Great general stacking.

[CanuckSoldier]

Well I know at least at Civplayers leagues we outlaw GG stacking, and even in a lot of games now players are voting to remove Classical GG's because that becomes the meta in every anc start games...

CS

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well I know at least at Civplayers leagues we outlaw GG stacking, and even in a lot of games now players are voting to remove Classical GG's because that becomes the meta in every anc start games...

CS

Outlawing GG stacking is like outlawing building more than 1 wonder per era. It's silly.

Just because avoiding letting 1 player get 2+ GG is "meta" doesn't mean you have a broken meta. The game's systems make it very easy to evaluate who is pushing great general points. In a game with more than 1 human player, nobody should be getting 2 while the target doesn't have 1.

Put another way: even without the ban, do you see more encampments or more commercial hubs/campus/industrial parks per game?

I can't agree with the equivalent of a "no rush 15 minute" StarCraft rule in civ .

 

[Victoria]

The ban is in place on MP sites.

It's a different world... a bit like scumsaving where they will use every teeny ickle exploit to be named 39th in Korea or wherever.

Plenty of other exploits out there too.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The ban is in place on MP sites.

It's a different world... a bit like scumsaving where they will use every teeny ickle exploit to be named 39th in Korea or wherever.

Plenty of other exploits out there too.

It's not the first or last time MP does an unjustified/based on self-inconsistent-rationale ban. What separates "GG stacking" from "making lots of commercial hubs" in the MP community's mind, to the point where you'd ban one and not the other?

I have no respect for the concept of "exploit" when it comes to actual competitive gaming. It's a junk term amounting to "I don't like x game option" and discussion about it has shown that conclusion holds time and again. When people are asked to define it in a way that could consistently align with what they identify as future exploits, the usual conclusion is that playing the game is exploitative...or they refuse to set criteria at all. Making rules based on that in competitive settings does nothing but degrade the quality and credibility of the competition.

Of course, if one had self-consistent criteria that would anticipate "exploits" independent from using accepted game features...well that hasn't happened yet.

 

[UWHabs]

It's not the first or last time MP does an unjustified/based on self-inconsistent-rationale ban. What separates "GG stacking" from "making lots of commercial hubs" in the MP community's mind, to the point where you'd ban one and not the other?

I have no respect for the concept of "exploit" when it comes to actual competitive gaming. It's a junk term amounting to "I don't like x game option" and discussion about it has shown that conclusion holds time and again. When people are asked to define it in a way that could consistently align with what they identify as future exploits, the usual conclusion is that playing the game is exploitative...or they refuse to set criteria at all. Making rules based on that in competitive settings does nothing but degrade the quality and credibility of the competition.

Of course, if one had self-consistent criteria that would anticipate "exploits" independent from using accepted game features...well that hasn't happened yet.

To me, the only "exploits" are essentially obvious bugs that the dev team hasn't gotten around to patching. So the Scythia horse selling, or the selling of armadas, those would be considered exploits before they got fixed. In terms of current "exploits", something like being allowed to fire a siege unit with less than 2 moves because it's under the influence of a GG, that I think is perfectly fine to "ban" if you want. Since that seems like an obvious bug - the stated design decision in the last patch does not line up with the actual implementation details, it feels more like that's a bug than an intentional design decision. Of course, it's really hard to say what's a bug and what's intentional until it gets fixed later

But GG stacking, I've seen nothing that shows that it's not 100% working as designed right now. And given they have had a chance to fix it up, like they did for Observation Balloons, and they didn't, just shows to me that it's intentional. So if you can get multiple generals, have fun

 

[Victoria]

something like being allowed to fire a siege unit with less than 2 moves because it's under the influence of a GG,

That was put in on purpose, its in the patch notes.
I do not disagree with your sentiment however MP and SP are worlds apart. Where in MP someone loosing just stops playing having a GG can ruin a game and a site pretty quick. These sites do not ban things for nothing.... its a different world... its like real war... queeens rules are out the window. I was once got a high rank in ancent tabletop world champs and was only saved by the decent player next door saying he had seen the guy moving my troops when I went for a break.... that was the French Champion.... and there was not even any prize.

#########

I have no respect for the concept of "exploit" when it comes to actual competitive gaming.

So there is for an example a way to stop anyone else getting a GG once you have .... You think thats OK is it?

