HoF Rules: Objective Analysis

[TheMeInTeam]

Okay..............let's try this again!

Civ HoF is a competitive setting. Logically, in competitive settings there should exist rules for the competition to make it a more balanced and (on a game to game basis) comparable experience. In the below paragraphs I will build the case that the current civ V HoF rules do not support the spirit of HoF and are sub-ideal for usage in a competitive setting. The following are rules that are questionable in current civ V HoF and merit serious, objective discussion.

For each of these, can anyone offer *concrete*, objective reasons for their existence as rules in HoF? We'll see. The reason concrete, objective reasons are required is because HoF is a competitive setting that allows players to use all of their options at their disposal in order to get the best times. Without proof that a mechanic is overly luck reliant or offers a material advantage over not having it (or vice versa), a ban is by definition arbitrary. Let's make sure none of these rules are as such...:

Play sessions should be at least half an hour in duration. Submissions with play sessions less than half an hour risk rejection: Although Civ V's poor coding makes it virtually impossible to attain sub half-hour times, it's been proven possible and there's no actual reason such a game if played to completion can't be competitive...especially if it *doesn't* count time between turns !

Social Policy Saving: I've asked time and again of Firaxis and in general for some objective, concrete proof that this setting is imbalanced. I've yet to see it. I have a strong suspicion that it doesn't exist yet (and thusly was not given the chance to exist) because not even some of the most respected deity players I know have come up with anything concrete.

What banning this setting does is reduce the number of possible ways to approach a game, in the game format *best equipped* to determine if they're too strong through actual evidence! Even civ IV Inca (which inappropriately kept its ban in all gauntlet settings!) was given a better chance than this! This setting has not been explored to its potential and there has been scant little discussion of it in HoF.

Random Personalities: Makes sense in gauntlets where certain opponents are forced and the designer intends for the player to deal with those specific personalities. I'd be very interested to see a legit argument for banning this in general HoF. Possibly for consistency? Maybe to prevent "ideal" matchups of leader personality + uu/ub/UA? This is again something that has obviously not been explored to its potential at a high level of play, and it seems particularly odd when compared against some other options that are allowed or disallowed.

No Barbarians: This one strikes a nerve with me. A thread was opened regarding this rule; everyone was given an opportunity to provide proof that this mechanic offered a material advantage over comparable settings allowed. I asked for numbers in this thread to showcase why something traditionally allowed in HoF was banned. I presented evidence that civ V barbs are actually less threatening than in IV potentially, and far more abuse-able. These things were not refuted, and so not only I but also experienced players like Sun Tzu Wu were ignored without explanation and this rule was forced through on (I guess) popular vote despite the OP specifically stating that it was not a democratic election for the rule. HoF rule page offers no explanation for this rule, either. What is the concrete reason for this rule, and why was I and players far better than myself (and very active in actual submissions) flatly ignored? Being unable to counter our arguments is an excellent reason to allow HoF to explore this mechanic further, not ban it!

Resource Trade/Pillage and other gold/GPT exploits: From HoF rule page:

The AI is stupid. Trading a resource for gold or GPT only to pillage the improvement or trade route to break the agreement and trade it again. Breaking agreements like this to take all the AI's gold is just too easy. Please no gold exploits in the HOF.

The AI is stupid. Crushing its armies in the field only to "take" cities by masses in peace treaties. Beating the AI in the field by abusing its tactical ineptitude is just too easy. Please no war exploits in the HoF.

The AI is stupid. Allowing it to capture/kill all other AI only to surprise it with a last-second amphibious assault to win the game. Beating the AI with a surprise amphibious assault to end a game you'd have no chance of winning otherwise is just too easy. Please no amphibious domination exploits in the HoF.

The AI is stupid. Signing masses of research agreements with the AI even when doing so is clearly not in the favor of the AI. Out-researching the AI simply because it accepts these deals practically no matter what is just too easy. Please no RA exploits in the HoF.

The AI is stupid. Winning a culture victory with a single city and no military units without interruption. Winning a culture city with a single city and no wars while the AI ignores it is just too easy. Please no culture exploits in the HoF.

