Carl Sagan exploit

[Eliminator_Sr]

I think people care about exploit v non-exploit for GotM, HoF etc. I think it should be OK for that, since if everyone uses it, it doesn't belittle the skill needed or trivialize the game. Unlike, say, infinite gold. Don't know about MP though - I never play it.

Well I kind of disagree here. I do think this tactic makes the endgame somewhat trivial. It's supposed to be a space race. Using this tactic essentially lets you bypass the entire endgame once you've built a spaceport which is probably 50+ turns which you don't have to compete with anyone for the victory condition which on high difficulty may often be the deciding factor in a win. This seems most similar to the goddess of the harvest issue that they already patched out of the game where you got massive almost game-breaking amounts of faith because of a scaling issue. I realize that it does take some skill and planning to acquire the right GP and yes the waiting around period at the end of the game is boring but there are some other things to consider here. I haven't really attempted this enough to determine how easy it is to pull off so there is that too.

Quoted statement is ducking the argument. You're not addressing the argument, responding in this fashion is intellectually rude (especially given that little "cheese win" jab).

If you're sure it has that meaning, why can't you present said meaning in a coherent fashion?
Are you saying building swordsmen is cheesing the game?

I claim no "official mastery of language". Determining whether something "is an exploit" as opposed to whether something makes the game better or worse is usually a wrong question.

Ok fair enough - that was a jab. My apologies but I felt like you were being deliberately obtuse and you had a jab at me in your last post - exploit has a meaning and so does intent. My point is that I do think that this makes the game worse in a sense. As far as swordsmen go - I think that's just fine tuning of game mechanics. To me it's obvious that the developers intended them to be an early force and are now in the process of refining their strength. I don't think the game designers even realized that great people could be used in way that shortcuts the entire space race until someone discovered it through playing the game.

 

[MyOtherName]

I realize that it does take some skill and planning to acquire the right GP and yes the waiting around period at the end of the game is boring but there are some other things to consider here. I haven't really attempted this enough to determine how easy it is to pull off so there is that too.

Skill, planning, and a huge number of resources. GPP aren't cheap and you need a lot of them. Especially if the other players don't cooperate by buying the great people you don't want.

I would be mildly surprised if great people are actually the cheapest way to build the space parts: what they do for you is allow your entire economy contribute to the space race, rather than everything coming down to how many cogs per turn you can stack onto your three best cities while the rest of your civilization twiddles its thumbs. (and even those three cities being unable to contribute until the research unlock)

 

[TheDisco]

Why do you care so much about whether someone calls this an exploit?

I find this entire thread very amusing. In general people are very sensitive when they are belittled, and exposing somebody's preferred tactics as an exploit will immediately evoke a defense-response mechanism because it is indirectly saying to them "You win because you cheat and maybe you can't win if you don't." I remember once lamenting about the use of aimbots in PC FPSers and a couple outspoken gamers actually defended the practice, claiming that since so many were using them you were handicapping yourself for not using them, and that using all available means to win is just part of the meta-game. The debate went on and on with their equating aimbots to things such as mice with more than 3 buttons. I find that it is easy to argue just about anything you want and convince yourself that you are right. If somebody is entrenched in an opinion it is best just to smile, nod politely, and change the subject.

As for my view of these matters, I only enjoy Civ games by playing in a way that feels organic. Almost like an open-world role playing game. I never look to push the boundaries of the rules in a way that provides unrealistic outcomes. I'm not saying that is the correct way to play Civ, but for me when it becomes a game of manipulating rules rather than immersing myself into the civilization I am playing I lose interest. Just like when I play RPG's, many like to take advantage of the latest flavor of the month builds to get an advantage. I like to just play how I envision my character playing, min-maxing only within the boundaries of my vision of reality. But there is no right or wrong way to play these games. Some like to go for high scores, some like to go for speed runs, others like to push the boundaries of the possible, and others like me like to play within a self-imposed ruleset based in my perception of "realistic."

