Discussion thread for exploits and strategies

[DaviddesJ]

yes ! exploiting the game is using a loophole/a misprogramming in the game. But when the loophole plays agains you in normal time and you find something to attempt to do it right what will you do ?

The fact that the AIs won't give you a bazillion gold each, for all of your resources, without being manipulated to do so, doesn't make you some kind of victim. It's a good thing that they don't overpay so much, and it's certainly bad for the game for players to be able to manipulate it, whether or not you think it's an "exploit".

Often it's paying large amounts for resources that do it no good at all. Or it's paying for a resource that it's got in its own territory but hasn't bothered to hook up. To feel like a victim because it's paying you a lot for your unused resources that don't help it, but it isn't paying you as much as you would like, strikes me as ludicrous.

 

[Calavente]

Clearly, if the manipulation has a huge effect on gameplay, then it was unintended by the designer. None of the people involved would deliberately design a mechanism where players can get a big advantage against the AI through a counterintuitive tactic of giving them extra gold---I know them well enough to know that.

I never ever said that the IMF counter-intuitive technic was a deliberate design.

only that it was not an exploit.

Nobody IMO would design a game such as the AI would always ask 2 to 5 times the price it would offer for something.
Nobody would program a max value if the intended to put a mecanisme so that this value can never ever be approached in range.
'Hey, I know that the AI will never be able to pay more than 7gpt for anything but lets creat a max value that ranges arround 15-20gpt !!"

why not put it in more reasonnable range : say 5-10 gpt depending on empire size? so that this value is used.

why create this max value at all ?

do not say it was to prevent the existence of the "IMF loophole". because if they had not put this max value, indeed, the using the loophole would be an exploit.
This only says that the AI only able to pay 3-7gpt for a ressource is an unwanted bug.

using something that lets the trade be in the limit of the max value is then not an exploit. only a way to go around the bug.
And that this way around the bug was not put there deliberatly does not make it an exploit.

 

[Calavente]

The fact that the AIs won't give you a bazillion gold each, for all of your resources, without being manipulated to do so, doesn't make you some kind of victim. It's a good thing that they don't overpay so much, and it's certainly bad for the game for players to be able to manipulate it, whether or not you think it's an "exploit".

Often it's paying large amounts for resources that do it no good at all. Or it's paying for a resource that it's got in its own territory but hasn't bothered to hook up. To feel like a victim because it's paying you a lot for your unused resources that don't help it, but it isn't paying you as much as you would like, strikes me as ludicrous.

sorry I cannot stay back form that

-15gpt for a ressource is not a bazillion gold.
-using the "bug" the AI do not overpay! it is lower than the price they would ask if the situation was reversed.
-I do not feel like a victim when the AI isn't paying me a lot for an un-used ressource. I feel a victim when the Ai pays me 3gpt for one ressource(very few gold), and on the next turn, if he get a new ressource he will ask 16gpt from it.
Had I waited but 1 turn I would have exchange 1 ressource for 1 and have an equally profitable trade instead of being cheated of 13gpt.

I said we were victims before !!! now we have the opportunity to put the thing a bit more right.

I think you should change you vision of large amount of maney. And try to understand what I wrote. not transform it as you wish just so you can "rightfully" smash the head of people saying that what the thought about is evil.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Nobody IMO would design a game such as the AI would always ask 2 to 5 times the price it would offer for something.

You're wrong. I would. I think that's pretty much how it should be. Otherwise it's too easy to manipulate.

Nobody would program a max value if the intended to put a mecanisme so that this value can never ever be approached in range.

You're wrong. I would. It's important to have multiple overlapping mechanisms to protect the AI against manipulation. If you just rely on a single thing, then, when users come up with tricks to get around it, the game collapses. So it's very desirable to have several overlapping limits on what the AI will do.

I think it's probably (certainly) true that the "cap" values it will pay for resources are too high. This probably would have been adjusted in playtesting, but, it wasn't so obvious because people apparently hadn't thought of the tricks for getting around the other limitations. And so it didn't get as much attention or tuning as it should. But that's not a reason to take advantage of that oversight and extract massive amounts of gold from the AIs. As always, that just means that everyone has to play at a higher difficulty, with more AI handicaps of other types, to make the game interesting. And a game with a lot of AI weaknesses, offset by huge handicaps, is less fun than a game without the weaknesses and with smaller handicaps. I think almost everyone agrees on that.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Had I waited but 1 turn I would have exchange 1 ressource for 1 and have an equally profitable trade instead of being cheated of 13gpt.

Then perhaps you should learn some patience. Or you can just wait 9 more turns, cancel the existing gpt deal, and trade for the resource.

The AI definitely should ask more gpt for resources than it pays for resources. This is very necessary in order to offset the inherent weaknesses of the AI---it's not very good at deciding what the "true value" of resources is, either to you or to it. Since the human knows much better what resources are worth (and is also much more efficient and organized about connecting them up), the human will dump resources on the AI, for gpt, when they may not help the AI much at all. And conversely will take advantage of the fixed price to buy only the resources he or she really needs. The asymmetric pricing is one good way to address this.

