Smirk said:
I'm afraid it is not a good definition. You're already mangled up in nonsense as soon as you start to debate something on the grounds of some other person's intent...GOTM is a competition and competitions have to make rules to be fair to all players.
Hey, you only quoted the first part of what I said! You left out the "It's not perfect, of course" part.
I should have further clarified that I think David's definition is a good definition of any game exploit, not a definition of an exploit that should be banned, which is what I think you are talking about in your post when you refer to fairness.
I should not have asked for the definition of an exploit that should be banned (although it did lead to some good discussion). As Aeson pointed out, a definition really isn't possible if the standard of judgment is that everyone must agree from their own relative point of view. For banning an exploit, criteria are more important than a definition. You, David, and many others have given criteria: giving an unfair advantage, violating game design, being able to rule on it, etc. And, more importantly for us, the GoTM staff does a great job of deciding what is harmful to the competition and what isnt.
The reason I so like Davids definition of an exploit (again, any exploit, not just banned ones) was because I was having difficulty pinning down why I felt okay about switch/chop but not about switch/chop/switch. I have had similar difficulty with other game techniques in Civ 1-4 in the past. I have tried to define an exploit based on fun, fairness, being overpowered, etc, but every time I try to base it on those things, a few of the exploits are left out of the mix. In particular, this one (switch/chop/switch), gets left out. That is one of the things that makes this thread interesting.
For me, the chop/switch/chop technique, RCP, palace jumping, and many others are not addressed by any definition that focuses on being "fair" or "overpowered". David's definition is the only one I have heard that characterizes these exploits and every other I know of.
Smirk said:
in a practical sense we really do not care about the designer's intent.
I think you and I must view the phrase designers intent in very different ways. For me, violating the designers intent is synonymous with finding a loophole that circumvents the intended rules of the game, like moving my rook in chess when my opponent isnt looking.
As you said, deducing someones intent can be a mess, but it isnt quite so bad with a game designer. Much of the time their intent is obvious due to the mechanisms they put in place. Anarchy and city maintenance, for example, are obviously there to limit growth. If you circumvent them, then you have used a technique that the designers intended to disallow. Or rather, you moved your rook when they weren't looking.
As for the "someone" you mention that argued for allowing reloads based on designer intent...well, I know someone who thinks he's Jesus Christ, and I wouldn't recommend wasting time trying to debate with either of those guys about anything.
Yes I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here. No Firaxis employee has stated that this was against their intentions, so until then it is assumed that it is just bad design that was meant to be, or just overlooked.
