Selling "lost cause" cities? Good idea?

^Hey, lighten up! Anyway, I stand by that post, but agree you have a point, too. I don't mind that the mechanic gets tossed to provide a timely challenge, but there's been a lot of discussion here about whether or not certain moves are exploits, and I was addressing that. I was pointing out that agreements are meaningless from the devs' pov. Now whether or not you think such a mechanic is a dev trick or not is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I think DoFs are a honey trap that don't even offer honey.
 
No, it doesn't fail to take that into account. My position flagrantly ignores the "exploit" nonsense term entirely. And make no mistake; it IS complete nonsense.


I think you just dislike the word 'exploit'. The game specific 'exploit' describes something that actually exists - unforeseen possibilities that detract from the quality of the game to the point that players prefer not to use them (some of them are eventually patched out due to players identifying them). If you would prefer to come up with a new term to represent this concept then I would be happy to use it.


That is not sufficient basis. War itself is hugely beneficial to the player.

Wrong.


The statement of mine you are refuting wasn't provided on it's own to support my point of view, it was one part of a two part claim - that it is hugely beneficial to the player and comes at no cost. Pointing out that the first part is insufficient, as if it was forwarded as an argument on its own, gets you nowhere and then making a plain assertion that the second part is false is equally vacuous. You've claimed there is a cost to this tactic.... I'm still waiting.

Your side of the argument also has to answer to the fact that the AI can, and HAS, done this even to experienced players...

This I do think poses a problem, one which would be solved if there was a system for trust evaluations that applied equally to an AI dealing with a human player and another AI. So if an AI civ did this, it would come also at a cost to their trading reputation with other AI civs. That is one reason why this is my preferred solution.



Literally no cost? I'm not going to grace that assertion with a response. This tactic has costs. I urge players who cry "exploit" at everything ASAP to take a look at them and see what they are, instead of me spelling them out again. It is not "literally" no cost; that is flagrantly wrong. One might feel the costs are too minimal, but then again that is up for debate...but I'm not even going to bother with debate about this tactic until both sides are aware of how it works.

By the way, a war declaration causes a permanent hit with every civ that witnesses it...

This is a revealing statement and shows that what you think you are defending isn't what you actually should be.

The problem with this is you are taking the action that you're trying to defend as being 'the tactic of declaring war and trading for a bulk payment before you do so' and then you're trying to claim that this tactic surely has costs as you receive a negative diplo hit with all the other civs for this DoW, and other costs associated with war. It is not the act of declaring war we are debating, it is the specific and isolated action of the pre-war trade that is up for analysis. Absolutely anything to do with the effects of the war itself doesn't support your view at all, you need to demonstrate that there is a cost involved with the heist. That is if you still claim that this is some sort of 'strategic choice'.



IMO the #1 reason deity seems "easier" in civ V than previous installations is 1UPT. Even the best game AIs have been limited at the tactical level over the years; and civ V's AI isn't the best. If you can even remotely keep up with the AI you can eventually best its ridiculous #'s because it can't bring them all to bear at once. This contrasts strongly from the civ IV AI which, while equally idiotic, could very realistically put 100 units at your doorstep.

Yes, no need to make it even easier.

The argument in favour of disallowing certain tactics :)pexploits:p) like trade/pillage cycle, selling of cities you're about to lose or the trading before DoW needs to be nothing more universal of a conclusion than that the player arguing so believes it makes for a better game if they are banned. That is not an affirmation of a truth statement supported by some kind of devastating logical argument. It is merely a collection of opinions. In a community like this playing and discussing the game we have the opportunity to air our views and debate gameplay rules, and when there arrives some sort of an agreement then the tactic is avoided.

We have threads like this to discuss if such a general agreement exists, it is not a statistical certainty, there is no hard data as you pointed out. It is my opinion that Civ 5 is a better game if you cannot trade before war without negative consequences, that will increase depending on how much you gained from the broken deal, and if you cannot sell a city to a third party that an enemy is about to take from you without that enemy seeing it as a DoW by the third party. I've advanced my arguments for thinking so. You may disagree with some or all of those points. But demanding repeatedly 'Show me the proof!' adds nothing to the discussion.

These aren't the kinds of claims that can be proven, as such. They are only opinions about what makes for a better game, and if the community sides largely to one view then it becomes 'our' accepted form of the game. You need to focus on providing actual arguments in favour of why you think allowing these tactics makes for a better game and less on unrealistic and unfair demands placing a burden of absolute proof on those who hold the contrary opinion.
 
Please enlighten me to where the cost lies.

:sad: If you insist...but first to cut an analogy:

Scenario 1. The player declares war and invades.
Scenario 2. The player trades 100 gpt and all resources for 3000 gold, declares war and invades.

Scenario 1. You kill an AI using warriors and archers, but mismanage them and lose 4 units.
Scenario 2. You kill an AI using warriors and archers, but lose 0 units.

What is the cost to the guy in scenario 2? What strategic tradeoff was made?

I hope you can see what I did there ;).

Now, the cost of selling a resource + declaring:

1. You have to be capable of reasonably defending yourself post declaration at a minimum. If fleecing gold gets you killed, it wasn't worth it :rolleyes:
2. Every time you declare war on anybody, each civ that knows about it gives you a permanent relations hit, limiting the # of times you can pull this tactic.

You seem to be asserting that doing the intelligent thing within the rules to maximize ROI of an action is fundamentally exploitative because it gives a lower return than not doing that action; however that is not an effective argument because basic gameplay (including gameplay you readily accept) follows that precise pattern. Regardless, fleecing gold then declaring nevertheless has a cost...

