Do you reload?

[Moonsinger]

You're still trying to stack the odds in your favour, whether it entails restarting a duff starting position or whether it's because you arsed up with your tactics/movement of troops, hence the reason why I think both are as questionable as one another.

Of course, a good starting position would increase the odds in your favor. Just like when play the stock market, you may want to pick the best stock to minimize the risk of losing or not scoring high enough.

Fair play if you get handed the ideal starting tools without having to use a utility or by restarting the game. I fail to understand why restarting game after game can't be construed as a form of cheating.

Since you keep call it "restarting", I think you misunderstood what MapFinder is all about. It's not about "restarting", it's about generating/finding a brand new map. Let me ask you this...if you start game in the middle of a desert and decide that it won't be fun to continue, so you abandon it before making any move at 4000BC, then you start another brand new one, do you consider yourself a "cheater" by doing that?

 

[Sub]

Yea, i reload a lot =/

 

[BlackJAC]

Yes, I restart when I get any less than one wheat. I'm not really questioning your motives, I'm just finding it difficult to fathom why some people consider they are still playing the game without an element of exploitation attached to it when they are using a utility that gives them a head start over the AI on most occasions.

I think you may have misunderstood my original post, as it you seem to think i'm acting all high n mighty about people cheating, i'm not (i do it myself), i'm just wondering why one can be considered cheating and the other one not.

 

[Moonsinger]

I think you may have misunderstood my original post, as it you seem to think i'm acting all high n mighty about people cheating, i'm not (i do it myself), i'm just wondering why one can be considered cheating and the other one not.

I think the different is pretty clear. Reloading to change the outcome of the game is very different than not playing at all. May be the following example may explain their differences.

Case #1: Someone ask you to buy their stock and you bought it. Then the market got hit really bad and you lost most of your money. Then you decide to jump into your time machine and go back in time to sell all your stocks before the market got hit. This the case where you reload (travel back in time) to chance the outcome of something you don't like.

Case #2: Someone ask you to buy their stock. Since their stock doesn't look good and you have a feeling that you aren't going to make any money of it, so you decide not to buy it. Basically, you decide to skip it and wait for someone else to offer you a better deal. This is the case where you don't play the game at all because the starting position looks pretty bad and you feel that you have no chance of winning.

Case #3: Someone ask you to buy their stock and you bought it. Then the market got hit really bad and you lost most of your money. You got drunk and accept your lost. This is the case where you abandon your game and accept your lost.

I hope you see that case#1 is very different than case#2 and case#3! That is the reason why case#2 and case#3 are acceptable for tournament practice and case#1 is not.

 

[Longasc]

I think beaten dogs howl.

For tournament purposes people have agreed that this sort of program is no cheating at all, or at least allowed.

Negating that people can also see this as a sort of cheat reveals a great need for self-justification. The last time I have seen such behavior was while discussing if palace jumping is an exploit or not.

Anyone can ignore BlackJACs opinion. Important is what you think and if the things you do are within agreed limits.

Maybe that GOTM accepts the use of third party tools like the Map Finder, but not thinking that one adjusts the odds at least slightly to gain a better start in his favor while using this utility i just a distortion of reality.

Hey, I reload, too, when I get a bad starting position - I have no problems with that.

But I have a problem with this weird need to convince people that this exploit is no exploit or cheat at all. "Minor" cheat or not...

 

[Oryctolagus]

Yes, I'm a terrible reloader but now I try to get rid of this habit. In my present emperor game I tried not to do this until I lost my Knight Army to a Musketman. It was my only army at the time and I felt very sorry... I reloaded that turn and saved my Army but after a few turns... Well, the third time my "brave" Army died vs. a Pikeman I finally let it be so. Now I will try to continue this game without reloading. But who knows what the future will bring?

 

[BlackJAC]

Moonsinger, lets cut to the chase here.

Would this utility be acceptable for a multiplayer game, by which I mean whomever does the set-up gets to choose the best starting position?

Going by your justification he/she would be within their rights doing so, it's not cheating, nor according to you is it a form of exploitation after all. I've never played a multiplayer game, so I'm unsure if this utility would work in the first place. So lets think of this as a hypothetical question.

It may be acceptable for HoF, I'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is the claims that one person made, he claims that he never exploits the game in any way or form and that's just not true.

