Is this an Exploit?

[DaviddesJ]

Now, chopping down forests to build early settlers and workers (or, perhaps, rush military units) is a rather more obvious strategy than placing cities in rings, and it's hard to believe that the former wasn't thoroughly investigated by some Civ IV playtesters.

P.S. You haven't said whether the strategy of switching back and forth between settler and military/building production, so that the city continues to grow even while the shields from forest chops count toward a settler, was well understoond and thoroughly explored, by you or others, during playtesting. It seems fairly obvious to me, but, sometimes things that are "obvious" in hindsight can also be missed (like RCP).

 

[ainwood]

Now, chopping down forests to build early settlers and workers (or, perhaps, rush military units) is a rather more obvious strategy than placing cities in rings, and it's hard to believe that the former wasn't thoroughly investigated by some Civ IV playtesters. It seems to me that there must have been some playtesters who thought it was a dominant strategy, just as there are some new players now who think so. But you haven't really said anything about that, so I'm only guessing.

I think the point is being made that its a strategy, not the best strategy.

My first few games were played with a civ3 mindset of expand-expand-expand, and I thought chops were a great way to facilitiate this - especially when I couldn't run a 'settler factory' because growth stopped. I then noticed a few problems - Firstly, I was finding that I was going broke - expanding too fast, and getting hammered by escalating maintenance before I was really generating any income.

Secondly, even when I was controlling my expansion rate, I was falling behind in research quite badly. Part of this was because I was going broke - part of this was because I wasn't getting a good research city early enough (capital + library + academy + civil service). Sometimes nabbing a religion was a better option. Sometimes ignoring research and growth to focus on an early military rush against an opponent starting only a few tiles away was best (with maybe the odd chop for military rather than growth).

I played a number of games, sought advice, and worked-out what I think is reasonably fundamental in Civ4 - there is no single world-beating strategy! There are some that I am certainly better at than others, but the key, in my opinion, is to tailor your strategy to your surrounds - and chops are just one option - not the ONLY one.

In the GOTM, invariably there will be some situations where chops are the clear best option - and in this case those that do it may do better than those that don't, because everyone is starting on the same map. However, I also expect that there will be cases where those that blindly go ahead and chop in every game will find themselves not doing so well in other cases.

If chops are so wonderful - why doesn't the person who starts with the most forests win the majority of multiplayer games?

 

[DaviddesJ]

If chops are so wonderful - why doesn't the person who starts with the most forests win the majority of multiplayer games?

There are many possible ways that could be true:

(1) Maybe they will---we don't know yet. As Aeson says, many people will know the game much better a year from now than anyone does now.

(2) Maybe the best (or most experienced) players prefer to play with other strategies, and their skill advantage over their opponents is enough that they win even when they play in a way that would be theoretically less effective against an equal-skill opponent.

(3) Maybe the value of forests is high enough in the start-location calculation that the game is already taking the chop value into account in deciding where to start people (e.g., the people who get starting forests tend to get fewer/less good resources). It seems pretty clear that there is a formula the game is using to decide "how good" the starting positions are allowed to be, but I don't think anyone here knows what that is, yet. Forests do presumably count positively in that calculation, so, start locations with forests will be somewhat less desirable in other ways.

(4) Maybe most multiplayer games are played under conditions that alter/distort the strategies compared to single-player play. This thread has focused on the latter (this is the GOTM forum, after all).

 

[Aeson]

You may know more than I do about many things, but you don't know more than I do about how I discovered RCP. It pretty much is just that: I picked up the game, I played a couple of times and followed the GOTM discussions; one day, I got interested in how corruption depended on distance, and the observation regarding cities at equal distance followed. And some longtime players were at first skeptical that it would be useful/significant, because it wasn't part of how they thought about the game.

My appologies. I was thinking of Qitai and the effect of the FP on OCN. I get those two discoveries mixed up.

