The ethics of milking

[hotrod0823]

Milking - What's that???

I have never tried to or plan to milk a game, personal preference. I don't doubt that the top scores are excellent players and can use extreme MM and tedium for the last 100+ turns to see how high they can push it.

Aeson has address a lot of those issues in the balance of speed vs. CivIII score and tried to show that a player who wins early is just as qualified and skilled as a player that launches a ship in 2050.

I know many players have left the GOTM for other games, the Tournament or RBCiv because of the excessive focus on just Civ Score, the few people using exploits. But overall I think the community is moving in the right direction. It should not be about who wins but about what the game means to you. Does getting the fastest domination appeal to you, go for it, highest score, go for it, quickest launch, go for it!! Play as a OCC, a 5CC, try Always War, try honarable, try dasterdly. Above all play and enjoy and share!

The folks here, cracker, Aeson etc have been very focused on bringing the game back to what it should be a competion that focuses on theory, fosters good discussion and occasionally a moment where you go "hey why didn't I think of that" or wow that is cool, (ie Moonsingers fish) wouldn't do it but cool anyway!

Hotrod

 

[Kemal]

I don't think there's anything unethical or wrong about milking, currently it is just the name given to the way to get the highest score in this game.

If you have the skills you can score more points this way than the in-game score bonus for finishing early can ever give you. So everyone who wants to have a shot at the top positions needs to milk, because score is currently the only criterium on which the medal awards distribution is based. I believe that is why the gotm knows other awards for fast finishes, so both play styles have something to play for.

I would personally prefer, under the current scoring system, to abandon the silver and bronze medal and just make an "highest score award" (call it a gold medal or something else) for the person that has scored highest for the game, because the 2nd and 3rd position are almost always games of the same type as the number one game but with a lower score.

Hopefully these discussions about whether milking is unethical etcetera will be done away with when Aeson and cracker present their new score formula for the GotM.

 

[Kemal]

Originally posted by Moonsinger


And of course, I care deeply about the environment; for this reason alone, I would never rush a spaceship quickly (since it usually causes massive pollution to the core cities); therefore, I would never compete with Kemal for an early launch.

Hey, I care about the environment too!

Actually, I only experience global warming in my games in very rare cases, and usually the AI is to blame for it with its enviromentally unjustifiable coal plant construction plans crazyeye: ). Since most cities (and certainly the core cities) will have mass transit should they need to grow beyond size 12, my pollution mostly comes from factories only (I always get Hoover Dam).

And I certainly haven't experienced fish showing up in desert tiles, like in other people's games.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by pilferman
What I don't like is the use of the tool that many "milkers" use, Mapstat. Such a utility is beyond what I think is right.

I absolutely agree with you. If people insist on milking, let them enjoy it more by counting the tiles themselves.

Seriously, at least any outside help, like culture victory predictors and battle odds calculators, should be forbidden if it is not freely available to everyone. But in addition I prefer the rules of the competition to keep the game what it is, ie no Mapstat, but the happiness smilies are OK, and so are alternative graphics as long as they don't reveal more of the map than the original ones.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Moonsinger
Fun is really what draws many of us to the game. Despite what some people may think about milking, it can be really fun, especially when you are not doing for the high score. I'm in great contentment to see all my cities fully grow to the maxium size and all (100%) my citizens are happy. Every day is the WLTLD in my world.

Still it is more fun for some than others, if only one playing style can produce a top score. After all, the purpose of the competition is to have a measurement of how you're progressing in playing this game, and having examples by the other players of how you could have fared better (or worse).

If this is not measured well, there is no telling if you're really getting better at the game, or, as Sirian says, at something else entirely.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Aeson
We are working on this. In any case, it is a problem with the scoring system itself, and not with 'milking'. The playstyle for milking is just as valid as any other playstyle.

I think that all we are asking at this time, Aeson, is to adjust the scoring system in such a way that different but equally impressive performances can compete with each other for place. I am curious to see what you will come up with.

Nonetheless, if the general opinion, even while it's 'just an opinion', would turn out to be that some things (like certain exploits) should be discouraged and other things (like publishing a timeline) should be encouraged, at some point in the future (really, I know you can't do it all at once) you might want to work with that, too.