The AI is stupid. Easily defeating advanced units requiring strategic resources by selling those resources to the AI so it builds said units and then declaring. Farming AI units weakened by the resource requirement rule for xp is just too easy. Please no trade/xp exploits in the HoF.

What each of the above paragraphs demonstrate is how easy it is to replace the current definition of an exploit with virtually anything that takes advantage of the fact that the AI isn't good at the game. My point in creating them is to show that this rule about exploits is both by definition arbitrary and presents the potential for a dangerous problem in HoF going forward:

New exploits will occur or be discovered over time. Use of a potential exploit should be verified the HOF Staff before use.

Assumes that players can 1) identify exploits before performing them, in a game that is chalk full of exploits and 2) that this extremely loose definition of exploit will be interpreted similarly for all players. These are unfortunate assumptions. In playing a civ V game I could literally PM the HoF crew (or spam this subforum) with dozens of things that are potentially exploitative, and drawing the line between each will be a nightmare grey area.

Also, what happens when things are retrospectively added to the "exploit" list? Do we throw games out, or leave the games that abused them with a material advantage over future submissions? HoF could tier its submissions "pre" and "post" exploit, but the sheer # of things that are potentially exploitative could make doing so rather cumbersome. There's not an easy way out of this problem and this rule sets HoF up for some big problems later.

There is actually no evidence that the "gold exploit" provides a larger advantage than some of the above listed activities, either. At least some of the above could provide a stronger advantage in games.


Resources: Standard/Balanced:

Has this even been explored in civ V? What is the reasoning for it? HoF doesn't say and it certainly doesn't appear to have been discussed since civ IV. In a situation where you're going for consistency or trying to reduce the #games required to get an optimized outcome, this rule seems rather dubious and should be re-opened to discussion.

While it's unfair to expect a voluntary system format to run professionally, HoF is currently faced with SERIOUS issues in its rules (and the methods that led to their inclusion!) for civilization V. Addressing these methodologies going forward (and doing something about the decisions already made) would go a long way to correct a bad problem before it becomes unmanageable.

Now I'm to the end of the post. I have a request for those who weigh in on EITHER side for this thread:

- I am looking for arguments strong enough to hold water as a reasoning for altering (or keeping) the current HoF rules. That means I am looking for concrete #'s to back up assertions that certain options are not viable in HoF format, or in some cases that they are. The evidence that the above rules were not based on such numbers is enormous; I would feel a lot better if someone could come up with these #'s, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. For HoF to be a valid, reputable display of game performances the rules which led to those games need to be well-designed and have good reasons behind them. In each of the above cases, I am arguing against a rule that bans a certain option or action; and indeed the burden of proof when making rules lies in the rules themselves having a purpose. The burden of proof sits squarely on the "ban" side until they can come up with something.

While I can't tell you what to post, canned arguments that don't actually strengthen the position of the bans (or similar arguments against the bans) will be frowned upon as the explicit purpose of this thread is to attain a reasonable basis for the current HoF rules in question. Currently, no obvious basis of that sort exists.

 

[DaveMcW]

Social Policy Saving: I've asked time and again of Firaxis and in general for some objective, concrete proof that this setting is imbalanced. I've yet to see it. I have a strong suspicion that it doesn't exist yet (and thusly was not given the chance to exist) because not even some of the most respected deity players I know have come up with anything concrete.

For diplo the dominant strategy is to open the entire patronage tree the turn you hit Medieval.
For cultural the dominant strategy is to hoard culture until Cristo Redentor is built.
I think it's worth banning it to make these 2 victories slightly more interesting.

It does suck that sometimes you have to micromanage timing of new policies and era changes. A possible fix is to allow saving 1 policy, but you lose all culture while you wait.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

For diplo the dominant strategy is to open the entire patronage tree the turn you hit Medieval.
For cultural the dominant strategy is to hoard culture until Cristo Redentor is built.
I think it's worth banning it to make these 2 victories slightly more interesting.

It does suck that sometimes you have to micromanage timing of new policies and era changes. A possible fix is to allow saving 1 policy, but you lose all culture while you wait.

