Negavite gpt during anarchy

[Perugia]

I also had a chance to buy a government from the AI and go into deficit but didn't.

I have a related question to DaveMcW's. Whether or not it's allowed in GOTM/COTM -

If you have gpt deal with the AI and then go into anarchy, does the AI consider this a black mark on your reputation?

 

[Renata]

No, they get paid anyway. I'm actually pretty sure it's impossible to default on a gpt payment for lack of funds.

Renata

 

[ainwood]

No, they get paid anyway. I'm actually pretty sure it's impossible to default on a gpt payment for lack of funds.

Renata

If it was, then the game balance would be in big trouble - the AI often goes into deficit!

 

[King Of America]

If the AI can go into deficit, and the out-of-the-box game allows deficit/neg. gpt during revolts for humans, I don't understand why this is considered an exploit.

I thought part of the definition of exploits was that an exploit is something that a human can do but the AI can't/won't.

 

[ainwood]

I thought part of the definition of exploits was that an exploit is something that a human can do but the AI can't/won't.

Emphasis on 'part of'. The AI doesn't Palace jump (for example).

 

[King Of America]

Let me rephrase my comment..are there any other banned exploits that we see the AI doing? In other words, is there another case where something is OK for the AI but not people playing xOTM? (Maybe I misunderstood your comment in post #23. I thought you said that the AI was allowed to revolt with 0 gold and negative gpt).

 

[ainwood]

Let me rephrase my comment..are there any other banned exploits that we see the AI doing? In other words, is there another case where something is OK for the AI but not people playing xOTM? (Maybe I misunderstood your comment in post #23. I thought you said that the AI was allowed to revolt with 0 gold and negative gpt).

Unfortunately, we, the GOTM staff, have tried to get jurisdiction over the AI, but have failed in our attempts to do so.

I was tempted to ban Persia in GOTM 43 for deficit spending, and for really pushing the boundaries on some inter-turn dealings, but failed for lack of concrete evidence.




The point I was making is that the AI does manage its economy differently than a human does - this is considered a flaw in the programming, and is something that is beyond our control - the deficit economy of the AI is one example. We choose to ban this for human players, because it is considered exploitive. Humans have the capacity to avoid doing it, the programming does not. Whilst we ban some things on the grounds that the AI does not do them, we also allow others that the AI does not do. In short, the list of permitted and banned exploits cannot be simplified down to a "Human can / cannot do whatever the AI does / does not do".

 

[ThERat]

actually, I think there are lots of things the AI does that human players should not and never do.
But, as I can see in G/COTM, there has to be a compromise what is allowed. I can see that breaking deals is alright, even to the extent of getting cities in a peace deal an redeclaring straight away.
Negative gpt even during anarchy is highly exploitive IMHO.

But, you would not be able to detect that, same goes for example using mapview to see where crucial resources are located.

 

[Renata]

Not that ability to detect the breaking of a particular rule should have anything to do with whether that rule should exist.

And not that I'd rule out the ability of ainwood and AlanH to tease out *anything* from save files -- have you seen what CivAssist II can do? And that's just the spoiler-safe options ...

Renata