Is Whip/Chop overflow an Exploit? I say No

[Crusher1]

Note, I'm not saying that I agree with the code as it is. I'm just very reticent to the idea of saying that Dresden solution is better than the original code.

Perfect.

DanF was emphatically wrong with his quote as are others supporting his quote. It's a no brainer. If it wasn't a no brainer it would be the official Civilization patch!

Thankfully, the game designers do not fall into a hopelessly foolish state of mind and agree with those living in a dazed and confused status supporting non official patches.

People are more than welcome to choose any mods/patches that they want but need to realize that this is the real world and they are not the game creators and they do not get to make the final decision for the finished product provided for the Community as a whole.

Hence, we are given an official patch, with official rules, and official guidelines to play by. People are entitled to play how they want but it's nonsensical to lash out at others who choose to play by that which Firaxis has so graciously provided for us in its original (official patch) content.

Note, I'm not saying that I agree with the code as it is. I'm just very reticent to the idea of saying that Dresden solution is better than the original code.

Any neutral and reasonable person would agree with you.

@ Pope

I have an original Franco Harris Jersey in my closet! GoGo 32!

 

[DanF5771]

^ HOF-mod credits

 

[Crusher1]

Let me fix my previous post ^^ because everything else applies .

Corrected!

 

[DanF5771]

I respect you too, rolo, but this

IMHO capping the overflow as Dresden did goes against the spirit of the original coder as stated in the vanilla manual ( reducing MM ) because it opens space for more MM ( to avoid losing hammers to thin air , pretty much as it happened in previous version of civ ) and it was most likely because of that reason that Firaxis, in spite of knowing of this issue for quite a while ( atleast since the date of vale's article ) has not touched that part of the code in the expansion and in the 6 patches ( 8, counting with the update to 1.74 and 2.13 with 3.17 ) that were launched from that day on.....

seems to imply that you misunderstood the actual change in the mechanics.
Only the "non-generic" modifiers get factored out of the overflow - nothing turns into thin air. In my example above you would still get 494 = the same as if you had put the excess hammers into the "build wealth" process. THIS discourages dubious MM to take advantage of a broken mechanic.

 

[r_rolo1]

Anyway , it continues to be inconsistent with the wonder consolation gold....

 

[Gliese 581]

I don't agree that unofficial patches need to be always viewed as a mod which seems to be implied in some posts. It's fairly common for developers to stop working on a game long before the fans do. Games are becoming more and more complex and consequently they have more and more bugs. A good example is another game I play alot, Baldur's Gate 2. Without the unofficial patches and game-fixes there would still be hundreds maybe thousands of bugs that are clearly unintended by the designers.

The trouble is with mechanics that are borderline between bug/exploit/useful feature. Now the patchers/players have to decide what the intent of the developers are to determine into what category a specific feature falls.

For BG2, most of the fixes are unambigious and there is no need for discussion really. Let's say a npc is named GArren. Clearly there's been a spelling error. Most of the bugs fixed falls into this category. For the more ambigious features which has generated a bit of controversy and debate, there is usually an option if you want to modify them or not when you install the major fixpacks available (first by the Baldurdash group and later on by Gibberlings in the case of BG2).

Now every patcher/modder is free to do what they want but to me this is the best solution when there's a disagreement of whether a feature is a bug or not, make patches component-based and have the controversial options as optional.
Of course, CIV has different code from BG2 and the use of online games creates problems that do not apply to BG2.

I actually lean towards agreeing with DanF here that the production bonus overflow should be downsized again like what has been done with overflowing into a new project IIRC. Mao can't overflow a granary into a library and keep the production bonus. I think it's reasonable that overflow into gold should not get a production bonus either.
I can't say I feel a very strong urge to modify/fix this particular feature though because similarly to Dirk I don't consider it game-breaking. Perhaps I'm wrong and will change my opinion in the future but as of right now it doesn't stand out as a big issue to me.
As such I'll gladly continue using the latest patches by Dresden to fix bugs and optimize the game.

