Is this an Exploit?

[Smirk]

As far as I know, the NDA about what happened in the beta test never expires.

What are you talking about with abandoning cities though? To me, abandoning cities in Civ3 is an example of Firaxis giving in to popular demand, and ending up with an exploit because of it.

Perhaps I wasn't present at that point but I don't recall anyone clamoring for an easier way to abandon a city. But thats all beside the point, since you could abandon a city, all of strategies that require that were possible before they added a simpler method.

Settler blitzing doesn't work in Civ4, as you can't build a city in foreign territory at all...

Really? I'm aware of the 3 tile limit but I recall building on enemy territory that was beyond that limit. But in either case that seems a fairly arcane strategy to design a game to avoid. I've never done it, nor do I see a need for it. The cost of building the settlers no doubt delays any war advance by more turns then simply walking to your enemies doorstep, with the other flaws like ROP there are much easier ways to achieve any such goal.




Anyway, you can still get rid of cities just as you could in Civ3, but in a very roundabout manner. The problem is there are completely and utterly valid reasons for abandoning a city. An early city to get a much needed resource becomes a future and forever drain on your civilization. I used to think colonies solved this problem but those are gone as well. Not sure if resources dissappear in Civ4 but they did in Civ3 so you could have an exact parallel of the real life ghost towns in the states, the resource dried up so everyone left.

 

[Aeson]

Perhaps I wasn't present at that point but I don't recall anyone clamoring for an easier way to abandon a city. But thats all beside the point, since you could abandon a city, all of strategies that require that were possible before they added a simpler method.

No, disbanding a city by Settler or Worker took time. Disbanding by clicking the "disband" option was instant. So an instant strategy like the Settler blitz required the instant disband option.

Really? I'm aware of the 3 tile limit but I recall building on enemy territory that was beyond that limit.

Shouldn't be possible.

But in either case that seems a fairly arcane strategy to design a game to avoid. I've never done it, nor do I see a need for it. The cost of building the settlers no doubt delays any war advance by more turns then simply walking to your enemies doorstep, with the other flaws like ROP there are much easier ways to achieve any such goal.

Settler Blitzing was like ROP rape without any diplomatic hit, and it worked vs players. There were generally better ways to hit AI of course, but ROP rape vs players is 100% avoidable (just don't sign the ROP). Remember that Civ4 is designed with both SP and MP in mind, not simply SP with MP tacked on like previous versions of Civilization.

The basic Settler blitz principle was:

Found city 1 to push back culture borders.
Move units (including Settlers) along roads/rails that are now in your borders.
If within range for mobile units to attack target, attack. (Capture city 2)
If not, disband city 1. Found city 2 to push back culture borders further.
...

It made defense post-Railroads virtually impossible.

In Civ4, ROP no longer allows rapes at all. If you declare war or cancel an ROP, your units in that civ's territory will be teleported out.

Anyway, you can still get rid of cities just as you could in Civ3, but in a very roundabout manner. The problem is there are completely and utterly valid reasons for abandoning a city.

I do think abandoning a city should be possible. (With tradeoffs. It should have a happiness hit and/or require time and investment.)

An early city to get a much needed resource becomes a future and forever drain on your civilization.

This is one aspect of abandoning cities that I think favors Civ4's approach. But it can be circumvented by giving the city away, and then razing it if you want to get rid of it completely.

Not sure if resources dissappear in Civ4 but they did in Civ3 so you could have an exact parallel of the real life ghost towns in the states, the resource dried up so everyone left.

Resources don't dry up in Civ4.

 

[jar2574]

I have not argued that I don't have blind spots.

The OP's argument implies that you may have blind spots because most testers do. You have been demonstrating how OP cannot prove that you have blind spots. No one was claiming that they could logically prove that you were biased. The important issue is whether playtesters tend to have blind spots. If they do, then that may explain why "exploits" make it to the final game.

Ad hominems are never the "best argument" that can be made.

That would depend on your enviorment and your definition of "best argument". Ad hominems are not well accepted in the philosophy classroom, but just because an argument is not correct in a strict logical sense does not mean that it is an irrational argument, or that it is not an effective one. Oftentime the "best arguments" in politics, the law, in business, and in advertising are obvious ad hominems. If they weren't the most effective arguments people would be using strictly logical ones.