 

[Calavente]

thats fun,

for me it seems you are putting the world upside down.

the max value is easily checked : look at the price the AI asks.

How can those price be overkill?

the only use of ressource vs so few gpt I know of are:
when you are already in the process of winning.
when you are going to prevent the Ai from getting money to pay for upgrads
when you are preparing to attack the Ai and want to put him in disarry when you cancel the trade.

If you need some instant money : the bug is not even intersting as it needs at least 15 turns to pay back.

And I never heard of someone deliberatly paying 16gpt for the Ai's ressources.

If I want the ressource: either I take it from the Ai, either I exchange it for another ressource.

The only reason for that is because I will never be able to obtain the same price from the AI.

 

[Calavente]

Then perhaps you should learn some patience. Or you can just wait 9 more turns, cancel the existing gpt deal, and trade for the resource.

So the only way to have a fair trade is to cancel a trade you said was already fair?

How is 1ressource vs 1 ressource fair if 3gpt vs 1 ressource + 1 ressource vs 16gpt is fair?

it seem antagonistic for me.

Either you have: the Ai demands 2-3 times the price of a ressource. that means 16gpt when I ask for a ressource and 3gpt when I propose one. But that means also : 2-3 ressources from me for 1 ressource of his.
either it is made to agree for 1r vs 1r and then should be able to pay 16gpt for 1r if he ask 16gpt for 1r.

 

[DaviddesJ]

the max value is easily checked : look at the price the AI asks.

How can those price be overkill?

If it's too high, it's too high. The fact that the price is the same for selling or buying is irrelevant. Suppose the AI offered 1000 gpt for any resource, and would also sell any resource for 1000 gpt. That's obviously way too much, and it would hugely hurt the game. The human could just sell a spare resource to each AI for all of its gold, and not buy any of the overpriced resources from them.

And I never heard of someone deliberatly paying 16gpt for the Ai's ressources.

Exactly my point. Human players almost never pay the high price for the AI resources---it's way too much unless you really, really need it. So arguing that the AI should be perfectly willing to pay you that much for your extra resources, and it's a bug if it won't, entitling you to manipulate the system to get around its limits, makes no sense.

 

[Calavente]

You are again changing my words :

I never heard of human paying 16gpt for a ressource because I will never get 16gpt for a ressource.
as I get only 3gpt, for me the real price of a ressource is 3gpt, or at least less than 10gpt. Any other price asked from the Ai will either end by a war or by me not paying the price.

IF the Ai is willing to pay 16gpt for a ressource, I would be willing to pay 16gpt : it would be the accepted price of the ressource.

EDIT: as an oddity : 1000 is an overkill in regard from other values in the game, even 50 would be. 16gpt in late game? it is not at all overkill. (though 16gpt in early game would clearly be)

EDIT : DaviddJ, may we stop this discussion here after your next answer? (I promise I won't even try to answer to it) I think we will never convince each other (me because I'm right and you because you are blind ) Joke aside, I think we are putting to much importance into an aspect that both :
-you said was maybe a exploit but not game changing at all (it may be from someone else but I think it was you)
-I will mostly never use as it needs a huge diplo in your favor to do it.

bye, see you on other threads... (or on this one, but other topics. )

 

[DaviddesJ]

I never heard of human paying 16gpt for a ressource because I will never get 16gpt for a ressource.

How much they offer to pay for your resources is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether the resource they offer is worth more or less, to you, than the price they ask for it.

I've paid 16 gpt for a resource, because sometimes I need it that badly. I think most experienced players would say the same. But usually buying resources from the AI for gpt is not worth it. Not because they offer less. Simply because the price is higher than the value.

Suppose I offer to sell you my car for $10,000, or to buy your car for $2,000. You are offended because you think your car is worth much more than $2,000. Nevertheless, if having my car would be worth more than $10,000 to you, it's ridiculous for you to refuse to buy it just because you think $2,000 is too low an offer for your car.

 

[ShannonCT]

If it's too high, it's too high. The fact that the price is the same for selling or buying is irrelevant. Suppose the AI offered 1000 gpt for any resource, and would also sell any resource for 1000 gpt. That's obviously way too much, and it would hugely hurt the game. The human could just sell a spare resource to each AI for all of its gold, and not buy any of the overpriced resources from them.

So in theory, this exploit could ruin the game. If it we're really possible to get 100 gpt, or even 20, for a resource by subsidizing the AI, it would make the game unbalanced. In practice, you rarely get more than 6-7 gpt per resource (midgame) and often you try to subsidize the AI and it does nothing.

If the AI doesn't know the difference between a resource it needs and a resource it doesn't need, this is an issue that will affect normal, unsubsidized trading as well, and is a deficiency in the game design. I would be surprised if the designers didn't build this kind of intelligence into the AI. I guess it's something that could be tested in the Worldbuilder: give an AI a lot of health resources and a lot of money but no happiness resources, and then test whether it will pay more for a happiness resource than another health resource.

 

[DaviddesJ]

If it we're really possible to get 100 gpt, or even 20, for a resource by subsidizing the AI, it would make the game unbalanced. In practice, you rarely get more than 6-7 gpt per resource (midgame) and often you try to subsidize the AI and it does nothing.