As you've yet to provided a quantitative analysis on what each action does to increase win % chances, I'll take your last comment as raw speculation at best :goodjob:.

My main question is: why does Firaxis release a game that's obviously a little faulty to say the least? Makes me wonder if they don't employ a few civ vets who have played the different versions since 1991. I mean, how much time would it take a handful of deity players from civfanatics to build the Oxford University a few times?

Do try to imagine the state the game was in BEFORE release for a moment...

I think you just dislike the word 'exploit'. The game specific 'exploit' describes something that actually exists - unforeseen possibilities that detract from the quality of the game to the point that players prefer not to use them (some of them are eventually patched out due to players identifying them). If you would prefer to come up with a new term to represent this concept then I would be happy to use it.

In essence, you're calling an exploit as "something that is too good". There is a *fundamental* problem with arguing against me in this way:

1. In non-competitive scenarios, I've already said to set whatever limitations make the game as fun as possible (not that anyone needs permission). If something makes the game too easy for someone, they don't have to do it.
2. In competitive scenarios, "exploit" terminology requires a burden of proof that goes beyond how a few people feel; you need quantifiable evidence that a tactic is overpowered to the point of being over-centralizing. Of course, competitive game situations in civ V are limited in practice anyway...
3. Competitive players would self-police this "exploit" (IE nobody in their right mind would make these kinds of trades in a competitive MP setting), making it an exploit of somebody's bad play as opposed to an actual overpowering tactic...the AI's bad play.

Following this logic, we're not identifying an exploit per your definition, we're identifying a hole in the AI's gameplay ability. Pull a number for that ticket, because there are lots of them :lol:. You want the AI to play more sensibly? Sign me up for that assertion too. You want to impose fake limitations to give the idiot AI a chance against you? Do as you please.

And perhaps I *am* a tad sore over the "exploit" terminology, because civ V HoF completely ruined itself and broke its own explicitly written standards in the creation and enforcement of its "exploit" clause. Subjective policing, forced random chance elements beyond necessary, and banning tactics that allow the "best possible finish" on the basis of "this will probably be patched out and we want to protect HoF integrity between versions" (only to turn around and create version rankings?). I used to be pretty active in HoF...maybe in part this exploit thing is in general just an extension of my frustration with the shoddy product firaxis put forth and my disappointment in much of the community's reaction to it. Anyway, if I seem a tad annoyed by the term in general, you can sum up my argument briefly:

1. Any "exploit" in the competitive sense is a farce; it all comes down to tactics that a banned vs not on the basis of allowing for deeper gameplay, and banning tactics carries the burden of proof (in theory anyway, don't tell that to SOME people...though things here will never be as silly as competitive pokemon :p)
2. Any "exploit" in the non-competitive sense is strictly arbitrary and unimportant; the goal in this is solely to have fun and even the outcome isn't important -----> why are we worrying about it in this case?!

The statement of mine you are refuting wasn't provided on it's own to support my point of view, it was one part of a two part claim - that it is hugely beneficial to the player and comes at no cost.

All DoW carry a cost. Even city sale carries a cost. You're comparing DoW to doing this vs DoW and not doing this; however that is both unrealistic and unfair without comparing similar things with execution in mind. The whole point of war is to get as much from it as possible. And as I pointed out above, this is strictly speaking not a pure exploit but rather a (fairly grievous) misplay by the AI, and there IS a difference...human players would struggle to deny another from executing a true competitive exploit!

The problem with this is you are taking the action that you're trying to defend as being 'the tactic of declaring war and trading for a bulk payment before you do so' and then you're trying to claim that this tactic surely has costs as you receive a negative diplo hit with all the other civs for this DoW, and other costs associated with war. It is not the act of declaring war we are debating, it is the specific and isolated action of the pre-war trade that is up for analysis. Absolutely anything to do with the effects of the war itself doesn't support your view at all, you need to demonstrate that there is a cost involved with the heist. That is if you still claim that this is some sort of 'strategic choice'.

Your argument claims I'm off here by factoring the DoW itself, but I'm claiming your argument is off instead:

1. It is impossible to separate said tactic from a DoW; if you don't declare, you can't do it! You HAVE to factor that cost.
2. Your argument logically extends to ridiculous things; for example better worker execution will get more improvements than inferior worker execution, at "no cost" when comparing the two attempts at "improve my land" strategy. This micro adds up and you can wind up 100's of hammers or gold ahead; enough to be potentially gamebreaking! In other words, your version of this argument can be extended to a slew of in-game tactics that nobody would consider invalid
3. Yield from "trade than DoW" is not fixed. Indeed, its potential is often lacking on lower difficulties where the AI carries less money. Now what; do you wait until you can get a better (phony) deal? Or do you attack now and forget it/accept a paltry sum? This is a valid strategic choice, and the decision can matter!

The argument in favour of disallowing certain tactics (exploits) like trade/pillage cycle, selling of cities you're about to lose or the trading before DoW needs to be nothing more universal of a conclusion than that the player arguing so believes it makes for a better game if they are banned. That is not an affirmation of a truth statement supported by some kind of devastating logical argument. It is merely a collection of opinions. In a community like this playing and discussing the game we have the opportunity to air our views and debate gameplay rules, and when there arrives some sort of an agreement then the tactic is avoided.

In competitive settings, this agreement needs to be based on evidence using agreed-upon criteria. At this point it is moot, however, for civ V has no legit competitive venue.

These aren't the kinds of claims that can be proven, as such.