 

[Rambuchan]

There are some very interesting points coming out and ones which I hadn't factored in when starting this. Proof of a good forum community! I just want to add some comments to what's been said above.

Restarting / reloading: As Moonsinger has kindly pointed out these are clearly different. If you start up a completely new game because you got a cruddy start pos. you definitely aren't reloading the original then are you? You are completely starting again and the comp is loading a fresh, brand new map for you. This is not the same as reloading the same game. This area of the discussion I notice would lead on to a kind of abortion debate, 'well when does a game a take on a life of it's own and make a restart a no-no?' etc.

Hyronymus: I'm sorry if it seems like people are taking sides to see who is the better player. I haven't interpretted the given answers like that myself and this wasn't my intention at all. I hope others don't turn this into a competition. It isn't one. I'm just trying to sniff the air for opinions on a very controversial and important area of the game which gets to how people feel satisfied by Civ.

I fully appreciate that reloading events which didn't go your way or reloading to before you switched to a poor choice of government is a crucial learning tool which everyone has used at some point during their relationship with Civ - it's the "what happens if I do it this way instead of that" school of learning. You can learn why that city got dessimated (sp?) and how to save it if you go back or how a govt compares to another. Whether you reload or not should not be used as an indicator of how good someone is because we are all good or bad on different difficulty settings. I know I will probably be reloading like a mofo when I move up a difficulty level, trying out different approaches. But I won't feel like I am ready to move up a level until I can cruise through my present level a few times without reloading to erase all those bad calls and judgements. In saying this I am of course admitting that reloading and quality of play are linked but it is the principle guiding whether one reloads or not I am interested in.

This is some expansion on why I DISAGREE with reloading in principle.

Religiously Refraining from Reloading is a viable way to improve your game also: Personally I've noticed that my gameplay has got a lot better (scores are higher, victories more assured and winning by higher point margins) since I stopped reloading just for a failed spy plant attempt or losing a flipped city. This improvement is probably more down to reading the War Academy than just refusing to reload I should add but the added pressure of not being able to go back is a crucial motivator to perform better.

See I think this is the benefit in NOT reloading: Being thrown into an uncomfortable war which you didn't plan for may stink and cost you dearly but that's a good test and challenge. I don't play competitive games just yet and have no plans to right now (I like to play the game in my own time not someone else's thank you very much) but if I kept reloading to before those barstewards declared war I doubt I'd be able to hold up in a competitive game (if those are your goals). In otherwords it's good practice to deal with the unpredictable. It makes the game more interesting too IMO. Since banning myself from reloading I moved up a difficulty level and generally feel more able with the game. The practice of refraining has also made me much more steely against those surprise declarations of war and I can handle them better. This is something which the "what if?" school of thought does not prepare you for.

Excess of Parallel Universes: Something which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned is the mayhem caused from reloading many times. You know those games which you just don't bother finishing because they just became a drag? Well mine fall into two camps. First, those which I have clearly lost despite my best efforts. Second, those where the reloads just overwhelmed. These are the ones I want to highlight. When I reloaded certain games, there have been so many altered twists of fate that the game loses meaning, direction and excitement. I go so far down one road off the back of a reload and then begin wondering what would have happened if I had done something else or not reloaded and the whole house of cards falls apart. I get lost in the options and hence lose interest in the game. This is perhaps the biggest reason why I prefer to NOT reload. This factor is present in other reasons why people don't reload based on Satisfaction. Your win is made meaningless by the more detailed knowledge of how another win was possible.

What's the meaning of this?: I'm sure many of you have been in this situation before - you sit down with a friend to begin an epic game of Civ, you've got hte coffee pot, some cakes, music is going, stock of ciggies to last the weekend is in and so on. You've decided the Civ, what map and the like. The start position and black map presents itself and you turn to each other "So no reloads or going back right?" You both think about it and eventually agree that there should be not going back. What's that about then?

 

[Rohili]

Something which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned is the mayhem caused from reloading many times. You know those games which you just don't bother finishing because they just became a drag? Well mine fall into two camps. First, those which I have clearly lost despite my best efforts. Second, those where the reloads just overwhelmed. These are the ones I want to highlight. When I reloaded certain games, there have been so many altered twists of fate that the game loses meaning, direction and excitement. I go so far down one road off the back of a reload and then begin wondering what would have happened if I had done something else or not reloaded and the whole house of cards falls apart. I get lost in the options and hence lose interest in the game. This is perhaps the biggest reason why I prefer to NOT reload. This factor is present in other reasons why people don't reload based on Satisfaction. Your win is made meaningless by the more detailed knowledge of how another win was possible.

