What do you consider an exploit?

[Tabarnak]

Personally I think they should have done RAs in the vein of Master of Orion II and just made it an over-time cash investment for an over-time raw beaker return.

This is what i support for many years and example from Moo2 is perfect in that sense. And it's not difficult to code. If they did it in the 90's i don't know why they couldn't today, and with a lot more variables.

 

[Lyoncet]

This is what i support for many years and example from Moo2 is perfect in that sense. And it's not difficult to code. If they did it in the 90's i don't know why they couldn't today, and with a lot more variables.

The only thing I can see favoring current RAs against that model is just that: variables. I'd love to see variable startup fees and flexible rates on both sides, but I think one of the reasons they went with the system we have now is because it's simpler to understand: get money, click yes, and wait until you get something cool. Simple. But if they (or modders) decided to switch it, I think you could do some really great/interesting/dynamic things with that system.

 

[pirsq]

I think exploiting any advantage you can get is an essential part of any strategy game. Are you better at tactics than your opponent? Then you should engage in battles where you have a numerical disadvantage! Are you better at bargaining than your opponent? Then you should enter into as many trades as you can! The whole point of competitive play is to play to your advantages and your opponent's weaknesses.

If you want an immersive game, then by all means refrain from doing things which don't make any sense. But why should anyone seek to prevent other people from doing it in their separate single-player games?

 

[Lyoncet]

I think exploiting any advantage you can get is an essential part of any strategy game. Are you better at tactics than your opponent? Then you should engage in battles where you have a numerical disadvantage! Are you better at bargaining than your opponent? Then you should enter into as many trades as you can! The whole point of competitive play is to play to your advantages and your opponent's weaknesses.

If you want an immersive game, then by all means refrain from doing things which don't make any sense. But why should anyone seek to prevent other people from doing it in their separate single-player games?

The point most people here are making is that there are a number of really dumb things the AI does simply because of an oversight on the part of the developers. If Leader X has traded you 6 luxuries for 1800 gold and then declared war four times, knowing not to accept his fifth offer of 6 luxuries for 1800 gold doesn't mean your good at tactics; that's common sense, and it's something that the developers failed to program in. Taking advantage of that could be considered exploitative, since it's taking advantage of a huge flaw in the game design. That's not saying it's bad or you shouldn't do it, but it's something that's hard to chalk up to "good tactics."

 

[_hero_]

that's a logical leap you cannot really make.
given that they have limited dev power, and simply changing the blocking percent from 25 to 33 or whatever they did is a one liner code change, my guess is they dislike RA blocking but were unsure how to fix it easily, so made it slightly harder.
i won't be surprised if they keep revisiting it.

removing blocking completely isn't viable, as they wouldn't want casual players who know nothing of it to occasionally get the tech they're 90% done with as a result of a RA.

Please. They've been aware of RA blocking for a long time. There are plenty of ways to cut it down. Simply make it so that you cant get the tech you're currently researching unless there are no techs left. Problem solved (in most situations). It's not rocket science and they have tackled lots of game play issues that were much more complex like ICS. If they can't figure out a better solution to it then slightly increasing the level at which it is blocked, then they really need to hire some smarter people. Doesn't seem like a logical leap at all to me.

 

[vexing]

It's not rocket science and they have tackled lots of game play issues that were much more complex like ICS.

you do realize the actual change there was simply modifying min spaces between cities from 2 to 3? most of the changes in the 215 patch were just so, minor xml modifications any modder could do in a minute. they no longer have the full team of programmers they had during initial development.

dave seems convinced they didn't make any changes to RA blocking, so your prerequisite (ie they made a change) to your assumption isn't valid.

anyway, my main point was any assumptions of developer intent can't be proven. you'll need to get a statement out of the developers or greg2k or such. to me it seems highly unlikely RA guiding was intended; as to the more significant question of whether it will be nerfed or not, i have no clue. that it has been in for so long without being fixed is possibly an indication it won't change, overcoming inertia is always difficult.