That's my impression too. But Shillen (#155) thinks you can get 20 gpt/resource. But he says he hasn't actually tried it, so I'm discounting that. But that's why I think empirical evidence is important.

If the AI doesn't know the difference between a resource it needs and a resource it doesn't need, this is an issue that will affect normal, unsubsidized trading as well, and is a deficiency in the game design. I would be surprised if the designers didn't build this kind of intelligence into the AI.

Why are you surprised? It's no different from hundreds of other "deficiencies" in the AI. Anyway, it's pretty obvious from experience, but, if you wanted to do some experiments, I'd certainly welcome the empirical data.

 

[RobertTheBruce]

That's my impression too. But Shillen (#155) thinks you can get 20 gpt/resource. But he says he hasn't actually tried it, so I'm discounting that. But that's why I think empirical evidence is important.

I have traded gold for 17gpt without gifting anything. Kublai had a lot of extra gold and would trade it all for one resource. The trade should be in my GOTM09 save when the results get posted. I'm not sure if trading history is listed in the log file or if you'll have to take my word that I didn't gift gold.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I have traded gold for 17gpt without gifting anything. Kublai had a lot of extra gold and would trade it all for one resource. The trade should be in my GOTM09 save when the results get posted. I'm not sure if trading history is listed in the log file or if you'll have to take my word that I didn't gift gold.

Sorry, I think you're missing the point. I do agree you can sometimes get large amounts of gpt for a single resource. But that doesn't gain you anything (or not much) if it means you have other resources you can't trade. Trading one resource for 20 gpt, and trading 5 resources for 4 gpt each, is about the same. The practical question is whether you can have many excess resources and get large amounts of gpt (say, 20+) for all of them. And whether the "exploit" of gifting gpt can dramatically increase your total income.

 

[RobertTheBruce]

Sorry, I think you're missing the point. I do agree you can sometimes get large amounts of gpt for a single resource. But that doesn't gain you anything (or not much) if it means you have other resources you can't trade. Trading one resource for 20 gpt, and trading 5 resources for 4 gpt each, is about the same. The practical question is whether you can have many excess resources and get large amounts of gpt (say, 20+) for all of them. And whether the "exploit" of gifting gpt can dramatically increase your total income.

From this save I was able to
1> reduce my science rate to get lots of gpt
2> cancel the deer for 2gpt trade with Kublai
3> give Kublai 80gpt
4> trade aluminum for 21gpt
5> trade marble for 19gpt
6> trade stone for 21gpt
7> trade deer for 21gpt

I didn't wait ten turns to see if I could cancel the gift and keep the trades. And why does Kublai like stone more than marble? They are both useless.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=138096&stc=1&d=1158100078
Huayna Capac AD-1838.Civ4SavedGame
I

 

[Thrallia]

one thing I want to make clear on calavente's points that it isn't fair for the AI to ask more than it can give in return.

The AI is generally willing to accept a lower price than it asks...it asks for the maximum it thinks it could get for a trade. That's actually fairly normal practice...why would anyone go into negotiations and ask for the minimum they are willing to accept? Instead, they'll ask for the maximum price they feel reasonable and eventually bargain down to a minimum(or mutually agreed upon) price. It shouldn't be surprising that the AI makes you feel victimized for the price it asks for/can give to you....have you ever bothered trading techs with an AI? I often have to trade for a tech worth half(or less) the beakers of the one I have, because the AI is trying to get as much out of you for its tech as it can.

 

[DaviddesJ]

The AI is generally willing to accept a lower price than it asks...it asks for the maximum it thinks it could get for a trade.

This is not true. Civ3 worked that way---you had to try offering higher and higher amounts, until you discovered the minimum that the AI would accept. It was time consuming and pointless. In Civ4, when you ask what it wants, it gives you the least offer it will accept.

I often have to trade for a tech worth half(or less) the beakers of the one I have, because the AI is trying to get as much out of you for its tech as it can.

You still come out way ahead if you can trade X for X/2 with each of 4 opponents. You get 4*(X/2) = 2X, and they each get X.

 

[DaviddesJ]

From this save I was able to
1> reduce my science rate to get lots of gpt
2> cancel the deer for 2gpt trade with Kublai
3> give Kublai 80gpt
4> trade aluminum for 21gpt
5> trade marble for 19gpt
6> trade stone for 21gpt
7> trade deer for 21gpt

OK, I'm back to believing in the problem.

But perhaps it's only (or primarily) an issue for long games (space race victories), which I rarely play for.

 

[Thrallia]

yes, but my point was that you generally trade with an individual AI at a loss as compared to what they expect from you.

 

[DaviddesJ]

yes, but my point was that you generally trade with an individual AI at a loss as compared to what they expect from you.

And my point is "So what?" It's a good thing that the AI generally offers less favorable terms than it demands. In fact, I think it would be better if the difference were considerably greater, at higher difficulty levels. Emperor would be a lot more challenging with a less generous AI trading algorithm, particularly if it's not all that happy with you. (Refusing to trade at all, rather than asking higher prices, is a bit unsatisfying, to me.)