Carl Sagan exploit

[Victoria]

I agre with you @sa1vy I only use the overflow for the three space projects

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

If they meant for the extra production to be used however you wanted, they would state that. You can interpret it how you want, be there isn't any doubt in my mind this isn't working as intended.

I do agree that the exploit argument is abused but based on the definition above (which I also agree with) I do think this is an exploit. I can't imagine the designers intentionally created a mechanism whereby you could rush the space ship components to completion all in one turn by taking advantage of overflow and multipliers. It's a clever trick but I fully expect this will get patched out eventually.

 

[MyOtherName]

I do agree that the exploit argument is abused but based on the definition above (which I also agree with) I do think this is an exploit. I can't imagine the designers intentionally created a mechanism whereby you could rush the space ship components to completion all in one turn by taking advantage of overflow and multipliers. It's a clever trick but I fully expect this will get patched out eventually.

I can imagine that. I can also imagine it being unintentional, but accepted (or at least tolerated) by the developers.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

The overflow came from that Factory-nerfing patch way back. They reduced Space project costs to help mitigate the impact the nerf had on Science Victories (which would undoubtedly be a very slow and boring one if they maintained the cost). But they forgot to scale down Sagan as well, and thus he became way overpowered.

Though reaching him can take a few dozens of turns using projects, or require Big Ben (and money saved from another few dozens of turns), it's still very consistent.

The new wonder that gives GE two charges... oh my god...

Except that Kwolek and Sagan are Scientists... Though there's a Great Engineer that does the same (but it's much harder to get him than Sagan).

 

[MyOtherName]

You could get big overflow on day 1; I estimated it should be possible to do all of mars in one turn and then some, although I hadn't gotten around to trying it.

I suppose you mean that there's more overflow available since that patch.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

You could get big overflow on day 1; I estimated it should be possible to do all of mars in one turn and then some, although I hadn't gotten around to trying it.

I suppose you mean that there's more overflow available since that patch.

Precisely. Previously you could get only about 2 parts, but since the 40% discount on them, there's much more overflow than before.

Before, you could get other multipliers to achieve that, but would require more GP and policies. It was better to just let Factory bonuses pile one on top of the other and let them finish the Space parts in some 5 turns. Or you could use those broken exploits like horse economy and gold bug..

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I do agree that the exploit argument is abused but based on the definition above (which I also agree with) I do think this is an exploit. I can't imagine the designers intentionally created a mechanism whereby you could rush the space ship components to completion all in one turn by taking advantage of overflow and multipliers. It's a clever trick but I fully expect this will get patched out eventually.

Definition above? There was no definition above at all.

As I mentioned, "developer intention" as a criteria for "exploit" is a farce unless the developers list self-consistent criteria for determining what constitutes an exploit. To illustrate:

- If Ed Beach came in here and said he is removing x tactic "because it is an exploit" without further reasoning, he is telling us he's changing a mechanic he doesn't like and nothing more.
- If Ed Beach came in here and said he is removing x tactic "because y reason", while simultaneously allowing z tactic despite y reason, Ed Beach would be making an irrational decision.
- If Ed Beach establishes that an "exploit" meets certain criteria, then the implementation is sensible if and only if these criteria 1) allow someone to anticipate future exploit classifications consistently and 2) are applied consistently.

Other posters are not exempted from this. If you want to assign any meaning to "x is an exploit" whatsoever, you must have some means to distinguish it from tactics that "seem too strong" or tactics "player happens not to like". Otherwise you can replace "exploit" with "wharlgarble" and it carries *precisely identical meaning*.

I claim that you building 5 commercial districts is a wharlgarble. Show me this has less meaning than "exploit" per its usage here so far.

I argue this way because it's fun, but it has real implications. Civ HoF has used flawed reasoning over allowed/disallowed rules and banned tactic discussion in the past. If you can't ground your basis for evaluation in something outside your own whim, there's no point in calling it anything aside from your own whim.

This is just one thing that I don't think makes the game better, and I wish it operated differently.

This is making a different case than "exploit" though. You are in effect asserting something is imbalanced. That is still challenging to demonstrate/define, but easier...but also includes by-design mechanics and even civs.

To illustrate: nobody would have a reasonable case that original industrial districts were an "exploit", but their enormous utility and ubiquitous nature/minimal consideration needed to decide to build them nevertheless stood as a reasonable basis for altering them.

Considering the production implied by using Sagan in this capacity, it would be reasonable to assert it provides the single civ that gains access too large an advantage for the investment.

 

[sa1vy]

As I mentioned, "developer intention" as a criteria for "exploit" is a farce unless the developers list self-consistent criteria for determining what constitutes an exploit.

If you want to assign any meaning to "x is an exploit" whatsoever, you must have some means to distinguish it from tactics that "seem too strong" or tactics "player happens not to like".