As it relates to the other issue... Would you believe that over a year before you figured out what was happening with RCP, I had noticed in testing that the OCN wasn't updating with cities in the same distance rings? I was doing some little studies on distance corruption, OCN corruption, the impact of the Commercial trait and Difficulty. After noticing that placing 2 cities on the same distance cause variation from expected in the results, and being focused on other issues, I specifically redesigned the scenario I was working from to eliminate the shared OCN aspect. After alexman posted his study I just dropped the whole line of thought altogether and so never got around to thinking about the possibilites with shared OCN.

At that time, I would have been considered "fresh insight" too, and definitely failed to see the implications of the shared OCN issue. Perhaps if I had been more familiar with the limitations of corruption in general, instead of such a newbie to gameplay with only other newbie's experiences to observe, I would have thought it an important factor to be focused on, rather than a rogue one to be eliminated from the focused testing.

Later, when you posted your analysis of RCP, I had one of those major "Doh!" moments while just reading the title of your thread. It was rather obviously a huge factor, but one I had discarded as insignificant and forgotten before understanding it's potential. It's quite embarrassing actually.

I mention this as an insight into how just being fresh to a situation really doesn't make any guarantees either, even when noticing something fishy. Sometimes things click (as it did when reading the title of your thread for me), sometimes they don't (as when faced with the actual results had earlier for me), and it happens across the entire spectrum of experience.

Had you read any of the corruption analysis or related testing that had been done in the years previous or were you working off complete "newbie" status to come to your conclusions? You obviously credit Alexman's thread with some of your understanding and say it's central to understanding rings. How much of it was based off of that? If I recall you started playing the GOTM at a very high level, did you take much insight from the other player's approaches to the game before playing? Basically what I'm after is how much of RCP was a flash of insight, and how much was studying already available knowlege to get a base of understanding about corruption and how it impacts gameplay?

So I do think that it's more likely that people new to the game can have fresh insights about it, and think of different things that may be important.

In any case, I have already said that type of insight does happen. About the other possibilities I see you are still being quiet. Do you admit that while there are things that can jump out to a new perspective, there are also things which take time and study to uncover, things which may jump out at various times even to veteran players, things which become clear after a lot of repetition, things which become clear only after the underlying foundation of knowlege has been adequetly fixed, and things which are mainly uncovered due to chance?

I can't give examples from the playsession due to the NDA, but I can tell you something that happened publicly since release. I played AU100, which was a WBS scenario released over at Apolyton. My first time through I noticed something dealing with scenarios that I hadn't before. For one, the Deity AI wasn't starting with it's bonus units. This was the first time I had really played a game from a WBS that wasn't a full fledged scenario. So I noticed a flaw in the game right? The WBS isn't allowing the AI bonus units. One of those flashes of the obvious. But one that ended up being incorrect in it's conclusion. It turns out the WBS allows for AI to have their bonus units when designed a different way. While I understood the game better, the flaw I had jump out at me wasn't a flaw at all.

Given that the game had lost some of it's luster due to being "Deity lite", and that the course I had started out with was along the lines of almost all the other games being played, I decided to play again with a different focus. I still had my exploration movement logged to recreate the start, so started with that. It ended up not working the same at all due to a difference in RNG state. This conflicted with something I remembered from previous work I had done with WBS (the GOTM saves were part of that, though they probably suffer from my not understanding what was going on with the RNG state at that time), so I tried loading the game a few more times to see what was going on. What I got was "random" results all but one time, that one matching up perfectly with the first game. I found that rather odd, thinking 2 exact results dealing with 3 huts (including the amount of gold) across 5 tests would be rather unlikely. In analysing exactly what had happened, I determined that going into "Custom Game", then backing out and going to "Load a Scenario" was setting the RNG state the same every time, while going straight to "Load a Scenario" wasn't. I had accidently clicked that way the time of the "non-random" result, and in trying it again the same way, kept getting the same result.

Turns out that was the reason why so many similar "random" maps were being reported. (I can't say whether the issue was known in the playsession or not, so don't ask.) While many people had noticed this obvious phenomenon (though in a totally different way), the cause wasn't obvious. The first time I experienced it though, the cause jumped out and bit me because of previous experience. So just being experienced with the game doesn't preclude new insights, and can even promote them.

