Discussion thread for exploits and strategies

[Ribannah]

This is about letting the AI pay MORE than their maximum.

 

[DaviddesJ]

If the Gotm team think its borderline they'll ban it from Gotm.

That's exactly what this thread is about---discussing whether particular exploits should be banned from GOTM.

 

[AlanH]

If the Gotm team think its borderline they'll ban it from Gotm.

Not necessarily. If a technique is borderline it means it probably isn't a game breaker. As a rule we would rather NOT ban things. We don't want a rule book as long as War and Peace that no one bothers to read, and we don't want to second guess the game design unless there's a clear-cut case fo doing so.

 

[malekithe]

This is about letting the AI pay MORE than their maximum.

That statement misrepresents the argument. There are, in actuality, two maximums at work. One is determined by available funds. The second is determined by size of economy and diplomatic relationship. There is no way I know to get around the latter maximum. Furthermore, in gifting money to the AI, you actually increase the former maximum. So, it can be safely said that no exploit allows an AI to pay more than they can or will, their maximum so to speak. That being said, the ability of the player to increase the former maximum is what could potentially be considered an exploit. The fact that the latter maximum stays in place prevents this from being completely game-breaking.

 

[starbolt]

Taking the ego out of the argument...

it seems like the solution from the AI's standpoint is to have the AI ignore income from "questionable" sources (like other civs). This forces the AI to stay within its budget (wish we could do the same).

...jumping into the argument of egos...

There's nothing that prohibits players from being similarly crippled by making the same types of choices. Have you ever expanded too quickly and had to endure an entire AGE of having your units forcibly disbanded? If you're a large trading partner for an AI civ and you change to Mercantilism, doesn't this choke the life out of a civ that depends upon the income? I'm not sure I see a distinction between these techniques. The intent argument probably came closest without judging the debating poster.

On the topic of worker stealing: You could argue that the AI is inappropriately naive in the early game and does not protect itself (or its workers) adequately against a player fixated on their inevitable subjugation. A player, by contrast, knows many of the limits to which they can push an AI and are aware of circumstances under which its a reasonable risk to have unprotected workers (or cities) whereas an AI can NEVER have this knowledge (unless the player is eliminated and then who cares?).

Worker stealing (peon killing?) can be totally crippling but it sure seems like a legitimate war strategy. Eliminate the infrastructure and defeat is inevitable. And this is encouraged in-game with pillaging. Again, the solution would seem to be to have the AI protect their workers and cities better.

---

While I'm on my soapbox, I want to vent about barbarians on islands that guard goodie huts. The game is designed in such a way that the unit you want to discover the goodie hut and pretty much the only unit you can transport there in the middle game by caravel, the explorer, is completely unable to pop the hut. You can't draw the AI off it, because it treats the hut as a resource which it wil only abandon when a threat against a city trumps it. Naturally, the explorer is unable to effect this threat, so you've got a catch-22.

Pretty good evidence that the designers are not omniscient.

---

Good topics guys. Keep it clean.

 

[pigswill]

I think maelkithe sums up my thoughts on this issue i.e. minor exploit, not major exploit. If AlanH reckons its borderline and that Gotm only want to ban major exploits ( a position I certainly endorse) then for me its a closed issue.

 

[AlanH]

You said we would ban it if it's a borderline case.

I was careful not to declare a position on *this* case, and was simply pointing out that we would tend *not* to ban borderline cases in general.

 

[pigswill]

Alah H: it was not my intention to put words in your mouth or pre-suppose your (or anyone else's) position on this or any other matter. If that's how it came across then I apologise.

 

[AlanH]

No problem, I was only clarifying my earlier post

 

[DaviddesJ]

Should "Perpetual Anarchy" be removed from the "List of allowed & disallowed exploits & strategies", since it no longer seems to be effective?

 

[ainwood]

Should "Perpetual Anarchy" be removed from the "List of allowed & disallowed exploits & strategies", since it no longer seems to be effective?

Probably. I didn't update it for the latest patch, actually....

 

[Alraun]

Suppose I was able to do the same emulation and prediction of what the computer players will do, entirely with pencil and paper? Would that be ok? How about if I can do it entirely in my head?