Excellent start, at least. Recent patches modified SP yet again so they're going to play out differently now than before.

If it's already kosher to situationally ban in-game practices, what would be the issue with selectively banning options per VC? Also, is the culture victory actually less formulaic with "no policy saving", or does it simply take longer on average? Just because it's overwhelmingly favorable as an option does not mean it's a bad option! Marathon for example is irrefutably the strongest speed for "best times" in virtually anything, but this doesn't mean it's banned. People can observe marathon and not marathon and make their own conclusions. Could that not be done with other options? Arguably, if a culture win turns out to be formulaic regardless of what one does (and it's doubtful we know in either case), wouldn't the preferred option be the one that allows for faster wins = less tedium in pursuing the best times?

In order to win diplo you need the money required to outbid (especially high-level) AI and in order to get that money, even with patronage, you're going to need some strong sources. In this case you have a legit opportunity cost comparison between storing and not storing, not to mention the question of whether you complete the patronage tree or just take certain things. Note that for diplo wins it's not necessarily in one's best interest to buy all city states immediately; only the ones that offer an absolute benefit toward tech pace/payback into income are worthwhile until you're actually close to winning, no?

 

[vexing]

let's try this again.

Resource Trade/Pillage and other gold/GPT exploits

all i can say is i am glad this is banned for a few reasons:
i believe it is an unintentional bug,
i personally do not exploit this bug as it is so overpowered it makes the game not fun,
the only way to get the fastest victory would be to exploit this bug were it available.

 

[DaveMcW]

Marathon for example is irrefutably the strongest speed for "best times" in virtually anything, but this doesn't mean it's banned.

Marathon is the reason I stopped playing HoF games.

 

[Max M.]

Play sessions should be at least half an hour in duration...

This is a rule against replaying turns. "Session time" means... "session" time not a whole game play time. (New session begins when you load a save).

Social Policy Saving

It would be interesting to try some HoF game with "policy saving enabled" eventually (Indeed, after the 127 patch with much better early era policies it would be not so cheesy "mechanical" as it was before). But allowing "policy saving enabled" in all HoF games is simply equal to "policy saving disabled" banned (nobody will play with "saving disabled" since the opposite is always faster) - in other words, always allowed "policy saving" will reduce the number of possible ways - not increase it.

faster wins = less tedium

Do you really think it's an objective argument? Don't we want to start all our games in modern era then? (oversimplifications like this never help).

---

Well, either way, since the main point is "feature X has not been explored" what do you actually suggest? Should all these uncertain options be allowed now and we (or who?) will keep to "explore" them? For how long? And what will be a trigger for "this feature is finally explored"?

Or maybe you could just start some "alt. competition" with whatever options you like... (just like vexing and ShadeSigma did recently - people will get interested and then who knows...).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Resource Trade/Pillage and other gold/GPT exploits

all i can say is i am glad this is banned for a few reasons:
i believe it is an unintentional bug,
i personally do not exploit this bug as it is so overpowered it makes the game not fun,
the only way to get the fastest victory would be to exploit this bug were it available.

One can just as easily interpret say the AI giving you 4+ cities to end a war as a bug (holds especially true if you already have their original capitol). I find assuming developer intent to be somewhat presumptuous. Are we to assume that the apostolic palace in civ IV went against developer intent? Thing is, they never ever changed it. This civ V HoF "exploit" rules is directly comparable to building the AP in a minority religion deliberately or any other # of tactics.

My original point here stands; that the line between "exploit" and "good play" is very thin and blurry when the method used to define it is taking advantage of AI stupidity...and that enforcement of "exploits" that haven't even been defined yet is close to impossible (rejecting a game that did not use anything banned at the time in HoF would be a black mark on the credibility of the HoF rankings; better that this never actually happens).

Marathon is the reason I stopped playing HoF games.

I admit that it bothered me too, and yet so few wanted to ban it entirely. Eventually HoF settled on speed tiers. IMO mara's advantage on winning faster is far more clear at this point than SP storing due to civ IV's age, too. SP storing was shot down as a default option on no basis; I'd like HoF to note that before opting to do the same themselves.

