Subsidies and Aggressive Trading Practices

[DaviddesJ]

What exactly is the definition of an Exploit?

A tactic, available to the human player but not to the AI, that gives a disproportionate advantage, often through a violation of the underlying logic of the game (e.g., being technologically more backward, by not researching Masonry, gives you a research advantage, in that a GP then gives you a better tech). Exploits are bad because they increase the handicap level required to make the game challenging, and they (generally) reduce the variety of successful play styles.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Have you seen what the AI asks for it's resources? I asked what they wanted for stone, and was told 6gpt and clams (1 of 2) and copper (1 of 1). If that isn't a ripoff, then how is 10gpt a ripoff or exploit?

That's a high price because they don't like you very much. If they liked you better, they would give you a better deal.

 

[Zombie69]

One reasonable one that Zombie69 seems to be working with is "An exploit is any usage of the game in a method not intended by the designers."

That was my short version, but my actual definition includes something more, a gain.

Exploit :
something that you can do within the game rules to gain an advantage, but that wasn't intended by the game developers.

Cheat :
any way to go around the game rules to gain an advantage (for example, by altering the game files, or by using the editor).

 

[Moonsinger]

Exploit :
something that you can do within the game rules to gain an advantage, but that wasn't intended by the game developers.

I agree with your definition. However, I don't see why some people are making such a big deal about it. For example, in a tennis tournament, if you know that your opponent has certain weaknesses, do you:

(1) Do not exploit his/her weaknesses and send the ball to where he/she can best return the ball.

(2) Exploit his/her weaknesses and send the ball to the spot where you know he/she can't hit very well.

Of course, the law of the game allows the player hit the ball to anywhere within the court (technically and legally, you can even hit the ball outside too). What would the answer be? Just how many professional tennis player out there do you think would go with #1, especially in a tournament with a lot of $$$.

PS: As for the French/US Tennis Open, "I find them totally laughable anyway and have no interest in trying them out". j/k The truth is I'm not a good tennis player; therefore, I refer to play tennis for fun and not for $$$. However, I do have great respect for those who can play better than me (with or without exploits). The same goes with Civ4, if a player can find a way to exploit the game for their enjoyment, good for them. I really don't mind either way.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I agree with your definition. However, I don't see why some people are making such a big deal about it.

It's because you agree with his definition that you don't think exploits are a big deal. Obviously, if you just define an exploit as something the designers didn't think of or didn't intend, there are going to be lots and lots of strategies that are "exploits", most of which are perfectly ok and no one would have any reason to object to. But you only came to that conclusion about "exploits" because you started from a bad definition. (The reason Zombie69 chooses that definition is that he doesn't think "exploits" are a big deal, either.)

 

[Hans Lemurson]

A tactic, available to the human player but not to the AI, that gives a disproportionate advantage, often through a violation of the underlying logic of the game (e.g., being technologically more backward, by not researching Masonry, gives you a research advantage, in that a GP then gives you a better tech). Exploits are bad because they increase the handicap level required to make the game challenging, and they (generally) reduce the variety of successful play styles.

What is the difference though, between this and just "advanced strategy"? Surely if certain paths prove to be superior to others, then you should travel those at the expense of the others.

Also, what do you define as "Not available to the AI"? Are these things that the AI cannot do due to imperfect programming (effective warfare, whip optimization), or are they things which the AI is forbidden to do because of the nature of the human-AI relations.

Theoreticly, if programmed proper, the AI too could use the 60-hammer-citizen bug, that option is available to it, but it is not a good enough player to use it. Is there in fact anything that the human player can "exploit" that is not technicly available to a sufficiently skilled AI (besides save/reload)?

The game designers themselves cannot have possibly forseen all of the possible strategies that could be used. If you use a tactic that was not thought of by a designer, is this an "Exploit", or is this just "Advanced Strategy"?

Where is the line drawn between "Advanced Strategies" and "Exploits"?
Is there one?

 

[Moonsinger]

It's because you agree with his definition that you don't think exploits are a big deal. Obviously, if you just define an exploit as something the designers didn't think of or didn't intend, there are going to be lots and lots of strategies that are "exploits", most of which are perfectly ok and no one would have any reason to object to. But you only came to that conclusion about "exploits" because you started from a bad definition. (The reason Zombie69 chooses that definition is that he doesn't think "exploits" are a big deal, either.)