Of course, if one had self-consistent criteria that would anticipate "exploits"

Then Microsoft would pay you millions ... a poinless ask.

credibility of the competition

There is no credibility in such competitions. The person who does not make full advantage of any set of actions that can be combined to provide an outcome not percieved of by the designers will loose.

#########

I personally am OK with GG stacking in SP but in MP, 20 minutes into the game someone gets 2 GG and everyone else leaves and asks that it be banned.... THAT is what drives these rules, the players themselves. Not some pontifications of what is right and noble.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

It's not the first or last time MP does an unjustified/based on self-inconsistent-rationale ban. What separates "GG stacking" from "making lots of commercial hubs" in the MP community's mind, to the point where you'd ban one and not the other?

I have no respect for the concept of "exploit" when it comes to actual competitive gaming. It's a junk term amounting to "I don't like x game option" and discussion about it has shown that conclusion holds time and again. When people are asked to define it in a way that could consistently align with what they identify as future exploits, the usual conclusion is that playing the game is exploitative...or they refuse to set criteria at all. Making rules based on that in competitive settings does nothing but degrade the quality and credibility of the competition.

Of course, if one had self-consistent criteria that would anticipate "exploits" independent from using accepted game features...well that hasn't happened yet.

The bans we do are not unjustified, what we deem as over powered is based on 1000's of hours of playing MP. I'm not telling you how to play SP. If you want to tell us how to play MP I strongly suggest you come play some games at Civplayers,before you deem our opinions invalid. The difference between GG stacking and commercial hubs is that GG will win you the game, commercial hubs will not....you will die to the guy coming at you with 2-3 GG and what ever units he chooses.

And since that becomes the only viable strategy....we removed it. Plain and Simple. In fact many hosts even vote to remove all Classical era GG, as again, going for a single GG still becomes the only strategy, especially if you draw Rome or some other civ that makes rushing THE tactic. We want MP games to be fun and challenging, having only one strategy is dull and boring and will eventually leads to a stagnating community.

CS

 

[Victoria]

I strongly suggest you come play some games at Civplayers

Thanks for the backup ... Gorgo has to be one of the worst offenders for GG?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So there is for an example a way to stop anyone else getting a GG once you have .... You think thats OK is it?

How does that line of thinking vary from other great people, or even wonders?

Then Microsoft would pay you millions ... a poinless ask.

If it's a pointless ask, the reason is that it's a pointless term. If I asked this same question about "cheating", or what constitutes driving a car IRL, or how to evaluate whether you're on the Earth or in space, you would be capable of giving me criteria for those, and you could pin down those respective actions/situations to the point where concluding one is on the Earth would not simultaneously imply you're on the Sun or inside a black hole.

That's why "this thing is on Earth" has meaning while "that action is an exploit" does not have meaning...at least not beyond "person saying it doesn't like that action". Note that "exploit" in this sense is in obvious contrast to bugs, 3rd party software etc which do have criteria for pinning them down...

THAT is what drives these rules, the players themselves. Not some pontifications of what is right and noble.

I am aware that the players drive the rules. I am also acutely aware that player reasoning when making them can be and sometimes is irrational.

The bans we do are not unjustified, what we deem as over powered is based on 1000's of hours of playing MP.

If you have 1000's of hours in MP and confidence you can justify the ban, then justify it. If you were making a case to justify banning Scythian horse economy while it still existed, I think in principle we could come up with reasons that specifically centralizes the game, and doubt we'd disagree on it.

The difference between GG stacking and commercial hubs is that GG will win you the game, commercial hubs will not....you will die to the guy coming at you with 2-3 GG and what ever units he chooses.

If someone builds commercial hubs and you are restricted from doing so, how likely do you think you are to win, if playing a mirror image of yourself? Commercial hubs don't "win the game" because everyone has access to them.

This is also true for GG, other great people, and wonders. The game's demographics allow you to notice the moment someone starts generating a single great general point. Can you, as a player with 1000+ hours, explain to me how this person is getting 2 or even 3 great generals before other people in the game notice and invest points of their own into it? What steps is the "GG stacker" doing that is letting him consistently get such a large lead in the great general pool, such that target civs have no reasonable response?

It should be possible to demonstrate the math here independently of skill. I am open to the possibility I've missed something that allows one person to consistently attain such an advantage even if other opponents are watching for it and counter-pursue at least one GG themselves. But if so, what am I missing?

nd since that becomes the only viable strategy....we removed it. Plain and Simple.

