion would offend or annoy people that much, I probably wouldn't have posted the thread.

I realized early on after posting this poll that there are many people who don't like to discuss issues involving cheating and exploits.
Maybe it is a cultural thing. Where I live, saying "I cheat" or "this is cheating" applied in the context of a video game or other kind of social games not involving money is not that morally charged. It's only a game.

 

[ShunNakamura]

If I choose random leaders with unrestricted leaders, is that an exploit?

Nah, even with the Game Theorists' definition you must be knowingly using a flaw in a game to gain an unfair advantage. And you don't generally chose random unrestricted leaders to gain an unfair advantage.​

If I choose Boudica from Roman, but I am a horsehockey warmonger(hey, that is me), how is that going to help me if I will eventually go with culture victory anyway?

Once again it boils down to intent. If you are originally aiming for a culture win your intent is not to exploit the war mongering aspect. And as far as a glance I don't really see how boudica of romans gives you an unfair advantage in culture.... of course if you pick always peace than that completely blocks this off as well.​

If I choose no barbarians, am I the only one getting the advantage?

Really I don't know how you would abuse this for your own gain. However, I am not a high level player so I may just be missing something. However, I would consider cheat/exploit/outofbounds if you are talking game balance. Barbarians are there for a balancing reason.... so trying to determine whether or not something is balanced[say the great wall for example] you kinda need barbarians there.​

If I choose no tech trade, it will hurt some AI, but it will also help some others and it may hurt or help me, depending of the difficulty level I play. no?

Read above... much the same applies here... except keep in mind your intention if you are purposely doing it to cripple the AI and aid yourself there is a valid argument for it being an exploit. And by reading above I also do mean the 'balance argument'​

If I choose to play as Inca to try to go for cultural victory, is it an exploit?

Not really sure why it would be. It doesn't appear to fit the definition of "knowingly using a flaw in the game to gain an unfair advantage"... not unless the Incas are overpowered in terms of cultural victory[which I haven't heard anything about them being so]​

And what if I find myself exploring with a quacha(or whatever is his name) and find a AI city empty or only with one archer, is it a exploit if I walk over there?

This is a tricky one. I would normally say no. But the CIV AI seems to be broken in regards to so many areas. And you can exploit an AI's stupidity[so many game strategies are based on such]. If it is undefended I would indeed say your are exploiting the AI's stupidity[which is a flaw]. If it has an archer nay.... after all you are taking a bit of a gamble there[considering I lose immortals to fortified city archers I am sure a quacha can lose to one having only half the strength of an immortal].​

If I choose Darius to try domination, is it a exploit?

Unless Darius of the Persians is a flaw in the game ... no. And I don't think of him as a flaw[Actually I prefer Cyrus for domination/conquest]​

If I REX with Joao is it an exploit? And if I choose archipelagos? What about William?

I'll let you answer this... are any of those flaws in the game? Do they break the games balance, thus giving you an unfair advantage? if both are yes than it is an exploit.​

Now, what happens if I open the WB and give myself 10 Great Engineers?

Cheat.... that isn't even exploiting... you are breaking the normal rules of the game there. Which is by definition cheating.​

Please answer this questions one by one, thanks.

10characters

 

[SwordofStriker]

ShunNakamura, could you elaborate a little on what you would consider an unfair advantage in regards to a multi-player game?

Rather than argue semantics, I'd like to keep this discussion going as I do enjoy hearing everyone's opinion on the topic, however, in order to better understand your points I think it would be best if you laid out what you thought was an unfair advantage as mentioned in one of your replies.

You see, I believe that no one plays a multi-player game that has settings they don't want to use. I wouldn't and I just don't see others doing that either. So, if unrestricted leaders is a setting that every player in the game agrees on, and every player has the same chance to pick whatever nation and leader combination they want, and the object of the game (other than entertainment) is to gain an advantage over other players using game mechanics in their intended fashion in order to win, I personally don't see Boudica of the Romans or any other leader/civ combo as unfair.