Unless we want a fairly rigid set of settings banning any given one is arbitrary unless there is a very good proven reason.

Do you really think it's an objective argument? Don't we want to start all our games in modern era then? (oversimplifications like this never help).

You partial quote my argument by leaving out the part where I asked that question on the assumption that the VC is formulaic regardless of SP storing . I don't know the answer to this; do you? Does putting the setting one way or the other make a victory attempt significantly more dynamic? Why, specifically?

Well, either way, since the main point is "feature X has not been explored" what do you actually suggest? Should all these uncertain options be allowed now and we (or who?) will keep to "explore" them? For how long? And what will be a trigger for "this feature is finally explored"?

An option is fully explored to the point of being ban-able when, through statistical tracking or other means, an option can be shown to provide a) a material advantage over having the setting off or on to the extent of one option being consistently superior and/or b) a significant random chance element that is not directed by skill but rather by repetition.

If you wish, we can discuss what criteria makes settings ban-able. IMO it's reasonably obvious HoF currently has no clearly defined metric to determine if something should be banned, or we'd see either more or less rules banning options.

Edit: We're already getting away from the OP intent. So far the only actual basis presented for the above rules is that one of the settings (SP storing) provides a material speed advantage for one and POSSIBLY two victory conditions, and it's debate-able if that basis is sufficient for a ban. Let's focus on the reason for the existence of these rules.

 

[Peets]

I personally favors too for the banning of the Resource Trade/Pillage and other gold/GPT exploits.
Gold is the foundation of a civ.
If you cripple that then the civ will be easy to take out for any victory condition.

The AI don't use it at each other might be a good point to ban it?
The main problem is that the AI isn't smart enough and we have to hope that they fix that.
It would fix a lot of our potential exploits.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I personally favors too for the banning of the Resource Trade/Pillage and other gold/GPT exploits.
Gold is the foundation of a civ.
If you cripple that then the civ will be easy to take out for any victory condition.

This is an example of what I said I'd frown upon in the OP. You're not providing any actual basis for banning the "exploit" short of "gold is the foundation of a civ". This is a canned argument and does not actually do anything to support the current exploit approach. I'll copy it to show you:

I personally favors too for banning of open field warfare and accepting cities in a peace deal.
Cities are the foundation of a civ.
If you cripple that then the civ will be easy to take out for any victory condition

As you can see, "arguments" like this can be generated by throwing in a few buzz words, possibly even through an RNG. You've certainly provided no evidence that this "exploit" offers a material advantage over alternative activities that abuse the AI stupidity. In fact, there are 2 very strong reasons this "exploit" is a bad ban:

1. Firaxis patch made it so that you can't auto-cancel deals by pillaging your own resources, making it harder to actually do this short of declaring war
2. The AI itself can pull this off inadvertently if you were to give it lump sum for gpt (not actually uncommon to farm RAs!), even between AI.

HoF is therefore essentially banning a valid tactic that has been patched recently to its current form (so much for designer intent defense) despite that it is something the AI can actually do the to human, all without evidence that this actually is an unusually powerful tactic.

Can you provide this evidence, or is "gold is the foundation of a civ" the sole reason you have for banning the setting? If you were to use that logic for everything you'd wind up banning playing at all.

The AI don't use it at each other might be a good point to ban it?

No. If the argument is that the AI is stupid, forcing the humans to play within the constraints of AI behavior is pretty poor form; it literally implies that players must play stupidly. Whatever the spirit of HoF is, it isn't that.

The main problem is that the AI isn't smart enough and we have to hope that they fix that.
It would fix a lot of our potential exploits.

Agreed, but this is outside the scope of HoF mod and not particularly relevant to the rules.

Try to stay on topic and come up with valid reasons for the HoF rules.

 

[walkerjks]

Completely "objective".

 

[maltz]

I am a newcomer to HOF and just finished reading the rules.
My first impression is that it is better to keep things simple and intuitive - people can do whatever offered by the game. I have been playing games this way for 20 years, anyway.

 

[da_Vinci]

This discussion won't get anywhere unless there is some consensus on some concepts:

Bug, exploit, abusive exploit, bannable exploit might be the operational concepts.