Making builders is the only viable strategy compared to not making them. Making military units is the only viable strategy compared to not making any.

The necessity to invest in an encampment early-ish could be considered a build divergence from SP requirements, but I'm not seeing how that centralizes the game. Unless there is math I'm missing, this sounds exactly like a "NR 20" game, except you don't even have to pay resources to scout in the civ 6 game. If I'm wrong, the math should show easily why that is. How does one attain a 2 GG lead on someone who pursues at least one GG?

 

[Tabarnak]

If you manage to get 2 ggs you have to put some efforts on it. What if u replace them by units? I dont understand why its banned. I managed to block these early attacks with much more units than my opponents.

Thats the key...if u dont counter with more units u cant counter 2 ggs rushes. So why banning it if there is a counter to them? Because of disparity of players knowledge. Best players eat noobs, so lets hit capacity of best players to harrass them, so the game can look more "balanced".

 

[BladeSe7en]

Thanks for the backup ... Gorgo has to be one of the worst offenders for GG?

Thanks for the backup ... Gorgo has to be one of the worst offenders for GG?

Gorgo? No, she's not the first one who comes to mind. Now any civ can utilize classical general rushing with a horse or sword push, but the civs who stand out in my book would be Macedon, Persia, Rome and Japan.

 

[BladeSe7en]

How does that line of thinking vary from other great people, or even wonders?



If it's a pointless ask, the reason is that it's a pointless term. If I asked this same question about "cheating", or what constitutes driving a car IRL, or how to evaluate whether you're on the Earth or in space, you would be capable of giving me criteria for those, and you could pin down those respective actions/situations to the point where concluding one is on the Earth would not simultaneously imply you're on the Sun or inside a black hole.

That's why "this thing is on Earth" has meaning while "that action is an exploit" does not have meaning...at least not beyond "person saying it doesn't like that action". Note that "exploit" in this sense is in obvious contrast to bugs, 3rd party software etc which do have criteria for pinning them down...



I am aware that the players drive the rules. I am also acutely aware that player reasoning when making them can be and sometimes is irrational.



If you have 1000's of hours in MP and confidence you can justify the ban, then justify it. If you were making a case to justify banning Scythian horse economy while it still existed, I think in principle we could come up with reasons that specifically centralizes the game, and doubt we'd disagree on it.



If someone builds commercial hubs and you are restricted from doing so, how likely do you think you are to win, if playing a mirror image of yourself? Commercial hubs don't "win the game" because everyone has access to them.

This is also true for GG, other great people, and wonders. The game's demographics allow you to notice the moment someone starts generating a single great general point. Can you, as a player with 1000+ hours, explain to me how this person is getting 2 or even 3 great generals before other people in the game notice and invest points of their own into it? What steps is the "GG stacker" doing that is letting him consistently get such a large lead in the great general pool, such that target civs have no reasonable response?

It should be possible to demonstrate the math here independently of skill. I am open to the possibility I've missed something that allows one person to consistently attain such an advantage even if other opponents are watching for it and counter-pursue at least one GG themselves. But if so, what am I missing?



Making builders is the only viable strategy compared to not making them. Making military units is the only viable strategy compared to not making any.

The necessity to invest in an encampment early-ish could be considered a build divergence from SP requirements, but I'm not seeing how that centralizes the game. Unless there is math I'm missing, this sounds exactly like a "NR 20" game, except you don't even have to pay resources to scout in the civ 6 game. If I'm wrong, the math should show easily why that is. How does one attain a 2 GG lead on someone who pursues at least one GG?

I can answer this with one word: projects....
I am a highly competitive player (I have 2200 hours played in civ6) and I play with similarly, and even more skilled players, and yet I can still easily obtain 2-3 classical generals. The reason general stacking is a regular ban is simply because with stacking that is the only viable tactic. The current meta is rather simple. Tech mining, bronze working, iron working. Build second city, build encampment(s) spam projects and warriors, then upgrade to swords and conquer as many players as possible. Seeing how snowballing over a civ or two that early can easily win you the game is the main reason why stacking is banned in CPL.
On another note, your comparison to commercial hubs and multiple wonders in one era is like comparing apples to rocks.
Yes gold wins the long game but if you don't have a sizeable military to combat the neighbor who's rushing generals, you're basically building the hubs for your neighbor adding to his snowball effect.
Same goes for wonders. Each wonder has unique abilities so Stonehenge and hanging gardens are nothing like stacking two generals.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am a highly competitive player (I have 2200 hours played in civ6) and I play with similarly, and even more skilled players, and yet I can still easily obtain 2-3 classical generals. The reason general stacking is a regular ban is simply because with stacking that is the only viable tactic. The current meta is rather simple. Tech mining, bronze working, iron working. Build second city, build encampment(s) spam projects and warriors, then upgrade to swords and conquer as many players as possible. Seeing how snowballing over a civ or two that early can easily win you the game is the main reason why stacking is banned in CPL.

