Culture through Espionage - Exploit?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DynamicSpirit

Fear him of the pink tie
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
6,839
Location
London, UK
A new 'hack' (for want of a better word) has been discovered which allows very fast culture victories in BtS to be obtained almost entirely using espionage. It appears from a couple of games in which people have tried the hack that it enables cultural victories far faster than can be achieved by conventional means, and would therefore, if permitted in GOTMs, very likely render traditional cultural victories obsolete. Because of this, both GOTM and HOF teams are separately considering whether the espionage trick should be permitted. This thread has been opened to solicit opinions from GOTM participants regarding what we should do for GOTMs.

The Trick:

Roughly: You build an army of maybe 50 or 60 spies. You found a city, seed it with some culture (for example from a single great work), station all the spies in it, and gift it to an AI. The next turn, you have all the spies perform the spread culture mission, which means the city now has sufficient culture to be legendary if it was yours. So the very next turn, you declare war and take the city back. Do this with 3 cities and you have a culture victory – with a date much earlier than could be achieved by building culture in the traditional way.

There's no doubt that it's an imaginative idea, and the people who thought it up and have successfully used it are to be congratulated on their ingenuity. However, going forward, we (the GOTM staff) are worried that this 'hack' will damage the spirit of GOTMs by destroying traditional cultural victories, and it's not clear to what extent it represents legitimate playing vs an exploit. The question is therefore: What should we do about it? There are broadly four options:

The Options:

Do Nothing:

If we do nothing, then people will in principle be free to play GOTMs however they wish, including using the espionage trick. However, in practice, it's likely that traditional culture victories will die out. People who want to win by culture in BtS will be forced to exclusively play the espionage trick in order to secure competitive victory dates.

Ban the Espionage Trick:

Doing this will preserve traditional culture victories. But obviously, it prevents you from playing what some people feel is a legitimate strategy.

Create a Separate Espionage Victory Condition:

This would mean that the espionage exploit would be permitted, but anyone who wins by using it would be considered to have won an espionage victory, not a cultural victory. Obviously this gives maximum flexibility to players while at the same time ensuring that traditional cultural victories can continue to win awards. However, it's not yet clear that sufficient GOTM players would want to play this VC to make an award viable. There's also a danger of creating too many awards, in the process devaluing existing awards.

Nerf or Remove the Espionage trick by Modding
This could have a similar effect to banning it, but without any requirement to police it. One idea would be to mod a rule that culture generated from the spread culture mission never contributes to the calculation of a city's legendary status for the purposes of a culture victory (but it retains all other effects). Another idea would be a mod that limits the number of spread culture missions that can be carried out in a city. I suspect that the community may come up with other ideas. However, these are obviously dependant on what work, if any, can be done on the BUFFY mod.

Other Considerations

Banning the espionage exploit, or creating a separate victory condition both raise the question of how would we detect it? At present that's problematic, though we are looking into possible solutions. It's possible that a new version of BUFFY may be written to accommodate this, although that's not certain because of the considerable work involved. There's also the awkward question of precisely what event should trigger banning/swapping the VC to espionage. For example a player may carry out a single spread culture mission in an AI city for other purposes, and later on capture that city and decide to make it a legendary city - clearly we don't want to penalize that.

On the other hand doing nothing is likely to cause the death of traditional cultural victories - which would be quite sad. There's also a point of view that it feels wrong that the best way to achieve a cultural victory should involve not building any cultural buildings nor making any significant attempt to generate culture in the normal way, and that therefore using spies to generate almost all culture should be seen as an exploit rather than as a legitimate strategy.


Making a Decision

We've started this thread to let the GOTM community contribute any thoughts, ideas or opinions to inform our decision. In the end though, the GOTM staff do have to run the competition, and that means we will have to make a firm decision on how to proceed. The decision will be based on feedback here, on what is technologically feasible, and on what seems likely to us to maximize continuing enjoyment of GOTMs for the highest number of people. But there are conflicting interests here and it's likely to be all but impossible to make a decision that doesn't upset some people. I hope the community will respect that.

That's the situation. Please contribute any thoughts you have. (But please remember not to divulge any information from GOTM games that are still in process!)
 
Cultural Victory is probably my favorite strategy and I would hate to see it (the traditional type) die. An Espionage Victory category seems like a fine way to let people use this exploit if they want to, though it sounds a bit boring to go for that type of win month after month.

Would it be possible to detect the trick by finding a city that was founded recently and/or has no cultural buildings in it and somehow got Legendary? It seems like GOTM players are just playing for fun or to improve at the game so I would hope we could use the honor system with regards to classifying a submission as Cultural or Espionage.
 
