I'm in agreement with you Lord Emsworth on the, errrrr.......Lord Emsworth Agreement.......But, I think you would agree that the SAME HOF Rules must apply to everyone? 
What's the effect of Emsworth Aggreements on the Civ3 HOF?
- Thread starter Denniz
- Start date
This is exactly how we feel and our motivations behind banning things. We don't want to go around telling everyone "you can't do this or that" but if it's such an exploit as to make winning with a good date without it impossibe then it is basically the only way to go and everyone would be a fool not to do it, but it's cheating the game in every sense of the word.
If, (and this is unbelievable), but if someone could honestly say, "I didn't realize the AI were running double negative when getting 1000+ gpt from a cheiftain AI with 2 cities" then I'd see their point of veiw better, but they know the AI is running double negative, and therefore it's pretty obvious to me. No civ, AI or otherwise, should be running double negative. Even firaxis thought so and fixed it for conquests. I say even because they didn't see fit to fix a load of other bugs we still have.
ok time for me to speak my mind on the matter. I see here two different kinds of emsworth agreements which i will henceforth refer to as type I and type II.
type I has been known in the community for a long time and many hof games no doubt have utilized it. i am refering to agreements made with an ai involving gpt in conjunction with an alliance against another ai who is about to be eliminated.
type II agreements involve the shuttling back and forth of gpt for cash involving a luxury/resource which is then disconnected. as far as i can tell this one is pretty new and it has not been used in any hof games before the one that lord emsworth spoke of.
my protest is that if type I is disallowed then many hof games become tainted. to make it worse it is difficult to prove that type I has been done on any game that does not have turns submitted both right before and right after the deal. in other words it is an exploit almost trivial to hide because of the greyness of the technique - unless it involves a very large amount of cash. My recommendation for the type I emsworth is to disallow what might be called "stacked emsworths", that is using gold derived from an emsworth to set up a steeper (more lucrative) emsworth.
type II is a far more bizarre type of exploit. i am ok with banning it outright.
And I am posting this comment for a very practical reason. The fact of the matter is I can use the type I in almost every game late in the game where it makes relatively little impact on my finish date and score. I want to know whether you are banning both types or only type II.
type I has been known in the community for a long time and many hof games no doubt have utilized it. i am refering to agreements made with an ai involving gpt in conjunction with an alliance against another ai who is about to be eliminated.
type II agreements involve the shuttling back and forth of gpt for cash involving a luxury/resource which is then disconnected. as far as i can tell this one is pretty new and it has not been used in any hof games before the one that lord emsworth spoke of.
my protest is that if type I is disallowed then many hof games become tainted. to make it worse it is difficult to prove that type I has been done on any game that does not have turns submitted both right before and right after the deal. in other words it is an exploit almost trivial to hide because of the greyness of the technique - unless it involves a very large amount of cash. My recommendation for the type I emsworth is to disallow what might be called "stacked emsworths", that is using gold derived from an emsworth to set up a steeper (more lucrative) emsworth.
type II is a far more bizarre type of exploit. i am ok with banning it outright.
And I am posting this comment for a very practical reason. The fact of the matter is I can use the type I in almost every game late in the game where it makes relatively little impact on my finish date and score. I want to know whether you are banning both types or only type II.
RFHolloway
Analyst in the UK
Thats a good distiction - it is the recycling of the money to grow the GPT to very high levels that is the issue here. Would a simpler rule be that you cant trade GPT for cash with an AI you are receiving GPT from? - does that
a) break the stacked Emsworth agreement
b) allow most historic games?
a) break the stacked Emsworth agreement
b) allow most historic games?
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
I'm confused as to why the "don't put the AI in double negative on purpose" is a problem.
Without stacking up trades, it should be hard to do this on anything higher than say regent in any case.
Without stacking up trades, it should be hard to do this on anything higher than say regent in any case.
RFHolloway
Analyst in the UK
I think the issue is actually evaluating whether one has put the AI into double negative deliberately, particularly on some of the old games. Perhaps putting the AI into double negative should be orange (i.e. not in and of itself banned) - because it is difficult to tell the intent - (or for me whether I have actually done it!
) but recycling the cash would make it clearly red.rysingsun I agree with you
And in regard to this:
I agree that is perfectly fair (once a perfectly green techinque). Many HoF games employ this and even some of my own attempts do. Many others can testify the same.
This is the true danger of the tactic. Unfortunately we have to define these Emsworths more closely, because it puts me in a bind in my games right now, and surely others. When I make cash, I'll spend it to increase my own net returns. While doing this, I don't want to somehow commit stacked Emsworths (because I'm still unclear on the nature of this...) That is, I'm trying to figure out what is illegal here and what isn't.
And in regard to this:
I agree that is perfectly fair (once a perfectly green techinque). Many HoF games employ this and even some of my own attempts do. Many others can testify the same.