Pushing boundaries of the rules is perfectly valid as a way of defeating a game ruleset, while it is an exploit to those who like to roleplay in a simulated reality. To each his own as long as it doesn't affect the broader community.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ok fair enough - that was a jab. My apologies but I felt like you were being deliberately obtuse and you had a jab at me in your last post - exploit has a meaning and so does intent. My point is that I do think that this makes the game worse in a sense. As far as swordsmen go - I think that's just fine tuning of game mechanics. To me it's obvious that the developers intended them to be an early force and are now in the process of refining their strength. I don't think the game designers even realized that great people could be used in way that shortcuts the entire space race until someone discovered it through playing the game.

They make you think of something, so they have "meaning". That meaning is inconsistent. Inconsistent rationale does not map to reality. Right now, swordsmen are MAGICALLY "just fine tuning of the mechanics"...but using this other option? That's an EXPLOIT! Why? Because reasons:

To this point, despite discussing the topic at length, you are still unwilling to put forth criteria that would allow a neutral observer to stratify what "you think is an exploit" and anticipate exploit vs not in advance. "What I think you think the developer intended" isn't a viable measure.

The developer intention doesn't work. Let me emphasize that again: if Ed Beach turned up in this thread and said "x is an exploit", Ed Beach is still saying something meaningless unless and until he can at least provide self-consistent criteria for what constitutes an exploit, beyond his own whim. Ed Beach makes games, he does not make language or redefine reality day-to-day or moment to moment. He could (quite legitimately) make a case it is or is not too strong. He could say it wasn't his intention. He could even change it on the spot.

All of that can be true, and if he claims exploit w/o criteria, he's still either wrong or talking about a wharlgarble. Ed Beach talking about a wharlgarble = exploit = whargarble does not help you define the answer to a wrong-question.

What "you think", what "I think", does not matter. You need the word to have meaning. You claim the word has meaning. You have yet to show in any self-consistent fashion that it has meaning, and in that regard you are not alone on this thread. Nobody else has either.

No criteria, no sell. If you can't show that criteria, you have not defined exploit. In backing off the sword example, you backed off the only criteria you suggested. No using it selectively.

Pushing boundaries of the rules is perfectly valid as a way of defeating a game ruleset, while it is an exploit to those who like to roleplay in a simulated reality. To each his own as long as it doesn't affect the broader community.

I agree that "to each his own as long as it doesn't affect the broader community" is a good stance, but you aren't willing to set criteria either, so why talk about exploit instead of a wharlgarble or a psinorf? I don't like the idea of you committing psinorfs, but it's your game so play it how you wish.

Using "aim bots", by the way, would not fall under "exploit" either. However, that does pretty easily meet the standards you can set for cheating. In a competitive environment, you can trivially set criteria like "no 3rd party software allowed" or "only defined 3rd party software allowed". Some games enforce that with bans outright, others don't, but if you ban x action or violate y defined rule, you do meet the standards of cheating, and those standards *can be and often are* applied consistently.

This is why "cheating" is less ambiguous and less controversial (even though it has some) than trying to call something a wharlgarble.

 

[MyOtherName]

As a semi-aside, the verb form of exploit has a commonly used positive meaning too:

Definition of exploit (transitive verb):

• to make productive use of
  
• to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage

These two definitions mean basically the same thing; the only distinction between them is connotation.

 

[WillowBrook]

They make you think of something, so they have "meaning". That meaning is inconsistent. Inconsistent rationale does not map to reality. Right now, swordsmen are MAGICALLY "just fine tuning of the mechanics"...but using this other option? That's an EXPLOIT! Why? Because reasons:

To this point, despite discussing the topic at length, you are still unwilling to put forth criteria that would allow a neutral observer to stratify what "you think is an exploit" and anticipate exploit vs not in advance. "What I think you think the developer intended" isn't a viable measure.

