Is Palace Jumping an exploit?

[Svar]

Back in the days of Civ 2, capturing a Civs capital would throw it into anarchy, so players exploited that feature to fight a rival. Late in the game some rival Civs would build palaces all over their empire and jump their palace every couple of turns. Apparently Civ 3 took away that exploit by moving the seat of government instantly to another city should the first one be destroyed. For every fix there may be another exploit. I say just play the game however it gives you the most pleasure and don't worry what other players are doing unless you are in some competion.

 

[Longasc]

You are wrong. You know it, I guess.

Your FP example is silly. In Germany we would say it is "limping", because it does not fit well.

It is only defense for you and others that use an exploit and want it to be a "viable" strategy. Hey, you may do so, this is your decision. But it is still something that is close to some kind of cheat, an exploit.

Maybe this is your type of gaming - you are smart enough to see that disbanding the capital for palace jumping is a loophole/exploit. You are playing Civilization very mathematical and successful.


What do you think about this thing with 1000's of workers in a city and such things.

According to your definition there are no exploits at all...

Bamspeedy has written better articles than this moody statement about what is an exploit.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by Longasc
You are wrong. You know it, I guess.

Your FP example is silly. In Germany we would say it is "limping", because it does not fit well.

I'll write one more time here because you seem to think I was deliberately making an exaggerated example which I'm not truly serious about.

I am completely serious about the example I gave. I do not consider it to be "limping."

For a definition of exploit to be useful, it must be accurate. Ideally it would also be complete, allowing us to determine definitively whether any specific thing is or is not an exploit. But completeness is not necessary for a definition to be useful. Accuracy is. For any given thing in the game, if the definition says that thing is or is not an exploit, the answer it gives must at least be arguably correct. If not then the definition is open to interpretation, such as saying that a particular example does not fit it well

Your definition does not make sense with the example I gave. It gives an obviously wrong answer.

A second problem with your definition is that it can only be applied to a very small number of situations. In most situations we have no idea at all of what the developers intended. (The same FP example shows this - for two years we all thought that a bug was intended behaviour. I am not being facetious here.) Usually when I see someone say something like "this is obviously not the way the developers intended it to work" what they actually mean is "this is not the way it would be intended to work if I had been the developer."

Originally posted by Longasc
According to your definition there are no exploits at all...

Like many people here, I have a list of things I consider to be exploits, and I don't use them.

But I don't think many of the things on my list are exploits in some absolute sense which everyone must agree with. And that is what your posts seem to be about - a belief that there is some absolute rule which can be used to say "A" is an exploit and "B" is not an exploit. If there is such a rule, I haven't seen it yet. And if there is such a rule then we wouldn't need polls like this thread - the existence of this thread and the comments on it illustrate to me that "exploit" is at least sometimes a matter of opinion.

 

[Gengis Khan]

I gotta agree with SirPleb.

Longasc you look like you're searching for a hard fast rule on what's exploitive that everyone will agree on. This won't ever happen.

Exploits are a matter of opinion, I think Padma's definition we very accurate. If someone likes & uses it, it's not explotive. If they don't, it is.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Bamspeedy has written better articles than this moody statement about what is an exploit

Your posts seem pretty moody themselves.

People are deluding themselves if they think because one person says something is an exploit then it IS an exploit. If you feel it is an exploit, then that is your opinion, not a fact.

It is only defense for you and others that use an exploit and want it to be a "viable" strategy.

I remember a time when a lot of 'honorable' players used worker farming and said that was not an exploit. It is clearly abusing a game mechanic and was never intended to be used like this by the programmers. Their only defense for this tactic was that it required skill. Other exploits require skill, what makes that one different from the rest? Because they liked using it.

 

[Yumbo]

Well, my 2 cents:

Bamspeedy and Sir Pleb are arguing that there are NO exploits; that everything is "legal" because the definition of the term exploit is slippery and therefore we can't pinpoint any opne thing as an exploit. This seems a bit extreme to me.

