New Exploit?

[Lord Parkin]

I had actually suspected this exploit was possible a couple of weeks ago (from a different game), but hadn't had the chance to check it out. I can probably provide quite a few answers about things.

Personally, I believe the fairest way to go is for all teams to ignore all events that are negative to them. That way, everyone's playing on an even playing field, with no possible accusations of secret advantages being taken.

What interesting is how did he cancel out of the game?

You can't click the menu when the event is up. There is no way to do it.

If it is a city improvement you can examine the city. But when you go back out of the city, you have to chose an option to properly exit the game.

So he would of had to ALT-TAB out of the game then kill his game...But if he did it might of messed up the server. (edit: Fyi in this case server is still up)

So in this case an improper exit of the game would of had of been used.

I should point out that if you run the game in a window (as I do), then you can just exit the game by pressing "X". Perhaps it's an improper exit, but it's possible.

Anything but #2 gets impossible to enforce equally.

I agree 100% with this. Going with option #2 (essentially removing events that are negative for teams that encounter them) is the fairest and best way to balance things. This way there will be no worries about whether someone "secretly" exits the game when their team gets a bad event.

Anyone know for sure that a reload won't recreate the event?

A reload to the start of the turn will certainly recreate all events as they appeared previously.

I think it depends; do we know for sure that we can ignore events that have no choices, ie barb uprising? I think so, but I'm not 100% certain.

Yes, I'm practically certain that you can ignore barb uprising events (because the barbs don't appear until you click the button, from memory).

If we can ignore all events, then I think we should ignore all events. [...]

I think 2 is the way to go, it's definately the fairest, and the quickest.

Absolutely agreed.

Speaking for myself, not my team (we haven't had enough discussion on this either btw, so if it comes to a vote Cav may be a while...) I would think that #1 is the best. Followed by #3, with 2 being one of the worst possibilities. [...]

The problem I have with 2 is that it just becomes imbalancing or unfair anyway. This is particularly so if some events couldn't be cancelled or reloading doesn't bring up another event. Also, events that help one team can often hurt another - what do we do if a team gets, say, espionage on their neighbors, or the free golden age when at war (these are negative from another team's perspective...). In fact almost all events may be seen in this light (like free beakers towards tech) but some are certainly unfair. I never liked events in the first place but trying to only allow positive ones now seems to add unnecessary complication and luck.

However, if we all agree that events that are negative for the team that encounters them can be ignored, then the playing field is leveled. Each team has an equally likely chance of getting an event that is "good" for them and "bad" for others, so there is no fairness issue. There is only a fairness issue if some teams are taking the negative events and others are secretly ignoring them.

However I think we need to learn a lot more about the actual mechanics behind this - does it only happen at end turn (and thus only for MS/Kaz)?

It will happen when the first player logs into the game on a new turn.

Does reloading get a new event or none at all...?

Reloading from the start of the turn will renew the exact same event.

Much as my instincts are to agree with Earthling, I think it just isn't going to work for the worst events. If someone logs in and is confronted with a barbarian uprising message, the temptation is going to be overwhelming to just quietly quit the game with no one the wiser. And thus the teams with the most scrupulously honest players get the shaft compared to everyone else.

But I want to know more first. Does this only work for events that have a choice involved, or for all events?

All events, I'm pretty certain.

Is reloading even a possibility -- would it bring back MS's choice from last turn, for instance?

Yes, it would.

 

[topas]

Why didn't raise this issue earlier... it's already our second bad event this game

 

[Lord Parkin]

Why didn't raise this issue earlier... it's already our second bad event this game

Nobody realised it was an exploit until now, unfortunately.

 

[topas]

I know ... was more a rhetorical question, than to be taken seriously

The first time we accepted the bad event after a discussion without ending the game before. (We had to adopt some plans accordingly...)

 

[donsig]

A reload to the start of the turn will certainly recreate all events as they appeared previously.

Reloading from the start of the turn will renew the exact same event.