Let's try bug first. Something the human can do that is unquestionably contrary to the game's conceptial design, or contrary to the designer's intent (although that may be unknowable). In essence, a cheat. Best example might be ... wasn't there some keystoke gimmick that could be used to get infinite techs from Oracle in Civ IV at some point? Would we all agree that 's a bug, a cheat? In essence, its a way of doing soemthing that violates the rules; that you should not be able to do. In a multiplayer game with all humans, you would ban using such a bug.

So what's an exploit? Well, something that is not a bug. So it doesn't violate the rules. Usually, it's a way of playing within the rules that really takes advantage of the AI's lack of programming to either defend itself from that technique, or to use it itself. So it gives the human an advantage against the AI, within the game's rules (although perhaps not in the designer's intent had they seen it coming). The AI being willing to give instant gold for an uncertain future income or resource stream, for example. Note that in a muliplayer game with all humans, you would not need to ban this, as skilled humans would not let themselves fall into that trap.

So one simple approach might be to say ban the bugs, allow the exploits.

But are some exploits so severe as to be abusive exploits?

And do the most abusive exploits rise to the level of being bannable exploits?

Probably yes to both, but the problem is these are subjective judgements. I don't know how to put an objective definition on abusive exploit or bannable exploit.

Hmm ... maybe this thread is now done?

dV

 

[Martin Alvito]

Point by point is the only way to handle this one, due to the number of separate claims in the OP. Apologies for quote wars.

Play sessions should be at least half an hour in duration. Submissions with play sessions less than half an hour risk rejection:

This is clearly an anti-cheat measure to prevent .xml edits that the user cleverly submits saves around. If you have a problem with this, either you don't understand the intent of the rule or you want to cheat.

Social Policy Saving:

DaveMcV has said what needs to be said. The problem is that SP saving makes SPs trivial for two VCs. The solution is to ban it, but run games with SP saving on for the other VCs in GOTM.

Random Personalities:

I agree that this rule is silly. I also don't see how it's an issue, since no one in their right mind would turn it on.

No Barbarians:

The city-state encampment quests are so powerful that voluntarily disabling the barbs would cause you to lose every time to smart players that leave them on. Calling that a luck factor and claiming that the barbs should always be off is a reasonable argument. Arguing that we need a choice where no choice functionally exists is not.

Resource Trade/Pillage and other gold/GPT exploits:

Degree matters. You can easily pull down 1000+ per turn on Deity doing this, at which point it stops being Deity. The alternatives you point out don't hold a candle to this.

There is actually no evidence that the "gold exploit" provides a larger advantage than some of the above listed activities, either. At least some of the above could provide a stronger advantage in games.

This is so obviously false. Let me try putting it to you this way: 1000 per turn translates to about 250 per turn. Add that to the human player's ledger in the midgame, and the human becomes the production leader even on Deity. That can't happen, because the AI is stupid and needs a handicap to be a factor. It also results in Siam OCCs being optimal for all Deity games, and I don't think we want that either.

New exploits will occur or be discovered over time. Use of a potential exploit should be verified the HOF Staff before use.

I've made the same argument you're making in other forums. You're spot on here. The whole point of the HoF exercise is to push the limits. The only sane way to approach this is to agree upon black and white rules ex ante, and after that anything goes.

Resources: Standard/Balanced:

Luck factor. The tail of the distribution gets uglier when you permit crazy resource starts. Rerolling maps is bad enough as it is. Let's not create a situation where 1/1000 map luck matters. Civ V is a substantial improvement on Civ IV in that regard, given standard resource starts.

While it's unfair to expect a voluntary system format to run professionally

You're still taking cheap shots at the staff. That's stupid. You want change. Berating the people that can give you change isn't going to help your cause. And you should be extremely thankful that they're here to adjudicate in the first place. You want to make the rules, you check the games. If you don't want to, then be gracious.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Probably yes to both, but the problem is these are subjective judgements. I don't know how to put an objective definition on abusive exploit or bannable exploit.