 

[Ribannah]

And Civ, of course, is always historically accurate.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Moonsinger
Let's take the Chess game for example: People with more brain power will definitely exploit the game more than people with less brain power. Instead of calculating 3 moves ahead, people with better brain will calculate 32 moves ahead. What's about the slow thinker? There are people who take forever to make a move. If you set a time limit, it would be unfair for them too.

Well, competitive chess IS played with a time limit. For the game of chess, this discussion was held and concluded a long time ago.
It was felt that slow players unfairly profited from the fact that they had more free time than their opponents.

But even before, chess players never received extra recognition for delaying their victory in order to control more squares.

(On a side note, strong chess players calculate way LESS than weak chess players, as they skip all the irrelevant ideas. Depth of calculation is also less, because strong players can evaluate the resulting position much sooner.)

 

[Ribannah]

* Rushes in with first-aid kit to suppress the milk addiction *

Those evil torturers may get extra satisfaction, but do we give them extra victory points?

The weaker chess players tend to have no clear plan at all, and they do not know it when they come to the important moves because they don't see the difference. They try the impossible, to calculate so far ahead that they reach a position where they are sure of the outcome (and more often than not, that assessment is wrong, too).

The top chess players rarely do any calculations. They play by pattern recognition (thereby saving time for those few tactical moments when their plan collides with that of their opponent and some calculations can't be avoided). Not the same at all. To become a strong chess player, you have to learn to think like that from preferably the very first day, gifted or not. A good trainer can teach you to think like that. The plan is not necessarily deeper (amateurs can have amazingly deep plans) but more to the point, and will easily spring a follow-up plan for the next phase. And calculations have nothing to do with it.

Civ is not much different from that, except for one thing: there is an element of chance involved. Contrary of what one would think, it is in fact that random part that requires the heavy calculations.

The best mathematicians are usually not found among chess players, but among poker players.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by EMan
ALL rated tournament chess games, with the exception of postal/email, are played under different time controls.

Postal and e-mail tournament games of chess are also subject to time limits.

Originally posted by Shillen
Milking is nearly mindless. I don't buy for a second that it takes a great deal of skill to manage every detail of the game, keeping your citizens happy and growing, etc.

No, I can't agree with you there. While the final score potential is of course linked to the speed you reach the domination limit, it still requires skill to make the most of it, not in the least by preparing for a milked game right from the start. City placement, for instance, is very different from a speed game.
However ... the skill involved is different from the skill required to master the game as such. It's almost as if you're playing a totally different game.

 

[el_kalkylus]

I don't think I will ever milk a game. It takes too long.

 

[el_kalkylus]

Creepster,
yes, I understand. So they say.

cracker,
It is now possible to PM me (I think). I didn't submit to Gotm15, because I wanted to learn more about the game first so I replayed it instead of finishing it. I submitted Gotm16 yesterday or the day before though.

 

[el_kalkylus]

You read the article that SirPleb posted. See Moonsinger's link.

I just read it, and now I understand why people play like they do.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sirian
I view "milking" as a negative side effect of an otherwise positive ambition.

I view it as exploration of the boundaries of the game.

The problem arises when the game itself is poorly designed, insufficiently refined. Players then have a choice of either "live with it the way it is", which for a broken game results in all sorts of otherwise senseless contortions, or "remake the game to correct the problems".

The game is designed a certain way. You know -- Build a better Rome! There are unlimited exploits in Civ3, but this is the best technology available in a cheap $19.99 (now in the bargain bin) computer game. It's like a Hollywood movie. With a low budget production you can sometimes see the wire holding up the airplane, or the occasional two-by-four, but if the story is good, it really doesn't matter. In Shakespeare's day, a few guys with swords and spears stood in for entire armies.

O, pardon! since a crooked figure may
Attest in little place a million;
And let us, ciphers to this great accompt,
On your imaginary forces work.
-- Shakespeare

Civ3 has some loopholes in its game play. There are certain options that have been so much more dominant than others, that they were must-use if you wanted to compete No Holds Barred. That is a problem for a game's longevity.

Longevity in a game like Civ comes in the upgrades and new generations of product.

Milking is not Civ III. It is something else. The broken Civ3 scoring system is like the outline of the Paint by Numbers. If you limit yourself to that, the painting is going to be tedious work, instead of art. Mechanical, not creative. The creativity is what is missing from the milking. It is a demanding management process that takes a wide variety of expertise, but to what end?