If everyone were to tech mining --> BW --> IW and spam projects/warriors, nobody would be getting a 2 classical GG lead though. I had projects in mind when picturing the opening myself; there's no other realistic way to get that kind of GG point output early on.

On another note, your comparison to commercial hubs and multiple wonders in one era is like comparing apples to rocks.

No, in both cases we have a mechanic where 1) everyone is expected to build these in order to be competitive and 2) not building them while your opponents do build them can lead to losing, all else held equal.

To illustrate, picture a game with no GG, or everyone having 1 GG, but one player out of 4 can't build commercial hubs or even just materially delays them. I don't see him winning on average, do you?

Similarly, if you watch the demographics and realize that someone didn't include a builder for ages and will necessarily be behind on infrastructure, wouldn't you push that person up your list as an easy land grab target? How is this different from noting encampment investment?

If we assume everyone actually attempts to defend themselves (IE invests in encampment(s)), which we should assume, what separates this tactic mathematically? It's like saying the "build a settler meta" is too strong unless there's a good reason to separate it.

The wonders example was just a throw-in to show that the arguments presented to that point didn't actually separate GG stacking from building wonders, not that players should actually be doing multiple wonders/era with any consistency.

 

[Victoria]

Gorgo? No, she's not the first one who comes to mind. Now any civ can utilize classical general rushing with a horse or sword push, but the civs who stand out in my book would be Macedon, Persia, Rome and Japan.

I just find Inget one very early as Gorgo gets to the +2 general card very quickly and has a wildcard slot but I bow to superior experience

 

[WillowBrook]

Just a heads up to those of you who may not have previously encountered TheMeInTeam's disdain for banning in-game tactics and his hatred of the term "exploit": he may spill thousands of words arguing with you and will not change his position. Your arguments or explanations responding to him may help others, but don't expect any concessions from him.

Moderator Action: Please do not get personal. Stick to the thread topic and make your arguments. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Victoria]

I foolishly stopped ignoring, will not make the same mistake again. Covering tracks rather than conceding is self defeating.

Moderator Action: Please do not discuss who you are ignoring, it is considered trolling. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It should be possible to demonstrate the math here independently of skill. I am open to the possibility I've missed something that allows one person to consistently attain such an advantage even if other opponents are watching for it and counter-pursue at least one GG themselves. But if so, what am I missing?

Any takers? The answer to this is kind of important to the whole discussion about GG stacking vs other tactics, so this isn't a good one to gloss over.

 

[Victoria]

Ok before I'm gone for good.

By the time you notice a GG spammer they have encampments, barracks, projects, +2 card
How the hell do you catch up how quickly considering you have your own cards in place and you own strategy.
It's not just the maths, it's the technical issues to change.

And worse, you are MP so who else is chasing, you are 3/4 of the way through encampment and have paid to swap cards when two other people jump in with+3-4 per turn...early GG are cheap.

It like you have not played anything but a friendly hot seat.... These MP servers are nasty as I already said.

It's not all down to mechanics, in fact most things are down to human beings and experiencing the RIGHT gameplay, you can be one or sit in a high castle it matters not to me anymore.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

By the time you notice a GG spammer they have encampments, barracks, projects, +2 card

If you check demographics you can see when someone starts generating great general points. Encampment should be among early district priorities in MP anyway, unless you're on a script like islands or something.

And worse, you are MP so who else is chasing, you are 3/4 of the way through encampment and have paid to swap cards when two other people jump in with+3-4 per turn...early GG are cheap.

If they are inexpensive then pushing one out would force someone to run 3 generals to get a 2 GG lead on you...the math doesn't favor that being trivial. At some point, they still need to build actual units.