I want to see this tactic banned from competition games such as XOTM games.

It is a completely legal strategy, but it destroys the current dogma of a cultural victory. This should be patched out, but no new patches are coming. It should be used solely for the enjoyment of the player who uses it in a pleasure game, but it should not be allowed in a competitive game.

I think it takes away from competitive games by cheapening them, not enhancing them.
 
I want to see this tactic banned from competition games such as XOTM games.

It is a completely legal strategy, but it destroys the current dogma of a cultural victory. This should be patched out, but no new patches are coming. It should be used solely for the enjoyment of the player who uses it in a pleasure game, but it should not be allowed in a competitive game.

I think it takes away from competitive games by cheapening them, not enhancing them.

I agree. This is just a cheat. Sort of like protective trait yielding a lot of gold in the old days when you whip a wall.
 
I think it should be banned...

BTW, I still dont really understand why it works... When I capture a city, does it not lose all the culture it had (or does it maybe only lose foreign culture?)
 
At it's current power level, it doesn't belong in the game. I would prefer the culture mission not be removed entirely. Possibly the simplest, most appropriate mod would be to change it from 5% to something like 0.5% (obviously the new percentage would have to be tested this time since Firaxis obviously didn't test 5%)
 
I think we should keep it. But making it into a new victory condition seems fine. There is also a backside of this play. Using 60 spies is a big investment and you will get negative penalty for the spies that fail. You either have to do risky play or plan very carefully on higher difficulty.

If anything should be changed it would be the spy discounts you can get by having the city close and having your culture.
 
The OP seems to be very biased in his presentation of the question posed by this thread through his use of term hack and prominent use of the term trick where more neutral terms such as strategy or tactic should be used. Its an old practice in polling/solicitating input from the public to phrase a question in ways to draw out the hoped for response. I'm sure this was not intentional, but the effect is the same.

Please remove these loaded words and phrases from post #1, so we can get a balanced response from xOTM players.

I do not believe that bans should be placed on tactics or strategies simply because it may obsolete old tactics or strategies. We don't need protectionist bans in xOTM. If a strategy becomes obsolete, we should not try to prop it up by banning a superior strategy.

In Hall of Fame, I suggested a Gauntlet devoted to the new strategy, so all players and staff could understand it better by actually using it or more closely seeing how it is used. I suspect many may have difficulty making it work as developed by Kaitzilla. Its not that easy to perform, especially at higher difficulty levels.

I suggest that the xOTM hold a unofficial cultural victory competition to help all interested players and staff understand the new strategy better.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
I agree that hack is a negative word and should not be used. As for trick I find it neutral. Trick or key I would use.

But the reason I post is that I'm unable to find the HoF discussion. Do they discuss only behind close doors?
 
Another comment on the OP's post #1 concerning the number of known games using this strategy:

There is only one published HoF game that uses this new espionage enhanced Cultural Victory strategy that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of any xOTM games using this strategy to achieve a Cultural Victory. Any other games using this strategy must not be published (yet). Also, the one game that is published may not be documented as well as many of the games in the Strategy and Tips forum.

Here is the HoF Gauntlet thread where the strategy was introduced into the HoF. If you follow the thread, Kaitzilla does provide many details needed to perform it:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=496964

Here is a post that references a five year old thread that provides detailed information on the Spread Culture Mission, including a suggestion that it might be usable to help win a Cultural Victory:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12550025&postcount=45

As noted, this thread provides a link to a five year old game that used this espionage enhanced strategy to a cultural victory, but it was definitely not competitive with the traditional cultural strategies at the time.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
Drop the bias. I'll xpost my arguments over on the HoF side of things.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=496964&page=2

There is a lot of good discussion in that thread, from me and several others. XOTM banning this tactic would be irresponsible based on simply nonsense like:

It is a completely legal strategy, but it destroys the current dogma of a cultural victory. This should be patched out

I agree. This is just a cheat. Sort of like protective trait yielding a lot of gold in the old days when you whip a wall.

At it's current power level, it doesn't belong in the game.

I think it should be banned...

BTW, I still dont really understand why it works

:lol: at that last one. Seriously?

Anyway, how about a reasonable, logical basis for banning something? "It's different from what we're used to" is not exactly a strong argument. How does this break the game? What objective basis is there for banning it as opposed to any other tactic? What is so awful about :espionage: replacing :culture: as one of the victory condition drivers (this tactic is useless outside of culture victories)?

So far, the closest thing we have to an argument is wastintime pointing out that :espionage: is stronger for culture than pure :culture:, mainly because you can pool empire resources for it. However, teching for liberalism is also more efficient than teching for engineering every game. Why not force everyone to fight medieval wars too? Renaissance wars on high levels too OP!