In regards to intent, I just can't make myself believe that picking a civ with a strong UU and a leader very suited for war equates to an exploit even if my intent is to warmonger. When I decide to play a game and go for cultural victories, I pick the civilization (and leader if they have more than one) that best suits both my playstyle and my intended end-game strategy. My intent is to maximize my culture to gain an advantage and win but I most certainly am not exploiting. According to your logic, I could come to the conclusion that playing any leader/civ combo that is very suited for my strategy would be an exploit. Obviously, I know you will disagree with that, however it's a reasonable assumption from what you've mentioned, which is why I'd like to hear your idea of what constitutes an unfair advantage.

The last thing I'd like to address from your post is game balance. Admittedly, I do not play with the unrestricted leaders box checked, however, I assume that game balance goes out the window in those games as Firaxis balanced the game for standard settings. I also assume that any players in a multi-player game will choose the very best combinations for their playstyle and planned strategy, therefore I assume that they will basically balance themselves out to some degree. I could be entirely wrong about this last paragraph, but it's been my experience that people who lean towards the multi-player persuasion often are looking for a greater (human) challenge. If you put several veteran players in the same game, you will see them balancing each other out more than likely. Certainly someone will take the lead, but unless it is someone playing Boudica of the Romans every single game, it doesn't say much for that being either an exploit or even overpowered. Though I'd be silly not to recognize it as a very powerful combo, it's not the "be all, end all" people are making it sound like.

A simple test for everyone would be to play using the UL option. Then make sure there is always a Boudica of the Romans in the game (as an AI of course). Play it out. Did she win? Now do it again, and again, and again. Did she win all those games? Did any other AI players do better than her? If she didn't win all or even half of those games, you'll probably not think much of her any more. Rather than argue about it, let's test it out for ourselves like was mentioned in the Phi/Ind thread. If we all get steamrolled, then yes, it's way overpowered and verging on being an exploit. If not, we'll have to come up with something else to complain about. Patch 3.13 anyone?

 

[Arlborn]

Good points everybody, but I just tend to agree more with SwordofStrike, specially when it came to ShunNakamura points. I don't think it is an exploit using a setting that is more favorable for your strategy! After all, what is choosing a leader/CIV(not talking only about unrestricted leaders here)? Don't you mostly choose a leader based on what you want out of the game in question? By many definitions I saw in this thread, it would be an exploit.
Sorry, but I don't think so!

 

[Elandal]

@UnspokenRequest

You stressed intention several times in your response to Arlborn. This means that an outside observer can never call a cheat without the subject agreeing on intent first - for as long as the subject denies intent you can't prove otherwise (possible exceptions - I'm no psychologist).


Another thing was unfair advantage. This gets a bit harder..

First, I would say that in single player game I don't consider anything unfair against the AI. I mean, if I, in my own privacy, go and worldbuild myself ten cities to start with or whatever, it's not an unfair advantage, cheat, exploit, or anything else. The AI feels nothing. We thus have to consider game in some other framework, not simply "private game at home nobody ever the wiser".

Through some shades of grey we get into "game made public" in some form - eg. HOF. We expect that HOF results are as given - the games have been played using the leaders and maps and whatever it says they are, scores results and whatever as was. No reloading, no nothing. In this context I believe I can consider cheats and exploits.

Given the "public" context, I would not consider Boudica of Rome an exploit or cheat if it says so on the scoreboard. "Boudica of Rome, small pangae, 5 opponents, conquest victory BC whatever" - it's a fair and square statement. Absolutely no cheats or exploits in the "Boudica of Rome" part.

If there was a way to eg. reload bypassing HOF mod detection, that would be exploit. It'd be exploiting a bug in HOF mod (or game core) that allows reloading without that being seen (usually you get at least session start markers). That's trying to claim a result that was not achieved using the expected means.

So, if someone claims "I won conquest victory in BC 1000" and I ask "small pangaea?" with him saying "no, it was standard" while it really was small, it's cheating. If he says "yes, small pangaea using Boudica of Rome", then nobody has been cheated.

If we want to know how much better Boudica is than other leaders, we may be able to get the info from HOF results. Want to make predictions? How many years will using Boudica shave off the Conquest victory?


