Planning cIV BTS MTDG III

[Caledorn]

It's foolish to allow exploitative mechanics in a game like this. I would hope that we would all be here to try to test our collective skill and wit across an epic game of Civ4... not to test who can abuse a demonstrably broken mechanic the most effectively.

I'm not defending this rule, as I am personally ambivalent to the matter at hand.

But I don't see what the real problem is here, as long as all the teams are on equal footing here. An exploit is only an exploit if it is abused by someone when no-one else knows about it. In this case every single player is aware of this, so I don't see what the fuss is about?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[2metraninja]

This is just a possibility. I can see other possible flow of events:

T100: Spy swaps civics in your empire, 5 turn wait imposed before you can do anything.
T101: Can't switch back, 4 turns to go
T102: Can't switch back, 3 turns to go
T103: Can't switch back, 2 turns to go
T104: Can't switch back, 1 turn to go
T105: You switch to your original civics, 5 turn wait supposedly imposed. Later that turn, a spy swaps your civics, ignoring the 5 turn wait. New 5 turn wait imposed.
T106: Can't switch back, 4 turns to go
T107: Can't switch back, 3 turns to go
T108: Can't switch back, 2 turns to go
T109: Can't switch back, 1 turn to go
T110: You switch back. Later that turn, a spy swaps your civics, ignoring the 5 turn wait. New 5 turn wait imposed.
T111: You are hit by 30 knights and drawn in an eternal war with your angry neighbor who you was so fond of switching to the civics you run (remember that switching can be made only to civics you currently run). Of course you lose any chance of winning the game because the other team have vendetta with you. Other neighbors also join this angry neighbor in attacking you, as they prefer to have no neighbor, who can mess with their civics.

Well played, LP

 

[2metraninja]

Or third possible scenario:

T100: Spy swaps civic in your empire, 5 turn wait imposed before you can do anything.
T101: Can't switch back, 4 turns to go
T102: Can't switch back, 3 turns to go
T103: Can't switch back, 2 turns to go
T104: Can't switch back, 1 turn to go
T105: You switch to your original civic, 5 turn wait supposedly imposed. Later that turn YOU switch the other nation to your civic, happy revolting back just to be able to mess with my civics again.

 

[2metraninja]

Not to mention to me it seems you never actually tried this so fiercely anathematized CSM, because you talk of switching "civicS" where you can try to switch only 1 mission at a time. Another clue is that you fear a minion nation messing with powerful nation (this also shows that you of course put your own team in the "powerful" position and the other teams in the "minor" group which is not nice by itself, but anyway), where to actually run successfully CSMs, you need to be way ahead in economics/espionage. Have you ever tried to switch major nation while being a minor? You might be surprised by the "0% chance" actual probability

 

[azzaman333]

Not to mention to me it seems you never actually tried this so fiercely anathematized CSM, because you talk of switching "civicS" where you can try to switch only 1 mission at a time. Another clue is that you fear a minion nation messing with powerful nation (this also shows that you of course put your own team in the "powerful" position and the other teams in the "minor" group which is not nice by itself, but anyway), where to actually run successfully CSMs, you need to be way ahead in economics/espionage. Have you ever tried to switch major nation while being a minor? You might be surprised by the "0% chance" actual probability

I have. It cost less EPs to switch a civ 10 times bigger than mine into crap civics than it did to even steal Currency. For the cost of a few hundred EPs to switch them out of Bureaucracy, it was probably close to 1000 beakers lost, plus hammers, plus anarchy to switch back into Bureaucracy.

It pretty much means we'll end up with every civ running the same type of economy, with the same civics, because if you dare to be different you'll just be trolled to death by other civs.

 

[2metraninja]

Yes, you can switch a nation once. But then? If I am allowed periphrases the popular saying "Switch me once, shame on you, switch me twice, shame on me.

