I suggest Simultaneous turns.
As for the precedent that is what I was asking there has to be 15 civ sites or something. someone must have a BTS demogame going on?
Turn Discussion
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
I suggest Simultaneous turns.
As for the precedent that is what I was asking there has to be 15 civ sites or something. someone must have a BTS demogame going on?
IamJohn
(was)?
What did the poly demogame that's going on right now decide about this?
Krill
Deity
I'm still thinking about it.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
For the record, my own earlier post did not take sides. (I didn't even know who the sides were at the time.)
After a bit of thinking, I'm leaning in favour of having some sort of rule, although it'd be rather difficult to enforce (and I don't have any suggestions for how it could be implemented). It genuinely doesn't seem very fair that anyone should be able to continuously switch city builds and tech choices for the sole purpose of denying another team the ability to use espionage against them.I don't think teams should be forced to continue the same builds/techs if they want to change them, just because some other team is watching them. At the same time though, I think that a team switching back and forth every turn is not entirely playing fair. All the same, couldn't someone in your team just log in when they log in, to see what they're doing? I guess that'd be a bit of a pain, so maybe there needs to be a rule. I'm not really sure.
All the same, we need to be very careful to make sure that any such rule doesn't get out of hand. It should only rule against continuous abuse of the exploit, and not prevent teams switching builds and research based on team discussions or in-game circumstances. Things can change after all, and sometimes teams will want to switch mid-tech or mid-build for their own reasons (defense, offense, barbarian troubles, change of plans, etc).
Anyway, all I'm saying is that if there is a rule, we shouldn't allow nit-picking. (Example: "You were building unit A when we approached your city, but then you changed builds and whipped a completely different unit, so we want you to reload and build the unit we thought you were going to build." I sincerely hope that wouldn't ever happen, but you never know.)
I'm really not sure where you got this idea. My own opinion on this matter, as well as the agreement on our team, was formed long before we even met any other team. In-game relationships have absolutely nothing to do with it.
I'm honestly quite disappointed with this whole discussion, and what it says of the game at large. Is winning at all costs really that important that any meta-game tactics are allowed? Can we truly not see an exploit when it's right in front of us? Where did the sense of sportsmanship go?
Krill
Deity
I love the fact that some people feel that they can define sportsmanship to suit their own opinion, and then use it as an attempt to insult other players. The whole "Holier than thou" attitude is hilarious.
Cut it out here though. It isn't a logical argument, and smacks of pettiness. There are cases for not altering certain items after ending turns, that can be very easily policed and enforced. There are also cases to be made for allowing other tactics which are much harder to police and have other drawbacks. Make the arguments and debate them.
Cut it out here though. It isn't a logical argument, and smacks of pettiness. There are cases for not altering certain items after ending turns, that can be very easily policed and enforced. There are also cases to be made for allowing other tactics which are much harder to police and have other drawbacks. Make the arguments and debate them.
I am not "some people". I can stand very well for my own opinion thank you.
Now, what is intended by the developers is always a tricky thing to discuss, and some cases are not clear cut. This one definitely is though:
- The game as implemented implements a component called espionage. Part of the espionage component is that you are able to observe what other players are researching.
- As a consequence, the logical conclusion is that the developers intended that it should be possible to observe what others research through the use of espionage.
- Any (ab)use of a flaw in the implementation of the game that allows a player to circumvent this is thus an exploit, as it wasn't intended by the developers.
This we're discussing here is an exploit. That's a logical conclusion, whether you like it or not.
Emphasis by me. This is a logical argument, nothing else. It certainly isn't my own "definition of sportsmanship". Sportsmanship to me is universally defined to include playing the game as it is intended to be played, which in turn implies not making use of exploits. Do you disagree with that definition?Wikipedia said:
Now, what is intended by the developers is always a tricky thing to discuss, and some cases are not clear cut. This one definitely is though:
- The game as implemented implements a component called espionage. Part of the espionage component is that you are able to observe what other players are researching.
- As a consequence, the logical conclusion is that the developers intended that it should be possible to observe what others research through the use of espionage.
- Any (ab)use of a flaw in the implementation of the game that allows a player to circumvent this is thus an exploit, as it wasn't intended by the developers.
This we're discussing here is an exploit. That's a logical conclusion, whether you like it or not.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
to me, the discussion has gotten way off topic. We are all using language that is loaded and for an issue that is really, really tiny.
I do not believe that ANYONE here is acting in a way that they see as bad sportsmanship. I do believe that there may be different ideas as to what is an exploit and what isn't, which is why we have rules. And a process to amend those rules:
From the demogame rules:
Now, this may or may not be a NEW exploit, but that's the process for dealing with this stuff.
So, I suggest that Team Kaz (or someone) writes up an amendment stating what should be banned and the teams can vote on it. If 3 out of 5 vote for it, it becomes the rules and the teams will abide by the rules.