Oh yes, they can be...in previous iterations of civ top players like Unconquered Sun even went to the extent of quantifying the returns of bulbing vs academy vs settling and vs other great person types, demonstrating the power of each and the expected returns compared to alternative uses of food! If someone truly knew civ V and ran #'s on the tactics highlighted in this thread, you better believe you could come up with a reasonable estimation of the impact of something like this on the game. You want to ban something in a competitive sense? Do that.

You need to focus on providing actual arguments in favour of why you think allowing these tactics makes for a better game and less on unrealistic and unfair demands placing a burden of absolute proof on those who hold the contrary opinion.

Actually, that's a fairly strong and unreasonable bias. When one is advocating change or accusing something of being wrong/out of place, the burden of proof is always on the accusing side/side looking for the change. You want a competitive game that bans x tactic? You better have a VERY good reasons ready to ban that tactic.

If you want to see me post arguments with this burden of proof is on me (IE advocating significant changes to in-game rules), search other subforums. They exist.

One last thing to note:

Nobody on this thread has yet attempted to post a numerical analysis of the power, consistent availability, difficulty importance, etc of either the OP tactic or the sell + declare tactic. I emphasize this very strongly; as lost in these long discussions is just how little the opposing argument has beyond "my opinion is this". Opinions don't make a game. Its rules, numbers, depth, and balance make the game. If an argument can't put those kinds of things forth it has no weight in matting AT ALL to competitive bans. At least not if competitions can sensibly be described as one.
 
I've been trying to stay out of this, but you finally said something sufficiently inflammatory and baseless to pull me in.

Nobody on this thread has yet attempted to post a numerical analysis of the power, consistent availability, difficulty importance, etc of either the OP tactic or the sell + declare tactic. I emphasize this very strongly; as lost in these long discussions is just how little the opposing argument has beyond "my opinion is this". Opinions don't make a game. Its rules, numbers, depth, and balance make the game. If an argument can't put those kinds of things forth it has no weight in matting AT ALL to competitive bans. At least not if competitions can sensibly be described as one.

There is no ex ante reason to treat the developers' rules as holy. None. The only justification for a rule is purely preference-based - we don't like equilibrium play in the absence of the rule. That's the justification for both the developers' choices as well as house rules.

It's quite clear that you prefer a Wild Wild West setting with no additional restrictions on gameplay. It's also quite clear that you want to unilaterally write the rules of competitive formats to codify that preference, irrespective of what anybody else happens to think. The problem is that there is no basis in fact to justify your position. It's just what you happen to want and believe is "right". No one is obligated to agree with your crusade for restriction-free gameplay; there is no inherent value to that position that makes it superior to any possible alternatives.

The problem with both of the indicated strategies is that they are both totally costless to the player under certain conditions and involve AI decisions that a player would never make. If you planned to DoW the AI anyway, looting its treasury is costless. By advantaging yourself and disadvantaging the AI, this promotes aggressive strategies. Further, no sane human is going to lend the entire contents of the treasury to another player that could DoW without getting crushed.

Selling a doomed city to a third AI is obviously costless to the player. Perhaps more importantly, that city is going to get sold to an AI that can't get any mileage out of it but is too stupid to realize this. Defenseless cities sufficiently discontinuous from your borders are pretty useless; with as war-happy as the AI is in this patch, that city is inordinately likely to fall before enough benefits are derived to cover the purchase price. And don't even get me started on the possibility of reconquering the defenseless city yourself after doubling down by looting the treasury of a distant AI that will never throw units at you.

In short, if you're actually going to do these things it's risk-free. Declaring war and exploiting the AI's tactical ineptitude has risks: you could lose, or at least lose sufficient materiel that in hindsight the war was a bad idea. What's offensive about the tactics under discussion is that when the player is actually going to choose to use them, it's obviously equilibrium behavior and it only works because the AI is really, really dumb.

It doesn't necessarily follow that we have to ban these tactics, but this is exactly the sort of situation where deliberative democracy can work. Putting the arguments on the table and letting the players sort it out is the solution most likely to lead to good results. Insisting that we adopt a restrictive burden of proof is not likely to lead to players that are happy with the final set of house rules adopted.
 
My 0.02 cents:

1) It's a game. It'll likely gone and replaced by another game when people grow tired of it. So ultimately it's not really all that important.

2) In the same venue, it's a game so it's meant for fun. Competetive or non-competitve it is still supposed to be fun.

3) If we have to remove from competetive play anything that the AI does that is stupid, we would have to ban 95% of the diplomacy and combat.

4) The HoF games aren't pure competitions by any means. They allow a lot of semi-ambiguous tactics and re-rolling and whatnot. For those that enjoy them, that's fine. For those who don't, they are free to either petition for changes or participate in other venues. I dislike some of their rules so I play by my own rules.

Overall I'm just trying to say relax to all involved :)
 
There is no ex ante reason to treat the developers' rules as holy. None. The only justification for a rule is purely preference-based - we don't like equilibrium play in the absence of the rule. That's the justification for both the developers' choices as well as house rules.

Oh I don't know, everyone else seems to have a field day treating the game rules as holy when I'm on the change side of the argument, so I figured I'd try my luck with that one :D. Well, at least someone called me out.

That said, the devs DID make the game. Treating in-game tactics as "holy" makes a lot more sense than treating default settings as holy, which is common practice! Could you imagine the usage patterns of luck boxes (IE ruins) if they were off by default instead of on? I don't like it, but people buy this stuff.

It's quite clear that you prefer a Wild Wild West setting with no additional restrictions on gameplay. It's also quite clear that you want to unilaterally write the rules of competitive formats to codify that preference, irrespective of what anybody else happens to think. The problem is that there is no basis in fact to justify your position.

