GOTM #8 *Spoilers* Thread

Bamspeedy did post this in the general discussions when he found the worker dogpile problem in GOTM6 so I don't know if reposting it would help. Yes, there are lots of exploits being used like the scout resource denial but there was no great effort to stop that game changing exploit. Should someone who finishes first have the highest score, I don't really know, the early HOF were abandoned cause it was too easy to get a high score early, seems like we have gone around a big circle.

CB
 
I originally posted this list of suggested features that needed to be considered for inclusion in a patch to the CIV3 single player game:

Histographic Display and scoring code changes, fixes and add-ons:

1) Add the ability to generate a set of scores called “tournament score” for every player in the current game and display this score as fourth option in the histographic view. This score would be calculated using a simple text based equation load file that will co-located in the folder with the .bic file. The equation would use variable names from a Fireaxis released list of variable names that could be published and updated from a website with minimal effort or and minimal ongoing support costs. The default tournament equation file would include a first line of none or if the tournament equation file could not be located, then the program would default to displaying no tournament score. When the game is started and defined it would load the equation from tournament equation file and then lock the equation in for the duration of the game. This could be used to establish normalized or specialized scoring for tournament games like GOTM etc. An example tournament score calculation for a naval power game might be: “= [happy citizens + specialist citizens + coastal tiles occupied] * 2 + [content citizens + sea tiles occupied] + naval units + [battleships + aircraft carriers + nuclear submarines] * 2 + [aegis cruisers] * 4”.

2) Reveal the per turn score numbers (unaveraged) as a fifth option in the histographic display.

3) Fix the histographic score page to show the correct relative scores for culture and power when these option are selected from the drop down menu. Currently the graphics change but the scores stay unchanged at the average per turn score for all civs.

4) Fix the histographic score page to display the current year date and the score changes since last turn.

5) Calculate and display the current projected final score for the human player (including any early finish bonuses). This can be shown slightly separated from the listing of all civs and down at the bottom of the list. The score could be labeled “current possible close-out score” or something equally noncommittal and would appear any time after over half the other civs on the map had been discovered
 
Bamspeedy did post this in the general discussions when he found the worker dogpile problem in GOTM6 so I don't know if reposting it would help.

Yeah, but I don't think anyone realized at that time what an effect it would have on score if you continually added workers to that city. It certainly didn't enter my mind at that time. Sure, I was thinking, 'wow, that's some free points'. But that was excess workers I had that I had used up population points to make in the first place. Once I realized that specialists slow down the population growth and when 'transferring' them to somewhere where they never die and allow all the cities to produce another one faster, I was amazed at the scoring potential! It would be easy to get over 100,000 pts. on Deity.
 
Sure, everyone who has done a real milking has added their workers back to cities. Sure, know one really knew what they were doing. Sure, no one noticed that after building a worker that the population rebounds. Sure, no one really thought they were bumping up their score. Anyway, now it's exposed and if you're not supposed to be able score 100,000 on a deity game then it should be fixed.

CB
 
Originally posted by Cartouche Bee
Sure, everyone who has done a real milking has added their workers back to cities. Sure, know one really knew what they were doing. Sure, no one noticed that after building a worker that the population rebounds. Sure, no one really thought they were bumping up their score. Anyway, now it's exposed and if you're not supposed to be able score 100,000 on a deity game then it should be fixed.
When I noticed this exploit I honestly just didn't think it was all that interesting (just seemed like another bug) or that anyone would consider it a legitimate way to increase score. But clearly opinions differ on this! :)

Since opinions do differ, I guess we'll need a formal decision on whether it should be disallowed in GOTM in future. Does anyone seriously propose that it should be allowed and therefore even requires a poll? :)

(Also IMO it should be disallowed in HOF, and in the HOF case it seems to me it should be disallowed for any submission, past, present, or future.)
 
When I noticed this exploit I honestly just didn't think it was all that interesting (just seemed like another bug) or that anyone would consider it a legitimate way to increase score. But clearly opinions differ on this!