The developer intention doesn't work. Let me emphasize that again: if Ed Beach turned up in this thread and said "x is an exploit", Ed Beach is still saying something meaningless unless and until he can at least provide self-consistent criteria for what constitutes an exploit, beyond his own whim. Ed Beach makes games, he does not make language or redefine reality day-to-day or moment to moment. He could (quite legitimately) make a case it is or is not too strong. He could say it wasn't his intention. He could even change it on the spot.

All of that can be true, and if he claims exploit w/o criteria, he's still either wrong or talking about a wharlgarble. Ed Beach talking about a wharlgarble = exploit = whargarble does not help you define the answer to a wrong-question.

What "you think", what "I think", does not matter. You need the word to have meaning. You claim the word has meaning. You have yet to show in any self-consistent fashion that it has meaning, and in that regard you are not alone on this thread. Nobody else has either.

No criteria, no sell. If you can't show that criteria, you have not defined exploit. In backing off the sword example, you backed off the only criteria you suggested. No using it selectively.



I agree that "to each his own as long as it doesn't affect the broader community" is a good stance, but you aren't willing to set criteria either, so why talk about exploit instead of a wharlgarble or a psinorf? I don't like the idea of you committing psinorfs, but it's your game so play it how you wish.

Using "aim bots", by the way, would not fall under "exploit" either. However, that does pretty easily meet the standards you can set for cheating. In a competitive environment, you can trivially set criteria like "no 3rd party software allowed" or "only defined 3rd party software allowed". Some games enforce that with bans outright, others don't, but if you ban x action or violate y defined rule, you do meet the standards of cheating, and those standards *can be and often are* applied consistently.

This is why "cheating" is less ambiguous and less controversial (even though it has some) than trying to call something a wharlgarble.

This is semantic nonsense. There is no linguistic requirement to be able to define a word in such a way as to allow a neural observer to determine if something will or will not fit in a category defined by that word.

That said, if you want to convince someone that something is in a category, you will likely be more successful with objectively defined criteria. Especially with a super-logical debater who had preconceived prejudices against your word choice.

However, there is nothing *wrong* with using subjective criteria to define a category. Using developer intent as part of the definition of exploit is perfectly valid linguistically, even if Ed Beach himself can't provide a set of criteria that would allow us to determine his intent. It's clearly not *persuasive* to you, but there's nothing linguistically wrong with using an imprecisely defined word.

If what you really care about is people using the word exploit to malign in-game actions unfairly, I suggest one or more of the following approaches:
- attack the negative connotation the word has in the gaming context (the more general definition of the noun has a much more positive connotation)
- attack the (often implicit) argument that because something wasn't intended in the game design that it shouldn't be done
- direct the discussion to the actual practical effects that the alleged exploit has on the game, good or bad

As it is, your attempt to make people precisely define a word (something that few people could do with most words we use) is looking to me more like argument for argument sake rather than anything productive.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

I still think here's not the best thread to discuss it, but since moderation has (apparently) allowed such derailment, then I will give my 2 cents here.

• Any tactic that relies on bugs to work can be defined as an exploit. For example, the infinite gold and the horse economy. I hope there's no complaints about this.
• Any tactic that relies on tools and mechanics outside the rules of the game is an exploit. For example, use of aimbots in shooting games.
• Mods don't enter the above in SP, since it's left to each player's discretion. In MP I don't know how it works, but I think mods are shared for everyone. GotM always gives the map to us with their own set of rules (dunno how HoF works, but I wouldn't allow modded games to enter).

Every unintended use of a mechanic should be open for discussion and left to every player's discretion. A player, when faced with this moral question, should open a thread and we should discuss it (as civilized people, please). GotM and HoF have a thread for discussiing their rules and banned tactics, if I'm not mistaken.

I already stated my reasons as to why Sagan isn't an exploit a couple of pages ago, and I quote my post back here:

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.

