Trading exploit

[Seraiel]

Hi .

As you all probably know already, one can get crazy sums of GPT via gifting GPT + a resource to an AI that is not in financial trouble, then trade that AI all resources it doesn't need for the full value, and then destroy the own resource from the beginning, to cancel that GPT-trade instantly.

In xGOTM, this exploit is banned, in HoF not. I wanted to ask on the "why's" , because obviously, this is a heavy exploit that was by 100% not intended by the developers.

I'd wish, that we could ban this exploit from the HoF. Is there any possibility to check such trade-behaviour with the new BUFFY, because manual checks ofc are out of question by the number of HoF games that get submitted every month.

If you cannot ban it for whatever reason, I unfortunately have to use this exploit which I never used even though knowing about it, but competition has become so hard on some spots, that I think I need to use everything I can, and that also because other players against which I compete do the same. I'd find that very ood, because games using that exploit are still a minority in the HoF, but we'll probably see more abusive behaviour if we don't adjust the rules to xGOTM.

Sera

P.S.: I think this exploit is even banned in CIV5 HoF.

 

[Pangaea]

I wish this was banned too. Especially if it's possible to check automatically via spikes in foreign trade or something like that. I remember checking a space game a while back, and seeing such absurd levels of income was a bit grating. It's obviously a game changer.

 

[WastinTime]

Seemed like those surveyed about this said they don't use it.
I suppose there could be some using it that didn't speak up.

I don't really care if someone does. I personally do not use it...(and I thrive on abusing mechanics to their legal limit ) I did try it once after I heard about it to see what the fuss was all about. I found the effect to be underwhelming. It could even be one of those things that you don't realize is actually hurting you more then it helps (because you're crippling the AI who trades you tech).

It scales as the game goes on too. e.g. you can't get more than a couple gpt for a resource once currency unlocks the ability.

After selling resources to the AI for 1 gpt for so long, it only seems fair to get a reasonable price eventually. That's what they demand from you for their resources.

 

[Seraiel]

Can we plz get an official statement on this? *looks over to Denniz and Noble Zarkon*

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Persoanlly I was hoping others would chip in so the Staff could see the general consensus before we discussed.

 

[Pangaea]

Can only repeat what I said earlier, that I hope this is banned in the HoF too. Since it's banned in other competitive games, I assume there is some way to identify it upon checking the saves, so it won't involve lots of extra work for the staff.

Sure, it can be frustrating to get little for excess resources, and at least in the late game, play a fortune when needing something, particularly metals, horses or ivory (and later stuff I assume), but I do think that getting huge amounts of gold every turn is an exploit that shouldn't really be allowed. Would be a shame if everybody would have to start doing this to be competitive in the best HoF games. It's already tricky enough to do well, but I like to play the game instead of relying on countless exploits or bugs. It's not that fun if competitive games become a race of who can abuse mechanics the worst. I'm no big fan of espionage by culture and mass-whipping of executives (etc) for much the same reason. I just want to play the game, not think about exploits all the bloody time.

 

[Seraiel]

Espionage by culture is a wanted feature of the Devs though (I guess) and I think they were aware of Missionary- / Exec-Failgold too. Espionage by Culture had 10 times the strength in one of the prior patches, and then got rebalanced, and Failgold of Missionaries and Execs is a feature from the base-game, right, so it's not BUG / BUFFY specific like the for OF, right? Failgold from Missionaries and Execs is also quite balanced, if i. e. comparing Kaitzilla's Gauntlet game to mine, he sat 20T at 0% and solved his economical problems, I whipped Execs, result was, that he got to 70% after 20T again while I was making about the same BPT at 100%, which I could keep though. I agree, that it gets a little too powerful with Kremlin, but that's only a short phase, and Failgold from National-Wonders like the Hermitage isn't that much less efficient either, before Kremlin it's even more efficient than Execs / Missionaries.

The trade-exploit is a pure exploit though. DEVs made Roads not pillageable, because they wanted to ban trades being cancelled instantly, they only forgot that pillaging the resources does the same (n00bs ^^) . I understand, why WastinTime feels, that this exploit is fair, because a player i. e. also has to pay 150 GPT to get Iron, so my own argument would only be, that I'd want HoF and xOTM to have the same rules as far as possible. I'm able to live with both decisions though, all I want is a clear statement of the staff, that this is either forbidden or otherwise allowed and wanted, because then, I'll exploit with it in all of my future games.

 

[Denniz]

My first thought was that it was banned. But I couldn't find any reference to it on the rules page.

I don't remember the discussion on this. Can someone point me to it?

Normally, we would want to ban big Gold/GPT exploits as they are very unbalancing. Unfortunately, it may have been in play too long. Banning it now may work against us by making past submissions untouchable.

