Turn Discussion

[Dreylin]

Well it's really all about allocation of resources. (as Civ always comes down to at it's basic level)

You can choose to allocate in-game resources (espionage points) to try to find out what your opponent is researching. They in turn can allocate in-game resources (also EPs) to attempt to prevent that information being revealed ... or they can allocate out of game resources (a person's time) to use this method to conceal that knowledge.

Alternatively and additionally, out of game resources (diplomacy: letters, chats, etc.) can be allocated to try and discover the same information and they can equally be allocated to spreading disinformation.

Not trying to support either side here, just voice my POV.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I'd rather have broken espionage than double move flame.

Double moves are very easy to spot and guard against with Civstats, though. So personally, I think they'd cause far less of an issue than the espionage problem. Anyway, that's kind of moot for the present game.

Sullla: I know you're trying to help, but I seriously think the best way to defuse situations like this is to just let the discussion run its course. Provided people don't get to the stage of continuously hurling insults at each other instead of advancing the discussion, it's usually better to just let it go. This is experience from multiple past democracy games speaking - one of which I was in the same position as you, as a map maker / part time admin.

 

[azzaman333]

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.

It's no different to spreading misinformation via other means, as far as I'm concerned.

Personally, I wouldn't use it, because it'd be way too easy to screw up if you forget something. But I have no qualms with others using it if they so wish to attempt to deliver misinformaton to me. I'm not going to trust them, but they aren't getting anything extra out of it.

 

[HUSch]

The best advantage in seq. PB is, you all get every turn the chance to save a game, which you can see after sometime. The other way this chance has only the first player.
My question: Is that good? Answer: No!

The changes in cities and the sliders take pains for the turnplayer, and gives only little advantage. Example: Have we seen in the researching of rel-techs .

 

[oyzar]

If we can't trust people to follow the rules then the whole game is worthless. Saving the game and moving units around offline(for extra info) is very easy, and it doesn't leave any sort of trace in the game itself. We all agreed not to do this. If we can't agree to follow rules that aren't enforcable we have a very big problem.

With that issue out of the way, the fact remaisn, is this a tactic that should be allowed?

Azzaman claims it gives no benefit. How does giving the other teams less info to work with(both what you are researching and your demographics, as the graphs are 2 turns delayed) not give an advantage? If you think information is worthless, you are lacking somewhat in the understanding of the game.

Memphus, about the devs knowing about it for years, the devs don't know everything. And even if they did know about it, how long did it take for overflow to get changed in 3.19? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=218272 this thread explaining how it works was posted in april 2007, yet it took over 2 years to change it.

 

[Memphus]

Memphus, about the devs knowing about it for years, the devs don't know everything. And even if they did know about it, how long did it take for overflow to get changed in 3.19? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=218272 this thread explaining how it works was posted in april 2007, yet it took over 2 years to change it.

Very Valid point!

Something else to consider then:

It is quite apparent from in game that SANCTA is running a different from of economy. (not too heavy on ) that we can't hide (if we are hiding anything at all )

When we started this game I and other members were aware of this ability, to hide research if we so chose, and as such the value of for is lower. So in that breath if a chage is made now mid game we arn't as poised as any other team to turn up the slider to coutner-act the effects. Had we known about this from the on set of the game different descisions may have been made, build a cottage instead of a mine for example.

It is for this same beggining of the game knowledge that we DIDN'T adopt slavery due to the chance of a slave riot. Now we took our lump on that one when negative events went away, but missed the early window to really make slavery a factor. (We do understand though that had we risked it liked everyone else did when they made the call to go to slavery we could of also had the pick-up)

But in this case, changing the rules accomplishes what again?
1. It allows team who have more raw to invest in
2. These teams then get the benefit of seeing the other teams current research, and other abilities.
So this puts teams with a lower raw at a disadvantage.

Vs. Not changing the rules:
1. Everyone can use that information at thier own risk.
2. Any team changing it risks making a mistake and as such could ruin plans
3. There is still other tangible benefits to using so it isn't killed from the game.

So all teams are on the same playing field because the technique is equally known to all.

 

[azzaman333]

If we can't trust people to follow the rules then the whole game is worthless. Saving the game and moving units around offline(for extra info) is very easy, and it doesn't leave any sort of trace in the game itself. We all agreed not to do this. If we can't agree to follow rules that aren't enforcable we have a very big problem.