Well, take the tennis game or any game for that matter. I don't think its designer would intent for players to exploit each other weaknesses, but people do. When it comes to the human, I always expect the unexpected. That's what civilization is all about...we are set out to discover new world, ..., and new lifeform to exploit. For example, if you want to buy a house and the person is selling it desperately need the cash (you see his bankruptcy filing in the local newspaper and that give you an idea that he may be willing to sell his house for less than the market price), do you attempt to bargain for a better deal? I'm sorry that it sounds bad, but it's reality and we are all in it. If you can name one person on this planet (either dead or alive) that doesn't exploit anything, I will convert to your religion.

 

[Nares]

I agree with your definition. However, I don't see why some people are making such a big deal about it.

The different arguments within this thread can basically be broken down between those who play GoTM games and those who do not. HoF already has a much looser interpretation of what's allowable and what's not.

It's not exactly fair to compare CIV to tennis. A human can learn to adapt to an exploit being used against him or her. The AI is not nearly that advanced. Even then, I'm sure if there was a tennis player who could serve so hard and with such precision that it was impossible to return his serve, ever, then the rules of professional tennis would be modified, or the specific player would be asked to stop playing.

This is a very easy exploit to utilize, and has very powerful results. Compare it to the pop-rush bug, which is difficult to utilize and has much more limited results.

It's understandable why some people are concerned about it.

 

[Moonsinger]

A tactic, available to the human player but not to the AI, that gives a disproportionate advantage, often through a violation of the underlying logic of the game (e.g., being technologically more backward, by not researching Masonry, gives you a research advantage, in that a GP then gives you a better tech). Exploits are bad because they increase the handicap level required to make the game challenging, and they (generally) reduce the variety of successful play styles.

Since you think Zombie69 's definition is bad, I will give your definition a try. It seems to me that your definition is much more strict than Zombie69 (what are you, a saint? ) For example, since the AI can't really select their opponents, any attempt to pre-select your opponents would consider an exploit by your definition. Of course, this would directly support my previous claim that we all are exploiters (more or less).

 

[DaviddesJ]

This is a very easy exploit to utilize, and has very powerful results. Compare it to the pop-rush bug, which is difficult to utilize and has much more limited results.

Wow. I totally disagree with this. The pop rush bug is easy to use and extremely powerful. It's a much bigger problem (imho) than the gpt exploit.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Since you think Zombie69 's definition is bad, I will give your definition a try. It seems to me that your definition is much more strict than Zombie69 (what are you, a saint? ) For example, since the AI can't really select their opponents, any attempt to pre-select your opponents would consider an exploit by your definition. Of course, this would directly support my previous claim that we all are exploiters (more or less).

I've never selected my opponents. I would agree that selecting your opponents (or selecting your own leader, or selecting particularly favorable maps, etc.) undermines your results.

And this is one of the big problems with the HOF---unfortunately, there's no way I can think of to avoid it. But this is certainly a main reason that I've never been interested in participating in the HOF.

But it goes too far to conclude that every exploit must be banned. Some exploits we just have to live with (and selecting your civ and your opponents and generating favorable maps, in the HOF, is perhaps an example of that).

 

[DaviddesJ]

Also, what do you define as "Not available to the AI"? Are these things that the AI cannot do due to imperfect programming (effective warfare, whip optimization), or are they things which the AI is forbidden to do because of the nature of the human-AI relations.

Both of these.

 

[Moonsinger]

The different arguments within this thread can basically be broken down between those who play GoTM games and those who do not. HoF already has a much looser interpretation of what's allowable and what's not.

It's not exactly fair to compare CIV to tennis. A human can learn to adapt to an exploit being used against him or her. The AI is not nearly that advanced. Even then, I'm sure if there was a tennis player who could serve so hard and with such precision that it was impossible to return his serve, ever, then the rules of professional tennis would be modified, or the specific player would be asked to stop playing.

This is a very easy exploit to utilize, and has very powerful results. Compare it to the pop-rush bug, which is difficult to utilize and has much more limited results.

It's understandable why some people are concerned about it.

I don't think it's fair to modify the rules of the game or to ask the specific player to stop playing. We can't just all wake up one day and say...you know what...we can't serve the ball at that speed, so we are going to set the legal speed limit. What we fail to realize is that it takes a lot of trainings and hard works to be able to serve that well.

If some GOTM players don't utilize this trading practices, naturally they would end up with a lesser score than those who do. Why don't they utilize this? Probably because it's a lot of works or they either don't have time for it. I really don't think it's fair to penalize people for doing the extra works and going the extra distant in their game. Personally, the GOTM has become more like work than fun; exactly why I stop playing the GOTM. However, I still like to watch and cheer for those that still do. Not many of us are pro tennis players or football players, but we like to watch the pro play as their best. If we set too many limits and restriction to the games, I fear it may become too ordinary and no fun to watch no more.