 

[mzprox]

Or third possible scenario:

T100: Spy swaps civic in your empire, 5 turn wait imposed before you can do anything.
T101: Can't switch back, 4 turns to go
T102: Can't switch back, 3 turns to go
T103: Can't switch back, 2 turns to go
T104: Can't switch back, 1 turn to go
T105: You switch to your original civic, 5 turn wait supposedly imposed. Later that turn YOU switch the other nation to your civic, happy revolting back just to be able to mess with my civics again.

This is not working if they do an other civic swaps on you before you can switch back (in idfferent category ofc). A spiritual civ can keep you from revolution for ever.

These missions are simply too cheap compared to the damage they can do. swiching you a remote religion so 90% of your cities lose happiness and religion bonus? etc.

Also there is a big exploit if you ask a friend to do "friendly swaps" on you etc. I think those who don't see the problem just haven't encountered it, because they haven't palyed against who would use this tactic (extensively).

 

[nabaxo]

However, those that are arguing for it have been on the giving end.

 

[SevenSpirits]

But I don't see what the real problem is here, as long as all the teams are on equal footing here. An exploit is only an exploit if it is abused by someone when no-one else knows about it. In this case every single player is aware of this, so I don't see what the fuss is about?

Let me try to apply this logic to other exploits.

1) In a sequential pitboss or pbem, when you're making 100gpt and have currency, offer your ally 100gpt for free. Then do it a hundred more times. On their turn they accept all the offers and end turn, gaining 10,000 gold. On your turn you are now making -10000gpt but you simply declare war on them cancelling the deal. Now they give you 5000 gold and you're both rich. But it's OK! Everyone does it! Everyone grabs an ally and gets infinite gold. Where's the problem? The problem is that now you're playing civ-with-infinite-gold-available whereas you really wanted to be playing civ.

2) Guess what? You can get as many free techs as you want! Just build the Oracle, click both mouse buttons at once and you'll keep getting more. It's fine, because everyone knows this is possible, we are all on the same footing. What's the problem? Well, we are playing race-for-the-Oracle now, not civ. I wanted to play civ!

Same situation here. Civic switching mission means we are playing civ-where-you-realistically-have-to-use-the-same-civics-as-everyone-else. It destroys a large amount of strategy related to use of civics and the only thing it adds is a single tactic that's as subtle as carpet bombing.

 

[2metraninja]

Using CSM offensively is not remotely close to the examples you give. Not gonna waste my time explaining why, as I think you are well aware of this

 

[azzaman333]

Yes, you can switch a nation once. But then? If I am allowed periphrases the popular saying "Switch me once, shame on you, switch me twice, shame on me.

While we're at it, lets allow the exploit that allows you to get a crapload of techs from Oracle/Liberalism as well. If you only do abuse the Oracle for extra techs and not Liberalism, it's ok, right?

Using CSM offensively is not remotely close to the examples you give. Not gonna waste my time explaining why, as I think you are well aware of this

Is the difference that you're planning on abusing the civic switching missions, but not the Oracle exploit or the infinite gold exploit?

 

[SevenSpirits]

Using CSM offensively is not remotely close to the examples you give. Not gonna waste my time explaining why, as I think you are well aware of this

Did you not notice I was responding to Caledorn saying "An exploit is only an exploit if it is abused by someone when no-one else knows about it"? Did I say somewhere that CSM abuse is equivalent to infinite tech abuse? I don't think I did. All I did was refute one specific claim in one specific post. Please don't read random things into my posts and then say you won't waste your time with them. At least save your disdain for what I actually wrote.

In case you want a quick summary of it, I was arguing against "An exploit is only an exploit if it is abused by someone when no-one else knows about it." My claim was "It is possible for an exploit that everyone knows about equally to have a detrimental effect on the game. [See my post for some very clearcut examples.]" I also suggested that allowing CSM would reduce strategic diversity in regards to civics, but I didn't provide any evidence for this, so if it's not obvious to you, and you are curious, you could ask me to explain. Or you could try to convince me I'm wrong. Or nothing! All perfectly reasonable responses.