I have claimed that I play comfortably at Monarch level. I've done that numerous times on these forums (if you read all my posts in chronological order, you could plot me going from noble to monarch then dropping to prince and again back to monarch). I've made many other claims as well - I can't remember them all even So, if I claim playing at Monarch but most of the time reroll the map until I have a map I like, is that cheating? From my perspective, if I do that without having said so, intending to give impression that I play at Monarch, random leaders and so on, then yes - it's cheating. That'd probably be about the same as playing on Prince..
Sure, I do reroll maps. And do many other things as well. But one of the "play styles" I use is "play what I'm given" and I do OK on Monarch that way. I don't randomize maps though - I used to play Continents then Fractal, and nowadays Big'n'small.


And for the record, in my hands Boudica of Rome would probably be no more powerful than Joao of India. I've played around with Darius of HRE (that was fun), and have thought about Hammurabi of Sumer or maybe of Zulu..

I've also considered using Unrestricted Leaders with random leader. That should give me some new variety I have never thought of. I don't consider UL any more gamebreaking than most of the other advanced options (in which our opinions clearly differ).


A lot of this discussion is due to consideration of fairness. As said, I could kick my computer around the house and it'd be no more or less fair to the AI. It'd be slightly less fair to my wallet than not kicking it around. And my wallet doesn't really feel anything unlike my foot, so the only one hurt here would be myself.

 

[ShunNakamura]

@Elandal - First a cheat is easy to locate by an outside observer. If it breaks the rules it is a cheat. Really Simple.

Second as game Theorist Jesper Juul wrote "it can be difficult to distinguish between cheats, exploits, and players who optimize their strategies for playing."

Third remember that Cheat and Exploit are different words and thus mean different things. Cheating is the one that has to be against the rules, exploit is the abuse of a flaw in the game for an unfair advantage[the loaded words being 'flaw' and 'unfair'].


@SwordofStriker - As I have stated unfair and flaw are a bit loaded. However, I will tell you this much. I almost always play with balance in mind. Therefor when you ask me if it is an exploit I am talking exploit in regards to balance. Therefor anything that unfairly breaks the balance of the game in your favor that you utilize knowingly is in the running to be exploit. Unfair simply means you have something the others don't/can't have. Only one person can be Boudica of the romans[unless I am mistaken] therefor if you manage to land that pick you have an 'advantage' and since no one else can pick it now it is an 'unfair' advantage[actually I shouldn't necessarily state boudica since it could be any agg/cha leader if there were more than one in the game]. The next issue is if Boudica of rome breaks the balance of the game. To me the balance is broken if there are only a very select number of ways to stop it. As it is there are few ways to stop your usual roman praetorian. Boudica being Agg makes it quite a bit worse. And Charismatic is just pouring salt on the wound. However, I don't view it particularly broken. What most people do with Boudica of rome I can also pull of with Boudica of Celts or Genghis Khan of the Mongols or Cyrus of the persians etc.... Thus in single player I don't consider it to be truely unbalancing[after all you hit a point where conquering more can hurt you more than it helps and that number will be the same with Boudica as it is with Cyrus[and I can hit that point in SP with either of them]].

However, Multiplayer changes this a bit. Basically in multiplayer you are playing by the rules previously decided upon. Boudica of the romans can be cheating in MP; if the rules state that it is out. It can also be an exploit if the rules were meant to block it but didn't state it directly[i.e. unrestricted leaders are permitted except when it is unfair]. The intention may have been to block boudica; however if you are aware of what they tried to bock with such a poorly worded rule[as I have mentioned unfair is loaded word that means different things to different people] and still play Boudica I would call that an exploit. You are using a flaw in the rules to gain an unfair advantage.

Flaw in my opinion is anything that detracts from the games balance.

 

[Elandal]

@ShunNakamura

If cheat is simply breaking the rules, then intent doesn't enter the picture - and intent was stressed by UnspokenRequest in the post I was commenting on.

If cheat is reduced to breaking the rules then of course outside observer can call a cheat. In case of cIV I'm not sure players can agree on the rules though


I guess using the whip bug would've been exploiting rather than cheating, as whipping certainly was allowed by the rules while the higher than expected effective hammers gained would've been due to a bug ( -> abuse of a flaw ).

Now, if we assume that any actions possible in cIV are allowed by the rules of the game (if it's not allowed, why is it possible?) then it's not possible at all to cheat. It's only possible to exploit flaws (which may be bugs or features, and even if bugs they may be on wontfix status).