Is this an Exploit?

[Ribannah]

You will need a significant fraction of the total GOTM player pool to get energized about this issue, in order to impose a rule on all of those players.

No, I don't, nor do I want to impose a rule. That's not my job. I make my case and submit it to the staff.
Normally, only a fraction of the competitors in a competition is at all interested in discussing rules, and an attempt to mobilize everyone would not only be futile but also against the forum rules.

High production decay rates would be a huge annoyance and create a lot of extra micromanagement.

On the contrary, it would reduce micro-management a lot since you simply wouldn't switch anymore except in case of an emergency. But that is not what I suggested. I general, I like the fact that we can switch. I suggested increased decay for Workers and Settlers only.

As for using "the exploit" either intentionally or unintentionally, until you say what "the exploit" is, I can't even know whether I'm using it or not. That's why I want you to say what you think the rule should be.

Ah. It would have been easier if you had said so right away!

I've said it numerous times, and so have others, but I don't mind repeating it.
I will try different words, maybe that helps. But the best way to understand what is happening is simply to do it yourself. In a posting it looks complicated, but when you do it it's easy.

The exploit is quite similar to a lot of inter-turn exploits in Civ3. You take advantage of the fact that the computer does things in a certain order, where the assignment of food comes before the assignment of chops. You do this by putting a Settler or Worker on top of the build-queue for only that moment, that exists in computer time but not in game time, between those two.

By doing this you artificially circumvent the design element that you should not grow while you are adding to the build of a Settler or Worker.

When I schedule multiple chops to end on the same turn, or in quick succession, so that I can push out a worker in a short period of non-growth, am I using "the exploit"?

We have talked about that already, too. The answer is no. This is normal play.

What about if I pre-chop several forests (doing all but the last turn of chopping) so that I can later chop them in quick succession? Is that a version of "the exploit"?

No. That may be another exploit though.

There are lots of different ways to try to maximize food at the expense of production, or vice versa, and I think it's unreasonable to impose a rule on people such that they can't reasonably tell whether or not they are complying with what you have decided to be acceptable.

Once again, I am not deciding anything. I am quite happy not being on this staff, since I like some variety in my life.

It is still my belief that any rule you would come up with will either (1) have a huge impact on other aspects of the game and be really annoying to players; (2) be so ambiguous that players won't be able to tell whether they are following the rule or not;

I'm not sure how you can get to that conclusion while admitting that you don't know what the exploit is.

or (3) be ineffective in stopping the thing that you apparently want to stop, which is maximizing growth while using worker chops to build settlers or workers.

That is because that would require a change in design, one that I happen to favour, but a different matter altogether from banning an exploit.

In particular, you seem to agree that your rule would be ineffective, i.e., that the difference between the advantage that players could gain by following your rule, or by not following it, is negligible.

On the contrary, the difference can be quite significant. By normal micromanagement you can usually reduce the non-growth turns for a settler to 3, but that's still two more than with the exploit.

Keep in mind that we're talking solely about the opening game here, which is the whole reason why this design element and several others are there. Later on, you can send in an army of Workers and coordinate chops, and/or the yield of a chop has tripled, or you can buy the Settler, but by then it does not matter anymore.

 

[MeteorPunch]

The exploit is quite similar to a lot of inter-turn exploits in Civ3. You take advantage of the fact that the computer does things in a certain order, where the assignment of food comes before the assignment of chops. You do this by putting a Settler or Worker on top of the build-queue for only that moment, that exists in computer time but not in game time, between those two.

So if the forest chop was done at the beginning of a turn, maybe alongside completed builds, you would be fine with it?

 

[Ribannah]

This is play style, and is really, REALLY annoying to even suggest that someone has to 'play' in this manner.

I am not suggesting that at all. David was asking for a rule that was clear and effective, so that he could understand it better. It is effective, but it is not necessarily the best rule, and certainly not the one I would choose if I were on the staff, even though it suits my own playing style just fine.

Which they have done on multiple occasions.

And will no doubt do so many times more.

A solution to what problem? Avoiding loss of growth when building Workers or Settlers? There are multiple ways to do this - how many of them would you expect Firaxis to 'fix'?

There is only one way to do this.

Your numbers are inverted.

I can give names and quotes, but like I said, it does not matter to me, so I won't bother. If you think it's important, you give the names, or better yet: create a poll.

This definitely is not a democracy, but to call it a ludocracy is uncalled for and rude IMO, especially considering the amount of uncompensated time the staff contribute to run this competition for our benefit.

