Do you reload?

[Grogs]

AAARGGGHHH , i've not called anyone a cheat. Also, I have NEVER once said her achievements are somewhat questionable due to her having used Mapfinder, infact i think some of the logs on HoF are impressive regardless if they've used a tool to find a good start or not.

If people are going to be selective with what they read, then what's the point in discussing this any further?

This is one reason why:

I fail to understand why restarting game after game can't be construed as a form of cheating.

If you're playing a game of poker and you call a man a cheater he's probably going to knock your teeth in. When you suggest to people who have spent months of their life perfecting their Civ III skills that they are cheating, you should expect to get a pretty harsh reaction.

 

[Rohili]

What about how the computer starts with so many advantages. It is impossible to beat the computer on Sid 98/100 times for even the best players with all random settings. That would be a huge waste of time then for anyone to claim they beat it on Sid.

Which is the point, if you want to claim you beat Sid, sure, but at least say that "I can beat Sid if I choose the most favourable settings for me and keep restarting until I get a good spot".

Then the ultimate achievement comes when you are able to beat it with all random settings and accepting your first start position. Then you can say "I bid Sid without intentionally rigging odds in my favour!"

 

[MeteorPunch]

Which is the point, if you want to claim you beat Sid, sure, but at least say that "I can beat Sid if I choose the most favourable settings for me and keep restarting until I get a good spot".

Then the ultimate achievement comes when you are able to beat it with all random settings and accepting your first start position. Then you can say "I bid Sid without intentionally rigging odds in my favour!"

I wonder if anyone has done that? Anyone?

 

[Moonsinger]

Ok, I think the problem here is that we are debating on different rationales.

What I personally am trying to prove is that restarting the map till you start in a good position is indeed a way to tweak the game to your advantage. That's all. I'm not saying it is bad, or cheating, or whether or not it should be allowed.

Consider this: What if an AI starts in a lousy postion? Does it get to restart? No, it must stick to the position and make the best it can out of it. This is where in restarting, you get an advantage over the AI, which is not due to your skills in the game.

I reiterate, I'm not saying we should not get this advantage over the AI (goodness knows it gets enough already, on higher diff levels), I'm just saying that restarting is indeed a way of stacking the odds in your favour, just like intentionally choosing a byzantine civ on an arch map is.

I don't have any disagreement with what you just said.

If one wants to claim that they truly beat the game without intentionally rigging the odds in their favour in any way, then they also must accept the start position luck gave to them, just like how people who go for a true measure of their skills put all map settings and civ choices to random.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I have never claimed that I have beaten the game fair and square. If I don't stack up my artilleries against them, rob their treasure, or provoke them into forfeiting their loan, I would cook up something else with the army or something. When I want to play for the highest possible score, not just to survive or to win, but to win big, I can't possibly start on a desert without food and water. Therefore, if you consider every game we abandon (or not play) as losing to the AIs, that's cool with me and I have no problem with that. Losing isn't a shame in anyway! We all have to start out somewhere; we all have lost countless of games to the AIs before we learn to beat them or to exploit them; there is really no shame in exploiting the AIs. In fact, that is one of a major fun factor for me to play. I just wish I can exploit real life in the same way. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not suggestting to break the rule...I'm just saying whatever the rule allow, I have no problem with it.

 

[Percy]

yeah, Rohili its it on the spot. i CANNOT win Sid even if i rig everything in my favour. Some can, and they "only" "rig" the starting position. some use what is "officially" labelled "exploits" (RoP rapes etc). Some do none of that and still win.
also, i'm not saying that reloading to do things differently is on the same LEVEL that restarting. i'm saying they are the same "concept" or something. if i were to rank these, i would rank reloading mugh higher on the "cheating" scale than restarting. HOWEVER, i don't understand when people say "the one is ok and in the spirit of the game, the other is not". to me, it's like saying you CAN cheat, but only a little.