My basis is simple and hard to refute:

1. We're given a game that has rules
2. We seek to compete in said game (if we are not competing this discussion doesn't matter :p)
3. Some players want to impose additional restrictions on what others can do within the framework of competition.

The other side of the argument asserts that those imposing restrictions in #3 don't carry a burden of proof, and that demanding proof is baseless. Ridiculous; you are literally asserting that you want people to compete in a different (though similar) game, and that it's somehow a better one. Show us. Prove it. Otherwise its preference against preference, but in that instance there's not enough basis for actually playing a different game! Compete in the one you're given!

It's just what you happen to want and believe is "right". No one is obligated to agree with your crusade for restriction-free gameplay; there is no inherent value to that position that makes it superior to any possible alternatives.

Well, nobody is obligated to compete or really do ANYTHING when it comes to gaming, are they? That statement makes no sense in the context of me, you, or even Sid Meier. However, when one seeks to compete in "civilization V", it's important to note that the players are actually playing "civilization V" and not "random event lover 84's take on civ V". If a competitive community can't come up with reasonable standards to ban things, it has no basis to change the rules at all. Why are you INSISTING that I somehow need a basis to play the game as it was shipped, but that others don't need a basis to enforce pretend rules "in the spirit of competition", when in fact doing so without basis undermines competition?!

The problem with both of the indicated strategies is that they are both totally costless to the player under certain conditions and involve AI decisions that a player would never make. If you planned to DoW the AI anyway, looting its treasury is costless.

The implication that returns from a DoW are ever costless is objectively wrong. It's a question of the amount of return you get. I'll address nothing more in this paragraph, because I'm afraid I don't have nice things to say.

Selling a doomed city to a third AI is obviously costless to the player.

:lol:. Still with the costless. Economics! Reduced cost =/= costless. I'm simply not going to address long paragraphs that ignore relevant data outright beyond this.

In short, if you're actually going to do these things it's risk-free.

Permanent relation hits are risk free? Selling a city you may or may not ever see again is risk free? But OF COURSE, simply "beating the AI ineptitude at war". Oh yes, THAT carries SO MUCH RISK, what with the AI's PREDICTABLE tactical patterns. THERE's a strategy that has heavy strategic depth. Abusing the AI in one way is fine, but another? EXPLOIT! ABUSE! For the LULZ!

and it only works because the AI is really, really dumb.

Well there's news. Isn't this why the AI even have the bonuses? By the way, how much gold are you fleecing off the AI through the DoW trick on prince? I'm curious.

It doesn't necessarily follow that we have to ban these tactics, but this is exactly the sort of situation where deliberative democracy can work. Putting the arguments on the table and letting the players sort it out is the solution most likely to lead to good results. Insisting that we adopt a restrictive burden of proof is not likely to lead to players that are happy with the final set of house rules adopted.

Even the assertion of methodologies being superior/inferior comes without any supporting evidence! :lol:. How do we know which is more likely to yield a good rule set? Can you give us some applied successful examples of either approach, or bombings?

The problem with deliberative democracy over agreed-upon ban criteria is that many players don't even understand the mechanics. Some examples:

1. We have players who insist that a declaration can be cost-less, against evidence and basic economic logic.
2. We have players in civ IV that to this day think that having power is a reliable war deterrent on higher levels
3. I'd bet dollars to donuts a significant portion of the civ V forums does not know the amount or permanence of the diplo hit underlying each DoW and each civ total wipeout (or that simply capturing cities doesn't factor at all).
4. We have players that know next to nothing about xml leaderhead values, trading gpt for gold between civs to get more total gold, etc.

The problem arises in this "democratic" system when you have a significant portion of people voting on mechanics they don't even understand! If you don't believe me, back out of this thread and look at other thread topics on this forum or especially GD. Who gets a vote? Are you going to test people for knowledge before putting them on a panel, where opinion #'s get reduced? Or are you going to assert, without evidence, that people who don't understand the mechanics voting from the masses is more likely to yield a good competitive experience than a set of ban criteria that carries a burden of proof?

Or are we going to just use a "democratic" system among the very people competing? Aside from vote policing difficulty, what happens when we don't agree? Some players necessarily wind up forcing pretend rules on other players...rules that, mind you, are by your admission the sheer preference of the competitors.

Nevermind that a majority of players can lock good players into rules that disadvantage them this way, or through sheer preference enable mechanics that are quantifiable as nonsense.

No, a game comes with its rules as designed. To change them you NEED a reason. I note that even now, after post #46 on this thread, nobody has come up with an objective reason these tactics are too strong on all settings. You see some hollering over gold farming possibilities on deity and that's it.

Simply put, flawed AI is built into the SP game. Maybe this should be patched out! When it is, we can compete w/o if we're somehow able to actually "compete" in SP civ V. Somehow.

Hell, maybe one day they'll make MP functional, too.

For those who don't, they are free to either petition for changes

:lol:.
 
In essence, you're calling an exploit as "something that is too good".

Your argument claims I'm off here by factoring the DoW itself, but I'm claiming your argument is off instead:

1. It is impossible to separate said tactic from a DoW; if you don't declare, you can't do it! You HAVE to factor that cost.

You can't do it and not declare, but you can declare and not do it. If you decide that your best path forward is war with Civ x then taking as much of their money with this tactic before you do costs nothing.