 

[MyOtherName]

I still think here's not the best thread to discuss it, but since moderation has (apparently) allowed such derailment, then I will give my 2 cents here.

• Any tactic that relies on bugs to work can be defined as an exploit. For example, the infinite gold and the horse economy. I hope there's no complaints about this.

You've just passed the buck along to what constitutes a "bug".

And even if we were to have a satisfactory definition of what precisely a bug is, you haven't even bothered attempting to reason why a tactic relying on one should deserve the negative connotations associated with exploit.

I suppose that last point isn't really necessary; you can define the term "exploit" to mean something free from such connotations. But:

• that wouldn't really be appropriate for the people applying the label in this thread, since they are distinctly trying to convey those negative connotations.
• you run the risk of having your intentions misunderstood by readers who expect the word to be used with the usual negative connotations

Every unintended use of a mechanic should be open for discussion and left to every player's discretion.

Even if we presume to know what is and is not intended, is there any particular reason why they should be treated differently?

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

You've just passed the buck along to what constitutes a "bug".

And even if we were to have a satisfactory definition of what precisely a bug is, you haven't even bothered attempting to reason why a tactic relying on one should deserve the negative connotations associated with exploit.

A bug is a defective mechanic, clearly not working. For example, the infamous infinite gold bug. Or a tactic that relied on the -2 appeal from mines.

Even if we presume to know what is and is not intended, is there any particular reason why they should be treated differently?

Simple: we cannot arrive at a general framework about what constitutes an exploit. In this case, every case should be treated differently, since there's no common basis for comparison.

In my (quite limited, I recognize it) knowledge about laws, many times that's what occurs: the first few cases must be judged carefully. Later on, similar cases are also judged based on precedents. As it becomes a more common occurrence, a law reflects the previous actions. Or at least that's how it ought to be.

 

[MyOtherName]

A bug is a defective mechanic, clearly not working. For example, the infamous infinite gold bug.

And then we all squabble, because I say all of the mechanics were clearly working properly*. And lots of other people say the bug is that you can sell for gold.

*: (and so the fix is, if not just changing the numbers, to change how the mechanics are supposed to work)

Or a tactic that relied on the -2 appeal from mines.

I don't know the tactic you're referring to, but you do realize that a lot of people thought this was a documentation error, right? That mines were supposed to give -2 appeal, and the civilopedia simply had the wrong figures?

Simple: we cannot arrive at a general framework about what constitutes an exploit. In this case, every case should be treated differently, since there's no common basis for comparison.

You misunderstood -- I'm asking why 'intended' features should be treated differently from 'unintended' features.

But back to my main point -- why are we bothering about trying to establish a general framework about what constitutes an 'exploit'? We should be funneling that effort into more relevant things like how to judge if some aspect of the game is helpful or harmful to the game (if either!), and either way what sort of patches to call for (or restrictions to put on rulesets or mods to write) to improve the situation.

I only harp on the use of 'exploit', because people throw it around as if they're implying something relevant, but don't say anything to justify the implication.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is semantic nonsense. There is no linguistic requirement to be able to define a word in such a way as to allow a neural observer to determine if something will or will not fit in a category defined by that word.

There's a logical requirement. If you ask for a piece of fruit, you don't anticipate a sane person handing you a wrench. Even though "fruit" is still more vague than "apple", it carries agreed upon properties that allow people to generally identify something as a fruit and not a wrench or a yacht.

The "nonsense" is saying a word then changing its meaning according to whim.

However, there is nothing *wrong* with using subjective criteria to define a category.

You can have viable subjective criteria. However, it still needs to be self-consistent. A 1-10 pain scale is a subjective scale, but a 4 shouldn't sometimes mean mild pain and other times mean excruciating pain if you're using that same scale twice.