@Moonsinger
i argue to have my point clear ^^ but anyway, if it is needed to say it, no hard feelings at all for this argument (except for the point where you did not read what i wrote, but i forgive you... this time =P)
EDIT: i agree with your previous post. except for the last sentence, but THEN it is nitpicking ^^

 

[Renata]

I think the problem is the use of the word 'cheating.' Who am I cheating? The AI? You mean those guys that build things 2.5 times faster than I can? Ainwood manipulates the GOTM/COTM starts *every single time* to create the game he wants. We don't call that 'cheating' because everyone playing the GOTM gets the same (dis)advantages. That's the whole point of the GOTM's, player vs. player, and as such as long as you're not unfairly taking advantage of *another player* not many people would dare accuse you of cheating.

The HoF is similar. The point is to say 'soandso is the best player out there on this type of map.' By taking out some of the randomness (MapFinder) out of the HoF attempts, you get a much better appreciation of the relative abilities of the players. If I play a HoF game and I happen to luck out and get 3 cows, a river, and 2 luxes in my city radius while SirPleb starts on a 1-tile island, there's a chance I might even get a higher score than him. Does that mean I'm a better player than him? Absolutely not. So if you want to call MapFinder a form of cheating, so be it. Personally, I call it leveling the playing field.

Agreed. And I don't even like the HOF.

Renata

 

[Moonsinger]

@Moonsinger
i argue to have my point clear ^^ but anyway, if it is needed to say it, no hard feelings at all for this argument (except for the point where you did not read what i wrote, but i forgive you... this time =P)

Than you, great one!: There were just too many posts to read and I'm 100% guilty for not reading all of them.

 

[BlackJAC]

This is one reason why:



If you're playing a game of poker and you call a man a cheater he's probably going to knock your teeth in. When you suggest to people who have spent months of their life perfecting their Civ III skills that they are cheating, you should expect to get a pretty harsh reaction.

I didn't call anyone a cheat, it's my own personal opinion that by using this tool it makes life a lot easier in the longrun, hence the reson why some people would consider that to be cheating the AI from the start. That's only my own personal opinion, so i fail to see where i directly called her a cheat.

 

[Grogs]

Then the ultimate achievement comes when you are able to beat it with all random settings and accepting your first start position. Then you can say "I bid Sid without intentionally rigging odds in my favour!"

I won't argue that that *is* an ultimate achievement. But consider this scenario:

Given that we have 3 players of equal ability, players A, B, and C:

1) Player A starts a SID game, gets a mediocre start, and gets crushed!
2) Player B starts a SID game, gets a great start, and wins the game.
3) Player C plays again and again and again (the whole game through) until on his 48th attempt he gets a great start and wins.

By any objective standard, Player B is the best player because he won his first attempt. This would be a false assumption though because his win was prompted by an extremely lucky random start. I don't see how something that eliminates this randomness and gives a fairer measure of a player's skill can be considered anything other than good.

 

[mikehunt]

very rarely
but sometimes, mainly if I change gov'ts and find the anarchy is lasting too long to be worth it. or if a battle goes really really lopsided and illogically. like a single spearman or pikeman destroying 10 or 15 units that should have been able to wipe out multiple spearmen

 

[Rohili]

I don't have any disagreement with what you just said.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I have never claimed that I have beaten the game fair and square.

Great! That was the only thing I was trying to prove. It is because some people tend to think that restarting is not a way to stack odds in your favour.

I agree that on a competitive standpoint, when competing with other humans, allowing restarts is the best way to ensure a level playing field, minimising the element of luck and emphasising on skills. But when debated strictly on a theoretical basis, against the AI, you are still rigging odds in your favour. That's all.

 

[Moonsinger]

AAARGGGHHH , i've not called anyone a cheat. Also, I have NEVER once said her achievements are somewhat questionable due to her having used Mapfinder, infact i think some of the logs on HoF are impressive regardless if they've used a tool to find a good start or not.

I didn't say you did anything bad. This isn't about me or you. We are just disscussing philosophy in genenal. You have repeatedly saying that you did not see any differences between the reloading and abandoning/starting over. Though you didn't call anyone a cheat (because you said you did it yourself), you did imply many times that it's a cheating practice to even abandon the game without playing it. And I was just saying that those two isn't the same thing. I did not pick on you in anyway. If I did, I'm sorry because I didn't mean to.