And reloading to the start of a turn means all teams have to replay the turn?

 

[Memphus]

And reloading to the start of a turn means all teams have to replay the turn?

yes which is why option #2 (there is no such thing a a negative RE going forward from your team's perpective) is the only way to keep the game moving. No a Big deal to replay a turn now, but ocne wars break out and you are moving 30-40 untis a turns, an exact reporduction is almost impossible.

 

[Earthling]

I'd still like to advocate for no events, period - everyone must cancel everything. There's too many events out there where one civ can affect another - like can you cancel partisans when you raze a city...? How about the population boosts when you war/peace, or quests to take resources - is this going to happen with phony wars...? There's a significant number of events that just mess with an opponents cities/buildings/improvements/espionage. Yes, the teams voted for events, but I assume everyone was aware that bad events existed - they didn't vote for just good bonuses. This also is just as easy to check in the logs because it's obvious if a team doesn't cancel an event.

Although, one final thing, anyone know for sure how the game was "cancelled" and if this could freeze up the game? I'm very hesitant to ctl-alt-del the game myself (obviously not just to test this). However if we get significant disconnects every time due to an event that seems to be a large downside...anyone know more about this?

*All opinions here are my own, not those of Os Cavaleiros.

 

[Kaleb]

Even if the event can be recreated I don't think we need to bother with a reload in this case. But it will be useful to know for future ref.

 

[Indiansmoke]

I'd still like to advocate for no events, period - everyone must cancel everything. There's too many events out there where one civ can affect another - like can you cancel partisans when you raze a city...? How about the population boosts when you war/peace, or quests to take resources - is this going to happen with phony wars...? There's a significant number of events that just mess with an opponents cities/buildings/improvements/espionage. Yes, the teams voted for events, but I assume everyone was aware that bad events existed - they didn't vote for just good bonuses. This also is just as easy to check in the logs because it's obvious if a team doesn't cancel an event.

Although, one final thing, anyone know for sure how the game was "cancelled" and if this could freeze up the game? I'm very hesitant to ctl-alt-del the game myself (obviously not just to test this). However if we get significant disconnects every time due to an event that seems to be a large downside...anyone know more about this?

*All opinions here are my own, not those of Os Cavaleiros.

I am still surpised ctl alt deleting the game worked to make event disapear...still not convinced it will work every time...while I am convinced it will cause server hanging a few times.

I suggested we let this work on good sportsmanship and trust...thus no using the cheat....but it seems people think that we are not capable of that.

In this case it will have to be that teams chose themselves which events to ditch and which not.

 

[DaveShack]

I didn't have a chance to try the recreate, had to go to bed early. Still planning to try it, unless Lord Parkin's info is substantial enough.

 

[donsig]

I think Lord Parkin's information makes sense. And it certainly would be tiresome replaying entire turns. We might as well just allow teams to ignore negative events as has been suggested.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I'd still like to advocate for no events, period - everyone must cancel everything. There's too many events out there where one civ can affect another - like can you cancel partisans when you raze a city...? How about the population boosts when you war/peace, or quests to take resources - is this going to happen with phony wars...? There's a significant number of events that just mess with an opponents cities/buildings/improvements/espionage. Yes, the teams voted for events, but I assume everyone was aware that bad events existed - they didn't vote for just good bonuses. This also is just as easy to check in the logs because it's obvious if a team doesn't cancel an event.

No, teams didn't vote for just good bonuses. But your solution is an idealistic one: you can't rely on EVERY player to ignore EVERY event that is really good for their team. The solution of ignoring only events that are bad for the team that encounters them works, because it goes with human psychology: people will WANT to ignore bad events and keep good events, so this way you're just enforcing what people would choose to do anyway. Enforcing a rule that goes against human psychology will encourage some people to break it at times. This way we make sure the playing field is even.

Yes, it would be better to have a fix for this bug and have both bad and good events, but as that's not possible right now, we should go with the rule that makes the most sense and requires little (or no) enforcing.