Using developer intent as part of the definition of exploit is perfectly valid linguistically

I'm pushing for a rational framework, and it's strange for this quote to be following language that calls someone else out for using semantics! Developer intent is not valid because when people use it you get wrenches and concrete donkeys when you ask for fruit, because it turns out everything can be fruit. Even linguistically, that's not useful. What's the purpose of a wharlgarble, linguistically? Only to the extent that it has consistent meaning attached. Which is none, like usage of "exploit" here.

If what you really care about is people using the word exploit to malign in-game actions unfairly, I suggest one or more of the following approaches:
- attack the negative connotation the word has in the gaming context (the more general definition of the noun has a much more positive connotation)
- attack the (often implicit) argument that because something wasn't intended in the game design that it shouldn't be done
- direct the discussion to the actual practical effects that the alleged exploit has on the game, good or bad

I could do those things, or I can point out that finding an action someone thinks should be changed and calling it a wharlgarble is not a useful argument, nor does it hold up to logical scrutiny. The irrationality/inconsistency of the use bothers me more in the context of this thread than the actual practical effect in a game that's tuned so poorly that a military advantage would typically be decisive before it matters in practical competitive settings.

As it is, your attempt to make people precisely define a word (something that few people could do with most words we use) is looking to me more like argument for argument sake rather than anything productive.

Thing is, you can pin down things like "pipe" or "vitamins" in a way that it translates between people (IE the words have meaning). Exploit doesn't meet that standard. I will not accept that over wharlgarble unless that changes. The most productive thing I can do is to convince posters in this thread to cast out the useless consideration of "exploit" and start working on your 3rd bullet point without the red herring. Instead most are still going with "I don't think its intended" or "it's an exploit because reasons but your comparable example isn't because reasons". I don't like that. It's intellectually rude and it shows there's still confusion even now.

ny tactic that relies on bugs to work can be defined as an exploit. For example, the infinite gold and the horse economy.

I object. Horse economy as an "exploit" when 1) unit refund gold was originally part of the design and 2) so were the cards does not and can not hold up. You would have to make the case that literally any option that is imbalanced or too strong relative to others is an exploit, or at minimum to set some threshold whereby something is OP by "too much" to reach those boundaries.

Any tactic that relies on tools and mechanics outside the rules of the game is an exploit. For example, use of aimbots in shooting games.

I contend that this should typically (almost always) be disambiguated as cheating. If you try to equate the two, we're opening an even bigger can of worms on page 4 here.

If GotM came out with some BS rule like "don't use exploits", then penalized someone for using horse economy when it still existed, I would consider that outright dishonest, and would have no qualms questioning the credibility of the format or the motives of those running it. If you instead expressly banned horse economy in advance, then not using it is part of the rules of the format.

In a competitive format, this distinction is crucial.

A player, when faced with this moral question

How is the distinction a moral consideration? How can one be morally confused about something they can't even coherently define for themselves?

A bug is a defective mechanic, clearly not working. For example, the infamous infinite gold bug. Or a tactic that relied on the -2 appeal from mines.

Is using a bug necessarily an exploit? Does one have to rely on a bug before it becomes an exploit? What about when it isn't clear, like a way to make the game give the players way less WW, but the game doesn't state the actual rules?

In this case, every case should be treated differently, since there's no common basis for comparison.

"Let's make up the rules as we go" can work in single player. That is not acceptable practice in a competitive format.

Or at least that's how it ought to be.

From where comes the shouldness?

You misunderstood -- I'm asking why 'intended' features should be treated differently from 'unintended' feat

And to further this point, developers (often!) state intention that is inconsistent with other mechanical implementation they leave in the game. Using those becomes exploits, because they go against stated intent...or aren't, because they were left in the game? Which side of the catch-22 would be used in such a case ? Right now the answer is still "make up rules as we go", and not even in-game rules, but social expectations of play!

I only harp on the use of 'exploit', because people throw it around as if they're implying something relevant, but don't say anything to justify the implication.

That's why I harp on it too, but we keep seeing the assertion that it's relevant with simultaneous skipping over functional rationale for why that is .