 

[MadDjinn]

anyway, my main point was any assumptions of developer intent can't be proven. you'll need to get a statement out of the developers or greg2k or such. to me it seems highly unlikely RA guiding was intended; as to the more significant question of whether it will be nerfed or not, i have no clue. that it has been in for so long without being fixed is possibly an indication it won't change, overcoming inertia is always difficult.

sigh...

you're making the leap of 'faith' that says that this is an exploit because you say so, and not because it's in the game as the developers put it in there. Ok, so you think the developers made a mistake on implementing this part of the game. Fine, say that, don't call it an exploit.

I've already listed the only three exploits in the game. (as far as I've heard about/found) Everything else is people sharing their opinions, but by putting words in the developers mouths by calling it an exploit. So you have to prove it wasn't intended to be like that by showing that the developers 'said it' or that they patched it. You have to prove that it somehow managed to get into the game as a mistake, rather than actually written into the code on purpose.

Either way, you should drop the 'call a developer' line of argument because you're relying on it as a part of your counter-argument given you say "seems highly unlikely RA guiding was intended". Prove the developer intent in that statement. You can't any more than people on the other side.

It's actually more likely to say RA guiding was intended since it's in the game.

 

[vexing]

when did i call it an exploit?

It's actually more likely to say RA guiding was intended since it's in the game.

by that logic, multiple oxfords are intended.

 

[MadDjinn]

when did i call it an exploit?



by that logic, multiple oxfords are intended.

nope, that's different logic.

there's clear evidence that says multiple Oxfords are not intended.

Ie, you are only allowed to build one of each type of National Wonder.

Says so right in the manual:

National Wonders
National Wonders may be built once by each civilization in the game. That is, each civilization
can have its own National Epic Wonder (though no civilization can have two of them).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

you do realize the actual change there was simply modifying min spaces between cities from 2 to 3? most of the changes in the 215 patch were just so, minor xml modifications any modder could do in a minute. they no longer have the full team of programmers they had during initial development.

dave seems convinced they didn't make any changes to RA blocking, so your prerequisite (ie they made a change) to your assumption isn't valid.

anyway, my main point was any assumptions of developer intent can't be proven. you'll need to get a statement out of the developers or greg2k or such. to me it seems highly unlikely RA guiding was intended; as to the more significant question of whether it will be nerfed or not, i have no clue. that it has been in for so long without being fixed is possibly an indication it won't change, overcoming inertia is always difficult.

Dave said they made a rounding change there - seems that implies some manipulation of the mechanic.

RA blocking cost is still 25%, they only added a +3 beaker rounding error.

If anything, that hurts your position rather than helping it because it 1) implies the devs saw this code and 2) they actually changed it less than you believed.

Your guesses about developer intent carry the same validity as the person you quote: none. You don't have insider information on their intent either. Do you think they're not aware of players using RA tech blocking? I know firaxis has proven ignorant in some aspects of game design over the years, but are you going to come out and say they're THAT out of touch with their own game? Even if that were the case, what then would be the point of an exploit argument?

And since you yourself say that developer intent can't be proven, how can you possibly come up with basis that ANYTHING that doesn't explicitly break game rules is an exploit...especially in competitive settings?! You can't, and neither can people designing rules for competitive play...............................nevermind the disaster that resulted in attempting to do so.

by that logic, multiple oxfords are intended.

We have clear evidence that oxford is a national wonder, and clear UI instruction that you get one of those per civ. Your logical path here isn't comparable at all.

There is indeed basis for believing that RA tech guiding was intended given the mechanic has been slightly altered and that the programmers set a hard 25% limit (as opposed to your oxford example where one must rely on a bug to bypass instructions, RA guiding is something readily done). Personally, I find this to be a catch 22 firaxian design flaw; either you're making players rely EXTENSIVELY on luck with truly random outcomes for the single strongest research aspect in the game (hey firaxis! Luck =/= great strategy! Advertise turn-based luck if that's your goal.), or you're forcing them into an obscure, micro intensive practice that is neither intuitive nor particularly engaging from a strategic point of view. Whichever option firaxis chooses out of that, they lose, it was an AWFUL decision.