This is the true danger of the tactic. Unfortunately we have to define these Emsworths more closely, because it puts me in a bind in my games right now, and surely others. When I make cash, I'll spend it to increase my own net returns. While doing this, I don't want to somehow commit stacked Emsworths (because I'm still unclear on the nature of this...) That is, I'm trying to figure out what is illegal here and what isn't.
I am facing the same problem. I don't want to disqualify my current game and I am unclear on the ruling.
So I will be specific in my question ... is this legal:
Question 1)
I am about to eliminate England. I go to Sumeria and say "i will give you 700 gpt for your 3000 gold and an alliance against England." Next I say to them "I will sell you Scientific Method for 500 gpt." Done. I do similarly with Babylon. I kill off England wiping out the 700 gpt that I owed them. I'm netting 500 gpt and 3000 gold from Sumeria although they got a tech from me so they are not exactly ripped off either. Similarly with Babylon.
So... was that legal or not? I know for sure it used to be. Indeed stacked elmsworths used to be as long as they were not the second kind. And they do take place on sid and deity levels late in the game when the player is rampaging across the globe.
And I've got a deity attempt put on hold waiting for a ruling on this.
Question 2)
Now, I can do that type of trade not only with Sumeria but with Babylon and Korea too, on the same turn. When I eliminate England I find myself with 1500 gpt incoming. A few turns later when I am about to eliminate Egypt I take that 1500 gpt along with the 700 I'm earning from my own cities and repeat the process this time using Atomic Theory , Electronics, and Steel. I kill off Egypt and I'm staring at 5000 gpt incoming. The funny thing is that even though ai's are 1700 gpt in the red they are getting their money's worth by getting lots of tech they otherwise could not have afforded. But anyway this last paragraph is what I mean by a "type I stacked Emsworth". He brought this technique to our attention well over a year ago and it was ruled legal for hof play as well. Is it still legal or not?
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
Question #1:
On Deity, I would assume that the AI would probably be able cover it's losses, so I would say you would likely be ok.
Question #2:
I think your second set (when you eliminate Egypt) IF the AI can scrape up 1700 GPT each. If they can't, then you can't do this.
On Deity, I would assume that the AI would probably be able cover it's losses, so I would say you would likely be ok.
Question #2:
I think your second set (when you eliminate Egypt) IF the AI can scrape up 1700 GPT each. If they can't, then you can't do this.
It could cover it if it were doing self-research but absolutely not if it were paying gpt to another ai for tech. In practice it is often difficult to be sure who is doing the research and who is buying the tech among the various ai. In my current game I simply am not sure whether my example (question 1) would cause an unresolvable negative gpt situation for Sumeria.
Absolutely agree. I would refer to such as exploit as a 'game-breaker.' IMO, a game-breaker should either be banned, or a seperate category of HOF games should be made up for those games that utilize it.
I agree with both, but you leave out the issue of what impact the exploit has on the game. Here, your exploit makes it an entirely new game. My hat is off to you for the effect to which you applied the strategy, but if not banned than any competitive HOF participant is practically forced to use it in the future because use of it allows for mind-blowing scores.
I almost agree with this. The same rule must apply to everyone, but a rule banning the Emsworth Agreement did not exist at the time he used the Agreement - unless it can be argued that he broke the 'creation/black-hole' gold rules.
So what you are suggesting is removing players' games because they broke a rule that was not in effect at the time they submitted the games? Ummm...
Rather than being 'fair,' that seems rather glaringly 'unfair' to me.
Perhaps it is more of a present and future issue, and not a past one. Did use of the EA pad scores in previous games to the extent it did in Emsworth's recently submitted game? Unlikely. Furthermore, assuming the type I is going to be ok'd but the type II is not, I doubt the type II EA assisted scores much more than the type I in the past. In other words, until now, the impact of the exploit was not such that it deserved being banned. Its not just the exploit in and of itself, its the manner of application (the reason you ban the rule rather than police the application is because its too difficult to make a "hard-line rule" regarding the application that won't be infested with loopholes). Thus, it might not be prejudicial to future games to not remove previously submitted games that used the Type II EA.
And finally: I simply dislike retroactively applying laws/rules. Telling someone its okay to do something, and then punishing them for doing it, just really grabs my goat.
Hey, it's not a perfect world, Civ or Real!
You can't expect the (volunteer) HOF Administrators to understand all the implications of a strategy until it is explained to them. Well the Emsworth Agreement has been explained to them and they have decided it's a Game-Breaking strategy that should not be allowed.
Now, I know you are not alone in thinking that applying rules retroactively is a bad idea........BUT, have you thought about the alternative?
Do we set up a new set of Tables everytime the Rules Change? Do we have asterisks and double-asterisks?
How can, for example, Lord Emsworth be allowed to keep his #1 game in the HOF, knowing that it's impossible to beat his Finish Date? No one can beat his date because the strategy is not allowed.
Theory is fine, but you have to be practical about this. In competitions, everyone plays by the same rules.
Having said all that, if the Emsworths were allowed (my position), you and I would both be on the same page!