When I started doing this in my current HoF game, I was thinking it will probably be disqualified. But I went ahead with it anyways. First, I didn't realize it would increase score by this much! Secondly, I wanted to test how much it really does help. I had made many mistakes in this game since it was my first real attempt at Aeson's 'settler flood', so I wasn't really worried about having to start a new game over because I would iron out any problems/mistakes I made in the second attempt (on a different map, of course). I don't think there are any submissions in the HoF that have used this tactic, yet.

If there is a poll, I think there should be seperate polls for GOTM and HOF. HoF is aimed more at seeing how many points can be possibly made from a map. HoF allows some things that GoTM doesn't. Re-loading if you accidently trigger domination being one of them. I have no problem whether it is allowed or not. I will still finish this game regardless just to see what score is possible and see how much longevity helps this.
 
Matrix should have a look at this and see what he wants to do. If required he could present his findings to Firaxis. Pretty much the rule has been to allow what Firaxis allows, in the past anyway. Funny how some exploits will be over looked, it appears to be based on how it fits into each ones game. Lots of cheap tactics are accepted but I guess we need some kind of advantage over the AI. Milker's will support concepts that allow them to score more, easier and warmongers seem to favor concepts that make the war faster and easier. Of course I favor things that make it harder for everyone else. :lol:

And yes, Bamspeedy longevity is making a big difference. My per turn score is still going up. May not be legal in the past/present/future but it displays why some things work better than others, in any scoring game. I guess the trick will be to calculate the score that should be acceptable for a map and then make it so.

CB
 
For those who were curious what the city screen looks like, I have a screenshot of Washington at 1730 A.D. It has 4400+ population points. As you can see, the specialists goes off the screen. I have over 2000 scientists in that city that you can't see, all that you see is a couple happy people and nothing but entertainers. The actually population at times has been over 1 billion, but now only shows 470+million. The ending digits gets cut off, so I have no idea now if it is in the trillions or quadrillions. There isn't a simple calculation that I know of to figure the actual population. I looked at a size 2 city and it had 40,000 citizens (20,000/1 pop point), while a size 12 city has 800,000 (66,667/1 pop point), plus you get a couple thousand more citizens for each food that is stored in the granary.

The amount of food that is being ate and the pollution icons also run off the screen. With over 4400 pollution icons I have lost about 400 of my grassland squares to global warming and I am still 20 turns away from mass transit. I'm using the wonder as a pre-build for mass transit in the city. I only have that city working on the coast tiles, because pollution only forms on LAND tiles that the city is working, thus at least I have no pollution to clean up.
I'm sure once I do get mass transit I will only have ONE pollution icon.

Very_Big_city!.jpg
 
I think there should be a poll set up for this discussion, but Matrix will have to weigh in as to wherther or not it is allowed.

IMHO it should be allowed until Fireaxis fixes the bug. It is a lot of work to sucessfully implement this trick and I am sure that in order to get a higher score several things need to happen early in the game. Everyone is aware of the potential issue here and can use the trick in their games if they choose. So there is a level playing field for everyone.

I understand that we are on an honor system for no reloading, but if we also have to rely on an honor system for this as well the potential impact to the score is too great. There will be people who do not abide by that honor system. The impact to the score is much larger with this scoring tactic. Just by using it for a little while in the game and disbancing the city your score could go up by the thousands. There is no way to detect this, and the rightful winners will not be at the top.

The long term solution is to have fireaxis fix this.
 
I'm a Civ score milker. I have tasted the fruit of free points. I know that it will be hard for me to resist and I'm sure I can circumvent normal play tactics and score more points if I try.

When I add workers to a city size 12 of more to create cities of the size 20,30,40,50,60,100,1000, or 10000 I do it to exploit points (sometimes production and commerce ;)). If a city has food or not is of no concern to me. If I have to micromanage the squares that a city works to make food available so that I can add workers, I will. Once the deed is done I will then allow other cities to work those same squares so that I can add workers to them.