I just don't see the difference between using the computer as an aid to try to predict what the opponents will do, and any other method of making such predictions. It's taking the available facts and generating a conclusion.

Reloading the actual game is not ok precisely because it gives you additional information that you don't have. Which, to me, is very different from just making the best use of the information that you do have.

You could, for example, take the game as you have it at 1AD, generate your fake game, then run through a bunch of different ways of seeing what you can do to guarantee that you get Liberalism first. This isn't really practical, but it's theoretically possible.

 

[DaviddesJ]

You could, for example, take the game as you have it at 1AD, generate your fake game, then run through a bunch of different ways of seeing what you can do to guarantee that you get Liberalism first. This isn't really practical, but it's theoretically possible.

I don't think that's even theoretically possible. Since I don't know what's in the AI cities, I can't predict---even in theory---how fast they will get Liberalism.

 

[Alraun]

I do think this should be banned and is an exploit. At first, I couldn't finger exactly why and some things you always have a general feel for but can't explain. The fact that the AI is completely helpless to this is an important factor, IMO.

So... building lots of Modern Armor is an exploit? Attacking the AI across an ocean is an exploit? The AI is completely helpless to a lot of things. Is switching religions to make it so an AI is less unhappy with you and will trade with you an exploit too?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I can't help noticing that since the practice started of people posting sample games that are edited to give an identical start to the actual game (within the view of the preview screenshot), discussions in the pre-game thread seem to have been steadily getting more and more detailed - to the point now where there's a post (by Strobe) in the GOTM8 pre-game discussion that gives detailed step-by-step instructions all the way for completing the CS slingshot on such a map.

I can't help wondering whether this is starting to go seriously against the spirit of the GOTMs: I totally understand people's desire to pass on advice, but it seems we're hitting the point where people can--in effect--pre-play something that's near-identical to the GOTM for the earliest part of the game. And now with level of detail the discussion is hitting, it's like people don't even have to play their own game for the actual GOTM, they can just--during much of the ancient era--play the game that's been posted up.

There's a particular problem here in that, barring something really extreme just out of view of the starting location and given the kind of start location revealed by the GOTM8 pre-game screenshot, the CS stringshot strategy doesn't depend very much on any information that isn't visible - so in this case you can pretty much have your city research/building/worker action strategy all sorted for you right up to around 1500BC.

I appreciate that for obvious reasons we don't want to keep introducing new restrictions on GOTMs but I am starting to think the pre-game discussion of GOTMs is reaching a level that is bordering on what I'd think of as cheating - and ought not to be allowed.

Thoughts anyone?

(edited for a couple of sentences that looked ambiguous when I read them back)

 

[AlanH]

barring something really extreme just out of view of the starting location

Who's to say there isn't?

I don't play this game, so I can speak from a position of supreme ignorance, but if it can be scripted to 1500 BC just on the basis of the information in the opening screenshot then it seems to me that something's gone out of the game since Civ3.

But if it's that predictable and mechanistic, why shouldn't all players get the same starting script? All of the information is available to everyone, and if players want to divulge their methods for optimising the opening turns then so be it. Players still have to be able to deal with the unexpected coming out of the fog, and if there's none of that, the real game starts at 1500 BC.

My €0.02

 

[DaveMcW]

It will be interesting to see if an improvement in the level of pregame discussion correlates to an improvement in GOTM scores.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I appreciate that for obvious reasons we don't want to keep introducing new restrictions on GOTMs but I am starting to think the pre-game discussion of GOTMs is reaching a level that is bordering on what I'd think of as cheating - and ought not to be allowed.

If people want to follow someone else's script, instead of making their own decisions, it doesn't bother me. They still have to make all of the decisions relating to everything that appears when they actually start playing. My guess is that there are few people who just want to follow someone else's script, anyway.

I like the fact that people play practice games and post their discoveries. It puts those of us who don't have the time to play multiple practice games, on a more equal footing. I don't think it would be better to bar the postings, and thus give an even bigger "advantage" to those who do a lot of practice with sample games.

If a change were needed, I hope it would be in the direction of reducing the pre-game information (e.g., censoring the screenshot to give less information than what will be visible at start, or just selecting start positions with a bias toward those that reveal less of the map), rather than cutting down on the discussion, which I think is one of the most interesting aspects of the GOTM.