 

[DaviddesJ]

If some GOTM players don't utilize this trading practices, naturally they would end up with a lesser score than those who do. Why don't they utilize this? Probably because it's a lot of works or they either don't have time for it.

This particular technique requires little effort, so neither of your reasons is plausible. The plausible reasons are: because they weren't aware of it, or because they didn't see enough of a benefit from it, or because they thought it's not in the spirit of the game.

I don't think it's fair to modify the rules of the game or to ask the specific player to stop playing. We can't just all wake up one day and say...you know what...we can't serve the ball at that speed, so we are going to set the legal speed limit.

Actually, that's exactly what the ITF did. They changed the rules by introducing the Type III ball for fast surfaces, to slow down the serves. Better rules for a more interesting and enjoyable game.

 

[Nares]

Wow. I totally disagree with this. The pop rush bug is easy to use and extremely powerful. It's a much bigger problem (imho) than the gpt exploit.

There's a relatively limited window in which the pop-rush can be utilized to exploit the bug. It's very easy to make a mistake and eliminate the extra hammers generated. It's also extremely tedious to keep track of. It's easy enough to discuss the power of the pop-rush exploit; implementing it is far different. It's really only something for extreme micromanagers such as Zombie69.

The trade exploit is really only limited by the number of resources you have that you can sell.

 

[Nares]

I don't think it's fair to modify the rules of the game or to ask the specific player to stop playing. We can't just all wake up one day and say...you know what...we can't serve the ball at that speed, so we are going to set the legal speed limit. What we fail to realize is that it takes a lot of trainings and hard works to be able to serve that well.

You fail to appreciate the lack of interest that would be generated if a single player could dominate a game on that level. It's one thing if the player has a chance of losing. It's one thing for the player to do this for one season, maybe two. After too long of this kind of fully lopsided gameplay, public interest in the professional level of the sport would dwindle.

If some GOTM players don't utilize this trading practices, naturally they would end up with a lesser score than those who do. Why don't they utilize this? Probably because it's a lot of works or they either don't have time for it. I really don't think it's fair to penalize people for doing the extra works and going the extra distant in their game.

The pop-rush bug requires a lot of work. This requires almost no effort on the part of the player to take advantage of.

Personally, the GOTM has become more like work than fun; exactly why I stop playing the GOTM. However, I still like to watch and cheer for those that still do. Not many of us are pro tennis players or football players, but we like to watch the pro play as their best. If we set too many limits and restriction to the games, I fear it may become too ordinary and no fun to watch no more.

Well, there is some measure of truth to this. However, consider how long you would remain interested in a game if you knew a hallmark of the given "pro" achieving victory was an exploit. Particularly an exploit that was incredibly easy to abuse.

 

[DaviddesJ]

There's a relatively limited window in which the pop-rush can be utilized to exploit the bug. It's very easy to make a mistake and eliminate the extra hammers generated. It's also extremely tedious to keep track of.

None of this seems true to me. It's a relatively automatic thing you can take advantage of in the normal course of running your economy.

It's really only something for extreme micromanagers such as Zombie69.

I'll agree with that if you substitute "serious players" for "extreme micromanagers". But for people who aren't paying attention at this level then I think the whole question of which "exploits" exist is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Hans Lemurson]

Also, what do you define as "Not available to the AI"? Are these things that the AI cannot do due to imperfect programming (effective warfare, whip optimization), or are they things which the AI is forbidden to do because of the nature of the human-AI relations.

Both of these.

Interesting...
It seems though that most "Advanced Plays" then could possibly be considered exploits, since the AI is incapable of fathoming them. I have never seen an AI whip/chop an Axe-rush before.

****
To throw a little more gasoline on the fire here, I am going to add a new section to my original post for another way to exploit the AI, or more accurately, extort.

 

[Zombie69]

The reason Zombie69 chooses that definition is that he doesn't think "exploits" are a big deal, either.

Try it the other way around.

The reason Zombie69 doesn't think "exploits" are a big deal is because of the definition of exploit.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Interesting...
It seems though that most "Advanced Plays" then could possibly be considered exploits, since the AI is incapable of fathoming them. I have never seen an AI whip/chop an Axe-rush before.

Chopping is definitely an issue, because the AI doesn't understand it. But, of course, it's central to the game, so even if were an "exploit" there's little you can do about that. And, to go back to the definition (my definition), the issues then become (1) does it give a disproportionate advantage and (2) does it violate the natural logic of the game? The changes in chopping from 1.52 to 1.61 helped to address both (1) and (2).