That said, I (sadly) like Bamspeedy's definition of an exploit, as it seems to encapsulate the overall definition in use around here. Download a patch that allows you to manipulate saved games? Not an exploit, cause I use it. Reloading after a poor battle result? Not an exploit, because I use it. Palace Jumping? Worker farming? Not an exploit, because I use them. Ring City Placement? Same.

That said, and all moral relativism aside, I think that we can identify tactics that go against the spirit of the game. I never had a huge problem with worker farming (not that I ever did it), because it didn't seem to violate the spirit of what the Civ games are about. Shifting resources from one productive city to another, even if those resources are human capital, never struck me as particularly seedy; it happens all the time in real life. Personally, I never saw RCP as that big a deal. Again, when I play, and I play mostly casual games, I never really paid that much attention to the geometric placement of my cities, but it seemed to me not improbable that an carefully-planned empire would be more efficient. Was it an exploit? Yes. But it never seemed to me to so violently violate the spirit of CivIII as something like palace jumping does.

The argument that palace jumping is hard, and therefore not an exploit, is silly. Robbing a casino in Vegas is hard, and takes much planning and even luck to pull off; however, the difficulty factor does not diminish the fact that it is a crime.

 

[Longasc]

Well said.

I bet now someone wants you to clearly define the spirit of the game.

Nobody is a bad person because he did some palace jumps - but saying it is perfectly legit is not right.

I forbid nobody to reload, palace jump or even to CHEAT. This is a single player game and we should play it the way it is the most fun to us.

In GOTM, you are supposed not to reload. It is forbidden.

Now it would be really interesting: Someone finds out the palace jump trick for the first time and the mathematics behind calculating the exact city where the new one will appear.

Nobody would probably say he cheated. But I think many would say this is an exploit - I wonder if palace jumping is forbidden in GOTM, I do not know.

I think there is an easy solution for this problem:

1.) Let people choose their new capital after a loss due to enemy attacks

2.) A palace relocation would also take you X turns. 15-20 turns e.g., just a number I just thought of. This would be independent of the cities production.

This is the reason why many want the palace jump:

Without a MGL, they would need to construct for Gazillions of turns a new palace in a totally corrupt area.

Just change the way palaces are relocated.


I think we can discuss over and over about this, we could even bring it to court, but I think I cannot convince SirPleb and Bamspeedy to point out the most prominent ones.

But they could not convince me either.

I already voted, guess what -> I would rather ask what do you think about my idea. Perhaps someone has even a better one.

Please not "leave it as it is", ok?

 

[Yumbo]

To me, and I've said this elsewhere, the simplest solution is to disallow a player from disbanding their capital.

I also think that if a player has an FP, or is building an FP that is more than 50% completed, then that city should automatically become the capital, and the FP should be converted into a Palace. Defeats the strategy for most palace jumps, which is building an FP in a productive city, then jumping your capital.

I also favor, however, lowering the cost of building a palace, to allow a player to move their capital, but still reflect some cost associated with changing the seat of an empire.

 

[Qitai]

Just want to add a little comment.

Defining it as an exploit, liking it and using it are three different things.

I view the FP Rank bug as an exploit. I use it in SP without guilt and actually like it when I feel like creating a super empire.

I view the resource disconnect upgrade trick as an exploit, I use it if others use it (so that I do not lose out) but I do not like it.

I view the multiple WH as an exploit, but I like it and use it.

I view the worker dogpile as an exploit. I do not use it and do not like it.

The above are just examples that one can view something as an exploit but yet may like/dislike it and may use/do not use it. They are three different things.

 

[Bamspeedy]

but saying it is perfectly legit is not right.

It is perfectly legit when you are playing by yourself. Do what you want in your own games. Competitions have to decide for themselves if it is acceptable or not.

1.) Let people choose their new capital after a loss due to enemy attacks

So everyone will leave their capital undefended so they can get their new capital exactly where they want it. This would make palace jumping require even less skill. Currently, when you want to jump the palace to a specific spot you sacrifice other aspects of your game (keeping some cities low in population and not building many cities near your starting capital), building cities far away sooner in the game (near the target city, instead of building them closer to your capital where they will do more immediate good) and you build workers that will join the target city (wasting shields to build the workers since they will do little if any terrain improvements). If you got the palace to go wherever you wanted it to go by simply choosing, then theses sacrifices do not exist.