But without an amendment, all we are doing is spewing away at each other, when we have barbarians to kill, trees to chop down, monarchs to crown, gunpowder to discover, and lands to conquer.
So, someone - propose an amendment that will handle this case.
oh - one more thing. We don't need to figure out the intent of the developers. We just need to figure out what OUR intent is.
I do not believe that ANYONE here is acting in a way that they see as bad sportsmanship. I do believe that there may be different ideas as to what is an exploit and what isn't, which is why we have rules. And a process to amend those rules:
From the demogame rules:
Now, this may or may not be a NEW exploit, but that's the process for dealing with this stuff.
So, I suggest that Team Kaz (or someone) writes up an amendment stating what should be banned and the teams can vote on it. If 3 out of 5 vote for it, it becomes the rules and the teams will abide by the rules.
But without an amendment, all we are doing is spewing away at each other, when we have barbarians to kill, trees to chop down, monarchs to crown, gunpowder to discover, and lands to conquer.
So, someone - propose an amendment that will handle this case.
oh - one more thing. We don't need to figure out the intent of the developers. We just need to figure out what OUR intent is.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Meh, not really. The former is impossible to police - there is absolutely no way to tell if a player has ignored an event that is bad for them or their team, unless the player admits it themselves. On the other hand, it is relatively easy to have grounds for suspicion if your espionage on one player/team continuously shows that they are apparently researching/building certain techs/units, but they always end up with completely different techs/units.
RRRaskolnikov
Goldfish
He asked where sportsmanship was gone... obviously that is his opinion, but I fail to see why you should feel insulted...Cheers
IamJohn
(was)?
Krill isn't insulted (if I'm understanding what he's saying right), he's saying there's a double standard, take it as you will.
It's what several people are saying- the problem with this whole thing is that people are devideing (for the most part) along team lines. With that happening, it's almost impossible to have a decision that truly represents everyone.
It's what several people are saying- the problem with this whole thing is that people are devideing (for the most part) along team lines. With that happening, it's almost impossible to have a decision that truly represents everyone.
The issue about random events isn't really a fair comparison as that also raised the issue of the turnplayer having to make an on-the-spot decision when this is a team game. We shouldn't have had random events on in hindsight - but that's water under the bridge.
I agree with the posters (Memphus & Oyzar) who have suggested simultaneous turns will probably be best for future MTDG pitbosses.
I agree with the posters (Memphus & Oyzar) who have suggested simultaneous turns will probably be best for future MTDG pitbosses.
Ok then, if people are ok for me to do so I'll write something up but I'm probably not going to be able to do so today. So if someone else wants to have a go at making a suggestion for the wording please do so.
Not Really But I can see we are going that way.....I would Like to post this though in arguement of why no rule should be written and instead teams learn to use the feature as mis-information for others:
Niklas said:
wikipedia said:
I don't see anything in there about "playing the game as it was intended to be played"...? If what we are doing is so wrong how come it's not been patched in the two years BtS has been out? It's not like this type of "exploit" (feature IMO) has been understood for only a few days.
Spoiler :
IIRC during the last demogame, in a pitboss game where DaveMcW went for space, he logged in at the end of each turn to add the spaceship parts, and then removed them after the turn roll.
Niklas said:
It's not clear cut, mainly because we're arguing over it. You seem to be claiming it's clear cut because it is your opinion.
My argument is:
A. That this technique has been known about for years
B. The devs have not done anything to alter it
Spoiler :
bonus 
or the chop exploit were taken out, as this wasn't thier intention.
Conclusion:
It's a feature of this type of game.
azzaman333
meh
There is no tangible advantage to doing it, and screw ups can have major consequences for your team.
And attempting to police this is going to result in a contentious admin decision someplace down the track, I can feel it.
And attempting to police this is going to result in a contentious admin decision someplace down the track, I can feel it.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
Guys, please cut it out! I specifically said:
And immediately, several posters began recriminating back and forth again. This is not productive, and it's not helping the situation. If I had moderator powers at CFC, some of you would be getting warnings right now. I also don't want to hear discussion about "what the developers intended", because - shockingly! - it just so happens to be the same as what each poster himself wants it to be. Amazing how that works out...
We already have a procedure in place to resolve this disputes. As I suggested yesterday, and as AutomatedTeller helpfully posted, the official Demogame rules call for a vote on an amendment:
Kaleb (or someone else from Kaz) will draft the amendment because they brought up the issue in the first place. Then we will have a team-by-team vote in the five forums, and decide whether or not to adopt it. Those are the procedures that are in place, and that is what we will be doing.
Going back and forth in this thread is not going to solve anything, so please gentleman, behave yourselves.
And immediately, several posters began recriminating back and forth again. This is not productive, and it's not helping the situation. If I had moderator powers at CFC, some of you would be getting warnings right now. I also don't want to hear discussion about "what the developers intended", because - shockingly! - it just so happens to be the same as what each poster himself wants it to be. Amazing how that works out...