 

[2metraninja]

Originally Posted by 2metraninja View Post
Yes, you can switch a nation once. But then? If I am allowed periphrases the popular saying "Switch me once, shame on you, switch me twice, shame on me.

While we're at it, lets allow the exploit that allows you to get a crapload of techs from Oracle/Liberalism as well. If you only do abuse the Oracle for extra techs and not Liberalism, it's ok, right?

No, I think you dont understood the metaphor. This means that if you switch one team it is OK, but if he allows you to switch him again before running counter-espionage, declaring you a war, switching you to his civics, etc, then it is his own problem.

Originally Posted by 2metraninja View Post
Using CSM offensively is not remotely close to the examples you give. Not gonna waste my time explaining why, as I think you are well aware of this

Is the difference that you're planning on abusing the civic switching missions, but not the Oracle exploit or the infinite gold exploit? No, not this. I will explain it especially for you, there are few key differences:

1. The infinite bug thing was never voted and approved with majority of the teams votes.
2. The Infinite gold bug requires 2 teams to BENEFIT each-other, where CSM is about 2 teams to HURT each-other (one by switching out of his desired civics, the other by using GNP to produce espionage, sending spies, losing them, potentially getting the diplomatic hit of being hated by other nations, potentially being declared war to itself, etc. Thus they are fundamentally different in purpose and idea.
3. Against the Infinite gold bug you have no defense, where there are things you can do to make it harder for the potential CSM wannabe.
4. CSM can be run multiple times by anyone willing to take the risks of running them, where Oracle and Liberalism bugs can be used only once by one (respectively two) team/s.

Enough?

 

[2metraninja]

Did you not notice I was responding to Caledorn saying "An exploit is only an exploit if it is abused by someone when no-one else knows about it"? Did I say somewhere that CSM abuse is equivalent to infinite tech abuse? I don't think I did. All I did was refute one specific claim in one specific post. Please don't read random things into my posts and then say you won't waste your time with them. At least save your disdain for what I actually wrote.

In case you want a quick summary of it, I was arguing against "An exploit is only an exploit if it is abused by someone when no-one else knows about it." My claim was "It is possible for an exploit that everyone knows about equally to have a detrimental effect on the game. [See my post for some very clearcut examples.]" I also suggested that allowing CSM would reduce strategic diversity in regards to civics, but I didn't provide any evidence for this, so if it's not obvious to you, and you are curious, you could ask me to explain. Or you could try to convince me I'm wrong. Or nothing! All perfectly reasonable responses.

Sorry 7S, it was so obvious to me that you must know the difference, that I though there is something I am missing and did not wanted to go in depths and it turned out I did missed you are not answering to me

Cheers, mate.

 

[SevenSpirits]

Sorry 7S, it was so obvious to me that you must know the difference, that I though there is something I am missing and did not wanted to go in depths and it turned out I did missed you are not answering to me

Cheers, mate.

Cheers.

I will make a friendly bet with you that allowing CSM will drasticaly reduce viable civic options in this game from renaissance on. If I'm right then maybe next time we can disallow this mission so specialist or workshop economies have a chance.

 

[azzaman333]

No, I think you dont understood the metaphor. This means that if you switch one team it is OK, but if he allows you to switch him again before running counter-espionage, declaring you a war, switching you to his civics, etc, then it is his own problem.

You can't prevent your civics being switched short of killing every other civ. The best you can do is make it slightly less favourable for your rivals to do so. It's still very easy for your rival to change your civics, and extremely favourable for them to do so if you're doing anything like trying to make the most of your land/civics/religion/whatever.

Is the difference that you're planning on abusing the civic switching missions, but not the Oracle exploit or the infinite gold exploit? No, not this. I will explain it especially for you, there are few key differences:

1. The infinite bug thing was never voted and approved with majority of the teams votes.

I see no votes opposing infinite gold? Therefore, everyone implicitly approves of its use, right?