2.) A palace relocation would also take you X turns. 15-20 turns e.g., just a number I just thought of. This would be independent of the cities production.

The palace has to go somewhere immediately. Trade and corruption NEEDS a palace in order to work.

That said, and all moral relativism aside, I think that we can identify tactics that go against the spirit of the game

Well, there are tactics that 99+% of players would agree are exploits. Palace jumping does not have that overwhelming negative view to it. More than 50% may feel it is an exploit, but does that make it an exploit? The majority can be wrong sometimes.
For the record, I do feel it is an exploit, but I also feel that using artillery on offense and pre-building for wonders is an exploit. The AI can't compete against those tactics, giving you an advantage that was never intended to be (the programmers wish they could program the AI to be competitive against those tactics).
I'm just playing Devil's advocate here.

violently violate the spirit of CivIII

...in your opinion. 'Violently' is a pretty strong word. Worker dog-piling (making size 9600+ cities) violently violates the spirit of Civ3 and Palace jumping does not, IMO.

The argument that palace jumping is hard, and therefore not an exploit, is silly.

But that is usually the argument used that something IS an exploit. i.e. "It doesn't take any real skill to do it".

as it seems to encapsulate the overall definition in use around here

Not just here, but at other places as well.

I never had a huge problem with worker farming (not that I ever did it), because it didn't seem to violate the spirit of what the Civ games are about. Shifting resources from one productive city to another, even if those resources are human capital, never struck me as particularly seedy; it happens all the time in real life.

Simply shifting population from one city to another isn't 'seedy'. But, it is when you are taking a population point that took 20 food to make and adding it to a city that should need 60 food for a population point. And it is especially 'seedy' when you are actively aware of this advantage you are gaining and only doing this because of that advantage, which is the reason most players were doing it. You are gaining an advantage (potentially a very huge advantage) that the programmers never intended to be used in that manner.

Personally, I never saw RCP as that big a deal.

Neither did I, although I am glad they fixed it. But, the thing is, RCP and some other tactics can gain you more of an advantage through the entirety of a game than a palace jump.

Many would say RCP did go against the spirit of the game, because in their opinion you should not build cities by any set (or partially set) mathematical pattern, but instead build according to the resources/terrain available.

 

[Longasc]

Bamspeedy,

I thought of building the palace in another city - as it is intended - and let it take always, say, 15 turns... regardless of production. Fixed number of turns. The only way to rush it would be a MGL e.g.

This is not having 15 turns no capital, you got me wrong.

You would leave your capital undefended to do a palace jump and choose where you want the new one? But not with this rule, do you agree?

As I just said, you would only need that 15 (or 20... this is matter of discussion) turns to relocate your palace in any of your cities you want.

I think it is a good solution for relocating your capital.

I hope you finally got my idea. No more need for skillful exploit... sorry, disbanding...

 

[Commander Bello]

First of all, I want to state that my following comments are not meant to be a personell insult or confrontation to anybody. As I know a lot of the names in this thread, I know that the people behind those names are reasonable, intelligent people who feel to have the right to have an opinion of their own.

Nevertheless...
What really makes *me* sick about "exploits" is, that somebody throws this expression into the discussion, and a thousand people just hop onto it. And out of a sudden, there is a topic which everybody is concerned about and which is spoiling the fun of the game. Especially - as it seems - for those, who never have used it, nor completely understand it, nor are capable of doing it on their own, nor are in any way harmed by it.
But, people are concerned about that they might do better (or worse?) than others, due to that "exploit"...

As many of the previous posters have stated already, whatever one does in his/her single player game, is just fine. Just, because it is *YOUR* business, and not the one of the guy 3000 miles away. Period.

I for my person never even attempted to make use of the RCP, nor of the Palace Jump. Both just don't "feel" right for me.
But I don't care about, if somebody does. If he failes, I don't care, if he's successful, I don't care.
Even, if he would do it in a MP game with me, I wouldn't care. Perhaps, I would be envious about his understanding of the game mechanics, but that wouldn't make me yell: "Oh, you bad bad boy, stop that at once!"
It would just make me try to develop at least the same quality of understanding.