It's obvious that you can't place an objective definition on it. But we regulate things that we can't objectively define all the time. Easy example: anti-trust regulation. You can't define 'abuse of market position' in a manner that removes subjectivity from determining whether a given behavior is anti-competitive. Yet judges regularly use that criterion to declare behavior illegal.

Just because we can't define it doesn't mean we can't regulate it. I realize Jacobellis v. Ohio (the famous "I know it when I see it" Supreme Court case) has influenced American thinking such that many people believe that which cannot be defined cannot be regulated, but that doesn't follow from the case. At most that standard only applies to things expressly forbidden by the Constitution but still socially desirable, such as regulation of speech in the public interest.

 

[da_Vinci]

Just because we can't define it doesn't mean we can't regulate it.

You won't get an argument from me ... unquestionably we make subjective decisions, judgements and actions all the time. We have to, life is more than one big deductive inference.

My point about no objective definitions of abusive or bannable exploits was aimed at the thread's intent to confine the discussion to objective evidence/definitions. I am not sure that one can coherently discuss this issue if subjectivity is off the table.

dV

 

[vexing]

HoF is therefore essentially banning a valid tactic that has been patched recently to its current form (so much for designer intent defense) despite that it is something the AI can actually do the to human, all without evidence that this actually is an unusually powerful tactic.

the fact that players pillaging their own resources was fixed is clearly indicative trading gpt + luxury for massive gold with no intent of actually paying the gpt or giving the luxury for an extended period is broken.

just because it now requires "skill" to let barbarians pillage your resources for you doesn't mean it should be considered ethically okay.

 

[lawofqr]

just because it now requires "skill" to let barbarians pillage your resources for you doesn't mean it should be considered ethically okay.

Does it mean this is an acceptable way to get more gold?

 

[vexing]

Does it mean this is an acceptable way to get more gold?

it's not acceptable for HoF standard games. hence the discussion of this rule.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Does it mean this is an acceptable way to get more gold?

I've been self-enforcing as best I can using "Deal History". Most of the time it isn't an issue. As far as I can tell, the oldest agreement breaks, and by the time you city shot/Archer/Warrior the barb down and get a Worker over there, it's already or nearly time to renew.

However, you're still incentivized to let the barbs pillage large luxury clusters for cheap after you fix the mess they make, which really sucks.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Let's try bug first. Something the human can do that is unquestionably contrary to the game's conceptial design, or contrary to the designer's intent (although that may be unknowable). In essence, a cheat. Best example might be ... wasn't there some keystoke gimmick that could be used to get infinite techs from Oracle in Civ IV at some point? Would we all agree that 's a bug, a cheat? In essence, its a way of doing soemthing that violates the rules; that you should not be able to do. In a multiplayer game with all humans, you would ban using such a bug.

I'm not opposed to this. Things that allow direct circumvention of game rules are fairly obvious.

Probably yes to both, but the problem is these are subjective judgements. I don't know how to put an objective definition on abusive exploit or bannable exploit.

If HoF can't also do this, then its exploit clause needs to go.

This is clearly an anti-cheat measure to prevent .xml edits that the user cleverly submits saves around. If you have a problem with this, either you don't understand the intent of the rule or you want to cheat.

I can see the issue with it for anti-cheat now. IMO the wording of this rule could use some work, but not its actual enforcement or intent. Even so, some things in life might happen where you sit down to play a turn set and then have to leave the computer immediately. I don't trust civ V's memory issues with keeping the game nice and running if one has to come back hours later. I'm guessing the HoF does not insta-ban these things though, so it's likely not a real issue. My assumption, if the intent of this rule is anti-cheating, is that games played start-to-finish with <30 mins played time would still be completely valid.

DaveMcV has said what needs to be said. The problem is that SP saving makes SPs trivial for two VCs. The solution is to ban it, but run games with SP saving on for the other VCs in GOTM.

No, he has not, and I said why in response to him. If you're going to weigh in on my or anyone else's argument on this thread, ignoring parts of said argument damages your position.

The city-state encampment quests are so powerful that voluntarily disabling the barbs would cause you to lose every time to smart players that leave them on. Calling that a luck factor and claiming that the barbs should always be off is a reasonable argument. Arguing that we need a choice where no choice functionally exists is not.