2. The Infinite gold bug requires 2 teams to BENEFIT each-other, where CSM is about 2 teams to HURT each-other (one by switching out of his desired civics, the other by using GNP to produce espionage, sending spies, losing them, potentially getting the diplomatic hit of being hated by other nations, potentially being declared war to itself, etc. Thus they are fundamentally different in purpose and idea.

Every action that benefits or hurts a team will either directly or indirectly hurt a number of other teams. There is no real difference in practice.

3. Against the Infinite gold bug you have no defense, where there are things you can do to make it harder for the potential CSM wannabe.

At best, you can slightly reduce the impact of the CSM and make it slightly more difficult to perform. Eventually, the game degrades into everyone stuck in Barbarism/Tribalism/Paganism etc because the moment you switch out, you get struck back down.

4. CSM can be run multiple times by anyone willing to take the risks of running them, where Oracle and Liberalism bugs can be used only once by one (respectively two) team/s.

Enough?

So, because the CSM can be abused more frequently by everyone, it's ok?

 

[2metraninja]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2metraninja View Post
No, I think you dont understood the metaphor. This means that if you switch one team it is OK, but if he allows you to switch him again before running counter-espionage, declaring you a war, switching you to his civics, etc, then it is his own problem.

You can't prevent your civics being switched short of killing every other civ. The best you can do is make it slightly less favourable for your rivals to do so. It's still very easy for your rival to change your civics, and extremely favourable for them to do so if you're doing anything like trying to make the most of your land/civics/religion/whatever.

OK, there is no thing you can do to FULLY prevent someone using CMS on you. But there are many things you can do to make it hard and undesired to any wannabe. This is the point. There are many things which you cant make impossible, but still you try to do them hard enough, that those just give up and you are safe. Just like your front door can be breached trough, but you still lock it, right? Or you can be stabbed in the back on the street and no police can save you, but you still pay taxes to feed the government/police, right?

Quote:
Is the difference that you're planning on abusing the civic switching missions, but not the Oracle exploit or the infinite gold exploit? No, not this. I will explain it especially for you, there are few key differences:

1. The infinite bug thing was never voted and approved with majority of the teams votes.
I see no votes opposing infinite gold? Therefore, everyone implicitly approves of its use, right?

So it is at best undiscused exploit renounced by the common sense, where full espionage (CSM included) was put as a game setting and voted ON.

Quote:
2. The Infinite gold bug requires 2 teams to BENEFIT each-other, where CSM is about 2 teams to HURT each-other (one by switching out of his desired civics, the other by using GNP to produce espionage, sending spies, losing them, potentially getting the diplomatic hit of being hated by other nations, potentially being declared war to itself, etc. Thus they are fundamentally different in purpose and idea.
Every action that benefits or hurts a team will either directly or indirectly hurt a number of other teams. There is no real difference in practice.

This is true if this is in duel. But in the current case, there is distinctive difference in the two approaches. If there are 9 competitors and all have to run 100 meters sprint, you, choosing to hold back by hands one or two of your competitors (using espionage for CSMs) will not win you the race. It will just make it easier for the other competitors. While if you take steroids (taking infinite techs from Oracle) it will benefit only you and help you win the race or if you push with your super-powers from steroids 1 or two runners to move them forward (infinite gold bug) this will benefit only you and your friends, where it will hurt the other's chances of winning. Fair enough?

Quote:
3. Against the Infinite gold bug you have no defense, where there are things you can do to make it harder for the potential CSM wannabe.
At best, you can slightly reduce the impact of the CSM and make it slightly more difficult to perform. Eventually, the game degrades into everyone stuck in Barbarism/Tribalism/Paganism etc because the moment you switch out, you get struck back down.

The point stays - you can do a lot of things to prevent CSM, where you cant do a thing about someone exploiting Oracle or infinite gold.

Quote:
4. CSM can be run multiple times by anyone willing to take the risks of running them, where Oracle and Liberalism bugs can be used only once by one (respectively two) team/s.

Enough?
So, because the CSM can be abused more frequently by everyone, it's ok?