2. Your argument logically extends to ridiculous things; for example better worker execution will get more improvements than inferior worker execution, at "no cost" when comparing the two attempts at "improve my land" strategy. This micro adds up and you can wind up 100's of hammers or gold ahead; enough to be potentially gamebreaking! In other words, your version of this argument can be extended to a slew of in-game tactics that nobody would consider invalid


Nobody on this thread has yet attempted to post a numerical analysis of the power, consistent availability, difficulty importance, etc of either the OP tactic or the sell + declare tactic. I emphasize this very strongly; as lost in these long discussions is just how little the opposing argument has beyond "my opinion is this". Opinions don't make a game. Its rules, numbers, depth, and balance make the game. If an argument can't put those kinds of things forth it has no weight in matting AT ALL to competitive bans. At least not if competitions can sensibly be described as one.

You're demanding that a numerical analysis of this tactic is undertaken to demonstrate that it is in fact very powerful for the human player. Is this really necessary? I find this unreasonable. I'm beginning to think that you're being deliberately evasive here, surely you are aware that this tactic significantly improves your odds of winning. I could take some screenshots of large deals but you already know that if you have 100gpt and an AI is rich enough then they will give you around 2000 gold for it unless guarded or worse. You're aware that your luxury resources will fetch 209 - 240 gold for the better part of the game from the same civ. That 5 strategics will usually get you 225 gold. War in Civ V is about obtaining and maintaining momentum. You're aware that with that amount of gold a great deal can be done. Mongolia could buy 4 to approximately 7 keshiks. This greatly adds to your war momentum. Do you need a thorough statistical analysis to be convinced that this is very powerful?

Actually, that's a fairly strong and unreasonable bias. When one is advocating change or accusing something of being wrong/out of place, the burden of proof is always on the accusing side/side looking for the change. You want a competitive game that bans x tactic? You better have a VERY good reasons ready to ban that tactic.

If you insist...but first to cut an analogy:

Scenario 1. You kill an AI using warriors and archers, but mismanage them and lose 4 units.
Scenario 2. You kill an AI using warriors and archers, but lose 0 units.

What is the cost to the guy in scenario 2? What strategic tradeoff was made?

I hope you can see what I did there ;).

This reminds me of earlier you rejecting that there is a distinction between the trade before declaring tactic and exploiting your workers for maximum gain through management.

As Martin has pointed out I think you're insistence that the current state of the game, including all possible tactics is the favoured way to play competitively is unreasonable and you should equally bear a responsibility to argue for ex/inclusion of any particular aspect of the game that you prefer. A little bit of compromising is called for, man.

But anyway I'll take up your challenge and present my argument in a form probably better accessible to you affirming that there is a distinction between actions like managing workers/military and actions like trading for cash before declaring war, and also why one type is good for the game and the other isn't.

Remember this is my opinion ;) I don't expect that everyone will automatically agree with me, although I am trying to convince you to.

Type 1. An action, or set of actions, performed by the player that has a large positive effect on their chances of winning the game and require skill to perform. That is, the actions are possibilities in a large range of possibilities and the ability to accurately select the highly favourable choices requires a relatively good knowledge of the game, foresight, planning and intelligence.

Type 2. An action, or set of actions, that has a large positive effect on game winning chances and does not come from a large competing pool of options, requiring relatively good knowledge, foresight, planning and intelligence for highly advantageous selection.

1. The game is improved if Type 2. tactics are disallowed.
2. Trading for a bulk payment before declaring war is a Type 2. tactic.
»» If trading for a bulk payment before declaring war is disallowed the game will be improved.

1. The game is not improved if Type 1. tactics are disallowed.
2. Managing workers and military are Type 1. tactics.
»» Disallowing managing workers and military will not improve the game.

This is the difference between trading to instantly break the deal via DoW and worker management. Worker choices are selections from a large range of options and require game knowledge, planning etc whereas trading for instacash before you DoW is an action that, if allowed, will be performed by everyone every time they ever declare war. It's a perfect no-brainer.

This is the difference between trade'n'declare and managing your units so as to not lose any during war. Unit management has an enormous effect on your game winning chances, yes, but it consists of choices from a vast pool that require game knowledge, intelligence and planning to properly execute.
 
You can't do it and not declare, but you can declare and not do it. If you decide that your best path forward is war with Civ x then taking as much of their money with this tactic before you do costs nothing.

Spoils of war. By your admission, war is necessary to do it; therefore war is an inseparable cost to this tactic. You can also build a worker and delete it, and that is inferior to keeping the worker. Sounds ridiculous, but at the theoretical level it is the same thing as what you're saying under the current rules.

You're demanding that a numerical analysis of this tactic is undertaken to demonstrate that it is in fact very powerful for the human player. Is this really necessary? I find this unreasonable. I'm beginning to think that you're being deliberately evasive here, surely you are aware that this tactic significantly improves your odds of winning.

I wasn't really going to demand a numerical analysis until I started seeing assertions that this trick is somehow pulling a greater advantage than comparable (but more acceptable) abuses of the AI. Of course it's a good idea to do it whenever you can actually get away with doing it and war itself isn't too costly.

But let's say your target doesn't have that much gold. Playing below immortal/deity? That's a very real possibility. Are YOU going to tell ME that 50-100 gold off a broken deal is gamebreaking? It doesn't always work out that you get 500-1k, believe it or not.

You're aware that with that amount of gold a great deal can be done. Mongolia could buy 4 to approximately 7 keshiks. This greatly adds to your war momentum. Do you need a thorough statistical analysis to be convinced that this is very powerful?