For every example you come up with of a flash of insight, I can come up with one where the flash of insight was wrong, or where study uncovered it's own issue (right or wrong). (That is not to say they are all equal factors, just that the examples will be so numerous it would take longer than feasible just to touch on a tiny fraction of them.)

That is why I disagree with how you have presented your argument. You say "more likely" which makes for an impossible proof without first having a vast study to support it. All you needed to say was that new players will have flashes of insights that the playtesters didn't, which is almost certainly true. Or better yet, that every player will have their own insights when first playing the game regardless of whether they are a playtester or not, and whether those insights preclude or lead to later insights is not something a flash of insight is going to adequetly address without the proper study to back it up.

Now, chopping down forests to build early settlers and workers (or, perhaps, rush military units) is a rather more obvious strategy than placing cities in rings, and it's hard to believe that the former wasn't thoroughly investigated by some Civ IV playtesters. It seems to me that there must have been some playtesters who thought it was a dominant strategy, just as there are some new players now who think so. But you haven't really said anything about that, so I'm only guessing.

Your current guess is far supperior to the prediction in your previous post. Not necessarily in it's accuracy (which I can't specify due to the NDA), but in it's qualification at least.

P.S. You haven't said whether the strategy of switching back and forth between settler and military/building production, so that the city continues to grow even while the shields from forest chops count toward a settler, was well understoond and thoroughly explored, by you or others, during playtesting. It seems fairly obvious to me, but, sometimes things that are "obvious" in hindsight can also be missed (like RCP).

It seems obvious to me that in a situation where I can't state if that subject was obvious or not to me and other playtesters, that trying to make that a subject of debate is pointless.

I can tell you that at this point in time I don't see an imbalance between "swap and chop" and regular chopping. I think that pure chopping is generally a better option, but that swap and chop does have uses too. (ie. Exactly the content of my first post in this thread.)

I also don't see how your theory about the playtesters even applies in this case, as it is dealing (correctly or incorrectly) with an issue becoming obvious (as in it's existance, not it's nature), not with the analysis of an issue once it has been made so. Regardless of whether a playtester thought of this or not, it is now out in the open for everyone to analyse.

If you are instead trying to suggest that the playtesters would be biased against things they "missed" (which to be fair, everyone else is missing too except the original poster of the idea), then at least it would be an applicable argument. Plus I could then direct you to the proper thread where that discussion has already taken place.

 

[Memphus]

Well after all of the professionals have debated it out and I am back home now I will submit my game, letting the mods decide if the chop switch was an exploit. In any case I don't think it is based on the discussions, but you never know.

Thank you everyone for you input.

Either way I plan not to use that technique for my next GOTM or for HoF games

 

[DaviddesJ]

Either way I plan not to use that technique for my next GOTM or for HoF games

I will definitely use it when it seems useful. How else can we figure out whether/when it's actually useful, except by trying it?

 

[jar2574]

If you're playing with a civ that has mining, then chopping will probably be the way to go if you have forests near you. With other civs its a tougher call.

But I look at it this way: On higher levels or in MP the mining civ can get to chopping quicker than others, but it can't get to religions or the good domestic techs as quickly as others. Each civ should usually play to its strengths, and so mining civs should usually chop.

 

[DaviddesJ]

If you're playing with a civ that has mining, then chopping will probably be the way to go if you have forests near you. With other civs its a tougher call.

He isn't talking about whether to chop down the forests---everyone is going to do that, and it's an intentional part of the game, hardly an "exploit". He's talking about whether to take advantage of the opportunity to change your production back and forth during the turn, if you want the shields from chopping to go to one task (settler or worker) while the food surplus goes to something else (growth). That's the subject of the thread.

 

[ainwood]

He's talking about whether to take advantage of the opportunity to change your production back and forth during the turn, if you want the shields from chopping to go to one task (settler or worker) while the food surplus goes to something else (growth).

....Which for the purposes of the GOTM is allowed.