The OP seems to be very biased in his presentation of the question posed by this thread through his use of term hack and prominent use of the term trick where more neutral terms such as strategy or tactic should be used.

No joke. I didn't see the word "hack" at first and thought you were kidding, but he actually used that! Wow. Lack of a better word? How about "strategy", "tactic", or any other valid term that's been used in the multiple pages of discussion you've been participating in DS ^_^? There's no way that word choice was an accident. Calling it a hack or a cheat is a FLAGRANT misrepresentation of what's happening. A "trick" shows bias, but at least isn't falsifying what happens.

While we're at it maybe we should ban capturing cities for space race victories, and also ban worker stealing? Why not? Here are some basic arguments for banning worker stealing:

- "I want to see this tactic banned from competition games such as XOTM games. It is a completely legal strategy, but it destroys the current dogma "

- "seems like a fine way to let people use this exploit if they want to, though it sounds a bit boring to go for that type of win month after month."

- "This is just a cheat"

- "At it's current power level, it doesn't belong in the game"

Man, look at all these 100% valid and well-thought-out arguments against worker stealing or "generic tactic x". Let's ban them goggogogogogogo!

...

Come on now guys. At least try a little ;).
 
Trick is a word that has negative connotations in the USA at least. I don't mean its association with magic. It is a deragory term and should be avoided here in serious discussions.

I actually like the word "hack", but the press has turned that previously very desirable honorific software term into something that people now associate only with illegal software related activity. So this term can have both an extremely positive connotation or an extremely negative connotation, though the public is usually only aware of the latter.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
I actually like the word "hack", but the press has turned that previously very desirable honorific software term into something that people now associate only with illegal software related activity. So this term can have both an extremely positive connotation or an extremely negative connotation, though the public is usually only aware of the latter.

Out of curiosity, I looked it up:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hack

I didn't realize it had an informal positive connotation. Obviously before the past 20 years or so it meant something different to almost every lay person (first association would be with cutting something with a tool, as per the dictionary).

Regardless, none of these many definitions fit the espionage mission, so it's definitely an awkward choice. It's more of a tactic than anything else, though could be argued is a strategy-level thing as it's the primary focus in that victory condition approach.

However, EP culture opens up the culture game a bit. Early conquest is more viable, but not always ideal. GPP management needs to be tighter than "get just enough scientists to win lib, and otherwise artists only". Relations matter...and you're still going to have to come up with the :espionage: outputs in order to be able to do the missions, not to mention the :hammers:. It's not a freebie VC at all, it's just more efficient than "traditional" culture and then only because you can't focus traditional culture like you can espionage.
 
This tactic, to judge from the comments of Kaitzilla and WastinTime, seems markedly more powerful than traditional approaches to culture victories. It would be sad to know that, in the HOF at least, any classic, fiercely contested culture date could be undone by a semi-competent player who employed espionage in the correct manner.

Part of the appeal of the HOF lies in challenging the ghosts of players and games long since past. It is a diachronous competition, and the CtE approach creates an unequal playing field for anyone who participated before the Summer of 2013.

If you want to argue that there is still a sufficiently large playing field to stimulate a new and intense period of closely fought CtE victories, then fine. These victories will mean something. As it is, I would prefer that they be moved to their own separate category.

For xGOTM, all teams would be aware of the tactic, and I personally would have no issue with it there. However, I can see why other players might. If a map should include a cultural component, I think it is up to the mapmaker to specify whether the CtE technique be allowed in his or her game.

I don't play HOF games, so please disregard my comments if you only wish to solicit the opinions of currently active players.

---

BTW, it is supremely uninteresting to argue at length whether this is a "trick," "hack," "technique," "strategy," or whatever, just as it was uninteresting to argue over what constituted a "gentleman's agreement" in the GPT discussions. Since a "trick" and a "hack" may carry positive and negative connotations, the polysemy is, if anything, true to the present debate.
 
The OP seems to be very biased in his presentation of the question posed by this thread through his use of term hack and prominent use of the term trick where more neutral terms such as strategy or tactic should be used. Its an old practice in polling/solicitating input from the public to phrase a question in ways to draw out the hoped for response. I'm sure this was not intentional, but the effect is the same.

I had been hoping to let the discussion take its course, without too much input from me (other than questions to prod people or to keep the discussion on track), but I guess I should respond to that one).

1. In the programming/science world that I inhabit, the term 'hack' means a technique to do something that is non-standard and designed to achieve the results you want quickly, possibly at the expense of long term maintainability. Whether the connotation is neutral, positive, or negative depends on what you're trying to achieve. I would not agree with you about 'hack' being strongly negative, but maybe that's me being too influenced by the jargon I'm used to in my career.