As I said, the rule will likely cause more issues when there is a percieved breach of the rule by one of the teams later. Someone is going to get burnt by the rule unless its very clear.

Azzaman claims it gives no benefit. How does giving the other teams less info to work with(both what you are researching and your demographics, as the graphs are 2 turns delayed) not give an advantage? If you think information is worthless, you are lacking somewhat in the understanding of the game.

It's no different to not telling the truth via diplomacy as far as I'm concerned. You and Memphus obviously disagree with me on that, but that won't change my opinion.

 

[Lord Parkin]

It's no different to not telling the truth via diplomacy as far as I'm concerned. You and Memphus obviously disagree with me on that, but that won't change my opinion.

Except that you're unlikely to be telling your enemy what you're researching and building in wartime. That's certainly useful information that you wouldn't otherwise hear about (lie or not).

 

[mostly-harmless]

You can choose to allocate in-game resources (espionage points) to try to find out what your opponent is researching. They in turn can allocate in-game resources (also EPs) to attempt to prevent that information being revealed ... or they can allocate out of game resources (a person's time) to use this method to conceal that knowledge.

I am with Dreylin here. It is a method that can be applied. I personally think it was not intended by the developers to be used like this, but then with a game that complex there is a lot of stuff in the game that is not intended to be used like it can be now.
Example: The whole demo screen is flawed in my opinion. Why are you able to see what other civs are doing (by looking at the demo stats) if you don't have met them yet. Now, do we allow for players to dig deep into the code to figure out exactly how certain stats are calculated to gain detailed intelligence on their opponents?

mh

 

[HUSch]

Azzaman claims it gives no benefit. How does giving the other teams less info to work with(both what you are researching and your demographics, as the graphs are 2 turns delayed) not give an advantage? If you think information is worthless, you are lacking somewhat in the understanding of the game.

1. we play a game, if you wish to cheat, you will do it; We (I) can only hope, that this woudn't happen.
2. Why do you say 2 turns later. After eot you get in F9 (if you 've enough points) the values of the turn; so Kaz (the first) has allways for their turn all verified infos, we (MS) after our turn. I can see there no problem. What can you hide? GNP/prod and food, the most important values as military- and game-points are allways true. That is a very good cue for any tech you researched.

btw we have at least enough manpower to play, for any hide-work is my time too dear for me. If other teams can do this, ok, let they. I wouldn't make a law against it.

 

[DaveShack]

How exactly is this tactic of changing things right before the turn roll supposed to work? You don't know when the turn will roll, so how would you know when to log in and change things to their real values?

If this is such a well-known possibility, then it should have been anticipated that some team would use it. Or am I missing something else on that too?

 

[oyzar]

You change things right after your own turn rolls, when everyone else check all your values are way of chart, but right before ending your own turn you change them to the correct ones. The others won't know what the correct ones are.

 

[Kaleb]

How exactly is this tactic of changing things right before the turn roll supposed to work? You don't know when the turn will roll, so how would you know when to log in and change things to their real values?

If this is such a well-known possibility, then it should have been anticipated that some team would use it. Or am I missing something else on that too?

I did anticipate this would be used - but didn't think any teams would be using this exploit (very naive in hindsight). Let alone using the exploit on the basis that they thought every other team would also be using the exploit as Memphus is arguing.

When I raised the point I was also honestly not expecting that SANCTA would be making such a concerted effort to argue in favour of continuing to use the exploit.

In fact I find it a bit disconcerting how the arguments have changed. First of all it was "this can't be policed" to "this is the same as skipping random events" to "this is the same as micromanaging" to "there's no benefit to using the exploit" until finally they came clean and admitted they are using the tactic.

Now the argument is "this isn't fair, if we had known other teams weren't going to use this exploit we would have have invested into instead of and ".

C'mon, are you serious?

Someone is going to get burnt by the rule unless its very clear.

This may be true, and if so, I would prefer if someone who was better versed than I in matters such as this had a go at writing up an amendment that the teams can then vote on.

 

[Krill]

Quibble: Kaleb, calling this tactic an exploit before anything is decided is prepossession, and doesn't really help debate.

In fact I find it a bit disconcerting how the arguments have changed. First of all it was "this can't be policed" to "this is the same as skipping random events" to "this is the same as micromanaging" to "there's no benefit to using the exploit" until finally they came clean and admitted they are using the tactic.