 

[JujuLautre]

For example, has BetterAI fixed the "I won't switch to bureaucracy because my favorite civic is caste system" bug yet? That's another example of something that is just as clear an inconsistency...

Has been fixed in the unofficial patch if I'm correct

Perhaps you should try one day to play with these TMIT?

 

[Duckweed]

You seem confused still, or more likely, playing ignorantly dumb on purpose, but to each their own. I've already rebutted this silly response over and over. But because some people lack the faculties needed I'll beat the horse one more time.

The earlier you settle and found new cities the quicker you are working X amount of tiles. For those incapable of understanding this I genuinely feel sorry for you. Why in the world would you want to be working fewer tiles if you didn't have to be? Just keep on expanding and chop as needed.

In games that I use this technique the limiting factor in REXing is usually land, not the ability to afford more cities. I'd rather have 15 cities by 1000 AD (while still reaching Lib first) which have had much more time to grow and work many more tiles than,

Limiting myself to fewer cities earlier because I cannot afford them, waiting for techs that allow me to afford them, then filling in my land. It's a no brainer. The guy who starts earlier will be way ahead. It's not rocket scientist.

If I seem "rude" it's because I'm offended by people playing "dumb" and ignoring the obvious. It's a simple concept. The greater number of cities you can found at an earlier date while still powering research the stronger your empire will be. I'd rather be the guy working 150 tiles than the guy working 75 any day.

Offensive language neither lets you convince anyone, nor helps on discussion. There's many statements I posted and you end up with only one counter point and again using offensive words. I would be happy to continue on discussion and share my thoughts with people under a friendly environment. But for now, I'd rather stop here.

Finally, if you really want to prove that your point is valid and I am wrong. I shadowed Pauliskhan's Team101 game a few weeks ago. Cathy/Emperor (a leader can use your trick and a level you'll feel more than comfortable). In that game, I settled cities in a slow rate and I only settled 12 cities in 1000AD. There's room for you to settle more than 16 cities. Use your superior trick to rex to extreme to work the most tiles and post a save of 1000AD to show me how superior empire you can develop using your superior trick.
Edit: I used and saved those forests for wonders in that game, which was mentioned in my last post.

Here's the link and good luck!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=320926

Or on the other hand, I can put some time to play a game you think can support your point well.

 

[Dirk1302]

I agree 100% with Gliese's post. Firaxis has provided us with a great game, each expansion pack was a big improvement on what went before. There's reasonable backup for modding. Most of the downright errors have been fixed by them. It's down to the community to take it further. Community lived up to that expectation also since what has been provided by Firaxis enabled them to do so.

Sure the game could have been better (well a bit) but it would have been so much more expensive that the community would have been very small. I still think they did a great job. There's objective evidence for this also, read reviews outside this community, in the turn based genre civ4 almost always comes up on top. It's generally considered as a high standard against which other games are measured.

As to the technique, it may not be a very big deal on deity but i feel it can have a big impact on all the other levels. Since i have never tried it i may have to reserve further judgement until i have. Maybe it is really overpowered and in this case i think i agree with DanF/Gliese that the production bonus should be taken off the gold overflow.

Does Dresden's patch alter the game very profoundly or is it more or less minor issues he addresses?

 

[Artichoker]

In my opinion the trick, whether or not it actually is overpowered, in fact makes the game more interesting and balanced.

Let's consider the different traits in the game:

Category I: Primarily Monetary Bonus

Financial - Provides a nice solid bonus throughout the entire game that can help with any play style. Very effective for racing to techs like Music. Yet there is no production bonus to buildings, so here is the drawback.


Category II: Hybrid Monetary/Production Bonus

Organized - Provides a gold bonus that increases with empire size, and a production bonus to one building that is unlocked by Code of Laws.

Philosophical - Provides a gpp bonus that is stronger in the early stages of the game. The production bonus applies to one building that is unlocked by Education.


Category III: Hybrid Special/Production Bonus

Protective - Very narrow in scope for the most part, but the overflow technique provide a back door to redemption.

Creative - Tends to lose steam in the later stages of the game, but the numerous production bonuses provide numerous avenues for extra overflow gold.