 

[Percy]

oh, btw: @Grogs
i agree in a sense. but i think there's a difference in "even-ness" between ONE tweaked map used by "everyone" and everyone getting to use a map they "tweak" themselves.

 

[Percy]

I don't see how something that eliminates this randomness and gives a fairer measure of a player's skill can be considered anything other than good.

so reloading your game when the RNG acts funny, or to get a better goody hut is ok by your standards ? =)

 

[Grogs]

I didn't call anyone a cheat, it's my own personal opinion that by using this tool it makes life a lot easier in the longrun, hence the reson why some people would consider that to be cheating the AI from the start. That's only my own personal opinion, so i fail to see where i directly called her a cheat.

This is true. You're a victim of 'perception=reality' in my mind. If you call something that I do 'cheating', then by extension I perceive you've called me a cheater and all the negative connotations that carries with it. I don't believe that's what you were really getting at, but it tends to inspire a kneejerk reaction.

 

[Moonsinger]

Great! That was the only thing I was trying to prove. It is because some people tend to think that restarting is not a way to stack odds in your favour.

Of course, it's stacking odds in your favour. Just like playing with the stock market, you want to pick the best stock that you yield the most profit for you. However, the market is still very unpredictable and there is no guarantee that you are going to win. Therefore, it may be stacking odds in your favour, but it won't be as strong as "exploit" or "cheat"; it isn't the same as "reloading" to change game even. That's the only point I was trying to prove.

 

[BlackJAC]

I didn't say you did anything bad. This isn't about me or you. We are just disscussing philosophy in genenal. You have repeatedly saying that you did not see any differences between the reloading and abandoning/starting over. Though you didn't call anyone a cheat (because you said you did it yourself), you did imply many times that it's a cheating practice to even abandon the game without playing it. And I was just saying that those two isn't the same thing. I did not pick on you in anyway. If I did, I'm sorry because I didn't mean to.

It seems there's some people on here that don't allow for opinions which differ from their own, that's why this has turned into a "he said this", "I said that" type of debate.

It was never my intention to question your achievements, achievements that more than likely put my own to shame, nor was it my intention to offend anyone. I just thought it was an interesting debate with regard to why Mapfinder is acceptable to some and not to others.

Remember folks, the best debates are the ones of the heated variety.

 

[island007]

Ok, imagine this: You have a huge stack of like 30 cavalry, you take over a city and fortify all of them there. Next turn, the city flips and you lose all of your army. Do you reload? Be honest, Mr. "I never reload.".

No, I wouldn’t make that error in judgment.
I've never had a newly captured city flip on the NEXT turn. Now on the second turn flips may happen. I’m a heavy warmonger, and I’ve never seen a next turn flip, ONCE.

Edit to add: I've always considered it an unwritten rule.

 

[Grogs]

so reloading your game when the RNG acts funny, or to get a better goody hut is ok by your standards ? =)

In an odd sort of way, yes. If everyone can do it as much as they want and are even *encouraged* to do it, then theoretically you still get an objective measure of who's the better player. You're *not* cheating other players if you're doing something they can do as well.

The reality is though that, everything else being equal, the guy who's willing to spend the most time reloading over and over will do better. This is the justification I see for MapFinder (and not allowing reloads.) Without it, the folks who are willing to spend hours and hours restarting games will generally do better.

 

[BlackJAC]

In an odd sort of way, yes. If everyone can do it as much as they want and are even *encouraged* to do it, then theoretically you still get an objective measure of who's the better player. You're *not* cheating other players if you're doing something they can do as well.

The reality is though that, everything else being equal, the guy who's willing to spend the most time reloading over and over will do better. This is the justification I see for MapFinder (and not allowing reloads.) Without it, the folks who are willing to spend hours and hours restarting games will generally do better.

Out of interest, wouldn't it be more practical if HoF was geared towards bad starts rather than those who start off with all the desired tools in the first place?

This would eliminate most of the pitfalls in the first place.