When did standard and competitive civ become about making up pretend rules? Civ V is what it is...if you must make up variant rules to enjoy it, so be it, but keep it out of publicly defined tactic restrictions. It is a major blow to civ V's community that these exploit inconsistencies have polluted HoF, and a sad thing for me who once participated heavily there...and now we're bringing this to S&T? No way. If S&T for civ V ever gets to the point where it releases regular game series like civ IV's version, it would be a disaster if the hosts insist on pretend rules on the basis of threads like this.

 

[vexing]

no, it isn't different logic.
multiple oxfords are in the game, therefore it's intended.

thanks for pointing to the manual, though. civilopedia says of research agreements: "After 20 turns you each get a free Tech, chosen randomly by the game."

obviously that's clear evidence that players eliminating the randomness is an exploit

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, I think they didn't want to penalize someone who is working hard on one tech only to have the RA pop it, so they put in some minimum threshold, but the minimum threshold indicates they didn't want you to block off techs so it is no longer random.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

no, it isn't different logic.
multiple oxfords are in the game, therefore it's intended.

thanks for pointing to the manual, though. civilopedia says of research agreements: "After 20 turns you each get a free Tech, chosen randomly by the game."

obviously that's clear evidence that players eliminating the randomness is an exploit

Great, more user interface lies, and more deliberate implications of luck that bleed poison into games attempting legit competition.

How are people finding this acceptable? RAs are so bad that they need to be disabled from competitive settings entirely especially if they're random.

But no dice on the exploit argument; you still can't prove dev intent .

 

[vexing]

sorry, my argument has clearly gotten lost in refuting the absurd arguments of others.

maddjinn: with your "available in game" argument, up until patch 215 pillaging your own resources wasn't an exploit. clearly something being in the game is insufficient to prove whether it is an oversight that will be changed or not.

i am not trying to prove or disprove developer intent. it cannot be done except in those rare instances where they actually say something. it doesn't really matter anyway. all that matters is whether there will be a change or not (like pillaging your own resources).

my suspicion is research agreement guiding was unintended, given that:
a) it is extremely powerful and trivializes the game.
b) it is the side effect of code that would prevent a player or AI from getting the tech they were currently researching.
c) if they wanted nonrandom techs given the free tech mechanism would have worked just fine.

at this stage in the game's development, i am skeptical they will change the way it works.

 

[KevinMiles90000]

RA/tech trading has always been somewhat overpowered in civ. Otherwise there would really be no advantage whatsoever to playing peacefully.

 

[MadDjinn]

no, it isn't different logic.
multiple oxfords are in the game, therefore it's intended.

thanks for pointing to the manual, though. civilopedia says of research agreements: "After 20 turns you each get a free Tech, chosen randomly by the game."

obviously that's clear evidence that players eliminating the randomness is an exploit

Actually, I didn't base my argument solely on something being in the game for not exploit.

"Exploits are things that you really should not be able to do. Pretty much all of these are due to developer oversight of mixing a number of game rules together. "

-this was my definition.

Multiple Oxfords have written statements saying that they are not meant to exist. Therefore, you still can't make the connection and your argument fails again.

Sure the manual says it picks randomly. It does indeed work exactly like that. It randomly selects one of the techs that is below the threshold value. They didn't tell you there was a threshold value that they built in. They did tell you that you can't build more than one of each National Monument.

See the difference yet? There's a difference between obvious and 'you think it's supposed to be'.

sorry, my argument has clearly gotten lost in refuting the absurd arguments of others.

i am not trying to prove or disprove developer intent. it cannot be done except in those rare instances where they actually say something. it doesn't really matter anyway. all that matters is whether there will be a change or not (like pillaging your own resources).

my suspicion is research agreement guiding was unintended, given that:
a) it is extremely powerful and trivializes the game.
b) it is the side effect of code that would prevent a player or AI from getting the tech they were currently researching.
c) if they wanted nonrandom techs given the free tech mechanism would have worked just fine.

at this stage in the game's development, i am skeptical they will change the way it works.