Sometimes, I go for techs which offer wonders about which I don't really care. But I am currently building a wonder that I am not sure about that I will be the very one to get it. So, this new tech is an emergency exit for me, that would make me loose no (or significantly less) shields. As far as I know, the AI doesn't use this tactics. I am pretty sure that the developers didn't give this any thought when they planned this game.
Does this make me using an exploit?

I have never seen the AI using more than one worker on a certain tile. Does it make me using an exploit, when I have 24 slave workers build a mine on a mountain in one turn?
But I've seen the AI moving a pile of 20 undefended workers into my territory. One turn later I had 20 slave workers more. Was that an exploit? Should I have sent 30 workers of my own into their territory?

As the history of patches reveals, the developers never intended almost anything what happens in the game. Sometimes, I even feel guilty of exploiting the game just because I choose a tech to be researched because I know that it will benefit me.... But then I say to myself: "Ok, you know, it will benefit you, and that poor guy at Timbuktu doesn't. Nor does the AI. So what?"

At the bottom line:
Anything you use and what is allowed by the game rules cannot be an exploit. It might, however, be a sign of poor game design.
But that stands true for anarchy times of unreligious civs, corruption, missing stack orders and 32,345 other single elements of this game.
And what about all those "counter-exploits"? Did you ever load an auto-save and check the AI's techs again? May cause some interesting effects, I can tell'ya...
It happened to me due to a power failure some weeks ago. I was about to trade some techs when suddenly everything went dark.
Some minutes later somebody decided "Let there be light!". Unfortunately, he had spoken so loudly, that even the AI had heared and obeyed... No more trading, since they just had it....

No, guys... if the game rules allow for the Palace Jump, it may not be intended and it may not be what the developers have expected, but it is not an exploit. It is just and simply poor game design.

 

[Svar]

Since the palace will be automatically moved if its home city is destroyed for whatever reason and there is an option to build a palace in any other city, clearly the designers meant for there to be an ability to move the palace. Now whether they intended there to be a free palace jump is another matter. I get the impression some people here feel that any palace jump is an exploit. If the designers didn't want you to move the palace why would they allow you to ever build one after your first city is founded?

 

[Ribannah]

Designers aren't perfect. I know, I am one.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I thought of building the palace in another city - as it is intended - and let it take always, say, 15 turns... regardless of production.

Making the FP dirt cheap is one solution. Another solution is to make the location of the forbidden palace irrelevent .

If the designers didn't want you to move the palace why would they allow you to ever build one after your first city is founded?

I don't think anyone is saying that manually building a palace somewhere is an exploit. They are only challenging the tactic of moving the palace by disbanding your current capital city.

But, people are concerned about that they might do better (or worse?) than others, due to that "exploit"...

It's the stigma assossiated with that word that get people defensive about it. If someone is playing better than you, then label some of his tactics as an exploit so his games gets discredited.

Defining it as an exploit, liking it and using it are three different things.

I know. I wasn't meaning to say that it was an absolute definition of the word, but rather what seems to be the major factor for many people when they decide if something is an exploit or not.

My dictionary defines an exploit as "to make unethical use of for one's own profit". What is ethical and what is not ethical is subjective, therefore what is and is not exploitive is subjective (open to one's own interpretation).

 

[SanPellegrino]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
It is just and simply poor game design.

...which will be exploited

 

[Azrune]

Does it really matter what you call it as there are so many deffintions of what an exploit is. There is proably many things that players do that the programers did not forsee but are also not considered an exploit.
Besides if you abandon a city you lose said city and its growth which could have taken any amount of turns, but is this cost comparative to the cost of building a Palace, I think perhaps not.
As far as AI is concerned well it will always play out the verables that it has been programed to do. The best Civ games are those played with entierly human players. They will then be on an even field as far as expliots are concerned.
I doubt however that I will use such a stratagy, I hate to abandon cities