Is there a counter to the "CS worker steal" exploit?

[Atlas627]

CS, apart giving free workers and cities, are just a luck factory

As in they have random quests (the passive ones are, admittedly, luck-based. Who generates the most culture? Well I'm not going to change that...)? Because some of the quests are good choices, such as going out of your way to kill barbarians, denouncing opponents, exploring, and whatnot.

If you are talking about the bonuses they provide, there should be enough CS (in multiplayer, ignoring AI money hacks) to pick the right CS to influence. And you should know what CS you have before you decide whether or not you can use them.

And there is random chance everywhere in the game, what's wrong with decisions being about calculated risk?

 

[Onan]

Tommy is a very competitive player, and most such want the game as fair as possible, for duels and such. Common game type on civplayers.com, though I'd stress that's not in any way required, just how the ladder has developed.

Sometimes these players find it difficult to accept that others enjoy playing the game in different ways. Tommy's also well known for rubbing people up the wrong way...though I'm not sure this is intended.

 

[Atlas627]

Tommy is a very competitive player, and most such want the game as fair as possible, for duels and such. Common game type on civplayers.com, though I'd stress that's not in any way required, just how the ladder has developed.

Sometimes these players find it difficult to accept that others enjoy playing the game in different ways. Tommy's also well known for rubbing people up the wrong way...though I'm not sure this is intended.

I can understand wanting to reduce randomness for competitive duels. I still think having CS is important, but I can also see it being too random to be allowed when you are trying to keep track of ONLY player skill.

But in a normal game (and yes, this is where the misunderstanding lies), removing CS does not fix this exploit, and in fact is a terrible solution to a minor problem.

Thank you for clarifying.

Edit: Sorry, yes it does fix the exploit, but in a way that causes more problems than it solves.

 

[Turjo]

I would rather play with the CS on. If a player is caught doing the "exploit" then that can sway a lot of the other players attitudes to be against him. It opens up the doors to coalitions and alliances.

 

[Tabarnak]

I would rather play with the CS on. If a player is caught doing the "exploit" then that can sway a lot of the other players attitudes to be against him. It opens up the doors to coalitions and alliances.

This.

 

[EEE_BOY]

I would rather play with the CS on. If a player is caught doing the "exploit" then that can sway a lot of the other players attitudes to be against him. It opens up the doors to coalitions and alliances.

However, the one can exploit CS cash is the player who has the highest military and likely to be dominant in war. Alliance won't help much due to the extra coordination required.

 

[tommynt]

I would rather play with the CS on. If a player is caught doing the "exploit" then that can sway a lot of the other players attitudes to be against him. It opens up the doors to coalitions and alliances.

I really hate when some1 call something an exploit whats just normal good gameplay for others.
I am reading guides
around here which talk about workers steeling being part of the plan even in singleplayer - and u just call it an exploit - just cause u dont like it?

Apart that in the FFAs I was playing steeling workers was just common and CS got killed more often as allied - making spending cash on then an even worse option as they could have gotten killed anytime (if not in your backyard).

Overall competetive play or not I have got the impression that playing without CS is just more balanced. it feels more like civ whe u have to build your workers yourself ...

On other hand CS really might be another thing good players can make better use out of as worse - well I win with them turned on or off doesnt matter ...

 

[Atlas627]

I really hate when some1 call something an exploit whats just normal good gameplay for others.
I am reading guides
around here which talk about workers steeling being part of the plan even in singleplayer - and u just call it an exploit - just cause u dont like it?

An exploit is something that is allowed by the game rules but goes against the spirit of the game. Whether that is a bug or just design oversight, an exploit is still unintended to be part of the game.

When you play singleplayer, you are certainly free to play the game however you wish. If you want to steal workers from CS left and right, go ahead. Have fun playing the game the way you want.

But in multiplayer, your actions effect everyone else, and doing something that goes against the spirit of the game is terrible. Now of course, it is the collectively perceived spirit that matters. If every single player in your game thinks that the worker steal is ok, then its ok!

I for one think stealing workers is ok, but making peace the same turn to prevent retaliation is not ok. This is what the OP called an exploit, and I agree. Being able to declare war and make peace on the same turn is stupid.

 

[Onan]

Trying to make rules against things that are allowed by game mechanics is an uphill battle, and certainly not something that can be declared by any one person.