It's not all down to mechanics, in fact most things are down to human beings and experiencing the RIGHT gameplay, you can be one or sit in a high castle it matters not to me anymore.

What does this mean exactly? The process of generating GG is numerically consistent. If someone is successfully attaining a multi-GG lead, they are doing something their opponent is not doing. The threshold for evaluating whether this is problematic in MP or not comes down to how much having to place an encampment among early districts centralizes the game compared to other nearly-mandatory early builds. That's why I asked for math that demonstrates someone can get this kind of lead in spite of opponents building an encampment and building projects if someone else is pushing GG points more than usual.

The implication that my position is somehow inconsistent with being a human being is awkward. I'm looking for someone who feels this mechanic is out of line to demonstrate how so in a self-consistent way. That self-consistency is a crucial piece of demonstrating coherent reasoning for a ban, and requesting such rationale is not inhuman.

If the mechanic truly is different in the way described, it would be possible to demonstrate that with numbers, like you could with Scythian horse archers vs other civs and proportional gold/production advantage.

 

[CPL_Yoshi]

Hey,

A bit late to the party, but I will do my best to explain the reason that we do ban Great General stacking, @TheMeInTeam. So I do agree that the term, "exploit" is quite often used in an incorrect manner. There are cases when it can be disputed on, of course, but in the case of Great General stacking, the term "exploit" is incorrect. There are quite a few exploits available in this game, but that is another topic completely. But back to the question of "do I believe that great general stacking further causes an imbalance in the game?" And to that I would have to say yes.

In the current state of the "meta" on our server, we often see a very cookie-cutter start. Usually, we see 1-2 scouts, then a settler or builder. Once those are completed, most players will have beelined towards bronzeworking. Then comes the encampment district. Once that's finished, you'll see the encampment projects at work. Often by the time you already see one Great general point in at least 3 other players, it's already too late. You'll lose out on the great general. All of this is often dependent on land and city state first meets. It can be quite a "luck" based event on who receives the great general.

If everyone were to tech mining --> BW --> IW and spam projects/warriors, nobody would be getting a 2 classical GG lead though. I had projects in mind when picturing the opening myself; there's no other realistic way to get that kind of GG point output early on.

I agree. Most situations, if the players all understand in going to rush great generals, nobody would be getting 2 great generals in the classical era, unless you were extremely lucky (bronzeworking goody hut, first meet on a city state, great land, being Japan, etc). However, this should more likely apply to the next set of great generals, the medieval-renaissance great generals.

Let's take a 6-man free for all game, for example. General stacking is allowed. The first 3 great generals (classical-medieval) are taken. Everyone went for the first 3, but those that didn't are out of luck. But by allowing great general stacking, do we force those who weren't going for a great general to now continue rushing for a medieval-renaissance great general, solely for the purpose of denying the other 3 of another great general. Doing this would further put the other 3 behind, forcing them to work projects for an additional 45 Great General points. (30 for Classical-Medieval and 75 for Medieval-Renaissance). It would give nobody a chance at even coming close to winning the game if we were to further punish someone with a less than optimal start.

A +10 bonus on knights and crossbowmen are going to demolish anyone in the game. Maybe until Cavalry of field cannons would someone stand a chance, but the amount of science required to get to that point comes another 20 turns or more later on.

This game does have the potential for being a great strategic game, but by allowing "luck" and spawn starts to dictate the outcome of the early game wars, we create a very one-dimensional playstyle and a very stale meta. The multiplayer meta I see is definitely quite domination focused with trying to go wide as quickly and successfully as possible. It's just going to further reinforce that playstyle without giving anyone an option for a different strategy. Maybe someone would be able to create some sort of strategy to counter great general stacking, but I highly doubt we'd see it in the near future.

I, myself, am a big fan in the whole design of "rock, paper, scissors" and giving players an option to in some way counter great general stacking would lead me to agree that they shouldn't be a ban, but in this moment, there really isn't an option. Other than the "Defender of Faith" belief (+10 to units in friendly territory following your religion), of course. But even then, there is a huge problem with this. Civs like Russia and Japan have the ability to always, without a doubt, get this first. If they were in the game, nobody would even remotely have the ability to defend against +10 knights and crossbows without forcing them to put 2 times the effort into a gg that won't affect them until turns 40+.

I'd like to hear your opinion, and discuss this more. Please let me know what you think @TheMeInTeam.

Thanks,
CPL_Yoshi