Besides, OP's claims are only ad hominems if you being a playtester is irrelevant to whether you have blind spots. If there is a direct correlation between being a playtester and having blind spots then this is not an ad hominem attack. I doubt that you can "prove" the falsity of OP's arguments anymore than he can "prove" the falsity of yours. So you can continue to assert that they are ad hominem attacks. But I doubt that you can logically prove that they are such.

Applicable or not is the argument. Not unfair.

I chose to use the term unfair, but thanks for letting me know what you think the argument is about. I still don't think the OP's comments were unfair.

Is OP's argument applicable? It is applicable in the real world if it is true that a large percentage of playtesters have blind spots, and all that we know about you is that you are a playtester. This type of info is extremely useful if true, and its usefulness makes OP's argument applicable.

I don't know whether this is true or not. I don't think that you or OP can prove that playtesters tend to have blind spots. I think everyone will continue to work on the assumptions and experiences they brought to the table before having this discussion.

But I'm glad that you pointed out that the argument is applicability, and not logical coherence. It seemed like you were demanding strict logical coherence in every argument, when OP was not offering a logical proof, but rather evidence of group tendencies based on his personal experiences. There is obvously a very big difference between applicability and logical coherence, since many useful arguments cannot be proved logically.

 

[Memphus]

The OP's argument implies that you may have blind spots because most testers do. You have been demonstrating how OP cannot prove that you have blind spots. No one was claiming that they could logically prove that you were biased. The important issue is whether playtesters tend to have blind spots. If they do, then that may explain why "exploits" make it to the final game.




That would depend on your enviorment and your definition of "best argument". Ad hominems are not well accepted in the philosophy classroom, but just because an argument is not correct in a strict logical sense does not mean that it is an irrational argument, or that it is not an effective one. Oftentime the "best arguments" in politics, the law, in business, and in advertising are obvious ad hominems. If they weren't the most effective arguments people would be using strictly logical ones.

Besides, OP's claims are only ad hominems if you being a playtester is irrelevant to whether you have blind spots. If there is a direct correlation between being a playtester and having blind spots then this is not an ad hominem attack. I doubt that you can "prove" the falsity of OP's arguments anymore than he can "prove" the falsity of yours. So you can continue to assert that they are ad hominem attacks. But I doubt that you can logically prove that they are such.



I chose to use the term unfair, but thanks for letting me know what you think the argument is about. I still don't think the OP's comments were unfair.

Is OP's argument applicable? It is applicable in the real world if it is true that a large percentage of playtesters have blind spots, and all that we know about you is that you are a playtester. This type of info is extremely useful if true, and its usefulness makes OP's argument applicable.

I don't know whether this is true or not. I don't think that you or OP can prove that playtesters tend to have blind spots. I think everyone will continue to work on the assumptions and experiences they brought to the table before having this discussion.

But I'm glad that you pointed out that the argument is applicability, and not logical coherence. It seemed like you were demanding strict logical coherence in every argument, when OP was not offering a logical proof, but rather evidence of group tendencies based on his personal experiences. There is obvously a very big difference between applicability and logical coherence, since many useful arguments cannot be proved logically.

I am a little confused as to how asking if what I did in a game was wrong or not for GOTM purposes by giving an example with savegames and pictures based on what I did (without using the actuall GOTM) has led to ME to doing the following:

-Implying Aeson has blind spots
-I use only Ad hominems
-I used unfair arguments
-I was trying to prove playtesters have blindspots
-I offered no logical proof

And all I wanted to do was submit a non cheating GOTM

 

[jar2574]

I am a little confused as to how asking if what I did in a game was wrong or not for GOTM purposes by giving an example with savegames and pictures based on what I did (without using the actuall GOTM) has led to ME to doing the following:

-Implying Aeson has blind spots
-I use only Ad hominems
-I used unfair arguments
-I was trying to prove playtesters have blindspots
-I offered no logical proof

And all I wanted to do was submit a non cheating GOTM

crap. I used OP meaning "other person." I was refering to DaviddesJ. It probably means original poster, huh?

I realize that you did none of the things you mentioned. I did not mean to imply that you did. Sorry for my lack of understanding re: online acronyms.

 

[Memphus]

crap. I used OP meaning "other person." I was refering to DaviddesJ. It probably means original poster, huh?