2. I deliberately used a variety of terms (ranging from the strongly positive 'strategy' to the strongly negative 'exploit') to describe the espionage technique in order not to prejudge the issue of whether it is a legitimate strategy or not. I know from your posts that you strongly believe it is, but not everyone agrees with you, and it looks to me like the question of whether it is or not is still open.

Having said that, I just checked through the post, and it looks like I used
  • hack 2 times
  • exploit 4 times
  • trick 4 times
  • strategy 2 times
That is a greater use of negative terms than positive terms, which wasn't intended, but is not overwhelming.

In the end, I presented a summary of what using espionage for culture typically involves, a brief list of the options, and some of the doubts we have about each option. In the end, if you wish to convince us that espionage should be permitted as a way to achieve cultural victories, then you should present reasons why we should do that (which to be fair, you have done later in your post.
 
At it's current power level, it doesn't belong in the game. I would prefer the culture mission not be removed entirely. Possibly the simplest, most appropriate mod would be to change it from 5% to something like 0.5% (obviously the new percentage would have to be tested this time since Firaxis obviously didn't test 5%)

Obviously, 5% was tested. Your suggestion of using 0.5% would cause it to virtually have no effect on cultural borders at all.

The 5% amount is quite appropriate for Spread Culture Mission. It's effect is almost always far less than the Great Works for one's own city, until the culture starts approaching Legendary where 5% can be quite large, but the espionage required also becomes quite large too.

We can't take a myopic approach to this issue by simply nerfing the strategy in this manner (5% -> 0.5%). That would destroy the Spread Culture mission's primary purpose for existing. That purpose is to allow one to increase one's city culture above the opponent's so that when one captures it, there will be no period of disorder. It will be like recapturing one's city and having no disorder which is the case unless the enemy held the city long enough to overwhelm one's culture.

Quite often, dozens of Spread Culture missions are needed to overwhelm enemy culture in a city. Note that creating a Great Work right after capturing a city with no Spread Culture missions has a similar effect, except in cities that have more culture than a Great Work.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
If you take a peek at Kaitzilla's game...
Here [Game summary]
and[CtE Method Explanation]
Here[Save tryout]

...you can see that there isn't really that much difference between a traditional culture victory and the CtE [Culture To Espionage] approaches.

Both empires are underdeveloped: you build minimum infrastructure you require.
Tech grinds to a halt: you only need a few select technologies, after that you concentrate on EP/culture slider
Massive hammer commitment: be it either 60+ spies or 9 temples + cathedrals
Skeleton army and therefore diplomacy is important.

~~~

As a whole, both approaches are very similar. In SGOTM16, I pushed for the tactic (which we eventually used) and were able to brush off a few turns of victory.
After that, I made a quick post in BOTM62 suggesting espionage might yield a better time. This was Jesusin's response. Nothing against the tactic, just doubt it was actually better (as it isn't refined yet, something Kaitzilla has started doing).

~~~

There is even an option to disable the CtE mission: 'No Espionage' :groucho:
If you're able to mod the game so that the option doesn't double the culture requirements, then you've got a fix.
Want traditional culture games only? Tick the box.
Want to compare both? Leave it available.

~~~

The point I'm getting to, is that I see absolutely no reason for banning the culture-to-espionage mission. The knowledge was always there but nobody even thought of trying it because it didn't seem good. We now know better and the traditional culture game will be very different. At the very worst, make a new category for CtE but don't kill it only for nostalgia.

~~~

How many new tactics were found that obsolete older ones? How about those settler-difficulty-huts-marathon BC-space-victories? That's not the traditional way to play, BAN! :hammer:

People even laughed at mounted-only warfare for a long time... they're now the standard into swift military victories.
 
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: at that last one. Seriously?

Yes, seriously... Not it even matters, but not that I said I dont understand WHY it works. I fully comprehend HOW it works.

The reason that it does not matter, is that we have been asked to express opinions on a house rule. That is what this is, no more and no less.

An equivalent analogy is a simple playground game of baseball. Many of these are played with rules, such as, for example, no base stealing allowed. Why? Simply because the majority of the participants prefer the game with this rule. This does not mean anyone thinks it is cheating, and probably does not even mean that most of those same players think it should be removed from the professional game. It simply means that those players prefer that special variant of the game.

I prefer the variant of civ that does not allow this strategy. That is my vote. If I am in the majority, then it should be banned. If I am in the minority, it should be allowed.

