Exploit discussion!

[anarres]

I usually have fairly high standards and morals against AI civs in single player games.

In PBEM games you are playing against at least one other human, and you have a level playing field. The AI are your pawns to use against each other in whatever way you can, so why not exploit them as the other human player can do?

I propose that AI-related playing styles and expliots should not be treated as exploits in PBEM games, whether they are commited against the AI, or even the human player.

For example:

RoP rape: Obvious.

MA abuse: Paying the AI to sign MA's to engineer world diplomacy, or getting gold for signing MA's you have no intention of fighting in.

MPP abuse: Deliberately breaking an MPP.

GPT trade abuse: Offering large GPT and then declaring war to escape the deal.

Palace Pre-builds: Using the Palace as a pre-build, considered exploitative since the AI can't do it.

Mass Upgrades: A useful too, but another one the AI has no clue about.

Phoney wars: This catch-all is for those wars yo ustart for whatever reason, when you have no intention of fighting (e.g. declaring on a democray to get them to have WW

Incitement to war: Getting the AI to declare war on you by spying/demands/etc. In fact, making demands alone is a free way to get any AI's attitude forever tarnished.

I suggest that all of these methods should not be considered 'exploits' or even dishonorable, unless prepretrated against a human player, (where your rep is likely to suffer). Remember folks, we are playing human opponents, the AI are our tools.

Comments please, I am very interested to hear what others think about this...

NOTE: Game exploits are a different matter, this is anything that 'cheats' the game mechanics like the mobilisation bug or the infinite reload bug. They are not meant to be there, unlike exploits that take advantage of planned game behaviour, these take advantage of unintended game features (i.e. BUGS), and as such are totally unfair and not permissable against other humans.

 

[WildFire]

If I see a chance to win I WILL do a GPT trade, I WILL do a incitemen to war (its always fun), I WILL mass upgrade, and I WILL get get treaties to start a world war which I wont participate in. Its Civ. I wanna win. If I see an oppurtunity, I'll take it. Thats why my hotseat games never end good (brotherly love? )

 

[ERIKK]

Exploit:
-- The MPP rape of the Ottomans in our game was a sort of an exploits which I suffered from eventually. It is a low tactic IMHO...
-- ROP and GPT rape is same as MPP rape allthough it is a bit less low

No exploit:
-- Mass upgrading cannot be prevented I guess. On higher levels it shouldn't be a problem as the AI builds modern untis fast enough.
-- Prebuilding is a part of the game.
-- As you have seen; every declaration of war on an AI's gives you still WW.
-- I consider MA diplomacy a legitime policy.

 

[anarres]

I think it should *all* be allowed, it is part of the game mechanics.

Honor in keeping treaties with the human player is what should count, whether you hold up to them is the true test of your mettle.

One big point is that if you think of some of these as exploits, how can you police it? Most can be seen, but some you can't see, and in the early turns you have no chance of catching any of at all.

So if you decide that some of these are exploits, what is the punishment for getting caught? Sometimes you can't help breaking deals, or it happens by accident.

It all seems a little weird to me, the concept of exploits against the AI in MP games. In my latest game with ERIKK, it never occoured to me I was playing the Ottomans and not ERIKK. The AI civ's were there to use, for both of us.

 

[Shabbaman]

Besides Rop-rape, I don't really consider this exploits. Abusing treaties is just plain stupid (unless you can get away with it ) and the AI might do that trick on you as well. I've fought many wars in which my partner in crime didn't live up to my expectations concerning military alliances.

Phoney wars? Is that even a real one? In my game vs. Killer I planned to do that to him, but he convinced me that it was of no use since he'd just change government and all WW would fade away (pity).

Prebuilding could be seen as an exploit. But then again, everything the AI builds is cheaper for him than for you. Now, that's an exploit.

RoP rape is severe though. On the other hand, they shouldn't be so stupid to sign any agreement with you.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

The simple fact that a human has memory and the AI has not, that a human can judge the advantages and disadvantages of breaking a treaty from the enemies view makes it all leagl I think. After all, that is real life! The AI cannot see what it signs into, but a human can!

 

[Aggie]

Originally posted by anarres
MA abuse: Paying the AI to sign MA's to engineer world diplomacy, or getting gold for signing MA's you have no intention of fighting in.

.......

Phoney wars: This catch-all is for those wars yo ustart for whatever reason, when you have no intention of fighting (e.g. declaring on a democray to get them to have WW

.......

I suggest that all of these methods should not be considered 'exploits' or even dishonorable, unless prepretrated against a human player, (where your rep is likely to suffer). Remember folks, we are playing human opponents, the AI are our tools.

ERIKK pulled this stunt on me yesterday. I thought of it as a clever move. However, I would like to see that signing MA's or declaring wars oblige the human player to actually fight. Doesn't mather if this is against a human player or the AI...

But imho these rules should be agreed upon before the start of the game. It doesn't hurt however to be able to refer to basic rules that we all agree upon.

 

[Shabbaman]

Originally posted by anarres
MA abuse: Paying the AI to sign MA's to engineer world diplomacy, or getting gold for signing MA's you have no intention of fighting in.

Isn't that what the world is about?