I realize that you did none of the things you mentioned. I did not mean to imply that you did. Sorry for my lack of understanding re: online acronyms.

Haha Not a problem
There are still lots of them on here which I don't understand
Speaking of which I wonder if there is a thread on that somewhere

Please keep up the interesting debate All of you I really enjoy it, so much better than work

 

[Aeson]

The OP's argument implies that you may have blind spots because most testers do. You have been demonstrating how OP cannot prove that you have blind spots. No one was claiming that they could logically prove that you were biased. The important issue is whether playtesters tend to have blind spots. If they do, then that may explain why "exploits" make it to the final game.

OP commonly refers to "opening post" on these forums. I assume you are talking about DaviddesJ's post much later on in the thread as the "OP"? The opening post's argument doesn't stoop to worrying about the blind spots of playtesters. It is concerned with whether or not "swap and chop" is an exploit. Memphus stuck to illustrating his position with actual in-game examples of what he was talking about.

Whether or not playtesters do have blind spots is not an important issue to the determination of whether or not "swap and chop" is an exploit. In general I would say it's an inane point, as it is obvious that everyone has blind spots. (Unless I have a blind spot about omniscient beings around here...)

In this case, that's not even the subject of DaviddesJ's post though. He said that playtesters necessarily will have more blindspots about the game than others. Then he went on to offer arguments to support that. I refuted the validity of the arguments in general. DaviddesJ has agreed with my refutation. A specific refutation is impossible due to the NDA.

So that matter is dead as far as I'm concerned, leaving the discussion of whether it was applicable at all to the discussion of whether or not "swap and chop" is an exploit in the first place.

That would depend on your enviorment and your definition of "best argument". Ad hominems are not well accepted in the philosophy classroom, but just because an argument is not correct in a strict logical sense does not mean that it is an irrational argument, or that it is not an effective one. Oftentime the "best arguments" in politics, the law, in business, and in advertising are obvious ad hominems. If they weren't the most effective arguments people would be using strictly logical ones.

You are correct that "best argument" is subjective. You used the phrase subjectively, so did I. So lets clarify our positions then, ok? I was refering to this discussion, and any discussion in general which has a specific question to resolve about an issue. I do not feel misleading people intentionally by distracting them from the real issue is useful in a sense of solving the issue. The thread is asking a question, "Is [swap and chop] an Exploit?" I do not feel the answer to this question is to be found in analysing whether or not I or other playtesters have more blindspots in general than do others.

Do you think ad hominems are the most effective arguments to make to determine whether "swap and chop" is an exploit?

Besides, OP's claims are only ad hominems if you being a playtester is irrelevant to whether you have blind spots. If there is a direct correlation between being a playtester and having blind spots then this is not an ad hominem attack. I doubt that you can "prove" the falsity of OP's arguments anymore than he can "prove" the falsity of yours. So you can continue to assert that they are ad hominem attacks. But I doubt that you can logically prove that they are such.

Do you think whether or not I have blindspots is a determining factor in whether or not "swap and chop" is an exploit?

Is OP's argument applicable? It is applicable in the real world if it is true that a large percentage of playtesters have blind spots, and all that we know about you is that you are a playtester. This type of info is extremely useful if true, and its usefulness makes OP's argument applicable.

As you and I have both said, the issue can't be shown to be true or false.

I don't find stereotyping extremely useful. More of a blind spot. What do you know about X ethnicity? Do you judge everyone of that ethnicity by that? What do you know about the CIV playtesters? Do you judge everyone who has playtested CIV by that?

I ask that when someone deems it necessary to deal with me, rather than the subject, that they at least deal with me, rather than a stereotype. Is that too much to ask?

I don't know whether this is true or not. I don't think that you or OP can prove that playtesters tend to have blind spots.

Everyone has blindspots. That's not what was being debated.

I think everyone will continue to work on the assumptions and experiences they brought to the table before having this discussion.

I will work on the assumptions and experiences I have had including this discussion. For instance, before this discussion I didn't realize you exist. But here I am posting in response to you, under the assumption you exist. I do not plan on going to go back to not realizing you exist, or discarding anything else of note that I have become aware of through this discussion. (Though forgetting things does happen. It's just not generally my intent.)