I am quite aware of all the work the staff is doing, having been in that positoin myself.
Apparently you do not know the meaning of the word. It is a technical term for when the world is ruled by a game (or games).
There is also a slang meaning, but I'm not writing slang.

 

[Ribannah]

So if the forest chop was done at the beginning of a turn, maybe alongside completed builds, you would be fine with it?

Yes, that would solve it, provided that workers that were awakened during the last turn will also finish their chop if a Settler or Worker is on top of the queue. It is that last bit that makes it a bit more difficult to program, since you still want to allow wakening up when the Worker is threatened.

An easier way may therefore be to finish all chops for a city when the player orders a change in the queue.

However, if my suggestion for rapid decay of settler and worker builds is implemented, the exploit is no longer an exploit and a solution is not needed.

 

[DaviddesJ]

No, I don't, nor do I want to impose a rule. That's not my job. I make my case and submit it to the staff.

All right. It seems you've long since made your case, and it's been rejected. I guess we can abandon this thread. I'm sorry for prolonging the discussion unnecessarily.

 

[Smirk]

(2) It goes against game design (my field of expertise).

Now just because you've done something doesn't mean your opinion on the subject holds any more weight than anyone else. And decidely it doesn't on an anonymous web forum where your claims, even if you made them explicit, aren't exactly instant truth when written.

In the interest of silliness, what design projects would we know about that gives you any credibility to discuss this as an expert?



Although, based on your comment about the "programmers messing it up" I'd have to guess you are bullshitting or an out of work designer. The programmers play an important role in game development, and if they fail to account for every minor variation in the design then who is at fault? If you guess the designer then you would be 100% correct. Communicating the ideas is the designers job, and a well written and thorough design doc is what seperates the expert designers from the novices.

 

[nikopol]

I like the term "ludocracy". That would mean reaching a binding decision by playing, so maybe two proponents of the different standpoints could play it out in a multiplayer. Would at least save a lot of discussion.

As to my humble opinion, i don't see it as an exploit. The gain, if any, is marginal, a rule to rule it out would be way to complicated or restricting for such a marginal exploit, and most of all I consider the argument about game design intend valid. I can't imagine it a crucial point to keep a technique like that out of the game.

(As i understand it, it doesn't really save you ressources, so it's not such a big deal that you're able to mess a little with the mix of different kinds of ressources.)

 

[Ribannah]

Hi Nikopol,

There are several science fiction movies where the world is in ludocracy, including I think one with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

What you can gain is turns. If you can repeat it several times (including at your second city), you may be able to gain several turns by the end of the opening game. That can grow into more because once you have a time advantage, there are ways to build on it.

@Smirk: goodbye.

 

[Spoony]

I agree with Ribannah to the extent that using this tactic can save turns and benefit your early game. As many have pointed out though, this tactic isn't always the best way to go. It is very dependent on the sorroundings of your city and how fast you wish to expand.

For this to be an exploit worth banning in the GOTM games a player using it would have to gain a significant advantage over a player who didn't know how to use it. The fact is that you can only save a couple of turns of production, which i'm pretty sure is the aim of being good at micromanaging your cities.

Respect to memphus for being such an honest player.

 

[bradleyfeanor]

IMHO, everyone who doesn't post counts as a partial vote for the status quo.

In light of this statement and the fact that I have gained so much enjoyment from reading this thread (although I can't put my finger on exactly why I have enjoyed it so much--it feels somewhat similar to the enjoyment one gets when picking at a zit), I thought I would throw in my two cents.

I guess I should state on the front end that I don't think this exploit can have that huge an impact on a game. It is very minor compared to the "anarchy exploit" recently uncovered by Moonsinger, for instance. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind seeing the chop issue fixed.

I agree with David that a rule imposed in the GOTM regarding this exploit would be cumbersome at best. I would, however, like to see Firaxis fix it. I don't care for the idea of increasing settler/worker decay for the reason David mentioned: more micromanagement. I also think it would hurt newbies and players who don't pay attention to where every hammer is going. There are plenty of times that I build only part of a settler or worker and then finish building it later, and it often has nothing to do with funneling a chop. I imagine many other players do this as well. I prefer the idea that many have already suggested: Don't award chopped hammers in the middle of a turn, but during the interturn so that the player cannot change production.

I would like to see this fix combined with the following idea, which I think would make the solution much better (and if someone has already posted this idea and I missed it, I apologize in advance):

Break up the awarding of hammers from a chop. Instead of giving hammers on just the last turn, give a portion of those hammers each turn. For example, in a normal game we would get 7 hammers for 4 turns instead of 30 hammers on the last turn.

