Do you think we should have rules for GOTM?

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Hellfire
Personally, I like this statement from Serg: "The main goal of this rules is setting the players in equal starting position and equal possibility". While I'm not sure I agree with his philosophy this statement supports my assertion. If an exploit is an exploit in Civ, its an advantage for EVERYONE. If Cartouche can do it, I can do it. What we are doing is comparing one persons ability versus another with as many variables being equal as possible. If we use the same game and the same version, then there is no reason why we can't all use the same exploits. Dogpile if you like, its not like I can't do it to. It's what you do to win. Works like that in the real world, unfortunately.

I agree with you completely, but fact is that some cheats are so effective that they spoil the game. Take the early pop rushing for example. It was removed with the first patch. All you had to do was be in despotism and "buy" a unit whenever you can. You were able to build big armies and going to any other government except communism was a dumb thing to do. Effectively, the other government types were useless. That didn't really contribute to the fun.

 

[Greg Loader]

Rules? Of course. Otherwise, I'd just play my own maps.

I also would like to see a second catagory, added for those who did 'cheat' and are willing to state how, ie reload, restart, spoiler thread. However, I understand if those in charge aren't interested in taking the time and effort to publish the results of 'tarnished' games.

I would also like to see an Amnesty for cheaters. If a person stole 1st prize from another player by cheating, give him the opportunity to conceed the victory without banishment. Win - win situation.

Otherwise, Matrix, thanks for the games.

Greg

 

[Phillip_martin]

Originally posted by sp3
I vote no..."obediance to the unenforceable" is too fragile. The gotm really is just casual. Perhaps there can be an "open class" where cheaters can declare themselves and compete for the best cheat!

I have been thinking along a similar idea. Just a game of the whatever which is published for everyone to upload. No prizes, no awards, no rules.

Just a forum available from day one to discuss progress and strategies.

How the game and forum evolves is totally up to the participants

 

[Hellfire]

Originally posted by Matrix

I agree with you completely, but fact is that some cheats are so effective that they spoil the game. Take the early pop rushing for example. It was removed with the first patch. All you had to do was be in despotism and "buy" a unit whenever you can. You were able to build big armies and going to any other government except communism was a dumb thing to do. Effectively, the other government types were useless. That didn't really contribute to the fun.

Matrix,

Actually about ten minutes after my post I started leaning in the opposite direction with you on this. I hadn't gotten around to total rethinking this until now.

Here's the opposite site of the debate.

I used to play Diablo 2 (I know! I played a game other than Civ! I'm sorry! ). Throughout about 80% of the life of the game, it was almost always about "which character build was the absolute best." It was never about trying different strategies, being creative, and thinking about the game. It was about "I want to be the best player in the world, just like everyone else." This was because usually there was one character that was better than other character classes. First it was the sorceress because she had one unbalanced killer skill. Then the Barbarian because he killed the fastest. Then it was the Amazon because of the change in the way her skills worked in the expansion, then it came back to the sorceress because the changing of the way items dropped and who dropped the best items exposed the usefulness of some of her previously less than useful skills. It was always about playing this one best character.

Same thing with Civ. What's the point in playing different strategies when one strategy will always ensure you the fastest and best victory. So yes, I'm starting to go the other way in that there should be rules. This way you're guarenteed a better variety and the one with the best strategy wins over he who simply got the luckiest because he used the 3L337 strategy which OWNZ ALL jOOR CIVS and got the best result.

Enforcement is a different matter, considering that its taking the admins too long to "check" all the games. This is why it was asked if we should just use the honor system as well. I personally would never have asked these guys to put out all the wonderful work they have done so far if it ment taking them away from friends, family, sports, and beer.

 

[Plume]

Just voted yes. Otherwise there's no challenge. But the question is little strange in the sense that I don't understand the difference between "yes" and "some but honour system". By "yes", do you mean the rules we have now with people to check if highest scores have been cheated? Because right now, there are rules. Are you asking if we want more rules?

Anyway, here's my 2 cents. I think the rules in themselves are fine. Just as col said, it's all a matter of enforcing them. I'm really happy that some volunteers are checking the games but I wouldn't do it (don't have time). But I don't completely agree with you Col when you say we should just accept that some people will cheat and not do anything about it. The checking that has been done has had at least two big positive impacts on the GOTMs:

1- I recall one or two people who have been banished from blatant cheats. That made me fell a little less of an incompetent (especially after almost a full year of playing civ3).

2- The big discussion going on about Alain's game also showed me the power of building chariots followed by a massive upgrade (I usually do it with warriors->swords). Not a big deal but I guess my point is that by checking those super early finishes, we can learn a lot.

Also I think the way to set up new rules is fine as it is. It's brought up by someone, discussed, and then banned or not. If some of you guys want to play a game with no rules, go ahead. My kid brother does that all the time. His big fun is to cheat at any game all the time. He usually plays for a few days and them becomes bored. He doesn't like a good challenge or playing with (AI) opponents on the same field. I feel like this is what some people are kind of asking for. My take on it is this: remember kournetski's game, where he used some sort of cheating program and he had research labs in the BC's? Well, if you find that fun go ahead, I don't.