I wouldn't deem to venture a guess at what it will be (or won't be) for anyone but myself.

But I'm glad that you pointed out that the argument is applicability, and not logical coherence. It seemed like you were demanding strict logical coherence in every argument, when OP was not offering a logical proof, but rather evidence of group tendencies based on his personal experiences. There is obvously a very big difference between applicability and logical coherence, since many useful arguments cannot be proved logically.

The argument is applicability. Logical coherence of the arguments made is still important.

Just as when I drive to the store, I am also driving my car. Even though I am not driving specifically to drive my car. The point is to get to the store, and the car is a facilitator in that regard. The store is the destination. The car is a means to get there. If the car gets a flat tire, it needs to be fixed so that I can continue. That means addressing the car (tire) specifically at times even when the destination is not the car.

To show whether or not the argument is applicable to the topic is the destination. Logical coherence is a means to get there. If logical coherence breaks down, it also needs to be addressed before continuing. There is no dichotomy here between topic and logical coherence. They go hand in hand. Logically incoherent points about the topic can be refuted without the topic being logical coherence itself.

 

[jar2574]

The thread is asking a question, "Is [swap and chop] an Exploit?" I do not feel the answer to this question is to be found in analysing whether or not I or other playtesters have more blindspots in general than do others.

There seemed to be another argument between you and David specifically. Something along the lines of: (1) Aeson is a playtester. (2) playtesters have blind spots. (3) that's why Aeson can't see that swap and chop is an exploit.

That is the argument I was referring to, and I should have been more specific. This argument is not an ad hominem attack, if it is true that playtesters cannot see exploits.

I wasn't referring to the swap and chop argument in general, because like you said, that discussion is dead, (and because I never thought it was an exploit.)

Do you think ad hominems are the most effective arguments to make to determine whether "swap and chop" is an exploit?

No.

Do you think whether or not I have blindspots is a determining factor in whether or not "swap and chop" is an exploit?

No. But it could explain why you wouldn't see it as an exploit, if David's premises were true.

I don't find stereotyping extremely useful. More of a blind spot.

How progressive of you.

What do you know about X ethnicity? Do you judge everyone of that ethnicity by that?

Are you trying to make some kind of a connection between generalizations about ethnicity and the generalizations which David made about playtesters, based upon his personal experience? If so, this seems to be a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

What do you know about the CIV playtesters? Do you judge everyone who has playtested CIV by that?

I know nothing about CIV playtesters. I have never been a playtester.

However, if I had participated in playtesting on other games, I would have used that experience to guide my initial impressions of CIV playtesters. Using personal past experience as a playtester to generalize about other playtesters is not the same as "judging" someone based upon their ethnicity.

You know that though. And I'm sure you weren't insinuating anything of the sort. I have probably mistaken your argument.

I ask that when someone deems it necessary to deal with me, rather than the subject, that they at least deal with me, rather than a stereotype. Is that too much to ask?

Generalizations about playtesters based on his past experience are all David had to go on re: his impression of your potential blind spots. You could not explain the play testing process in CIV to him. You could not explain your reactions during the process either.

I will work on the assumptions and experiences I have had including this discussion. For instance, before this discussion I didn't realize you exist. But here I am posting in response to you, under the assumption you exist. I do not plan on going to go back to not realizing you exist, or discarding anything else of note that I have become aware of through this discussion. (Though forgetting things does happen. It's just not generally my intent.)

I wouldn't deem to venture a guess at what it will be (or won't be) for anyone but myself.

Glad to hear that you've taken something from this discussion.

The argument is applicability. Logical coherence of the arguments made is still important.

The arguments were not logical proofs. They were not offered as such. Therefore strict logical coherence is not as important as you make it out to be. As long as the arguments were rational, and could be used to further our understanding of the world, then they are applicable. Logical coherence is not the defining or most important quality in determining applicablitiy.

Just as when I drive to the store, I am also driving my car. Even though I am not driving specifically to drive my car. The point is to get to the store, and the car is a facilitator in that regard. The store is the destination. The car is a means to get there. If the car gets a flat tire, it needs to be fixed so that I can continue. That means addressing the car (tire) specifically at times even when the destination is not the car.

Right...