Giving partial shields throughout a chop feels more realistic than giving them all at the end. It seems to me this would fix the "chop exploit" as well as the issue/exploit of partially chopping several forests and then coming back to finish them later--although I will not be surprised if one of our resident game design experts shows me how wrong I am .

Edit: Oops, should have thought this through a bit more before posting. This "idea" would create a health exploit far worse than what it was supposed to fix. Guess that is why I'm not a game designer. Sorry for wasting everyone's time!

 

[Smirk]

Don't award chopped hammers in the middle of a turn, but during the interturn so that the player cannot change production.


Edit: Oops, should have thought this through a bit more before posting. This "idea" would create a health exploit far worse than what it was supposed to fix. Guess that is why I'm not a game designer. Sorry for wasting everyone's time!

Your last point is spot on, merely pointing out a problem is the most trivial of work involved with design. Parading that around in a thread for 2 months is nonproductive and dissonant. I'm sure your support is going to be taken more seriously than Ribbanahs for the simple fact that you proposed a solution, regardless whether it will fix anything.

At this point Ribannah is sounding like a cry baby, and ignoring any contrary debate makes her stance look even weaker. If your debate rests basically on your opinion why try to raise that up, it is what it is and no one here is stupid enough to think otherwise.

Moderator Action: Please let's keep this interesting debate on topic, and not get into personal flame wars

 

[Ribannah]

I prefer the idea that many have already suggested: Don't award chopped hammers in the middle of a turn, but during the interturn so that the player cannot change production.

So do I, but as was written before that doesn't solve it entirely, since you can also use the exploit by awakening the Worker the turn before. So there is a little bit more work involved to get this thing out of the way.

I would like to see this fix combined with the following idea, which I think would make the solution much better (and if someone has already posted this idea and I missed it, I apologize in advance):

Break up the awarding of hammers from a chop. Instead of giving hammers on just the last turn, give a portion of those hammers each turn. For example, in a normal game we would get 7 hammers for 4 turns instead of 30 hammers on the last turn.

This has indeed been discussed earlier in this thread, and the health issue came up.

Good to remind us though, since I think I know a way to improve on it and add a new solution to the ones that I could come up with before (food-to-settler/worker as optional, keeping chopped hammers for the first non-settler/worker build, rapid settler/worker decay).

The idea can be amended by withholding the hammers until the chop has been completed - and then deliver them over several turns (four, I think, so there can be a constant flow of lumber). This is - apart from the time scale, but that is inherent to the game - pretty much how it often works in the real world, where lumber is transported by throwing it in the river and it does not arrive at its destination until after a while.

I think I like this one best, so far. It feels natural.

 

[Offa]

This thread is 13 pages long. Kudos to Memphus for finding out about this little tactic , but the lengthy discussion is not helping the cause of persuading doubtful players like me of the merits of civ4. In fact, my brain is full.

 

[jar2574]

This thread is 13 pages long. Kudos to Memphus for finding out about this little tactic , but the lengthy discussion is not helping the cause of persuading doubtful players like me of the merits of civ4. In fact, my brain is full.

Don't let this thread dissuade you from buying Civ4. It's a great game. And the chop-switch needn't be used to enjoy it.

In fact, the issue is only important if you care about GOTM and HOF rankings.

 

[bradleyfeanor]

The idea can be amended by withholding the hammers until the chop has been completed - and then deliver them over several turns (four, I think, so there can be a constant flow of lumber). This is - apart from the time scale, but that is inherent to the game - pretty much how it often works in the real world, where lumber is transported by throwing it in the river and it does not arrive at its destination until after a while.

I quite like that idea. It will make players plan ahead, which some may consider a minus, but I like it. Planning ahead has always been a hallmark of a good civ player.

@Offa: I could have used this "exploit" to my hearts content and several players would still have beaten my pants off in 40TM1. They used the more insidious exploits of "superior strategy" and "better game understanding"-- both of which should be banned, I think.

Go buy Civ4, immediately, and rejoin the GOTM, because I need someone complaining about bad luck with barbs besides me.

(Also, it really is a fun game)

 

[DaviddesJ]

In fact, the issue is only important if you care about GOTM and HOF rankings.

Really, it's only important if you care about fiddly details of the game, and enjoy (or, at least, are obsessed with) managing them. By itself, it's not really a significant factor in the results of play.