Category IV: Hybrid Special/Monetary Bonus

Charismatic - Just like Financial, has no production bonuses. But everyone knows how great a trait this is.



"Special" refers to things like extra promotions or extra culture for cities.

"Monetary" refers to things that provide a direct boost to income, whether through maintenance, commerce, or gpp.

The point of this summary is to show that nearly all the traits have something to "round out" their weaknesses.

 

[Jaroth]

Can you confirm that you didn't have math when you tried this with that patch earlier? Math would explain getting slightly over 100 gold from overflow if the patch is working correctly. If not there is something funny going on.

I did not have Mathematics. I just went into world builder, set up the scenario (with stone, quarry, roads, forests, 3 workers) and granted myself all ancient age technologies.

 

[Jaroth]

@ Jaroth: Welcome to the "real world" and thank you for using BetterAI which includes the latest version of Dresden's unofficial patch where this bug was fixed -- yes I call it a BUG as it breaks consistency of how the two basic commodities and are processed (as mentioned by Juju).

Wow... very interesting, thanks Dan.

So it really is ******** still in the official version.

I just assumed most players (especially the serious ones) used BetterAI and the unoffical patches. Guess not...

The unoffical patches and BetterAI improve upon the game so much and fix many huge bugs and balance issues that Firaxis overlooked. Many of the official patches that came out were usually promptly followed by an unofficial patch to repair crashes, bugs, and imbalances... some that were even introduced by the new patches themselves.

Can't blame Firaxis too much though, it was actually their "job" and they were probably under a deadline to hurry things along, as opposed to the passionate fans out there that know computer code and/or game balance and do it as a hobby for the good of the game.

Who cares what's offical or not when it's correct and logical? Even the BUG mod is a must have... instead of using the "official", inconvenient interface. Thru careful design and collaboration, BUG made it into what it should've been from the beginning.

Whatever, I'm just glad that this exploit is fixed within the version that I play.

 

[Earthling]

His rant is about people who don't think that his strategy is that effective, not about those who consider it too cheezy.

I'm loathe to do this, maybe you know particularly about some very similar principles debated in the FfH forum, but here's the thing - there has been NO proof in this thread the strategy IS effective. Gee, posting a good game where you conquered people as Persia - that doesn't really prove anything. And I really wonder what standard size mapscript is giving room to settle 15+ cities - of course as oyzar reasonably pointed out a large map on marathon may be conducive to this but it still does not seem useful in a regular game. And it seems the debate has been ignored in this thread because people are busy criticizing a few newer posters for flamish type stuff and "well that's not how you use the word exploit."

So, all right, it's time for this: Comparison Game. Let's hope to resolve some fundamental misunderstandings and straight out misrepresentations by some posters.

I guess I'm just a bit surprised still that some players have no love for the technique at all. I'm not talking out of my a$$ at all. I really have spent 100s of hours REXing thru 1AD w/ and w/out the technique on the same map (comparison point being 1AD) and then repeating and in virtually every scenario whip/chopping has come out ahead.

I'll give Crusher one more chance to clarify - I completely see how, if you are already REXing with a suitable civ this strategy can be used. But, are you trying to say this gives ideal development compared to other economic choices?

In that case, you'd have to show the following:
A: It beats a player on the same start who can choose to use any other strategy besides "REX till you can barely afford maintenance"
B: It beats a player on the same map but with the REX leader worldbuilded out and replaced with Elizabeth of England (or whomever is chosen by that player, in fair spirits to economy, so not Rome for warmongering or something out of spite).

Bonus points if you do this on a Lonely Heart map, which is really ideal for testing economic situations, and I'm rather sure your REX would have suboptimal development. I'll give it to you that I'm not sure "A" wouldn't work sometimeson regular randomized maps, I don't think "B" will come close, but we can try.

 

[FlyinJohnnyL]

All the rest of you can enjoy playing with your cheesy exploits and broken games with ******** AI, haha! I don't need to argue anymore because I couldn't care less of what other people think who don't play the game the right way.