Although, one final thing, anyone know for sure how the game was "cancelled" and if this could freeze up the game? I'm very hesitant to ctl-alt-del the game myself (obviously not just to test this). However if we get significant disconnects every time due to an event that seems to be a large downside...anyone know more about this?

Exiting the game by Ctrl-Alt-Del, clicking "X" when the game is run in a window, pulling out the network cable, turning off or resetting the computer, or any other similar method, will work. The server will not always disconnect every time the game is not exited "properly", but it greatly increases the chance of this happening, hence why we tell people not to do this.

 

[General_W]

For what it's worth, it's my personal opinion that the Memphus/Lord Parkin solution is a good one.

I think every team should feel free to ignore any events they perceive as negative to them.
I've had mostly good experiences with the honor of CFC'ers - but anything other than this solution is just asking for trouble, imo.
Whenever possible, we should avoid incentivising bad behavior / punishing good behavior.

My 2 cents anyway.

 

[Memphus]

think of the added speculation / doubt that would be cast if we didn't do it that way:

(i'll use for this one)

I play the turn.
Negative event shows up (tile improvement destroyed or pay the )

So my choices are:
A. Being an honest player
1. to pay the and it forces us to stop our and tech discovery 1 turn short
2. Lose a critical improvement or road.

B. Be Dishonest and kill the game, and jump back in.

After I play the game gets hung up (indepent of the choice i make above)

all other teams knowing this exploit, will see me log in 2 times on the same turn and conclude that I fannagled my way around a negative event.

(fyi i don't have civstats but i am sure i log in TONS on our turn, before and after)

So either way if we don't go with option #2 there will be dissent and fingerpointing, possibly even war , even if players do attempt to play honestly.

Are we at a point where we create a poll in the UN and each team votes? 1, 2 or 3?

 

[donsig]

Are we at a point where we create a poll in the UN and each team votes? 1, 2 or 3?

Not sure about other teams but there hasn't been a peep of discussion about this in the Kazakhstan team thread. I imagine they only way it will get discussed is if a vote is called for. (Well, maybe an event would do that.) Just trying to point out that teams might still need some time to decide how to vote once a UN vote is called.

 

[Memphus]

for sure so a poll with 1 week timeline or somethign should give all teams tiem to discuss it?

 

[Lord Parkin]

Yeah, that would be fine. I've just brought up the topic for discussion in the Saturn forums, so we'll have an official opinion in the next few days.

 

[Earthling]

we should go with the rule that makes the most sense and requires little (or no) enforcing.

Well, I was under the impression that my proposed solution (#4, for what it's worth) is in fact just as easy to enforce - because I thought that all events that occur give a notification to the other teams (assuming you have contact with them I suppose, but it can't be that much longer). I'm still a bit worried about exiting the game for negative events - could cause a lot of crashes- but then in practice exiting the game for all events isn't much different from this. The issue between solutions "2" and "4" is then more about fairness/balance than technical issues/enforcing in my eyes, and I'm personally not happy with events only giving good effects (for the receiving team, at that). Since fewer total events will be allowed to take place the impact of one of the particularly imbalanced ones could have even greater effect (and there's still a couple of things that hardly border on "event" so much as "potential feature in game balance" like partisans out of razed cities or slave revolts)...But of course I support a vote of the teams on the issue in the end.

 

[donsig]

I've started a discussion in the Kazakhstan team forum so we can get our vote ready. We're considering Memphus's three options, the fourth proposed by Earthling and, who knows, maybe some other one we come up with.

I am leaning towards #2 myself but think if we go that way then we should disallow reloads for any events. We should bear in mind that positive events can have choices, too, and if it's not the turn player that logs on first then that person has to make the choice or fore go the positive event by exiting out the same way as if it were a negative event.

 

[Diamondeye]

... Is the solution "honest players will not quit the game to avoid an event" absolutely impossible? I mean, surely, no team intends to cheat in any way, and... afaik, 4 teams voted for events.