Unless Firaxis stops the addition of workers to all ready large cities to artificially create larger cities, I'm doomed to frivolous game play. Woo is me. Woo is me.

CB
 
Ainwood and CB,

you are both fairly sharp participants so it surprises me to see you advocate making it impossible to add workers to cities of pop 12 or above.


First, never, never, never advocate or support hardcoded limits that make it impossible to do something if these limits are not accessible in the editor to allow adjustment. Some of the stupidist and most disruptive dufous head programming mistakes that we have seen in Civ3 have been directly tied to hard coded limits that impede the application of the game. (witness hardcoded rule that prevents naval units from transporting any naval units and the hardcoded limit that makes it impossible for any bombard unit to ever hit any non-combatant or artillery unit or any aircraft or naval units parked in cities.)

There are scenarios which will include different food support levels of the pop points as well as significantly different happiness, luxury, and food resources.

The problem (also known as really cool exploit) that we are discussing here is the ability to continue adding pop points to a city even when that city is slowly starving at the rate of one pop point per turn.

A solution to this would be to add a spinner to the general game settings that would limit the maximum number of pop points that can be added to a starving city in any given turn. A starving city would be defined by any city where the current food production was less than the food consumption (the same condition that generates the display of the shortage dialog in the city screen).

If the spinner were set to zero, then no new pop points could be added to a city with a food shortage. If the spinner were set to 1, then 1 pop point could be added to a city in each turn, even if the city was showing a food shortage. If the spinner were set to 100 then, 100 pop points could be added to a starving city in any given turn (Yes, this feature should be retained for its value in gameplay scenarios.)

I would set the default value for the "added pop points" spinner to be 1 because this would be the break even case but it would still allow a civilian worker to be added to support the cases when you have to balance happiness and food production on a micro scale.

It would be important to makes sure that the added pop point limit per turn does not engage as long as the pop points can legitimately be added to the cities. There are many examples where you finish railroading the world and need to get rid of hundreds of excess workers and I have often needed to add 7 or 8 workers to a size 12 or greater city just to get them producing something in a single turn. We should not throw out this legitimate use just to disable an exploit that can be prevented in other ways.

Everytime we ask Firaxis to add an uncontrolled hard coded limit or every time Firaxis adds a hardcoded variable limit, then someone ought to get smacked because this is the wrong approach.

The default game can always be limited to what the hardcoded value might have been, but at least there is flexibility to adjust performance variables when the need arises.
 
Hi cracker,

I didn't say they have to hardcode it to 12 , but standard rules could be set to that, make it changeable. The adding of workers to create large cities is the number one exploit of all high scoring games. If you make too many workers and have no place to add them in smaller cities then you would have to disband them. Every single milker uses this exploit and may or may not realize that it is an exploit. Starvation has nothing to do with the real exploit, it is the relocation of workers that make it too easy to make great producing cities. I would expect alot of resistance to this because I'm sure the exploit is extremely prevalent and I'm sure the AI does not do this so, fair is fair.

CB
 
I'm not sure I would call ferrying workers an exploit in itself, because to me it seems like that is an intended feature of the game, as long as your population stays within the range that your terrirory can support.

The exploit, however, has to do with using the fact that no matter how big the population/food ratio is, only 1 pop-point will starve in a turn, allowing you to create and maintain a population that far exceeds what your territory can support. I think any rational thinker can agree that this was not intended.

I personally think that Firaxis should fix this by making it impossible to add a worker or settler to a city that is currently starving. Changing the starvation rate to match the pop/food ratio is another option, but I think that would make it too easy to starve captured cities down to 1 to avoid the problems of having a foreign population. Maybe if starvation caused some unhappiness this would be alright. The former just seems like a simpler, effective solution to me.
 
Hi Bob,

The game designers clearly intended that large cities would take longer to grow. They did that by requiring more food to be gathered for the growth to occur. So moving workers around clearly defeats the intended growth rate of large cities.