I think that is a problem of reloading too much and too often, or reloading to a period too far back. When I reload, it's normally back to 1 - 3 turns earlier, seldom earlier than that. Therefore, the feeling of getting swamped by "parallel universes" and such is not very prevalent.

What's the meaning of this?: I'm sure many of you have been in this situation before - you sit down with a friend to begin an epic game of Civ, you've got hte coffee pot, some cakes, music is going, stock of ciggies to last the weekend is in and so on. You've decided the Civ, what map and the like. The start position and black map presents itself and you turn to each other "So no reloads or going back right?" You both think about it and eventually agree that there should be not going back. What's that about then?

Becoming philosophical here eh? It's just a game.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I was a reloader before I joined CivFanatics. Since then I've been able to kick the habit.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Moonsinger, lets cut to the chase here.

Would this utility be acceptable for a multiplayer game, by which I mean whomever does the set-up gets to choose the best starting position?

I'll answer that. Multiplayer games are always uneven, so little debate to fairness.

 

[BlackJAC]

Uneven due to people using utilities, or uneven due to circumstances out with ones control (i.e. the cpu just giving someone a bad starting point)?

There's a big difference.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Uneven due to people using utilities, or uneven due to circumstances out with ones control (i.e. the cpu just giving someone a bad starting point)?

There's a big difference.

Unevenness due to all the random factors . I played a multiplayer game recently up until Chivalry with the Celts and I had the most impossibly stupid/hard time getting Iron and it was all the games fault. Now I am personally against multiplayer civ .

 

[BlackJAC]

Purposely using a program to fish out a good start isn't exactly a random event, is it?

 

[MeteorPunch]

Purposely using a program to fish out a good start isn't exactly a random event, is it?

It saves the time of going through the random event of map generation. It's like a microwave or any other modern convenience - it just saves time.

 

[BlackJAC]

Ok, we'll agree to disagree.

I'm sure I'm boring everyone now and if I were to continue this debate I'd probably just keep going over old ground anyway.

 

[Rohili]

Well, BlackJAC, if your point of argument is that anyone who restarts the game until they get a good start position cannot claim that they do not exploit the game in anyway, that I agree. Why do I agree that restarting till you get a good position is also a form of exploitation?

1) The AI doesn't get to restart if they land in a bad spot.
2) You are still cheating the CPU in the sense that you keep restarting until the RNG favours you, just like reloading during the game if a battle does not go your way or a spy mission fails.

However there is no point trying to prove that people who restart are weaker players, etc. People play by whatever rules which suits them best. After all, gaming is all about deriving enjoyment and for many, the enjoyment is spoiled if they start in a crappy position.

 

[BlackJAC]

Well, BlackJAC, if your point of argument is that anyone who restarts the game until they get a good start position cannot claim that they do not exploit the game in anyway, that I agree

That is my point.

I'd like to make this point clear too, I have never once stated that anyone that uses this method is in anyway or form a weaker player. Each to their own. Afterall it's only a game.

If I've come across as being a tit I apologise Debating was never one of my strong points, nor grammar come to think of it.

 

[MeteorPunch]

And I was just being inciteful...not to be confused with insightful.

 

[Moonsinger]

Moonsinger, lets cut to the chase here.

Would this utility be acceptable for a multiplayer game, by which I mean whomever does the set-up gets to choose the best starting position?

Going by your justification he/she would be within their rights doing so, it's not cheating, nor according to you is it a form of exploitation after all. I've never played a multiplayer game, so I'm unsure if this utility would work in the first place. So lets think of this as a hypothetical question.

It may be acceptable for HoF, I'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is the claims that one person made, he claims that he never exploits the game in any way or form and that's just not true.

If someone ask you to join a multi-player game and your position is so poor, you could always say "no" and not to play. My point was that "saying no" and "not to play" can't be put in the same class as "reloading" the previous turn(s).

Btw, in a multi-player game or PBEM, you usually choose a third and neutral party, a map maker, to setup the game for you. That neutral party will try to make sure that all human starting positions are as balance as possible. If not, the game will be call as a draw.