I do not need any logical defense for my position. I could provide one, and indeed, if I felt strongly about this, then I would, in the hope that my argument would help sway more votes towards my opinion. That is what you are trying, and that is fine... However, that is NOT a reason to dimishing anyone who wants to express their own opinon of that they want included or not in our own, collective, game.
 
This tactic, to judge from the comments of Kaitzilla and WastinTime, seems markedly more powerful than traditional approaches to culture victories. It would be sad to know that, in the HOF at least, any classic, fiercely contested culture date could be undone by a semi-competent player who employed espionage in the correct manner.

Correct, but it is not unlike comparing worker stealing games to games that don't, or hut abuse games to games w/o huts. A semi-competent player would not beat a fiercely-contested culture date by a top competitor using espionage, and that's what matters :).

Part of the appeal of the HOF lies in challenging the ghosts of players and games long since past. It is a diachronous competition, and the CtE approach creates an unequal playing field for anyone who participated before the Summer of 2013.

Wrong. STW pointed out (accurately) that this has been a known mechanic for around FIVE years. You don't get to "grandfather" stuff; this has literally been a valid tactic since the mission was introduced in BTS. All it took was for a creative player to find the path to making it fastest. There were absolutely 0 barriers to a game like this being submitted in 2008 or 2009. To claim an uneven playing field is ridiculous; someone simply found a stronger strategy. That has happened in other VC/goals also, if you've followed the tables. Snaaty recently grabbed a space time on NORMAL speed that years ago would have been #1 on marathon...and 700 AD space is much earlier than the best times people were getting 4 years ago. They got new tactics somehow that DRASTICALLY improved the finish date; you don't "micro better" than good micro players by 700 years on marathon. Should those tactics be banned too, to preserve older competitive dates?

There is even an option to disable the CtE mission: 'No Espionage'

It was mysteriously banned long before I came onto the forum scene, although by far the most questionable HoF bans are still "Balanced Resources" and "No Tech Trades". Regardless, HoF mod would have to change its rules outright, and I'm not sure of the implications there.

The reason that it does not matter, is that we have been asked to express opinions on a house rule. That is what this is, no more and no less.

Hah. So basically, you're saying that sheer preference is a viable way to ban a competitive setting? Give me a break. Why single this particular tactic out then, because it's "new"? It's five years old. Why not "express opinions" about every questionable tactic in XOTM ever? That would be fun. Flood the subforum with opinion solicitations and see how that goes.

Obviously we're not going to do that. So then, *WHY* are we singling this out then? *WHY* are you advocating banning something? Maybe I don't like worker stealing, and clearly worker stealing is overcentralizing; it speeds up a majority of victory conditions (not just one). The only fundamental difference between that and this is that people aren't familiar with this.

I prefer the variant of civ that does not allow this strategy. That is my vote. If I am in the majority, then it should be banned. If I am in the minority, it should be allowed.

I do not need any logical defense for my position.

Hahaha. Well, at least you're honest. That said, this format asserts its a competition. Decent competitions not only make rules, but do so for a good reason. We're looking at least to some extent for competitive balance. Knee-jerk reactions from players who largely haven't even explored the strategy are indeed a questionable basis to ban something that has, in fact, been allowed for 5+ years.

I could provide one, and indeed, if I felt strongly about this, then I would, in the hope that my argument would help sway more votes towards my opinion.

I doubt :). I'm interested in valid reasons for banning it, for a number of reasons. You seem confident that you have one, and it would be useful to the discussion if you actually do.

However, that is NOT a reason to dimishing anyone who wants to express their own opinon of that they want included or not in our own, collective, game.

I think you could have picked a better word choice at least :lol:. Saying you don't know why something works with no elaboration carries some pretty obvious implications. At the very least, it's evidence that one doesn't fully understand the mechanics involved (and I can't blame you for that, city vs tile culture and capture mechanics are pretty convoluted), even if you do know that it involves spamming spies.

Kaitzilla's game in HoF was very creative. If you tried to just spam out spies and throw espionage on an AI, you'd likely not get a competitive finish and would lose to "traditional" culture, which is what's been happening for years. The key is to properly align all of the multipliers in the target city and also to have enough of your own culture there in the first place that a) you get a good :espionage: conversion rate and b) there's enough base culture there in the first place for espionage to mean something.

BTW, city culture is not destroyed upon capture and AFAIK never was (I didn't play vanilla). Culture-producing buildings are destroyed (exception: ones that normally don't that become UB such as terrace and salon), and wonders captured don't produce culture anymore, but the total city culture remains. This is why it's impossible to get 100% culture in a captured city unless you wipe the target out and eliminate all of their culture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom