Firaxis, please fix the "steal-worker-exploit"!

RealHuhn

Emperor
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
1,173
Location
Germany
I've said it on MadDjinns LP already.

I hate worker stealing from CS.

It's an absolute no brainer and requires zero to no effort. It completely changes optimal build orders. They added demanding workers from CSs for a reason and that has a huge opportunity cost (getting a bunch of military to their borders).

Therefore, it's an obvious exploit and it makes discussing optimal build orders rather redundant because everybody just assumes you steal workers left and right. :sad:

Since most Diety players seem to be very exploit-friendly, it's Firaxis who need to fix this.

I beg you. Do something! :lol:
 

Draskar

Warlord
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
191
Totally agree
 

Deggial

Emperor
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
1,400
Location
Germany
Is it really an exploit? I doubt it:
- You raise your overall "Warmonger Counter" and may declare less wars against major civs without diplomatic effects.
- You lower your overall CS relations which will lead - if your general attitude towards them stays as bullying - to a general CS war against you.

So, there ARE downsides for worker-stealing. However, maybe those negative effects are not strong enough. What about the introduction of a minimum good relation to start a CS trade route? At least, you would have to avoid pissing of your close CS neighbours...
 

RealHuhn

Emperor
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
1,173
Location
Germany
Is it really an exploit? I doubt it:
- You raise your overall "Warmonger Counter" and may declare less wars against major civs without diplomatic effects.
- You lower your overall CS relations which will lead - if your general attitude towards them stays as bullying - to a general CS war against you.

So, there ARE downsides for worker-stealing.

If there were any major downsides, people would at least think about other options before they do it. But they don't. They base their strategy around it. It's not balanced.

Also, I think it isn't meant to be in the game. Firaxis added the tribute system which does essentially the same thing at a much higher opportunity cost. Probably too high on Emperor+ and it needs rebalancing.

Anyway, now you can just declare war with a single warrior, steal the worker and make peace ON THE SAME turn. That is just absurd. :crazyeye:
 

MonorailCat

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
74
Anyway, now you can just declare war, steal the worker and make peace ON THE SAME turn. That is just absurd. :crazyeye:

Yeah, AT LEAST it should be impossible to make peace right away. If the CS had units, they should follow the captured worker and try to get it back. So a forced war period for CS after declaring should be in.

It looks just stupid to snag a worker with a scout, while 5 different Units stand next to it and do nothing, because you can make peace the same turn..
 

EEE_BOY

Deity
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
3,148
Location
NZ
I've said it on MadDjinns LP already.

I hate worker stealing from CS.

It's an absolute no brainer and requires zero to no effort. It completely changes optimal build orders. They added demanding workers from CSs for a reason and that has a huge opportunity cost (getting a bunch of military to their borders).

Therefore, it's an obvious exploit and it makes discussing optimal build orders rather redundant because everybody just assumes you steal workers left and right. :sad:

Since most Diety players seem to be very exploit-friendly, it's Firaxis who need to fix this.

I beg you. Do something! :lol:

You should make it clear which type of steal?
1. Dow one CS and set up a trap to steal worker repeatedly -- this is kind of exploit in my opinion.
2. Dow CS then make peace immediately after stealing -- not so exploitive as the other factors have balanced this, eg. One worker for diplomatic hits, more dows lead to dropping CS influence resting points.

I think type 1 should be addressed, not type 2.
 

GAGA Extrem

Emperor
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,589
The easiest way to solve the issue would be to:
(1) teach city states that they should guard their worker at all times.
(2) remove the citystate AI willingness to sign peace instantly after war has been declared.

This way you can still snatch a worker if you prepare (and terrain allows it), but it is harder (and more risky) to bring him back to your lands.
 

Bas1c

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
26
I'm not sure it's worth it, i often find a barb camp spawns right near there border which can give you a friend or ally status, is an early worker more beneficial than that?
 

Maxym

King
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
973
Location
Canada
Yes early worker is more beneficial, or at least used to be, now that the lump sum trades require DOF it's a bit different, but still worth it. I think having a forced 5-10 turn war period would solve worker snatching or balance it somewhat. I have no problems with CS worker farms through permawar even though I never use it.
 

King_Course

Prince
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
465
The "exploit" isn't really worker stealing, it is that you can declare war and make peace in the same turn.

Maybe they should lock the war to 10 turns like with Civs. That might have consequences if you just steal from your nearest CS, and force you to be abit less lazy.
 

Kwami

Deity
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
2,205
I absolutely think that this mechanic should be changed. Until it is, I'll just continue to not use it. Nobody's forcing you to use exploits.
 

Nikolai II

Prince
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
405
Location
Bergen, Norway
I see no reason to do anything with this strategy.
 

Deggial

Emperor
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
1,400
Location
Germany
The "exploit" isn't really worker stealing, it is that you can declare war and make peace in the same turn.

Maybe they should lock the war to 10 turns like with Civs. That might have consequences if you just steal from your nearest CS, and force you to be abit less lazy.

I think, this would be the best solution: It is more consistent to other game rules, it is easy to implement, it should be effective. I like it!
 

DemonMaster

A.K.A. Fenhorn
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
1,648
Location
Sweden
Sure it will be good if the bad effects is more severe, but personally don't exploit, I don't and if there are people out there who cannot play the game without exploit everything, let them.
 

Cymsdale

Prince
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
397
I'm failing to see how this is an exploit. You get a benefit, but there are consequences to your action.

(and I'm completely against the attitude that if something *is* an exploit, it should be ignored by the devs because the player could just "not do that", that's lazy game design to the max)
 

_megafone_

Warlord
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
192
Once you realize how incredibly hard it is to actually win a (mostly) peaceful game without the early-game speed boon that you get by stealing a CS worker on higher difficulties, you'll see that the ability to do so NEEDS to be in the game.

It is balanced - the second DoW gives you a quite big diplo penalty, so the decision on whether to steal or not makes a big difference if you're not planning to go Domination. Basically, if you have any intention to play diplomatic games (whether it is an actual Diplo win or signing a bunch of RAs or whatever) you simply cannot make another DoW for the ENTIRE GAME after stealing a CS worker. I call this a fair penalty.
 

RealHuhn

Emperor
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
1,173
Location
Germany
Sure it will be good if the bad effects is more severe, but personally don't exploit, I don't and if there are people out there who cannot play the game without exploit everything, let them.

That's true. But it makes discussing strategies or comparing finish times of Diety/Immortal Challenges a lot less fun. I mean, finding good strategies is half the fun of a new expansion pack and everybody should use the same rules for the sake of discussion.

I also think that worker stealing is more imbalanced in BNW than it was in G+K because early build orders are much more cramped with new stuff like caravans. You can't rushbuy as effectively as before either.
 

kaspergm

Deity
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
5,455
The easiest way to solve the issue would be to:
(1) teach city states that they should guard their worker at all times.
(2) remove the citystate AI willingness to sign peace instantly after war has been declared.

This way you can still snatch a worker if you prepare (and terrain allows it), but it is harder (and more risky) to bring him back to your lands.
100 % support for this. (1) would be the sensible way for CS to act no matter what, and it would make this exploit much more hard. (2) would mean that you would have to make sure that you could get away AND it would prevent the DOW-Archer-DOP loop strategy for capturing city states "for free" in early game.

City States should have a cooldown time of something like 5-10 turns before they accept a peace offer.
 

RealHuhn

Emperor
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
1,173
Location
Germany
Once you realize how incredibly hard it is to actually win a (mostly) peaceful game without the early-game speed boon that you get by stealing a CS worker on higher difficulties, you'll see that the ability to do so NEEDS to be in the game.

It is balanced - the second DoW gives you a quite big diplo penalty, so the decision on whether to steal or not makes a big difference if you're not planning to go Domination. Basically, if you have any intention to play diplomatic games (whether it is an actual Diplo win or signing a bunch of RAs or whatever) you simply cannot make another DoW for the ENTIRE GAME after stealing a CS worker. I call this a fair penalty.

I wouldn't go that far. It's not like you've already lost the game when you can't steal any workers. I never did it and won plenty of Immortal/Diety games.
Besides, if that was the case, it would be better game design to give every civ a free worker at the beginning of the game. (don't do that, by the way :p)
 
Top Bottom