Lose EVERY time? Not likely. Also, if what you say is true and there is functionally no choice, why did HoF see fit to force people to use it as opposed to taking an advantage? Are raging barbs also banned?

I actually agree that given their random benefit element that the rule should be the exact opposite of what it is now for standard HoF play, or at least that there's a better case for banning barbs as opposed to forcing them.

This is so obviously false. Let me try putting it to you this way: 1000 per turn translates to about 250 per turn. Add that to the human player's ledger in the midgame, and the human becomes the production leader even on Deity. That can't happen, because the AI is stupid and needs a handicap to be a factor. It also results in Siam OCCs being optimal for all Deity games, and I don't think we want that either.

I was under the impression that they patched it such that if you pillaged a resource in active trade it would drop to a negative value and the AI would retain the resource. If not the relative strength of this move goes up dangerously, although it's worth pointing out that it actually can't be stronger than 2 of the examples I gave because they indicate an instant W.

IMO if they patched it so you can't run pillaging over and over it's unquestionably not ban-able. Also, as the rule stands it is unclear whether taking large lump sums from an AI and then immediately declaring war is illegal. I would be extremely angry if ANY game doing that were banned under current rules, as it's something the AI can and occasionally does do and is not explicitly banned...we need a lot of clarity with this.

Luck factor. The tail of the distribution gets uglier when you permit crazy resource starts. Rerolling maps is bad enough as it is. Let's not create a situation where 1/1000 map luck matters. Civ V is a substantial improvement on Civ IV in that regard, given standard resource starts.

Whoa. I was thinking it's the other way around. What the heck does "balanced" resources actually do? One would be LED to believe that this setting would ensure relatively even distributions of luxury and strategic resources between players. Did firaxis fail and actually make "balanced" = "random"? It wouldn't exactly surprise me, but the difference between the setting name and what actually happens is rather drastic and close to opposite if what you're saying is true.

You're still taking cheap shots at the staff. That's stupid. You want change.

It's not to be interpreted that way. Polycast works on the same salary as HoF and has similar issues. What I'm saying is that I don't expect HoF to buy $1000 software to track its data, buy into steam to read its stats, hire gobs of professional staff to comb over submissions, televise the best games, etc. In creating this line, my intention is to demonstrate that I understand the resources of HoF was limited, but that the above is still a major issue that can be addressed within that constraint. Notice that this is a lot more wordy than what I said, though if that's its interpretation it's good to clarify since it takes focus away from the intent of the thread.

Just because we can't define it doesn't mean we can't regulate it. I realize Jacobellis v. Ohio (the famous "I know it when I see it" Supreme Court case) has influenced American thinking such that many people believe that which cannot be defined cannot be regulated, but that doesn't follow from the case. At most that standard only applies to things expressly forbidden by the Constitution but still socially desirable, such as regulation of speech in the public interest.

HoF games are a much more tightly-fixed system than real life or even markets. It should be possible to clearly define a criteria that is guaranteed to make certain actions illegal, and then everything else goes that isn't stated explicitly. IMO HoF needs something of that sort ASAP, and that might merit a separate thread on its own to be sorted out.

the fact that players pillaging their own resources was fixed is clearly indicative trading gpt + luxury for massive gold with no intent of actually paying the gpt or giving the luxury for an extended period is broken.

I'm now uncertain if it was fixed in this way. Can anyone verify yay or nay? If it has been fixed, whether human or barb pillage the tile wouldn't make a difference. I'm really not sure how the quoted post is relevant.

It does, however, add weight to the enforcement team. If a barb pillages a resource, now the game is questionable on whether it should be accepted; if that resource was traded for 1k gold for example the player may or may not have been trying to protect that resource. Given the nature of barbs in this game, it might be hard to prove deliberate misconduct, and that proof would be necessary or you'd have to reject every game that has traded resources pillaged by barbs. Having what amounts to an instant L due to a tile being pillaged is a rather brute force solution .

Of course, that's only if barbs are enabled. As a chance factor we've evidence they should not be before this point, but this point isn't helping that setting.