To show whether or not the argument is applicable to the topic is the destination. Logical coherence is a means to get there. If logical coherence breaks down, it also needs to be addressed before continuing. There is no dichotomy here between topic and logical coherence. They go hand in hand. Logically incoherent points about the topic can be refuted without the topic being logical coherence itself.

(1) Applicable arguments are not always valid in a strict logical sense. (2) Therefore logical coherence and applicability do not always go hand in hand.

Re: a definition for "best argument", I tend to look towards effectiveness. Arguments should be tailored to suit their audience and the environment in order to be most effective IMO.

I've never used PM. If you'd like to continue our discussion, could you please let me know how to use it. I feel like we already hijacked the thread.

 

[Memphus]

I've never used PM. If you'd like to continue our discussion, could you please let me know how to use it. I feel like we already hijacked the thread.

No Please do not do this
I am very interested in the debate which is now taking place
If a Mod deems however that it must go else where and is not part of the original intent of the thread (but I the OPer is finding it interesting, which is probably irrelevant )

In any case if this is the case
Guys(Aeson, jar2574,DaviddesJ) Please don't use PM's but make a new thread so I can follow along.

 

[akots]

I'm sorry to interfere but there are a few questions and issues unanswered actually:

1) Is switch/chop actually an advantage or disadvantage? Or it does not matter? And how correctly to test it? Or it depends on circumstances?

2) If it is a disadvantage or does not matter, then it is obviously not an exploit or may be an exploit which does not make sense to be used.

3) If it gives and advantage, then how important (big/critical) this advantage is? Is it a game-breaking trick or something which lets you build an extra 10th warrior apart from normal 9 warrior which are being built for a certain period, let's say first 80 turns of the game.

Overall, imho, there are a number of similar situations in the game when actually a player does not know what to build and is building 2 things simultaneously. Let's say that a border city can build either an offensive or defensive unit. Assume that if the city will be attacked, the player needs to build a defensive unit. However, if the city is in no danger of being attacked, there is no need for a defensive unit and the city can build an offensive unit instead. Now, there is a player who actually wants to target both circumstances and build a defensive unit but do not finish the build and switch to an offensive unit and also do not finish the build and continue to build both units constantly switching builds from one unit to another. The applications of this tactics are obvious. It allows the defensive unit in case of need to be built earlier than starting from scratch which improves apparently security of this border city from an attack. Is this an exploit?

Of course, the example may be relevant or not. However, it seems to be of a similar nature as growth while chopping.

 

[ainwood]

No Please do not do this
I am very interested in the debate which is now taking place
If a Mod deems however that it must go else where and is not part of the original intent of the thread (but I the OPer is finding it interesting, which is probably irrelevant )

Moderator Action: Actually, please lets just keep this thread on the discussion of the merits or otherwise of chopping. The other arguments are just a distraction from the topic.

Thanks.

 

[DaviddesJ]

1) Is switch/chop actually an advantage or disadvantage? Or it does not matter? And how correctly to test it? Or it depends on circumstances?

It's definitely an advantage sometimes. (Just as, e.g., manipulating the broken production carryover formula is an advantage sometimes.) Conversely, it can also hurt you, when you would rather put your food into the settler/worker than into growth, and/or just get the settler/worker out sooner. (Just as the carryover formula can also work against you.)

I do think that the ability to switch between production tasks in Civ IV is a huge improvement over Civ 3, and there are lots of reasons to do this, most of which are not particularly "abusive". Like suspending production on one task when research makes a new building available, and not losing the production you had accumulated. I certainly wouldn't want to see that taken away, just to stop this tactic. And the partial credit when switching production tasks in Civ 3 was subject to way more "abuse" than this.

Given that, I don't really see any easy way for Firaxis to do anything about this. Maybe they could allow only one production switch per city per turn, but this would be annoying (since sometimes I just change my mind about what to build), and still wouldn't eliminate the tactic, just weaken it. Maybe they could "bank" the production from the chop, and only credit it to the city when you end your turn, but this would be confusing (especially with different kinds of production credits for different tasks) and would require some significant code changes. So, I personally think we are just going to have to live with it, and the question of whether it's a "good" thing, or not, is immaterial. This also means that we will, over time, discover how useful it is, just by seeing how often it's used.

