Please enlighten me to where the cost lies.
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
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
.
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
. 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
)
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.