 

[jar2574]

He isn't talking about whether to chop down the forests---everyone is going to do that, and it's an intentional part of the game, hardly an "exploit". He's talking about whether to take advantage of the opportunity to change your production back and forth during the turn, if you want the shields from chopping to go to one task (settler or worker) while the food surplus goes to something else (growth). That's the subject of the thread.

To clarify, I was not addressing my comment to anyone in particular. There are two active threads about chopping as a general strategy, I made a similar comment in each one.

After looking back at all the comments in this thread, I think that two threads have been combined here, one had been about the chop switch, and one had been about chopping in general. I think that the "he" you are referring to was concerned solely with the chop switch, while other posters have discussed chopping in general

I don't see why I can't comment on the chop strategy in general here though. I'm not the only person who has talked about that strategy in the thread...

Now, chopping down forests to build early settlers and workers (or, perhaps, rush military units) is a rather more obvious strategy than placing cities in rings, and it's hard to believe that the former wasn't thoroughly investigated by some Civ IV playtesters. It seems to me that there must have been some playtesters who thought it was a dominant strategy, just as there are some new players now who think so. But you haven't really said anything about that, so I'm only guessing.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Had you read any of the corruption analysis or related testing that had been done in the years previous or were you working off complete "newbie" status to come to your conclusions? You obviously credit Alexman's thread with some of your understanding and say it's central to understanding rings. How much of it was based off of that? If I recall you started playing the GOTM at a very high level, did you take much insight from the other player's approaches to the game before playing? Basically what I'm after is how much of RCP was a flash of insight, and how much was studying already available knowlege to get a base of understanding about corruption and how it impacts gameplay?

I think it was a "flash of insight", in the sense that it just came up when I was playing the game; it wasn't the byproduct of a systematic attempt to study the exact details of how the game works. But it certainly came out of that available base of knowledge: if I hadn't had the information available to me that other people had compiled, then I never would have gone so far with it.

For every example you come up with of a flash of insight, I can come up with one where the flash of insight was wrong, or where study uncovered it's own issue (right or wrong).

Sure. Even 10 for every 1. Most "new insights" are wrong, just because it's hard to come up with significant new observations about something that other people have already looked at, hard.

But that doesn't contradict what I've said.

That is why I disagree with how you have presented your argument. You say "more likely" which makes for an impossible proof without first having a vast study to support it.

It's my observation and experience (and not just in the computer game world) that someone who is looking at something fresh, and learning it for the first time, is more likely to notice something new and significant about it, than someone who already knows it very well. Just because the process of learning and exploring leads to new discoveries, while, once you know something very well, it's harder, for most people, to question your preconceptions or implicit assumptions.

Of course, the person who is looking at something for the first time is also much more likely to come to a wrong belief, or misimpression, than someone who has studied it carefully. But this is entirely consistent with the previous statement. The new observer has more new, valid discoveries, and more wrong ideas.

I don't claim that this is something that I have a mathematical "proof" of. It's just an opinion and observation, and you're entitled to disagree.

I have been on both sides of this, many times. E.g., Qitai's further discoveries about distance corruption and the Forbidden Palace are certainly something I had the data to discover, but, once I thought I understood what was going on, I didn't notice the discrepancies. They were more likely to come to the attention of someone who was just figuring things out, than to me once I had already explored the issue.

 

[Aeson]

Just because the process of learning and exploring leads to new discoveries, while, once you know something very well, it's harder, for most people, to question your preconceptions or implicit assumptions.

You are not dealing with "most people", or even "playtesters in general". You are conversing specifically with me. You quoted something I said, and brought up your theory about playtesters to make a point against that statement I made. If you wish to make an applicable point about me then address me.

Is it harder for me to question my preconceptions or implicit assumptions (if indeed I even operate in that manner)? Are you an apt judge on that issue? Or is this one of your preconceptions about playtesters that is causing a blind spot for you when trying to deal with me specifically?

I don't claim that this is something that I have a mathematical "proof" of. It's just an opinion and observation, and you're entitled to disagree.