We already have a procedure in place to resolve this disputes. As I suggested yesterday, and as AutomatedTeller helpfully posted, the official Demogame rules call for a vote on an amendment:
Kaleb (or someone else from Kaz) will draft the amendment because they brought up the issue in the first place. Then we will have a team-by-team vote in the five forums, and decide whether or not to adopt it. Those are the procedures that are in place, and that is what we will be doing.
Going back and forth in this thread is not going to solve anything, so please gentleman, behave yourselves.
Unconquered Sun
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,462
I'd rather have broken espionage than double move flame.
Sullla, how could we come to a decision whether to rule this out or not if we aren't allowed to discuss it? Of course we should all stay civil, but that shouldn't preclude discussion itself. Me and Memphus specifically are arguing a point that will have bearing on the game, in a civil manner. Why should we cut it out?
You are also misinterpreting what the dispute is about. We do indeed have a procedure in place to deal with new exploits, and Kaleb has followed begun that procedure. I have no issues with that process, at all. Our discussion here is all part of that process, to come to a conclusion. Where is the wrong in that? It is certainly clear that going back and forth in the thread is not going to change either mine or Memphus' opinions on the matter. But it's not the two of us alone that should make the decision, so the discussion is for the sake of those who may not yet have a clear cut opinion.
I also find it very odd that you wish to dictate what is fair to discuss and what isn't. The very definition of an exploit involves developer intentions, and believe it or not, it is possible to discuss this from an objective point of view. And since the discussion is for the benefit of the readers, it is up to each reader to decide whether something is a reasonable argument or not.
The dispute itself also points out a flaw in rule 4.3. If every team can decide on their own whether something is an exploit or not, then no one would ever need to raise any issue for discussion if they wanted to use it. In my opinion (and apparently Kaleb's), this is an exploit worthy of discussion under 4.3. In Memphus' opinion it is not, and thus he felt he could use it without raising the issue for discussion. I find this odd, and not within the intended spirit of the rule.
I would also refute Memphus' arguments in his post above, but you have told me not to. I strongly object to this position.
You are also misinterpreting what the dispute is about. We do indeed have a procedure in place to deal with new exploits, and Kaleb has followed begun that procedure. I have no issues with that process, at all. Our discussion here is all part of that process, to come to a conclusion. Where is the wrong in that? It is certainly clear that going back and forth in the thread is not going to change either mine or Memphus' opinions on the matter. But it's not the two of us alone that should make the decision, so the discussion is for the sake of those who may not yet have a clear cut opinion.
I also find it very odd that you wish to dictate what is fair to discuss and what isn't. The very definition of an exploit involves developer intentions, and believe it or not, it is possible to discuss this from an objective point of view. And since the discussion is for the benefit of the readers, it is up to each reader to decide whether something is a reasonable argument or not.
The dispute itself also points out a flaw in rule 4.3. If every team can decide on their own whether something is an exploit or not, then no one would ever need to raise any issue for discussion if they wanted to use it. In my opinion (and apparently Kaleb's), this is an exploit worthy of discussion under 4.3. In Memphus' opinion it is not, and thus he felt he could use it without raising the issue for discussion. I find this odd, and not within the intended spirit of the rule.
I would also refute Memphus' arguments in his post above, but you have told me not to. I strongly object to this position.
azzaman333
meh
Personally, I don't see how this is an exploit. An exploit requires the user to gain some sort of advantage, correct? In this case, there is no advantage to the user that I can see. It doesn't make EPs useless and it doesn't let anyone tech/build things faster.
And, still speaking solely for myself, I fear that one of the teams will unintentionally breach a potential rule that is set in place, or that another team will feel that a rule was breached and that the breach resulted in them losing a key battle, or missing a GP from teching something first, and there will be a disturbingly destructive fallout from whichever way the admins end up ruling it. It's not worth it IMO.
And, still speaking solely for myself, I fear that one of the teams will unintentionally breach a potential rule that is set in place, or that another team will feel that a rule was breached and that the breach resulted in them losing a key battle, or missing a GP from teching something first, and there will be a disturbingly destructive fallout from whichever way the admins end up ruling it. It's not worth it IMO.
Indiansmoke
Deity
You don't see an advantage?
Whether you have a neighbour teching rifling or one teching constitution does not matter?
Whether you opponent is teching education or guilds does not matter?
Intel is very important, not to mention the fact that you get a bonus for teching techs that other civs already know, so knowing what others are researching something might incline you to wait until they finish it so you get the bonus.
Basically by using this turn based pitboss loophole you remove one of the most important aspects of early espionaze.
So teams that use it are enjoying the benefits of seing what others research and teams that don't twiddle their thumbs trying to predict.
Similar threads