 

[Aggie]

I personally do not like phoney wars in PBEM's. But a least I like to see a rule is this:

"Broken MA's will not be renewed within 20 turns. If a civ decides to break a MA and make peace, it is not allowed to have a new MA in place with that civ against the same opponent. This applies until the 20 turns of the original deal end."

It's an agreement to not persuade the AI to break a 20 turn peace deal.

 

[anarres]

How would you enforce this then Aggie? I am not even sure I agree with the sentiments, since in real life this kind of diplomacy seems valid anyway.

More important than the rule itself is what you would do if someone was found to break it. Would you 'ban' them? Have them lose the game by default?

The other option is to allow it, and for you to have the chance to use it too, of course.

I think it is very important to remember that most of the Human-AI 'exploits' have evolved from playing the single player game. We are no longer fighting stupid AI's that can be second guessed and manipulated.

No longer are we assured an automatic win when we start a game, therefore the issues about what is and isn't acceptable gameplay is not a matter of esoterics like it always has been for single player, it can often be the difference between winning and losing against a human opponent. For this reason we should not have honour for the AI, we should use every available resource at our disposal. In the long run it is the only way to avoid real conflict in this issue.

 

[Matrix]

Allow them all.

You may f*** the AI as much as you like in a MP game since it's actually all about your human opponents. (For me at least.)

Just don't exploit bugs! Those are not ment to be. But if I read correctly, anarres didn't mention bugs, so no problem there.

 

[Aggie]

@anarres: the suggestion I made doesn't consider the consquences for the AI, but rather is meant to prevent the PBEM's from getting too nasty and one-dimensional.

I feel that if we wouldn't have rules like this, it may just get a standard on higher levels to get embassies and MA's against the other human player ASAP. This especially hurts on emperor/deity.

How to enforce this? No ban, no 'punishment'. I'm thinking of a code that we all agree upon. Deviations or breaking of the code should be solved by the involved players in the particular game...

EDIT: I don't care about the AI at all. But in a 1vs 1you still have to deal with 6 AI opponents. Using them as a 'tool' to corner the other human is something I don't really like. It should be human vs human....

EDIT2: I used ERIKK's tactic as an example, but his action yesterday was not a case of 'let's get all the AI against Aggie'. I already was at war with two, so ERIKK could benefit (getting gold or tech). My suggestion is meant more for a world-wide force against one human out of the blue.

EDIT3: I merely bring it up as suggestions to weigh and decide upon. Needless to say that I comply with all decision made

 

[anarres]

Matrix,

You are correct in that I am not talking about game mechanincs bugs, just the use of intended in-game mechanics.

Aggie,

I am not sure it is possible to have a 'code', other than the rep that will or won't follow you around. What do you envisage when you say 'Deviations or breaking of the code should be solved by the involved players in the particular game...'? Seems strange to me, and a little undefined.

I am not even sure the issue of paying the AI to go to war is such a great one, since the targeted person should be able to not only repel the AI, but drain the coffers of the attacking human player, via the AI.

I suppose my biggest point is that the playing field is even between the human players, which is IMO the important issue.

 

[Melifluous]

Hmm OK anarres,

So is this just about what we consider OK between players?

Except for known BUGS who cares do what you will to win, ROP-Rape, MPP abuse, Palace pre-builds (which are IMHO a must to avoid giving free info away to the opponent, who thought of putting the Wonder stuff in F7, madness).

Do ANYTHING YOU CAN TO WIN THE GAME...

This argument seems to be going much the same way as MP reputation, it seems to be what people consider "fair" and not what you can "do"...

My Two Cents

Melifluous

 

[Aggie]

Originally posted by anarres
What do you envisage when you say 'Deviations or breaking of the code should be solved by the involved players in the particular game...'? Seems strange to me, and a little undefined.

Bottom line is that I trust the other player to be fair and honest. With that in mind, it should be no problem to introduce a code. We have to trust each other regarding 'game exploits' already, so what is different about what I suggest?

About the deviations: I meant that you can deviate from the code if you both agree... As long as both are fine about the rules (or about having no rules) in their game.

But hey, don't forget that I'm a PBEM newbie that just got a wake up call... I gradually begin to understand what more a human is capable of than the programmed AI...

Originally posted by Melifluous
Do ANYTHING YOU CAN TO WIN THE GAME...

This argument seems to be going much the same way as MP reputation, it seems to be what people consider "fair" and not what you can "do"...

I agree that we can do anything vs the AI. I'm only concerned about human vs human with help of exploiting the AI. Not human vs AI to get that AI...

 

[col]

If players are unhappy about 'exploiting' the AI then they should consider playing 1 v 1 with NO AIs present. This seems to me to obviously eliminate the factor of 'who can best exploit the AI'. It would mean that maps would have to be suitable for such a game but it is the logical next move in 1 v 1 play.

 

[Melifluous]

Originally posted by Aggie
I agree that we can do anything vs the AI. I'm only concerned about human vs human with help of exploiting the AI. Not human vs AI to get that AI...

Why not make me stick to my word all the time as well, and while your at it why dont I fight your battles for you...



Melifluous

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

col: well said! I was really hoping human-only multiplayer would be possible.

 

[Aggie]

OK, I end my part of the discussion here. I just see what you come up with

 

[ProPain]

As far as I'm concerned all tactics Anarres lists are valid strategies. Everyone knows they're possible and can use em. If you don't like the idea of toying the AI around just play 1v1 without comps.