Of course it is powerful. HOWEVER:

1. Can it be shown to be game-breaking against the AI bonuses?
2. Do we know if the AI bonuses are given to it because it does things like this?
3. Is it consistently possible? (depends on difficulty)
4. In a competition, where do you draw the line, and how well can that line be enforced?
5. In a competition where other humans are the actual competition, does the ability for both sides to do this actually impede competition?

Think carefully about each of these questions, and you'll see that outside of SP non-competitive immersion, this move isn't as broken as you think when others have access to it also.

As Martin has pointed out I think you're insistence that the current state of the game, including all possible tactics is the favoured way to play competitively is unreasonable and you should equally bear a responsibility to argue for ex/inclusion of any particular aspect of the game that you prefer. A little bit of compromising is called for, man.

Fraid not. When I have to argue against complete horse nonsense like ruins, "skill dorado", etc then I have to pull out some stops and throw down #'s or logical reasoning for their removal competition too. If we're going to compete at civ V, why are you trying to compete at something other than civ V?

Perhaps the most egregious thing to me in all of this is that the game to game impact of this ai abuse isn't nearly as variant as finding el dorado 1st...if both players actively abuse trades to their full potential, can the outcome be shown to favor the lesser player by chance frequently? Is chance of that nature required for the competition?

Anyway, the current state of the game is, in fact, the game at which players would be competing. If you start pushing that every single design choice that comprises the current game has to be justified or some random players can overturn it and make it into something else, you might as well just cut the middle man and select a different game or make up rules from scratch. Even if you do that, however, you're not playing civ V anymore.

Remember this is my opinion I don't expect that everyone will automatically agree with me, although I am trying to convince you to.

This isn't a bad idea and I laud the effort, but urge caution when creating criteria...for example:

- Abusing the underlying diplo mechanics such that you take 30 cities and get NO "warmongering menace" demerits whatsoever requires type 1 class tactics. You need to know how the AI thinks, mechanics the game doesn't advertise, and manipulate diplo in such a way that its feasible. Nevertheless, aggressively taking 30 cities without penalty as opposed to doing it and seeing a penalty is a material and possibly gamebreaking advantage. It's also a type 1 tactic.

- Settling for luxury resources is a type 2 tactic; players will learn to do this on their first day; if they read the manual/civlopedia/forums they'll do it on their first game. There aren't many competing options, and indeed one's ability to do this is somewhat random. However, getting a lot of luxuries early vs not DEFINITELY has an impact on the game outcome, and it actually fits the criteria of a type 2 tactic by your definition ;).

This is the difference between trading to instantly break the deal via DoW and worker management. Worker choices are selections from a large range of options and require game knowledge, planning etc whereas trading for instacash before you DoW is an action that, if allowed, will be performed by everyone every time they ever declare war. It's a perfect no-brainer.

Let's play some devil's advocate (hell, isn't that all I do lately?). If you always sold a resource and then DoW at every opportunity to DoW, what would happen? You'd probably lose the game. If you only do this when you are planning a full-stop war, you're giving up some opportunities to farm what (by your admission) is a large amount of in-game resources. However, you have to balance each DoW; each one gives you a permanent hit with civs you've met. You also have to use enough unit investment to survive such a tactic, making in-game usage of this tactic and its viability variable. If one set out to take abuse of this to its maximum potential, I bet you an experienced player would do it leagues better than an inexperienced player, so does it truly constitute a "type 2" tactic after all ;)?

There's one last thing I'd like to point out:

1. In a true MP game, as I've said many times, it's doubtful this would be a serious issue as humans aren't as stupid as the AI.
2. However, if we're competing in SINGLE PLAYER games, now you have an odd dynamic. You are continually comparing the outcome of the single player game with this tactic. HOWEVER, you'd be using it against people who are *also* using it to beat *their* AI.

So now, you tell me; does this tactic provide one player a material advantage to win (IE do better in his game than others do in theirs) when both players are doing it? I believe you'll find asserting that much more difficult!

However, if you can't assert that, why would you remove it from competition? Because it "just feels wrong" (IE preference that doesn't impact actual competition)? Or what, exactly? This is why I demand basis, and seem uncompromising. These are questions that have, in more than one supposedly competitive venue, gone largely unanswered.
 
My basis is simple and hard to refute:

1. We're given a game that has rules
2. We seek to compete in said game (if we are not competing this discussion doesn't matter :p)
3. Some players want to impose additional restrictions on what others can do within the framework of competition.

The other side of the argument asserts that those imposing restrictions in #3 don't carry a burden of proof, and that demanding proof is baseless. Ridiculous; you are literally asserting that you want people to compete in a different (though similar) game, and that it's somehow a better one. Show us. Prove it. Otherwise its preference against preference, but in that instance there's not enough basis for actually playing a different game! Compete in the one you're given!

Another hypothetical model would posit that the players are the best arbiters of what house rules are necessary to create a proper competitive environment. Let's face it: we spend a lot more time playing the game than the devs do, and we often have a much better handle on what's wrong and how to fix it.

Neither your position nor mine is falsifiable; they're both rooted in philosophical arguments. We can shout at one another until we're blue in the face, but we're not likely to resolve a question of competing philosophies.

Why are you INSISTING that I somehow need a basis to play the game as it was shipped, but that others don't need a basis to enforce pretend rules "in the spirit of competition", when in fact doing so without basis undermines competition?!

You don't need a basis to play the game as it was shipped. Neither does anyone else need a basis to play the game with house rules. That's the point. It's pure preference. If you want to believe that the devs are somehow smarter than the players, you're welcome to believe that, but I'd argue that there's a truckload of evidence suggesting the opposite.