The arguments haven't changed. Those are all arguments to continue using this tactic. Also, I don't think SANCTA has ever denied using this; I know I've never said that. It's a decent ad hominem though. azzamans argument is stupid, but apart from that I don't think I've seen many refutations of the arguments.

Now the argument is "this isn't fair, if we had known other teams weren't going to use this exploit we would have have invested into instead of and ".

C'mon, are you serious?

I was thinking of raising this a long time ago, before it became an issue - but I honestly didn't think anyone would be using these tactics...

We did a little bit of 'shuffling' early in the game for a couple of turns but gave up on it after an internal discussion.

What? A tactic that is known about before the start is worked into the game strategy, and then later on you are told that tactic is considered unfair and some want it ruled out? If this was decided before the start of the game, I think many would agree that you have a point, but changing the rules halfway through a game when steps have already been taking down paticular paths...yes, very serious.

Considering that both Kaz and Cav "knew" of this months ago, that would have been the ideal time to bring it up (as said previously), to minimise possible damage. Leaving the matter until it suited your agenda smacks of oppurtunism, especially because if both teams knew about it and didn't consider it an exploit at that point, why consider it one now? And if you did use it, as you claim, and you consider it an exploit, isn't that rule 4.2 you just broke? (seriously, that is a pretty wicked double standard right there).

AFACT the only problem is that research can be hidden, correct? So, all the other aspects of espionage, the graphs, city visibility etc aren't affected.

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.

Minor point, the turn player could have stayed logged in until concensus was reached by the team. The reason we agreed to scrap events was because if the turn player didn't like the events he could leave the game and no one would be any the wiser.

 

[mostly-harmless]

When I raised the point I was also honestly not expecting that SANCTA would be making such a concerted effort to argue in favour of continuing to use the exploit.

Why would you not expect the members of the team that this new ruling is allegedly affecting most being very active in this discussion?
Besides, the term "concerted" implies to me, that we agreed in our forum to swamp this thread with our posts. That is not the case. Maybe, the reason why so many SANCTA members are taking an active part in this discussion is because we have more active members than other teams?

mh

 

[Kaleb]

Quibble: Kaleb, calling this tactic an exploit before anything is decided is prepossession, and doesn't really help debate.

Ok, point taken - I should have caveated with an "IMO" as the whole point of this discussion is to decide if this is an exploit (although I do think it is obviously...)

The arguments haven't changed. Those are all arguments to continue using this tactic. Also, I don't think SANCTA has ever denied using this; I know I've never said that. It's a decent ad hominem though. azzamans argument is stupid, but apart from that I don't think I've seen many refutations of the arguments.

They've all been refuted in this thread already by people like oyzar, niklas, parkin and indiansmoke. SANCTA haven't flat out denied they were doing this but the early part of the debate you were arguing in such a way as to go against a ruling without actually saying you thought it was ok to use the "technique".

What? A tactic that is known about before the start is worked into the game strategy, and then later on you are told that tactic is considered unfair and some want it ruled out? If this was decided before the start of the game, I think many would agree that you have a point, but changing the rules halfway through a game when steps have already been taking down paticular paths...yes, very serious.

You seriously worked this into the strategy so early on? How about we take the opposite argument then: We have based our strategy on people not using this exploit techique and had we known they would be then we would have done things differently (allocated against other civs for example) and it's not fair now for teams to continue to do so.

I can't see us deciding anything on the basis of that line of argument. Either way.

Considering that both Kaz and Cav "knew" of this months ago, that would have been the ideal time to bring it up (as said previously), to minimise possible damage. Leaving the matter until it suited your agenda smacks of oppurtunism, especially because if both teams knew about it and didn't consider it an exploit at that point, why consider it one now? And if you did use it, as you claim, and you consider it an exploit, isn't that rule 4.2 you just broke? (seriously, that is a pretty wicked double standard right there).

It hasn't been left until when it suits an "agenda" it was left until it was realised that a team was actually using it. I honestly didn't think anyone would be using this technique - I've said this already several times to explain why it's being brought up for debate now.

Minor point, the turn player could have stayed logged in until concensus was reached by the team. The reason we agreed to scrap events was because if the turn player didn't like the events he could leave the game and no one would be any the wiser.

I don't know why we have to keep going back the random events debate, but no, I could not stay logged in until consensus was reached. I don't particularly fancy leaving my PC on for 10 hours or whatever it is until I get back from work, or wake up the next day etc etc. We agreed to scrap events for a number of reasons, including the reason you give.