 

[Atlas627]

Trying to make rules against things that are allowed by game mechanics is an uphill battle, and certainly not something that can be declared by any one person.

Of course not, and that is why it is dependent upon the general consensus amongst players in any particular game. That is why the best solution to this problem is to try and "denounce" the player through diplomacy in-game. Players that think of it as an exploit will agree and try to help rectify the situation, and players that don't will not.

 

[tommynt]

An exploit is something that is allowed by the game rules but goes against the spirit of the game. Whether that is a bug or just design oversight, an exploit is still unintended to be part of the game.

dont u think a design oversight or bug d have been fixed by now?

Its clearly an intended game option, a mechanic, by devs to play "unfriendly" vs ais and CS, so some will steal workers from CS others try to Aly them. There is no need for any fix. Both are viable options and as with every option one will be stronger as the other depending on circumstances.

Its same with some other game mechanics some call op and exploit, so many things in this game have changed/been fixed - calling one of the few things that stayed same exploit or design oversight just doesnt make sense.

 

[Atlas627]

dont u think a design oversight or bug d have been fixed by now?

Its clearly an intended game option, a mechanic, by devs to play "unfriendly" vs ais and CS, so some will steal workers from CS others try to Aly them. There is no need for any fix. Both are viable options and as with every option one will be stronger as the other depending on circumstances.

Its same with some other game mechanics some call op and exploit, so many things in this game have changed/been fixed - calling one of the few things that stayed same exploit or design oversight just doesnt make sense.

I understand your argument here, and I appreciate you providing an argument.

Yes, I agree it is intended for you to be able to use and abuse the CS. I think the problem is being able to declare peace on the same turn. I can believe that the devs have not bothered fixing this, as if would involve a change in the game mechanics that would take effort to do.

And yes absolutely, one option should be better than the other given the right circumstances, and vice versa. When we were arguing before you gave me the impression that you did not feel this way, that CS were inherently imbalanced and that abusing CS was the ONLY way to use them ever.

 

[tommynt]

I think the problem is being able to declare peace on the same turn.

yeah I agree to that 100%, but if i havent been dreaming there is a fix to that in next patch notes

 

[Atlas627]

yeah I agree to that 100%, but if i havent been dreaming there is a fix to that in next patch notes

Sadly, I did not see any such thing.

 

[holyjohn]

with new patch, still workers are so easy to steal.

 

[Ricardo_706]

Stole a worker from CS.
Met my first civ neighbor (Greece) 2 turns after Peace with CS.
Greece meets CS and declares it under his protection.
Greece Denounces me for picking on the weak and remained hostile for the rest of the game.

Hell, Alexander had no idea who the CS was 2 turns ago. I suppose the CS tattled on me.

I suppose that is somewhat of a counter to CS worker stealing.

 

[Thygrrr]

I think this exploit is pretty lame, and I usually instantly leave the game if my opponent does it (I don't play with obvious exploiters).

I might change my handling to "instantly exterminating that opponent with extreme prejudice", though. I like to do that when someone does something OP or exploits a game issue.

They should just make the CS war dec last 10 turns, much like the protection pledge. And actually have CS show some aggression (they seem to be really really passive in wars).

 

[hamilroonie]

unfortunately, throughout human history, stealing/kidnapping/capturing opposing/nearby slaves/workers/peoples and subjugating them your every whim/will has been an ugly part of civilizations' past


i see nothing wrong with that strategy

 

[Klionheart]

unfortunately, throughout human history, stealing/kidnapping/capturing opposing/nearby slaves/workers/peoples and subjugating them your every whim/will has been an ugly part of civilizations' past


i see nothing wrong with that strategy

True, but I don't think anyone is arguing against the option to steal workers here.

The problem is that CS are pushovers who accept peace at the whim of the player. At least full AI civs require *some* compensation before accepting peace in this kind of situation. CS just cave in at the press of a button

 

[Tabarnak]

They don't perma-DoW with you anymore but it begins to really be difficult to ally some of them if you enter in conflict at many occasions. Counting from the 2nd DoW, the cs influence is decaying much faster than the original state and for each DoW implemented.

At full war mode and few civs it's an advantage, but with longer games and more players you can be in some difficulties if you don't able to ally 2 or 3 of them for the long run for extra happiness and other stuff.