I admit I used to milk Civ2. Really, really big scores. I don't know what came over me. I've stopped now. Mostly.

I was struck by Dave's comment about GOTM14, where he said that the only winning strategy was to gather a large force of upgradable units and a big cash stockpile, upgrade and invade. I didn't do that at all.

That's my first GOTM with a Mass Warrior Upgrade. Mass Upgrades are a standard and very natural Civ strategy. A lot has to do with the position. Being all alone on an island with the Persians and their Immortals, it would be natural to try and hit them hard, before they produce a lot of Immortals. In I, Hammurabi, Hammurabi kept a close eye on the Persian Military in the border cities, while building his own army. But Xerxes did a Mass Upgrade to Pike stopping the Babylonian advance.

And I disagree that there is only one winning strategy. There is never only one winning strategy. Even though Hammurabi used the Mass Warrior Upgrade, that strategy largely failed. Hammurabi had to devise "other" means to win.

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm14/Veterans.htm

More importantly, every GOTM has different strategies. It's a matter of matching the strategy to the position and your own playing style.
Here are a few strategies from previous GOTMs (the first three from I, Hammurabi).

Despotic Whip
Extreme Bombardment
Bribery
Jaguar Rush
Colonial Wars
Granary Expansion
TOTAL CONTROL
Combined Arms
Client State
Culture Attack
Population Boom
Pike Warfare
Marines
Turtle
Panzer Blitz Golden Age
Mounted Warriors
Rush to U.N.
Elephants
Naval Invasion
Warrior Gambit
Palace Jump

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm.asp

And a few Historical Strategies,

"Killer Chokehold"
"Let the Persians be Persians"
"The Wall of Eridu"

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sirian
Me, I'm interested in higher level competition.

GOTM is a casual contest. It's your expectations that are ruining your fun, I think. I rarely score in the top ranks, but I always have fun!

Originally posted by Sirian
A hundred played and only eleven won? [/B]

It was a Deity Level game, and there is always some luck involved. (Not one Great Leader, not one.) I thought it was outstanding that so many people played and submitted.

Personally, I avoid any exploit or feature of the game that doesn't flow naturally from the game concept. I use governors extensively, but not exclusively. I don't micromanage every city and every worker every turn. I don't set the victory condition before playing the game. I play the position. It keeps each game fresh, it plays faster, and it makes the game more of a challenge.

By the way, the list of strategies above were not meant in any way to show "how smart" I am. Rather these are strategies that are available to any player. I'm just pointing out the obvious (At least it's obvious once it's been pointed out. ).

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by RufRydyr
I hope you [Sirian] write your report.

Me, too!

 

[Zachriel]

Having watched this thread for quite some time, it has become impossible to stay on the sidelines any longer.

It is wrong, simply wrong to subject people to this Incan Water Torture called "milking." How long has this been going on? How much longer will these poor Civ players be forced to endure this painful process? How much longer will they continue to be chained to their computer stations having to micromanage the smallest details of their Civilization. Is there no pity? Is there no justice? Will the Governor ever have half a brain?

Now some will say that the milkers brought it on themselves, that they bought the game and now let them suffer for it. But enough is enough. Let freedom ring from the Sistine Chapel of Beijing to the Pyramids of Moscow, from the deserts of Zimbabwe to the fertile Flood Plains of Kyoto, let freedom ring from every Mountain Tile and River Hex of Civilization. Let Freedom Ring.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by MadScot
Zachriel

For consistency, should it not be the Inca Water torture?

You're right! I always get mixed up when it comes to history.

 

[Zachriel]

Civ3 can validly be treated as a giant mathematical puzzle, a very difficult and complex puzzle. Puzzles may, or may not, have a solution. Chess is usually considered to be a Draw, but this has never been proven. Unlike Chess, Civ3 has been "solved." Nearly every position is a winnable position at 4000 BC. But "solving" the puzzle can still be fun because there is usually more than one solution, and each position is unique. The Puzzle Solvers contribute importantly to understanding of the game through their often tedius explorations (tedius like weeks of seasickness, or nursing saddle sores!), but like Columbus' Discovery of the Americas, or Marco Polo's Voyage to China, the reward can be great.

 

[Zachriel]

How can milking be fair? Doesn't the milk industry get a big government subsidy?