Why would you not expect the members of the team that this new ruling is allegedly affecting most being very active in this discussion?
Besides, the term "concerted" implies to me, that we agreed in our forum to swamp this thread with our posts. That is not the case. Maybe, the reason why so many SANCTA members are taking an active part in this discussion is because we have more active members than other teams?

Ok, if you say it's not "concerted" I'll take your word for it. And yes, you probably do have the most active members.

 

[Krill]

They've all been refuted in this thread already by people like oyzar, niklas, parkin and indiansmoke. SANCTA haven't flat out denied they were doing this but the early part of the debate you were arguing in such a way as to go against a ruling without actually saying you thought it was ok to use the "technique".

Refutation of policing argument:

As to those who say it cannot be policed...says who? We can provide screens of a team teching feudalism for example for 5 turns and then suddenly discovering civil service the next turn...is that not proof?

This shows that it can be partially policed; as I said before trades can be hidden, and that has yet to be refuted. In this case as it was currency being researched, yes, it can be shown, but their are multilpe other cases where it can't be checked without an admin looking at the game, and then giving extra infomation away that would (should?) be unknown.

I don't actually see any other refutations...I see Niklas arguing it is an exploit and "Not Sporting Behaviour" but not much else...

Spoiler :

As for switching techs back and forth, i agree that it is quite cheesy.

I think that a team switching back and forth every turn is not entirely playing fair

Those looks like opinions to me, and not refutations...

You seriously worked this into the strategy so early on? How about we take the opposite argument then: We have based our strategy on people not using this exploit techique and had we known they would be then we would have done things differently (allocated against other civs for example) and it's not fair now for teams to continue to do so.

Espionage has multiple other benefits, as I said beforehand, none of which are affected by this tactic. The graphs are still present and give exact values, city visibility is still present and at the absolute top end, one can still see into the cities. techs can still be stolen, water poisned etc. The only effect of this tactic is to hide research.

It hasn't been left until when it suits an "agenda" it was left until it was realised that a team was actually using it. I honestly didn't think anyone would be using this technique - I've said this already several times to explain why it's being brought up for debate now.

The other way of looking at it is that you assumed a tactic was illegal when it patently was not illegal under the rules, which is shortsighted. But it couldn't have been illegal, because you used it previously. Now that you realise that it isn't illegal under the current rules and you screwed up/other teams know the tactic and are using it to their advantage, you are trying to change the rules so you get an advantage. So in effect you've just admitted that you played badly and now want a do over.

Perspective makes for an interesting argument.

I don't know why we have to keep going back the random events debate, but no, I could not stay logged in until consensus was reached. I don't particularly fancy leaving my PC on for 10 hours or whatever it is until I get back from work, or wake up the next day etc etc. We agreed to scrap events for a number of reasons, including the reason you give.

Actually I only meant that as an aside, illustrating that it is possible.

 

[azzaman333]

Part of the point of going to pitboss instead of PBEM isn't just the speed factor - it also helps a huge amount in getting rid of disputes over wars, because no-one has any possibility of being accused of reloading (i.e. cheating). I've been around democracy games for a number of years now, and one thing I've noticed is that regardless of whether or not anyone actually cheats, there are frequently accusations of cheating, which can cause a great deal of unnecessary bitterness (and can sometimes kill games). So it's no small thing that pitboss removes the possibility for accusations of cheating in wartime. (Well, except for double moves, but at least those are easily detectable - unlike reloads in PBEMs.)

I noticed this post in a different thread regarding the MTDG, and I think a similar thing applies to this situation. Regardless or not of whether people are abusing a potential future rule on this matter, accusations of cheating will occur and they likely won't be pretty.

 

[DaveShack]

I think there is nothing to gain by endlessly discussing this. If a team wants to bring forward a rule proposal in its own thread, then please do so.

 

[Kaleb]

But it couldn't have been illegal, because you used it previously. Now that you realise that it isn't illegal under the current rules and you screwed up/other teams know the tactic and are using it to their advantage, you are trying to change the rules so you get an advantage. So in effect you've just admitted that you played badly and now want a do over.

Right, this whole discussion is because we've "screwed up" and are "playing badly"?! uh huh

I think Daveshack is right - we're not getting anywhere with this discussion. I'll try and right a proposed rule change up tomorrow and teams can vote on it.