But, if you look at all of the fiddly details in the game, they do have a cumulative effect that matters, so, in general, the players who worry about fiddly details will do a bit better over time. Whether or not this particular issue existed or not.

 

[Offa]

@Offa: I could have used this "exploit" to my hearts content and several players would still have beaten my pants off in 40TM1. They used the more insidious exploits of "superior strategy" and "better game understanding"-- both of which should be banned, I think.

Go buy Civ4, immediately, and rejoin the GOTM, because I need someone complaining about bad luck with barbs besides me.

£ I have, it is time I lack: I've bought the game, just haven't played it.

Bad luck, Moi? Nooo. All my really "hard luck" stories never get submitted, as heartless barbs maul my second settler. The traffic light is always red. The glass is 3/4 empty ....

Anyway Bradley, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Why are you all wasting precious time discussing this relatively minor tactic when it is the evil duo of "superior strategy" and "better game understanding" that should be the focus. Except that you hardly seem qualified to throw the first stone yourself, given your own performance.

 

[Memphus]

Not that it matters really (although for some it will), but I am very excited about the results of GOTM 1 as I think it add more enjoyment for me on this thread.
For example:
-lets say i finished with a very bad score but claim this exploit is game breaking.Clearly it didn't help that much did it?
-However the converse could be true players who use this may be getting overall higher scores.

Once again this is only for my own interest, and obviously your final score is based on a million other factors.

Is there any way to create a poll once a thread has been started? i.e. it would be at this point in the thread, not the beggining?
(therefore only getting inputs from readers who have read some of the thread at least)

Options being
*Note this applies to chop/switching for a worker or settler
MEANING: THE FOOD NORMALLY SPENT ON A WORKER/SETTLER IS PUT INTO CITY GROWTH sorry for caps but there has been 1001 different versions in the thread

1. This is an exploit; I use it; It should be banned then I won't
2. This is an exploit; therefore I don't use it; It should be banned so other don't
3. This is an exploit; I use it; It shouldn't be banned
4. This is an exploit; therefore I don't use it; It shouldn't be banned
5. This isn't an exploit; but I use it
6. This isn't an exploit; but I use my hammers differently

If a mod could do this it would be cool, well for me at least because then I could observe who does what, as well as how they ranked in the gotm

Thanks for the entertainment
Memphus

 

[DaviddesJ]

However the converse could be true players who use this may be getting overall higher scores.

The players who chop/switch will get higher scores, but (as I said above) that's because the people who tend to micromanage and manipulate such small details of the game are those who will get a cumulative advantage from that. Not because this particular issue is so significant.

The only way you could get a valid experimental measure of the benefit from this particular tactic is to somehow identify players of equal skill, and then have some play games where they use this particular technique and others agree not to. E.g., by randomly assigning players to a test group and a control group. But that seems unlikely and impractical.

*Note this applies to chop/switching for a worker or settler
MEANING: THE FOOD NORMALLY SPENT ON A WORKER/SETTLER IS PUT INTO CITY GROWTH[/B] sorry for caps but there has been 1001 different versions in the thread

Unfortunately, this still isn't very clear. Is this supposed to apply only to switching twice in one turn, or does it apply if you only switch once per turn? You can get most of the "benefit" from directing food into production, either way.

 

[Memphus]

The players who chop/switch will get higher scores, but (as I said above) that's because the people who tend to micromanage and manipulate such small details of the game are those who will get a cumulative advantage from that. Not because this particular issue is so significant.

The only way you could get a valid experimental measure of the benefit from this particular tactic is to somehow identify players of equal skill, and then have some play games where they use this particular technique and others agree not to. E.g., by randomly assigning players to a test group and a control group. But that seems unlikely and impractical.

I know, that is why I mentioned

Once again this is only for my own interest, and obviously your final score is based on a million other factors.

Edit: just to give this a break, so they arn't associated together
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, this still isn't very clear. Is this supposed to apply only to switching twice in one turn, or does it apply if you only switch once per turn? You can get most of the "benefit" from directing food into production, either way.

Sorry your right...there has been alot of different directions the thread has gone.
In any case I still like the idea of the poll and I am working on a wording that is more understandable.
Basically though people should only vote in the poll if they know what is being discussed though, and would thereform form thier own idea of the 'exploit/tactic' in question.

alright let me know id this makes it more clear:
for the poll it applies to:
*Note this applies to chop/switching for a worker or settler
*Allowing your city to grow while producing a settler/worker
*Switching the production mid turn to allow for this

Hope that is better