Yes, it's just your opinion. I have no problem with people voicing their opinions so long as they are offered as such. If you recall what you originally said though, you were offering "proof" when you brought it up.

Because, by definition, if there are any significant imbalances in the game, they would have to be things that the playtesters didn't fully realize. Because the things that did get realized in playtesting would have been fixed or changed.

That is not an opinion. It is a testable statement. (Or at least it would be if you had any information dealing with the subject.)

 

[DaviddesJ]

Yes, it's just your opinion. I have no problem with people voicing their opinions so long as they are offered as such. If you recall what you originally said though, you were offering "proof" when you brought it up.

No, I didn't. I just searched this whole thread, and I never used the word "proof" even once. I never said anything even remotely like that. You're putting words in my mouth. Or maybe you're confusing me with someone else??

 

[Aeson]

You don't have to use the word "proof" to try to prove things. Trying to assert that since you didn't say "proof" you couldn't have been trying to prove anything is itself an attempted proof.

You didn't need to search the thread. I quoted what I was referencing directly after referencing it. Here it is again:

I think, in general, the playtesters are more likely to have blind spots regarding certain aspects of the game than people new to the game. Because, by definition, if there are any significant imbalances in the game, they would have to be things that the playtesters didn't fully realize. Because the things that did get realized in playtesting would have been fixed or changed.

The first sentence is your opinion. The next two sentences are logic to support that statement. "By definition..." you are offering them as proof to the validity of your statement.

 

[DaviddesJ]

The first sentence is your opinion. The next two sentences are logic to support that statement. "By definition..." you are offering them as proof to the validity of your statement.

No, it's an explanation of why I think what I do. I think that when people explain their thinking, it's a good way for others to understand why they think what they think, not an assertion of absolute "proof" and infallibility. Indeed, one of the main reasons to explain your reasoning is precisely so that, if people disagree with your conclusions, they can say why.

Logically, there are many ways the stated reasoning could fail to hold. For example, it could be that the game changed so quickly and so much during production that imbalances were added at the last minute, later than any playtester could have discovered them. Or, it could be that major imbalances were discovered by playtesters, but remain in the game because the developers didn't care. There are probably other possibilities too. I don't really see how any of these other cases would be relevant to this particular line of reasoning, but I could easily be overlooking something. I don't have a problem with there being other possibilities, because I don't regard my reasoning as some sort of "proof".

At this point, I don't see that anyone but you cares about this, so I think I'm done responding to it.

 

[Aeson]

No, it's an explanation of why I think what I do.

Offered as a definition. You didn't allow for other possibilities in the wording of your supporting arguments initially.

Logically, there are many ways the stated reasoning could fail to hold. For example, it could be that the game changed so quickly and so much during production that imbalances were added at the last minute, later than any playtester could have discovered them. Or, it could be that major imbalances were discovered by playtesters, but remain in the game because the developers didn't care. There are probably other possibilities too.

This is what I responded to your initial statement with. Glad to see you agree with me.

I don't really see how any of these other cases would be relevant to this particular line of reasoning, but I could easily be overlooking something.

You don't see how these other possibilities could be relevent precisely because you don't know what you are talking about. You have no idea what went on in playtesting, but still took it upon yourself to make a statement about the playtesters in regards to imbalances in the game, and support it with your lack of understanding about what went on in playtesting.

I don't have a problem with there being other possibilities, because I don't regard my reasoning as some sort of "proof".

You shouldn't have presented your statements in the definitive manner which you offered them. "By definition..." should have been "I don't really know what I'm talking about, this is just uninformed conjecture on my part..."

 

[Smirk]

David: Have you ever been part of a closed beta test? I think Aeson is saying one simple thing, he can't comment on what happened in the beta test.
But having been part of many such tests on both sides of the fence I can tell you one thing is clear above all else, lots, and lots of bugs the beta testers find do not get fixed before release. Another thing is that testers are not designers, any one including Aeson could have discussed the ramifications of any given strategy, whether its bad, good or just exploitive but that really doesn't matter much if no one cares to listen. And in fact sane engineering practices would dictate all but major and dangerous bugs would be ignored at that stage. Proper redesign cannot really be done when you are on a rushed release schedule.