 

[Pangaea]

Earlier it was said that this exploit is banned in GOTM, but I actually don't see that mentioned (where I looked). For instance, this thread doesn't mention it. Where is that info from?

Denniz, there was some discussion about it here, if I recall, split from some thread in SGOTM 17: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=487771

 

[shulec]

I am pretty sure it is not banned. I have never used it. I don't care if it is banned, but I will support a ban since it is an exploit.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I am pretty sure this was an exploit in Civ III that was not entirely banned. I believe what was done in III was to state that you couldn't put the AI into deficit, but anything else was ok. I don't think there was an enforcement mechanism, per se, though.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

I don't recall it being banned for Civ IV XOTM games (GOTM, WOTM, BOTM).

For Civ IV SGOTM games, some teams had a "Gentleman's Agreement" not to use it and then in later Civ IV SGOTM games, I believe that it was officially banned.

However, I believe that the precise ban in SGOTM didn't cover all of the cases, yet since the games are team-based, we essentially would be policing ourselves to not use the cases that were not fully covered.

For individual play, you'd need some Rules Lawyers to be very precise about what exactly gets banned, and you'd likely want a way to automatically check for it.

Accepting a game and then 2 months later rejecting the game because someone happened to look at a graph and report a problem doesn't make for a very good rule, so without some automatic checking, I don't think that it's practical to put in a ban for games that are played individually, especially since I will tell you right now from the previous discussions on the subject that different people will have different opinions on how far to implement the ban.

The real solution would be to try to patch it out. For example, the bugged overflow from whipping when having a Forge got patched out by the HOF Mod, even though it remained in the main game.

Certain parts can't/shouldn't be patched out (Pillaging your own Resources) due to other valid, strategic uses (wanting to build Warriors by Pillaging the Iron that appeared on a GH Mine Road square), but it should be possible to patch out the behaviour of an AI being willing to pay more than the formula that it uses to calculate the max GPT (Gold per Turn) that it will offer to the human player due to temporarily gifting GPT to that AI. To me, someone figuring out what to change in the code to remove that part of the issue, then submitting that code somewhere so that it can get incorporated into a HOF patch, would be the best solution.

 

[elitetroops]

I believe this one would be hard to patch. If you make the AI more likely to cancel deals they can't afford, it would affect a lot of other things as well. One solution I can think of would be to not automatically cancel a deal when you lose a resource included in the deal, but instead have the AI re-evaluate the deal at that time to see if it should be cancelled or not. That should partly fix this. You could still gift them a ton of gpt, sell a resource for that price and cancel your gpt gift in 10 turns, but that wouldn't be nearly as powerful as being able to cancel immediately by pillaging a resource.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

My suggestion was to focus on a key fix, which is: at the time of initiating a trade, do not include any incoming GPT in the calculation of how much GPT the AI will be willing to put on the table. Of course, that's said without looking at the code and it could be that the incoming GPT gets factored into a variable at a different part of the code, meaning that one might have to find a way to subtract that value rather than ignore it. But, it seems that such a seemingly-simplistic approach would target the core of the problem without requiring a complicated solution.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am pretty sure it is not banned. I have never used it. I don't care if it is banned, but I will support a ban since it is an exploit.

For as much as a (mostly retired) position counts, I would argue against a ban. Not just on merit of it being used on a stable patch version of the game for years, but also on merit of its marginal utility when compared against other micromanagement-intensive or borderline tactics that are necessarily allowed, including start-scumming.

"Exploit" carries no meaningful universal definition between all players and is not a useful term in this discussion unless people pre-agree on a definition for it. If you want to define it as "something bannable" then the quoted post is circular. If you want to define it as "not intended by the developers" then banning this and not the executive whip or similar tricks is inconsistent/irrational, not to mention prone to inconsistent interpretation of somebody else's intent.

It would carry similar value as saying that I believe hall of fame should ban slavery since it is a wharlgarble. Since slavery fits the definition of a wharlgarble as I picture it in my mind, it is a clear basis for banning the civic for future HoF games. This is a common bias when discussing HoF rules over the years. It's important to come up with a clear basis/threshold for what is ban-able *first*, then look at mechanics to see if they meet the criteria. The more objective the criteria, the better.

While I have seen a few discussions here about how strong it is, I have seen no numerical evidence to back the assertion, and counter-anecdotal evidence by one of the most successful players in HoF history (if not the most successful).

Let us not cave to bias, and define a wharlgarble, only to ban a wharlgarble because it's been defined as a wharlgarble.

 

[shulec]

For as much as a (mostly retired) position counts, I would argue against a ban. Not just on merit of it being used on a stable patch version of the game for years, but also on merit of its marginal utility when compared against other micromanagement-intensive or borderline tactics that are necessarily allowed, including start-scumming.