The implication that returns from a DoW are ever costless is objectively wrong. It's a question of the amount of return you get. I'll address nothing more in this paragraph, because I'm afraid I don't have nice things to say.

Let me use some mathematics to help clarify, since the English language isn't getting it done here. Suppose that f(x,y) = g(x) + h(y) is a utility function that determines when you go to war. If f(x,y) > 0, you declare. If not, you don't. Suppose that x represents everything that goes into the decision to declare except the loot from exploiting GPT, that y represents the value of the loot from the opponent's treasury, that h(y) > 0 for all y, and that h(y) is increasing in y.

This is a useful model, because it enables us to separate out the value of the loot from the opponent's treasury in the decision. If g(x) > 0, you declare irrespective of the value of y. If g(x) < 0 but f(x,y) > 0, we can say that you declared strictly because of the amount in the opponent's treasury.

There are two problems. We've had it out elsewhere about the fact that the cost portion of g(x) -> 0 as the number of turns remaining approaches zero. Setting that aside for the moment, the issue that I'm pointing out is that in a non-trivial number of cases, g(x) > 0. If that's the case, then it's always equilibrium play to loot the opponent's treasury, and the h(y) component is free stuff.

Even the assertion of methodologies being superior/inferior comes without any supporting evidence! :lol:. How do we know which is more likely to yield a good rule set? Can you give us some applied successful examples of either approach, or bombings?

So you want an entire political science education in just this conversation? The issue is that we have a problem of competing preferences. Social choice theory suggests that these tend to be sticky. Bargaining processes and decision rules are the best tools available to resolve such problems. Should we choose to adopt any decision rules, the rule we adopt to resolve those preferences strongly influences the outcome as well as whether or not that outcome represents the underlying preferences of the group.

The concept in deliberative democracy is that open discussion where all the issues get out on the table results in several desirable outcomes. Decision-makers get informed before making decisions, decisions acquire legitimacy by virtue of association with the process, and some psychologists would argue that the process itself tends to lead participants to support even outcomes that conflict with their preferences.

Of course, not everyone believes that happy story. Some of the more hardcore adherents to social choice theory will tell you that open discussion actually makes things worse; bargaining theory would tend to tell you that there is no such thing as "open" discussion of the issues - stated positions are frequently misrepresentations of true preferences.

Regardless, it's bad form to enter into a negotiation demanding that we start the discussion by adopting a decision rule that is clearly going to bias outcomes in favor of your preferences. Just because you think that the decision rule is simple, logical and self-evident doesn't imply that anyone else likes the effects of that rule.

The problem arises in this "democratic" system when you have a significant portion of people voting on mechanics they don't even understand!

We do that in this country all the time! Why do you think there is a problem with this?

Facetiousness aside, you're correct that the only way it works is if the community appoints players that are sufficiently educated to make the decisions, or at least has members that are both sufficiently educated and have the communication skills to get the issues across to the membership. Jefferson once correctly pointed out that democracy would fail in the absence of a functioning public education system...which more or less tells you why we're screwed.

That said, I don't think it would be too hard to identify a dozen players that cover the entire set of positions on the matter, are educated enough to understand the consequences of their decisions, and are sufficiently active in the community (or would be under a rule set they were comfortable with) to make some decisions. But I also don't think that going that far is necessary. In a small community like this, if we identify our goals and both sides put comprehensible arguments on the table, people are going to correctly vote their preferences.

Or are you going to assert, without evidence, that people who don't understand the mechanics voting from the masses is more likely to yield a good competitive experience than a set of ban criteria that carries a burden of proof?

We have no evidence with which to falsify either proposition. Your belief that your system will result in a better experience is precisely that. You also haven't indicated who is going to be the arbiter of the burden of proof (which is in and of itself a decision rule), and that's sort of important. If it's a single individual, that's a dictatorship. If it's a group, then we're back to deliberative democracy again.

Or are we going to just use a "democratic" system among the very people competing? Aside from vote policing difficulty, what happens when we don't agree? Some players necessarily wind up forcing pretend rules on other players...rules that, mind you, are by your admission the sheer preference of the competitors.

The devs force pretend rules on us anyway. At least we'd have rules that most players like under my proposal. House rules have a long history in gaming that I'm sure dates back well past the first time somebody stuck money under Free Parking. Even something like banning aimbotting is purely a matter of preference; we ban it because by and large we can agree it sucks.

Fraid not. When I have to argue against complete horse nonsense like ruins, "skill dorado", etc then I have to pull out some stops and throw down #'s or logical reasoning for their removal competition too. If we're going to compete at civ V, why are you trying to compete at something other than civ V?

Skilldorado is a great example of precisely the point that I'm making. I think that anyone reasonably educated can agree that it's a terrible idea for a competitive environment. It increases luck factors, and it should go as a result.

But if we agree that things that increase luck factors need to go, then we should also be able to agree that the power of DoW :c5gold: exploits is based upon purely random factors (the dirt the AIs got) and that we don't want them in the game for precisely the same reason. The problems with AI cash lotto are bad enough as it stands.
 
These discussions, while interesting, are kind of over the top. I think we've clearly left the what should be allowed / disallowed in competetive CiV environment topic. A lot of this is just an argument about semantics and people's sometimes poor choice of wording which doesn't prove anything. It's a well known lawyer tactic to delay proceedings on a relatively trivial side issue by using countless semantic and precedent arguments.

To me the core question, what is valid in competetive CiV, can't be answered without setting a goal. What do you want out of competetive CiV? Depending on that answer you get different answers to the core question.