I'm more amused by the bugs and flaws that exist now *and* also existed in the Civ3 release but fixed in later patches, like abandoning cities. Anything to say about that Aeson? Or failing that, when does your NDA expire?

 

[jar2574]

You are not dealing with "most people", or even "playtesters in general". You are conversing specifically with me. You quoted something I said, and brought up your theory about playtesters to make a point against that statement I made. If you wish to make an applicable point about me then address me.

Is it harder for me to question my preconceptions or implicit assumptions (if indeed I even operate in that manner)? Are you an apt judge on that issue? Or is this one of your preconceptions about playtesters that is causing a blind spot for you when trying to deal with me specifically?

You're clearly a better judge of how you operate than he is. He doesn't know you. But we're all going to form an impression of you as we get to know you, and we will act on that impression, even though you are a better judge of how you operate than we are.

The best anyone outside the process can do is make educated guesses about what went on during playtesting. That's what he was doing. Based on his experience as a playtester, playtesters sometimes have blind spots.

Maybe you had blind spots. He can't prove that you did. Maybe you didn't. You can't prove that you didn't. Just because neither side can prove whether you had blind spots during the process doesn't mean that he shouldn't say that playtesters in general sometimes have blind spots. That may be applicable to you. That's the best argument he could offer, given his limited knowledge about you.

I happen to disagree with his argument that the chop switch is an exploit, but I don't think he argued with you in an unfair way.

 

[Aeson]

I'm more amused by the bugs and flaws that exist now *and* also existed in the Civ3 release but fixed in later patches, like abandoning cities. Anything to say about that Aeson? Or failing that, when does your NDA expire?

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. At release in Civ3 you could abandon a city by starving it down and then building a Worker or Settler. Later the option to abandon it at any time was added. That, in conjunction with how cultural borders were easily moved around, lead to Settler blitzing.

Settler blitzing doesn't work in Civ4, as you can't build a city in foreign territory at all, can't easily move borders around (even Great Works have their limits in that regard), can't build within 2 tiles of another city, and can't easily get rid of a city that has already been founded (have to give it away and then raze it). There may be exploits found to get around those rules, they could even be added with future additions/change, but as of right now that's my understanding of how the game works in that regard.

 

[Aeson]

You're clearly a better judge of how you operate than he is. He doesn't know you. But we're all going to form an impression of you as we get to know you, and we will act on that impression, even though you are a better judge of how you operate than we are.

Of course.

That's not what I am arguing against though. It's whether that is applicable or not. Whether I have blind spots or not is not the topic for debate, and if I have a blind spot on the topic of debate which is clouding my judgement, it should be pointed out by addressing the arguments I made, not myself. "You have more blind spots than others" is nothing more than an ad hominem.

The best anyone outside the process can do is make educated guesses about what went on during playtesting. That's what he was doing. Based on his experience as a playtester, playtesters sometimes have blind spots.

His argument wasn't simply that playtesters sometimes have blind spots though. He was saying playtesters would necessarily have more blind spots than others who are newer to the game. It is a completely unsupported point he made, opinion or not, and I was pointing that out. Uninformed opinion deserves to be treated as such.

Maybe you had blind spots. He can't prove that you did.

Which is what I pointed out. (That he can't prove that playtesters have more blind spots than others.)

Maybe you didn't. You can't prove that you didn't.

This is irrellevent. I have not argued that I don't have blind spots.

Just because neither side can prove whether you had blind spots during the process doesn't mean that he shouldn't say that playtesters in general sometimes have blind spots.

It means if he does that he's made an argument he can't support properly. That is something I would say "shouldn't say", but that is because I don't like making arguments that are easily shot down.

That may be applicable to you. That's the best argument he could offer, given his limited knowledge about you.

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

I happen to disagree with his argument that the chop switch is an exploit, but I don't think he argued with you in an unfair way.

Applicable or not is the argument. Not unfair.