Wow did Crusher's attitude rub off on you or something? And you have to put things into context here-I'd guess probably over 90% of the people who play this game don't know about mods, better AI, or even Civfanatics for that matter! And I would know from experience as out of all of my friends and family who play this game (2 former roommates, an ex girlfriend, my 2 brothers and a couple of co-workers), I'm the only "hardcore" civfanatic. We have to take a step back and realize that we aren't the only ones playing this game, and as a matter of fact, we are in the HUGE minority.

And by the way, "Better AI" may be a little better, but it's still ******** too!

 

[Earthling]

Well, I don't to derail this thread about BetterAI myself- personally, I don't use it but not because a lot of hard work didn't go into the mod -it's because I feel there are more fundamental changes needed to the game that BetterAI doesn't address. The main problem is the complete freedom of the human player versus the total rigidity of the AI. Part of this is the diplomatic system, where the AI lack even the most basic concepts of trend-spotting -a player who kills three AI right in a row, all in a line to the fourth AI's empire, won't see a single response from the AI to know it's next (while I'm hoping it would be rather simple for AI to distrust "warmongers" based on in-game actions). The military aspect of civ4 is fundamentally built upon micromanaging huge standing armies where the human player vastly outsmarts the AI - I'd like to see changes that make supporting a military more of an economic endeavor, and the system itself not based so much on numbers and who gets collateral in first. Something that could impress me if it was in BetterAI would be like like a random personalities that randomizes EVERYTHING, from favorite civics to unit build weights, but that's not there. So personally I'm aiming to create a mod (eventually....) that instead approaches the problem from the other direction - limiting the human's freedom so you actually feel like you're the ruler of a nation, responsible to real diplomacy (rather than making someone happy forever simply by adopting a civic that doesn't even matter) and your own citizens. But discussing BetterAI seems off topic, and personally I'm rather impressed with the mod even if I don't usually use it, so certainly not here to complain about that.

 

[Lone Wolf]

personally, I don't use it but not because a lot of hard work didn't go into the mod -it's because I feel there are more fundamental changes needed to the game that BetterAI doesn't address.

Well, it's still better then nothing.

but here's the thing - there has been NO proof in this thread the strategy IS effective.

I wasn't saying anything about its effectiveness one way or other, I was merely explaining his position. Although recently he seemed to make a flawed "it's official, so it isn't cheezy" argument.

 

[Gliese 581]

The main thing holding me back from using all the latest unofficial patches is the effort required since it seems they are constantly updated! I'm sure it's just me but I consider installing and uninstalling patches and mods (such as BUG) to be sligthly cumbersome for CIV, it might just be that I always forget about it and have to read up on what to do since they usually don't come with install and uninstall .exes, which is a little tedious.

I do use the unofficial patches though, they contain many good bugfixes, for example I remember one of these patches took care of spies being bumped outside enemy borders during DOW and another fix corrected the exploit of undetectable spies on boats etc.

 

[Earthling]

Well, it's still better then nothing.

No, it's not if it's a step in the opposite direction - not because it's bad but because of different principles. I understand if players want it for GOTM competitions and all around here, I wouldn't even oppose. But when I'm playing for fun, I don't particulary want AI's who compete "to win the game." That's probably the worst line in the whole game, even ahead of WFYABTA. I'd rather have the feel that I'm part of a civilization and face challenges instead of metagaming. Which is also why I miss a ton of the stuff from previous civilization games, like palace views, advisors, etc... those simply made the game more fun, and civ4 out of all civ games is just as mechanical, even though it has the potential for much more.

 

[Lone Wolf]

But when I'm playing for fun, I don't particulary want AI's who compete "to win the game.

The BetterAI does nothing to make the AI's existing personalities less pronounced.

 

[Earthling]

I thought it made some significant changes as to how the AI waged war? And was TMIT right in saying earlier that it doesn't change anything about civics (or does, but not in the expected way?) Maybe I'm wrong here, but again, I'm not trying to say it's bad and this also isn't the thread for it- I'll have to go look at changelogs again so thanks.