I literally quoted the in-game text. This as direct from the source as just about content can get. Feel free to ask Beach about it directly, and I would be interested in hearing his response. But in the absence of that, in-game text is as close to canon as we get.
From their definition, which I did give, it states it is to be used towards space race projects. Not "can be used", or "if there is extra production after the project is completed then you can use it on an Entertainment District, a stadium, and Estádio do Maracanã", or any other even slightly ambiguous wording allowing production on anything else.

This is making a different case than "exploit" though. You are in effect asserting something is imbalanced. That is still challenging to demonstrate/define, but easier...but also includes by-design mechanics and even civs.

I never claimed that imbalance was an exploit. I stated it as my opinion that it did not make the game more enjoyable for me. This is irrelevant to the conversation about whether this specific mechanic was an exploit, and it was my attempt to lighten the conversation.

I listed why I thought it was an exploit, and it fit with what previous people had commented what an exploit is, and it even fit your idea of what an exploit is.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

I'll have to disagree here and say it isn't an exploit, or at least not as broken as giving cities for a Religious Victory.

An exploit, for me, is the abuse of a loophole which allows you to achieve your goals in a much faster way, but unfair to the other players. In a SP game, one can wonder if abusing the awful combat AI is an exploit, for example, but since the AI is willing to do that, I don't consider it as one. But giving out cities for a Religious Victory is, because even players can't see the dominant religion in the cities before accepting or refusing the deal.

Back to the Sagan issue, the overflow allows you to instantly build a wonder. But why would you, instead of winning the game? If you wanted to prolong or hard-build the spaceship, you wouldn't have activated (or even acquired) Sagan in the first place. So in my opinion, it's not an exploit, because doing so actually hinders you.

But if people will rage on about that, surely Sagan's effect could be patched to "Instantly builds 2 unlocked Space Race projects at random". It'd (almost) have the intended effect pre-Factory-nerf.

 

[sa1vy]

or at least not as broken as giving cities for a Religious Victory

Lol, I hadn't even thought of this. This is pretty funny. If kind of abusive and dumb.

But if people will rage on about that, surely Sagan's effect could be patched to "Instantly builds 2 unlocked Space Race projects at random". It'd (almost) have the intended effect pre-Factory-nerf.

Whether or not it is an exploit, I wish it would be patched. 2 seems a little too strong in my opinion, but not a bad idea. It's hard to say. In any event, I'm looking forward to seeing what this next patch will bring. Maybe all of this talk will be outdated in a couple days

 

[MyOtherName]

IIRC, the original numbers were that CS gave you 3000 cogs. The first two projects were 1500 each, and the three mars projects were all 3000 cogs.

(also, iirc, the engineer gave you 1500 cogs)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

From their definition, which I did give, it states it is to be used towards space race projects. Not "can be used", or "if there is extra production after the project is completed then you can use it on an Entertainment District, a stadium, and Estádio do Maracanã", or any other even slightly ambiguous wording allowing production on anything else.

Are you really willing to set a standard of what the UI tells you an option "is to be used towards"? Do swords explicitly tell you they can take cities, or embark, etc when you look at one line of text definition? What about the mouse over description for luxuries?

If you try to get past this by pointing out the game tells you that units can generally attack, then you cancel out the definition you use above by noticing that the game also has a general overflow mechanic and we're back to square one. AFAIK, the game does not list out explicit overflow rules in nuanced detail or define an expected outcome for the use of this mechanic precisely.

The developers have *not* defined exploit in this game publicly in any capacity, to my knowledge. Given the state it's in, I would be very surprised if that changes since it would amount to admitting making things up as they go. Which they do and have done, to the detriment of the titles. This was even the case with overflow in civ 4, not to mention espionage which they broke outright trying to "fix", then finally left it in a state where it was faster to use espionage to win culture than direct culture.

I listed why I thought it was an exploit, and it fit with what previous people had commented what an exploit is, and it even fit your idea of what an exploit is.

Still no criteria in the thread though, so no *useful* framework from which to accept "exploit" over "wharlgarble". Anyway what I objected to in the first place when quoting you was that we have an established definition per game standards. We don't.

I didn't attempt to define exploit at all. And telling the forum that you "think" it's an exploit is as useful as telling the forum that attacking a city state early on with archers is a wharlgarble. It conveys identical or nearly identical anticipation of future applications of the term and standards for deciding what constitutes a wharlgarble.

 

[Mesix]

It is an exploit. Trying to use semantics to justify the broken nature of this mechanic is a bit ironic considering that if it were not an exploit, you would not need to defend this position at all.

It is in the game currently. Whether or not the developers decide to change this in future patches/expansions is immaterial at the moment.