CB
 
Not saying that it should be hard-coded, but I would like some form of "control". And I'm sitting on the fence a bit over worker addition is the limit, or the starvation rate is changed. I actually think that I'd like the starvation rate changed.

Basically, I enjoy playing the GOTM, but get a bit bored with milking. I would like the score to be more a reflection of playing strategy than time available for milking.

But don't get me wrong, I admire the people who develop these strategies, and the people who get the really high scores (not me :lol: ) get them from skill, not just milking. The milking phase only ensures that you reap the rewards from a good early strategy.:)
 
Clearly the exploit here is that civilians who are starving to death do not require any food or gold to keep them alive until the next turn as long as they are not the first person in line at the starving to death checkout line.

This has nothing to do with the fact that workers and settlers could legitimately be added to larger metropolises if sufficient food was available. Using the fatser growth rate of smaller town ans cities to balance population is a legitimate and worthwile strategy. This is why settler farming should be done in towns and not in cities if you want the most number of settlers per unit time.

We should not confuse the two issues.

The "Soylent Green" exploit is brilliant and exciting but it definitely should not be an allowed strategy.

Doing something spiteful to impede the flow of population from fast growing towns into other towns or cities should be avoided in any case where the desitination could legitimately support the population with food and happiness balance.
 
Cracker,

Your analogy was my reasoning in why I was leaning towards the starvation fix, as it is more realistic.

I was thinking that reducing the amount of workers that could be added to a city to (say) 12 would reduce milking, but actually the starvation thing would as well - you could only grow cities to a certain size, and it would probably be more worthwhile to move specialists out of large metropoli (is that the plural form :lol: ), to convert them to happy citizens in smaller towns / cities.

Yep. Fix the starvation. Note that this fix on the starvation could make pollution one hell of a killer, especially following a nuke attack!
 
Here's the thread from when this was originally brought to 'everyone's' attention. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=246809#post246809

Notice that no one mentioned of any possible scoring made from this. I added these 275 workers at 1996 A.D. I think. So with 275 specialists at 1 pt *2 (warlord level), that was 550 pts. Now, I had about 10% of the game left (54 turns out of 540), so this only helped my score by 55 pts (less when you consider starvation). In my current game with this 'worker farming' or 'specialists relocation', whatever you want to call it, this has helped my score in the thousands!

Normally, when people have excess workers after all the terrain is improved they added them into any city that still was growing, thus speeding up the time it would take that city to reach max population and help their score by 1 or 2 points maybe. And there have been some times where every city already was maxed out, thus if you add 1 worker to each city, they all starve on the next turn anyways, so you might as well have disbanded them.

I don't support the idea of the starvation (if you have a city size 12 and now it only has enough food to feed 8, you lose 4 pop points in that one turn). This would lead to another exploit. Since citizens can't work on a tile that an enemy is fortified on, players would send tons of units all over the place and fortify on every tile, thus starving a city from size 12 to 1 in just 1 turn!:p

I don't like the idea of not allowing the addition of settlers/workers into cities over size 12, either. Remember, in an ideal city, the city has 20 tiles to work. Should the limit be 20, then? Early in the game (on lower levels), I would sometimes add workers/settlers from nearby cities to boost my capital's population up if I wanted to speed up the process of building a wonder (like the pyramids, for example). Now why shouldn't I be able to do that post-hospitals to get a wonder faster if my city needs to be working more production tiles?

I like the idea of setting maximum city size at say, 60 (with this adjustable in the editor, of course). To get to size 60 you would need every single tile worked by that city and it being irrigated, railroaded, flood plains, with a bunch of wheat (nearly impossible to have that perfect food city). With a city maxed out at size 60, you would need so many more of these 'specialists capitals' to gain any real points, and for each one you have, you start losing even more scoring potential than just having one. To get 3600 'free specialists' I would need 60 'specialists capitals'. Thus, I would be needing to build 60 workers/specialists per turn just to keep up with starvation! I guess this still will net some more points, but a heck of alot more headache on someone trying to pull this off, with diminishing gains in score.
 
Back
Top Bottom