 

[akots]

It's definitely an advantage sometimes. (Just as, e.g., manipulating the broken production carryover formula is an advantage sometimes.) Conversely, it can also hurt you, when you would rather put your food into the settler/worker than into growth, and/or just get the settler/worker out sooner. (Just as the carryover formula can also work against you.) ...

Well, sorry man, this is kinda confusing and wordy, I could not actually get what you want to say. Sometimes advantage and sometimes disadvantage or so that I get it this way. Lets make this things rational and playtest a few scenarios to make sure it can be working both ways to be beneficial and to hamper the development. I'd say it is not intuitively clear.

But let's ask somebody qualified to playtest and post the results.

Cause, another parallel, it come close to the palace jump in Civ3 vanilla. Sometimes it is advantage and sometimes it is not. So, there had been GOTM 26 and a specific rule came out to limit the jump. Here seems the movement to organize the rules is way more fast since it is only IVOTM1.

Hence the task to determine when it can be beneficial and when it makes no difference is not redundant and might be useful.

This also means that we will, over time, discover how useful it is, just by seeing how often it's used.

Like doing it the hard way? Why? That is not so complicated issue, may be it can be solved just by playtesting a few simple scenarios?

 

[akots]

... And the partial credit when switching production tasks in Civ 3 was subject to way more "abuse" than this. ...

You mean in Civ2 apparently?

 

[kingjoshi]

I think it's an exploit for the simple reason that building settlers and workers is supposed to stun city growth during their production. Doing the chop and switch eliminates that. Obviously it's not always advantageous to chop and the worthiness and effectiveness of chopping at what times is (in my mind) a secondary issue.

The point is, if two people are chopping to build settlers early, then the person who uses this 'tactic' can grow their city even though the designers wanted to prevent this. This is a loophole and is beyond just efficient use of resources.

 

[akots]

... The point is, if two people are chopping to build settlers early, then the person who uses this 'tactic' can grow their city even though the designers wanted to prevent this. ...

Yes, that is evident. But is it an advantage or disadvantage? Let's say short term for example.

 

[ajil]

It seems to me to be an advantage in most situations, just as early chopping seems to be the way to go the majority of the time. But I only play on monarch level, where health isnt really that much of a concern. Then again, I have only read about this strategy and not tried it.

BTW, I love the way people actually carry on intelligent debates on these forums and the moderators keep people in line. Much better than the flamewars I see on most forums. Keep up the good work guys.

 

[Smirk]

The point is, if two people are chopping to build settlers early, then the person who uses this 'tactic' can grow their city even though the designers wanted to prevent this. This is a loophole and is beyond just efficient use of resources.

I think you and others are reading intent here that doesn't exist. There is an article at the end of the manual that explicitily states the intent with regards to growth and the old way of doing settlers and workers. And no where in that is there anything about "preventing growth". In fact the moral of the story was that losing population was confusing and bothersome to most players especially new ones trying to learn to play.


Additionally I believe the real intent was to generalize starting positions with regards to early growth. If as with Civ3 food resources was the main determinate for settlers and workers then many MP games would basically hand most players a poor starting position. The person with pigs or river wheat (etc) would out perform with growth all others and thus easily win the game. This, while more realistic, does not a fun multiplayer game make.
By putting both production and food in the production of settlers and workers you've generalized the starts and any good resource will contribute to growth. That is, you are not immediately shot in the foot if you don't start next to some wheat or corn by a river.

 

[Methos]

I've never used PM. If you'd like to continue our discussion, could you please let me know how to use it. I feel like we already hijacked the thread.

No Please do not do this
I am very interested in the debate which is now taking place
If a Mod deems however that it must go else where and is not part of the original intent of the thread (but I the OPer is finding it interesting, which is probably irrelevant )

In any case if this is the case
Guys(Aeson, jar2574,DaviddesJ) Please don't use PM's but make a new thread so I can follow along.

Yes, please keep this on the boards. If not here than please post the thread link for the rest of us readers to locate. This is a very interesting debate/argument and it appears to be done in an adult manner. I’m enjoying reading this.

 

[AlanH]

There's no need for this thread to move anywhere, or to close, as long the debate centres on the issue of the chop & switch ploy.

If it drifts off into discussions of the beta testing process, where those actually involved and under NDA can't respond, then we'll guillotine that element as ainwood did before.