In theory, yes. If only one have a gun and fights against 8 other, then this is giving him unfair advantage. If there are 9 guys armed with guns and one decides to use this gun, then yes, it will be messy, but still it depends on skills, and reaction (yeah, on luck too) who lives and who dies. QUite a difference, right?

 

[azzaman333]

OK, there is no thing you can do to FULLY prevent someone using CMS on you. But there are many things you can do to make it hard and undesired to any wannabe. This is the point. There are many things which you cant make impossible, but still you try to do them hard enough, that those just give up and you are safe. Just like your front door can be breached trough, but you still lock it, right? Or you can be stabbed in the back on the street and no police can save you, but you still pay taxes to feed the government/police, right?

You can make it more difficult, yes. You cannot make it undesirable, because it's so obscenely powerful compared to the costs.

So it is at best undiscused exploit renounced by the common sense, where full espionage (CSM included) was put as a game setting and voted ON.

Because people don't understand the consequences of leaving it on. No one who knows how cost effective it is would choose to play with CSM allowed.

This is true if this is in duel. But in the current case, there is distinctive difference in the two approaches. If there are 9 competitors and all have to run 100 meters sprint, you, choosing to hold back by hands one or two of your competitors (using espionage for CSMs) will not win you the race. It will just make it easier for the other competitors. While if you take steroids (taking infinite techs from Oracle) it will benefit only you and help you win the race or if you push with your super-powers from steroids 1 or two runners to move them forward (infinite gold bug) this will benefit only you and your friends, where it will hurt the other's chances of winning. Fair enough?

The point stays - you can do a lot of things to prevent CSM, where you cant do a thing about someone exploiting Oracle or infinite gold.

Here is a very realistic and likely scenario in civ terms. Azza is a terrible player. He quickly falls behind the other civs. Azza decides that he doesn't like the colour of Team CFC's civ, so he spends the rest of the game staying in the default civics and switching Team CFC into them. Azza refuses to listen to any diplomacy, he just wants to wreck Team CFC's game because he can, so diplomacy won't work. Team CFC can attack Azza, but he has a large army and crap land, so they lose out either way. Team CFC can try to convince Team A, B and C to attack Azza, but since Azza has a large defensive army, crap land, and is wrecking Team CFC's economy, they leave him be. Team CFC's game is completely destroyed by the acts of one insane player, which they can do nothing about. Team CFC rage quits.

In such a scenario, the only possible move CFC can make is to hold a similar vendetta against another team, say Team A. Team A then messes up Team B, and Team B messes up Team C.

In theory, yes. If only one have a gun and fights against 8 other, then this is giving him unfair advantage. If there are 9 guys armed with guns and one decides to use this gun, then yes, it will be messy, but still it depends on skills, and reaction (yeah, on luck too) who lives and who dies. QUite a difference, right?

So, based on your analogy, you want to turn it from a game of strategy into a predominately luck based clustertruck, and hope that your neighbours don't decide they want to completely destroy your game. Sounds fun, count me in.

 

[2metraninja]

So, based on your analogy, you want to turn it from a game of strategy into a predominately luck based clustertruck, and hope that your neighbours don't decide they want to completely destroy your game. Sounds fun, count me in.

In reality, the things I really want include world peace, inventing cure for cancer, 1 000 000 dollars for me and other things in this line

However, my analogy about CSM being strong weapon, but accessible to everyone, as opposed to the Oracle multiple techs bug suggests only that everyone have this supposedly overly strong weapon. Will anyone use it and how all this will end is entirely in the sphere of wild guesses.

 

[azzaman333]

In reality, the things I really want include world peace, inventing cure for cancer, 1 000 000 dollars for me and other things in this line

However, my analogy about CSM being strong weapon, but accessible to everyone, as opposed to the Oracle multiple techs bug suggests only that everyone have this supposedly overly strong weapon. Will anyone use it and how all this will end is entirely in the sphere of wild guesses.

The funny thing is, your arguments could probably just as easily be used to argue for allowing double moves. After all, in theory everyone can use the powerful tool of a double move. Why not allow them too?