 

[starbolt]

... the GOTM8 pre-game discussion that gives detailed step-by-step instructions all the way for completing the CS slingshot on such a map.
[snip]
Thoughts anyone?

Before I respond, I'd like to say that I admire the tact with which you raised this concern and the intellect behind it. While I'm pretty certain that I don't have the definitive answer for Civ IV, I do have a solid background in several peer games that have bearing on the topic of internet community and game play.

I've been a semi-professional chess player, a serviceable tournament bridge player, and a strong, but casual Magic: the Gathering player. All of these sports have had responded differently to emerging internet technologies and the evolving community.

In chess, my strengths were tactical, rather than strategic, and this put me at a disadvantage against players who were more committed to mastering opening variations. That style of play did not appeal to me and I left chess largely because I felt I couldn't improve much without dedicating the rest of my life to opening game theory. I can't, in good conscience, argue that the players of the other school were inferior, cheating, or 'bad'; just different. In the end, we had access to the same pieces, the same board, and the same resources. As an aside, Kasparov's use of the internet for Kasparov vs. the world was a totally engaging experience, not unlike the SGOTM. I hope that people continue to do this because this kind of sharing produces refinement from diversity and is cool for converting specators to participants. Moreover, it challenges designers to stay on their toes and develop better games.

In Magic: the Gathering, I found myself on the other side of the equation. I was drawn to the game because I could choose my starting pieces to fit my personal style and pit myself against others in a more tactical game. However, online resources like theDojo made it possible for poor deck designers (strategists) to cover this weakness and construct tournament caliber decks and generally school my innovative decks; often with designs to which I had contributed but not refined to perfection. It was disappointing that I couldn't remain competitive in a sport that seemed well suited to me and I certainly resented not having the time to invest to compete. My personal sense of honor did not equate to what was fair nor did I have the right to judge those who played differently than I.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun-Tzu

Every competitive environment has a barrier to entry of which mastering the fundamentals is but the first step. Mastering your resources and preparing is the process that forever evolves in every walk of life. Learn it, love it, live it

---

The Civ IV GOTM rules impose some conditions for fairness that encourage the behavior you're questioning.

In a game of "touch-move", we're not supposed to reload or replay errors in game-play even if they are clearly against our intent. Lazy play / game play examples include dragging a unit to a wrong square, failing to wake a unit, moving the wrong unit because the game lags and cycles units oddly, or using slavery to whip oracle only to have the game announce afterwards that someone else has just built it. Preparing helps avoid these kinds of mistakes.

Strong chess players routinely look several moves ahead. Civ calculations are more complex and there are many more variations. Someone else in this thread argued effectively that there's only a subjective difference in the motives behind using a piece of paper, a spreadsheet, or a world-builder simulation. In no way does this latter simulation even come close to a real model, due to the extensive variation unavailable to players. The builder can artificially handicap or enhance civilizations, choose appropriate opposition, punish certain game-styles, or modify victory conditions. You only see about 20 or so tiles of a thousand, you don't know who you have to race, and you always have to deal with the evil random number generation. The opening can only take you so far... eventually; YOU have to do the rest.

If you followed the thread, the herd thinks CS slingshot is the end-all. This is just part of the evolution in opening theory (chess had it, too) and that's natural and ok, I think. Simulations with such limited data are never remotely close to the real game and your starting strategy evolves the moment you expose tiles that differed from the simulator. Add or subtract a coastline or resource, and the whole game changes.

---

In summary, you've raised a valid concern that I think offends the honor of many players to differing degrees. I can't agree that it's potentially unfair or wrong. In fact, I'd argue the opposite because I think this sort of community challenges players on many levels and in turn creates better scenarios and better games. For some, it might not be 'fun' to not be truly competitive in this environment but then I question how realistic an expectation that is if credit isn't given to those who invest more in the competition.

Good topic!

 

[Murky]

I've played about 10 practice games on random maps with the same settings up to around 500AD. I believe that I have come up with an optimal starting strategy for up until around 1AD. After that I still have to figure out what I'm going to do. This is probably going to give me a huge advantage over someone else just going at it cold without any pre-game practice.

Is this still within the spirit of the GoTM rules? I don't think that I will get the high score but would probably do a lot better than if I had not played any practice games.