At least for this part you're beginning to stop using too many beliefs, so that's a bit better.

wouldn't it be simpler to just have the code not give you the single tech you were starting to research, regardless of how much beakers you had into it? The threshold would be 'researching'. No need to make it 25% and then modify it later.

 

[vexing]

wow, condescending much?
if you could keep what is being talked about straight in your replies it sure would increase the clarity of this conversation.

i was referring specifically to your comment:

It's actually more likely to say RA guiding was intended since it's in the game.

which is a completely absurd way of trying to extrapolate developer intent, since many clearly unintended things are "in the game" like say... red splotches on hills, or pillaging your own resources (prior to patch).

it's okay. you can concede this point. really, it'll be okay.

 

[RD-BH]

RAs can sometimes bite :
... (btw, if you want a cutoff, why 25% +3 instead of 31.8%???)
... My recent game saw a tie between RA, Free Tech, and single tech research path.
... ... Does it credit the researched tech first? NO!
... ... Can I stop research? NO!
... ... Can I hurry the wonder build? NO!
... ... Can I slow the wonder build? NO!
... ... ... (tried that and another civ built it next turn)
... ... ... I RAGE reloaded,
... ... ... finished the wonder,
... ... ... then chose my ALREADY researched free tech

Then,
... I saved the game,
... enabled FireTuner,
... loaded the saved game,
... gave myself a free tech.

The game exploits me, I exploit the game.

No apologies.

 

[Elendir]

For me an exploit is using a weakness of the game's mechanics to obtain an advantage over opponents. In particular an exploit:
1. is not presented in official rules and could not be reasonably concluded based on these rules
2. is either directly against these official rules or against common sense
3. is something that you would prefer to be changed for a better gameplay
The last criterion is quite subjective, but I think it gives the point.
I stick to the official rules and not concluding from game codes, as this is not available to all players, and therefore using excess knowledge from the game files I would consider unfair. Moreover, I would call especially severe exploits the ones that could be used in the multiplayer game.
I don’t accept an argument, that if the game mechanics allows something, it could be identified by all players and is not an exploit. It is similar to for a hacker to saying, I have hacked your computer because I could do it so actually you have invited me to do so.
From these definitions I consider multiple Oxford University, blocking RA, pillaging resources to resell to be all exploits (three yes). Wat on the other hand is not, as it could be concluded from the official rules that the game might behave so. Selling resources and declaring war I consider as a weakness of AI (one of many) rather than an exploit, although I do not use it. AI should prefer GPT payment over the lump sum, and account for past dishonesty of the player.
I do not use any of the exploits in the SP (although I prefer MP), except maybe loading in some situations (but only deity level requires some loading – on immortal level it seems I might run very smoothly). For me it is more fun than using exploits and other weaknesses of the game to acquire higher scores. But in SP it is actually to you what you prefer. That is why I would concentrate on exploits that could be used in MP.

 

[MadDjinn]

wow, condescending much?
if you could keep what is being talked about straight in your replies it sure would increase the clarity of this conversation.

i was referring specifically to your comment:


which is a completely absurd way of trying to extrapolate developer intent, since many clearly unintended things are "in the game" like say... red splotches on hills, or pillaging your own resources (prior to patch).

it's okay. you can concede this point. really, it'll be okay.

Stating others have 'absurd' arguments is just as condescending, no?

As per that comment, then yes, it has about the same merit on developer intent that your own statement had, with the exception that actually being in the game as a mechanic (not as a mixture of rules than cause an exploit) is more likely to show developer intent.

So... for figuring out a 'minimal level of developer intent': (if you can't agree with this, then you'd have to say that workers making roads are not intended)

mechanic coded into the game (RA blocking) >> mixture of rules that provide unintended consequences (pillaging/trade, Oxford/trade, Liberty->Autocracy switching, etc)