"Exploit" carries no meaningful universal definition between all players and is not a useful term in this discussion unless people pre-agree on a definition for it. If you want to define it as "something bannable" then the quoted post is circular. If you want to define it as "not intended by the developers" then banning this and not the executive whip or similar tricks is inconsistent/irrational, not to mention prone to inconsistent interpretation of somebody else's intent.

It would carry similar value as saying that I believe hall of fame should ban slavery since it is a wharlgarble. Since slavery fits the definition of a wharlgarble as I picture it in my mind, it is a clear basis for banning the civic for future HoF games. This is a common bias when discussing HoF rules over the years. It's important to come up with a clear basis/threshold for what is ban-able *first*, then look at mechanics to see if they meet the criteria. The more objective the criteria, the better.

While I have seen a few discussions here about how strong it is, I have seen no numerical evidence to back the assertion, and counter-anecdotal evidence by one of the most successful players in HoF history (if not the most successful).

Let us not cave to bias, and define a wharlgarble, only to ban a wharlgarble because it's been defined as a wharlgarble.

I see somethin' that ain't right, no matter whatcha wanna call it. It is that simple.

But I will forward your comments to my lawyer.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I see somethin' that ain't right, no matter whatcha wanna call it. It is that simple.

But I will forward your comments to my lawyer.

If we could rely on how things seem, people wouldn't have bias nor would this even be discussed, since everyone would agree on it a taken for granted one way or the other.

Pretending bias doesn't exist will not make it go away, and this discussion is bias prone.

Hand waving what I said as legal jargon does not address my points, but it is consistent with behavior where one makes up their mind and then doesn't challenge that with evidence.

What level of evidence could make you change you mind and conclude the tactic isn't a big deal? If the tactic is banned, exactly what repercussions to hof comp do you anticipate? If it isn't banned, what contrast do you expect with that anticipation?

If you showed me this tactic is consistently useful and saves more turns than mapfinder and allowed tricks, I could change my position.

 

[shulec]

What level of evidence could make you change you mind and conclude the tactic isn't a big deal? Impossible...I already agree!
If the tactic is banned, exactly what repercussions to hof comp do you anticipate? Very little.
If it isn't banned, what contrast do you expect with that anticipation? None.

I am simply refusing to engage in a discussion to define exploit. I see your point, but do not value a discussion upon it.

There really is no simple way to enforce this ban. I would assume it could not be easily modded out, so it becomes a voluntary ban.

I am simply stating my position that I would support the ban (if that is what HoF players want). It seems that the HoF players' silence is speaking very loudly! So I also support allowing this tactic.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am simply refusing to engage in a discussion to define exploit. I see your point, but do not value a discussion upon it.

There really is no simple way to enforce this ban. I would assume it could not be easily modded out, so it becomes a voluntary ban.

I am simply stating my position that I would support the ban (if that is what HoF players want). It seems that the HoF players' silence is speaking very loudly! So I also support allowing this tactic.

The bias isn't over the definition of the term exploit. That's been a red herring all along. What is relevant to this thread is whether an individual tactic is ban-worthy. Fabricating any definition of exploit, even one we agree on, is useless to that end in a vacuum. My opposition to it previously was that it was a circular/over-generic case being made against the tactic and used in lieu of evidence-based reasoning.

I want to see the real reason a many-years-existing tactic with uneven usage is being suggested for a ban, in contrast to other tactics.

(moving this post to a more general address to those in this thread):

Banning will incur some cost. While that cost may or may not be small, the expected utility is questionable. I extend the three questions I asked Shulec to everyone. In order to have a rational case for or against anything in the game (not just this mechanic), there must be some level of evidence supporting that belief, and thus some degree of evidence against that belief that would make you change your mind.

Beliefs that don't alter what you expect to see are those born of bias/ignoring evidence. I gave the nonsense example of banning slavery in an attempt to showcase this. In order to favor the ban and have a rational case, you can't answer the same way as Shulec (who doesn't care to the extent of taking a side). There must be a concrete anticipated difference between having and not having the ban, and preferably this difference would be 1) worth the cost and 2) an amount where we can attain reasonable confidence.

Wastintime's post is evidence against confidence in 2, because he claims he does not use the tactic. Note that rather than an appeal to authority, this is an appeal to results; he carries a lot of top slots which damages the credibility that the mechanic provides the kind of advantage implied in the opening post.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I haven't been able to find anything referencing a ban in the xGOTM pages, not can I replicate it (if I set up a trade and pillage the included resource then the trade is automatically cancelled), are we sure this is still an issue? Has anybody tested it recently.