Do you want the game to be a pure competition and have no luck at all? Then you have to enforce everyone to play as the same civ, have the same areas, same resources, same everything basically. No huts, no NWs, nothing different at all. Either that or provide a map as per the deity challenges in this thread and use that as the basis for competetion. The problem here is you might not get many players as people may not find your particular map / civ / settings very enjoyable. If people wanted to play a game without anything random, they wouldn't care about new civs or random map generation or anything like that.

Do you want the most players to participate? Then you better do some polls and / or leave some luck / randomness involved. You'll get more participation but there will likely be some admittedly arbitrary rules imposed without proof just because people 'like them'.

Some games have had mulitple competetive venues. That could easily be done here too if you could actually find enough people that are interested.

So yes I agree; the HoF rules are rather arbitrary. They allow re-rolling but don't allow multiple luxury trades at a time or this gold fleecing being discussed. Seems strange as the former actually influences the game more than the latter. However that's just the way it was decided and I imagine the people who play those games enjoy it that way. There actually aren't that many from my impression but nonetheless the point still stands. There are a few choices: either you accept the rules as they are, you make reasonable arguments to change them and hope people listen, go off and just the play the game yourself, or you start your own competition and, if it is truly a better competetive environment, it might just attract lots of people to participate.
 
These discussions, while interesting, are kind of over the top. I think we've clearly left the what should be allowed / disallowed in competetive CiV environment topic. A lot of this is just an argument about semantics and people's sometimes poor choice of wording which doesn't prove anything. It's a well known lawyer tactic to delay proceedings on a relatively trivial side issue by using countless semantic and precedent arguments.
I agree. By now we know how the different posters think about using exploits in general and about goldfleecing and selling besieged cities in particular. More long ass posts from those who have spoken their mind will not bring consensus any closer.

To me the core question, what is valid in competetive CiV, can't be answered without setting a goal. What do you want out of competetive CiV? Depending on that answer you get different answers to the core question.
True, but I doubt whether the answer to the core question will automatically lead to an answer to questions that arise regarding a specific possible exloit, such as the one that started this discussion.

The problem starts with the fact that civ is a COMPUTER game. In a physical (board) game, the rules in the manual can be interpreted (or even ignored) as long as there is consensus amongst the players about this at a particular table - the so called 'house rules'. In a board game factory rules and house rules are integrated into a single set which works for the players. A computer game on the other hand has TWO separate sets of rules: factory rules are built into it and cannot be changed while house rules operate on a different level and can in essence only put limits on the factory rules, not broaden them.

On the other hand, a computer game can be played in single player mode, which - as has been stated several times - means it's not too hard reach consensus amongst all human players ...
 
These discussions, while interesting, are kind of over the top.

They have a lot of semantics, but they also carry useful discussion. I always find arguing with Martin a joy for example, as he's both very good at it and states cases in such a way that I can see some light from the other side.

My thoughts on setting criteria before banning things was that it would help mitigate selective bias; but as pointed out that *does* actually wind back up in the democratic setup. The panel setup is interesting; now we're running into typical political issues :lol:. People would champion for their representatives to get rules they like :lol:.

Well, some basis for banning city sale (de facto alliances that aren't treated as such) and trade then DoW have already been pointed out; I do find the argument against the latter somewhat shaky in a competitive environment unless it becomes readily apparent that income from doing it is functionally random...at which case Martin has me convinced. Still, in MP i'd be more worried about the OP tactic (city sale) as it allows players to get a step closer to permanent alliances without that settings being on (or existing :p). I get the feeling that people wouldn't care especially if got hosed in a deal by another human :p.

We do that in this country all the time! Why do you think there is a problem with this?

Jefferson once correctly pointed out that democracy would fail in the absence of a functioning public education system...which more or less tells you why we're screwed.

:lol:. Little things like this make reading through long, constructive posts even more fun.

The more I think about it, the more I like your suggestion about the panel. I'm of the belief that a top player panel would probably axe OP tactic, sell declare, natural wonders, ruins, and much more by the time they're done now that I think about it. It's also occurred to me that we've never actually done this in practice...I still think such a panel could come up with a reasonable basic basis for what is banned and work with it, as long as that doesn't become a sole limit.

Which brings us back to the topic, and the obvious/unfortunate conclusion the AI needs to play better :p.
 
TLDR but there's something called game ethics and competitive play.

In any competitive play , exploiting a bug or a loophole is always banned unless unknown.

Outside of competitive area, whether one wants stick to certain rules is up to the player's own game ethics. Its obvious some players do not have any shame in exploiting every single loophole of the game just to win.
 
I've had to do this in desperation a couple of times playing a tall empire going for science victory. It got to the point where the AI's were finally able to topple my frontier cities defence whilst i was building up spaceship parts.

In desperation i sold the city for the 10 turns of peace, which i was able to use (and some turns after it expired) accordingly to build the remaining parts before they DoW'd me again.
 
In any competitive play , exploiting a bug or a loophole is always banned unless unknown.

This just isn't true. The evidence against it is rather heavy:

1. Many fighters use animation canceling/other tricks to get an edge (massing dodges for quick movement in smash brothers)
2. Probably over half of speed runs on SDA, which are *very* competitive.
3. Shooters have glitches that allow access to unintended areas, and whether this is banned or not depends on a wide range of factors and the game itself.
4. HoF itself actually allows some loopholes outright.

Evidence of insta-bans of "bugs and loopholes" (including merely defining what constitutes a loophole) is not easy to come by. In some games, unintended aspects of play wind up adding some strategic depth, or at least not detracting from it. Blanket statements like the quoted are false and dangerous to mind.
 
Top Bottom