My purpose in sharing this exploit with the community is to inform people who play the game. Each person can choose to maximize the benefit of this exploit (or not) according to their play style. Likewise, moderators who decide on the rules for GOTM or HOF entries can decide whether or not to allow this in their competitions.

 

[sa1vy]

@TheMeInTeam
It's clear that neither of us is making any progress convincing the other. Let's agree to disagree and move on to another topic.

 

[PYITE]

Does this work for the AI with their difficulty level bonuses? Deity - 80% production? What about Deity John Curtain at 180% after having war declared?

Does Curtain actually get over 100% production or is it hard capped at 100%?

 

[TheRealHellBlazer]

This simply occurs due to the lack of any production overflow cap in cities. This was not the case in Civ 5 as overflow was capped.

 

[Mesix]

This simply occurs due to the lack of any production overflow cap in cities. This was not the case in Civ 5 as overflow was capped.

Actually, there were production overflow (and also research overflow) exploits in Civ5 Vanilla which were later patched in one of the expansions.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It is an exploit. Trying to use semantics to justify the broken nature of this mechanic is a bit ironic considering that if it were not an exploit, you would not need to defend this position at all.

Telling the community you found a wharlgarble mechanic function tells the community nothing more than telling the community you found a mechanic function.

That is not semantics. Rather, tossing in an extra word that you can't define isn't useful. It isn't even a rational position. What is the point of telling the community something is an exploit when you don't know how to identify an exploit? If you do know how to identify an exploit after all, I'd like to see it.

It's clear that neither of us is making any progress convincing the other. Let's agree to disagree and move on to another topic.

No sell . The "exploit" train has damaged civ games and other games I've played. I'm not going to "agree to disagree" with incoherent usage of a term when the posters or developers using it can't define it...and that use is as a basis for determining what should or should not be in a game!

I won't "agree to disagree" with that, because it's an irrational stance. I'll disagree outright.

Likewise, moderators who decide on the rules for GOTM or HOF entries can decide whether or not to allow this in their competitions.

It's true that moderators don't need to make rational decisions regarding their rules. HoF has certainly made irrational/self-inconsistent decisions regarding its rules in the past, including some that run counter to its stated purpose. In fact, if one is shouldering the burdens associated with running these formats, it is all the more important that the words they use in reasoning out decisions have meaning.

Usage of "exploit" in this thread does not have a consistent meaning, even to the person using it in the moment. Inconsistent application of rules is not a good scenario for a competitive environment, and neither is handwaving off arguments against flawed decision-making logic as "semantics".

An exploit, for me, is the abuse of a loophole which allows you to achieve your goals in a much faster way, but unfair to the other players.

Optimization achieves goals faster. You're essentially "passing the buck" to "fair". This requires you to define "fair" in game terms, without any reason for using "exploit" instead of "unfair".

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

Other posters are not exempted from this. If you want to assign any meaning to "x is an exploit" whatsoever, you must have some means to distinguish it from tactics that "seem too strong" or tactics "player happens not to like". Otherwise you can replace "exploit" with "wharlgarble" and it carries *precisely identical meaning*.

Not really and I'm not really sure I even understand your point here. If the programmers intended for Sagan to have +3000 production for space projects and nothing else (assumption) and players found a way to use in conjunction with other great people in combination with overflow to essentially get 3 times the intended hammers and rush all projects to completion (or other builds like wonders) then that is an exploit because they are taking advantage of essentially faulty coding (reality does not align with intention). It has nothing to do with whether I dislike the game mechanic or not. I guess you can clarify further that the mechanic is over-powered or leads to unbalanced game play but that is more subjective and opinions are going to differ there.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the player gets a very significant advantage here. Say you have 2 equally matched players and they play 100 games on an identical map and split 50/50 for earliest space victory. Now you allow A to use the Kwolek etc / Sagan combo and disallow it for B - how do you think that will shake out? I would guess player A wins at least 80% of the time.

 

[MyOtherName]

It seems pretty obvious to me that the player gets a very significant advantage here. Say you have 2 equally matched players and they play 100 games on an identical map and split 50/50 for earliest space victory. Now you allow A to use the Kwolek etc / Sagan combo and disallow it for B - how do you think that will shake out? I would guess player A wins at least 80% of the time.

So what? All you've said is "If one person uses the tools for winning space races and another person doesn't, the first person is more likely to win space races".

We can concoct lots of other scenarios.

If you allow player A to use one great person and require player B to build parts the hard way, then player A will probably win most of the time once again. Are great people an exploit?

I would be honestly surprised if there isn't a nontrivial proportion of people who really do believe that using great people to accelerate your space race is exploitative.

If you allow player A to build a spaceport but forbid it from player B... then A will once again win most space races. Is building a spaceport an exploit?