Exactly. You may see it as unfair for past games to be removed for breaking rules that were not then in effect, however, that gives new players and new games an EXTREME disadvantage. Thus, such a policy of non-retroactive rule application would probably cause a huge dropoff in submissions. We're trying to keep Civ3 alive here, not kill it.
Additionally, although I'm sure many of us could learn how to apply new exploits, I don't want to have to, and neither do many others. That just breaks the spirit of the whole thing. I know it's hard to decide where to draw the line, what games break it, etc. BUT! We work partially on the honor system here, and I hope that everyone who submits can respect that.
-Elear
Additionally, although I'm sure many of us could learn how to apply new exploits, I don't want to have to, and neither do many others. That just breaks the spirit of the whole thing. I know it's hard to decide where to draw the line, what games break it, etc. BUT! We work partially on the honor system here, and I hope that everyone who submits can respect that.
-Elear
Dang it, I hate losing a typed out post... stupid lotus notes. Bad enough it freezes every few words.
Anyways, in sum:
It seems that both of you are ignoring what I said about examining the impact that the Type II EA has had on previously submitted games. Afterall, the exploit is not noticeably gamebreaking until Emsworth's recently submitted game. It is possible that the Type II has had no more impact on games until this point than the Type I, or any 'orange-class' rule for that matter. If that is the case, both generally and individually, I would think there is no need to apply the rule retroactively: there was no impact.
I would only apply the rule retroactively as a last resort to keep the playing field even. If there was a noticeable impact on some scores, remove all the games.
As for Emsworth's game... it is in a class by itself. When we speak of 'retroactively', I'm not speaking of his game.
Ironically, I actually am against allowing the Emsworth Agreement.
Anyways, in sum:
It seems that both of you are ignoring what I said about examining the impact that the Type II EA has had on previously submitted games. Afterall, the exploit is not noticeably gamebreaking until Emsworth's recently submitted game. It is possible that the Type II has had no more impact on games until this point than the Type I, or any 'orange-class' rule for that matter. If that is the case, both generally and individually, I would think there is no need to apply the rule retroactively: there was no impact.
I would only apply the rule retroactively as a last resort to keep the playing field even. If there was a noticeable impact on some scores, remove all the games.
As for Emsworth's game... it is in a class by itself. When we speak of 'retroactively', I'm not speaking of his game.
Ironically, I actually am against allowing the Emsworth Agreement.
All sounds very reasonable to me.
I was under the (false) impression that, since Lord E's game had been previously accepted into the HOF, his game was "retroactively" included.
I don't see the logic here. You contradicted yourself. To call Emsworth's game in a class of his own is ignorant of the other thing you said. Where is the dividing line drawn? Let me try 10 games with varying degrees of Emsworth, then we can sit down and all decide which ones are in a class of their own. Fair?
Also, I disagree with the Type I and Type II distinctions; they are vague and don't really define any problems specifically.
In the end, it's a bad position, since it is extremely difficult to conduct investigations into years of archived games, draw rule lines, or allow the exploit without major problems. E-Man's solution does blatantly fix picky rule disagreements, eliminate the need for discussion and testing, eliminate the need to examine all games, yet at a very high cost! This sort of problem was predicted years ago again and again. All you have to do is scan the old posts. It is almost impossible to define a fair rule set that will equalize new games with current record holders. As has been stated many times in this thread, the Emsworth exploit is not a new thing by any means.
I am most in favor of a full-scale investigation into the entire concept and all past games. We need to determine the exact extent of this and how it affects players and games, and most importantly, how it affects the shaping of the HoF rules.
-Elear
Sorry so slow in getting back, but I was off a few days and this is not a quick simple answer. Not intentionally putting the AI into double negative, what's this really mean? I'm going to try to make it as clear as possible, probably as clear as mud, but I will try.
When you know, really know, that the AI doesn't have any money except for the money you are giving them to cover a gpt deal and plan for your end then this is exploitive and banned. How can you know? Check first. I'd admit it's impossible to know exactly what the AI can afford with out the 999 trick but you can estimate in extreme cases. Actually, sometimes it amazes me how much money they do have at times.
Lets take the first example. First ask them for gpt and put 99999 in the box and you will get a figure. Now, they might have 1200gpt available, but won't give you more than 40 gpt for scientific method, but if you are supplying them with 700gpt (bringing them upto about 1900gpt even though temporarily) and ask them they might part with 500gpt. Now you do the deal breaker with England. Their 1200 gpt would cover your 500gpt so I don't see a problem. You've put them in a serious financial problem, let them deal with mortgaging the colusseum to pay for it. But if you check first and they only had 400gpt to start, then you shouldn't ask them for more than that. More than that is intentionally asking for more than they have, and having taken their on hand treasury this wouldn't be allowable.
To sum up, in both questions you can do it, but you have to check before you start the trades.
Now everyone please feel free to why you disagree with this.
BTW, I am aware this doesn't work with Vanilla/PTW, but most games in the HoF by far are conquests. If you don't have conquests you need to be extra careful not to do this.
As an aside, I use this with no intention of making a deal but just to see how bad my economy is on demigod or higher. In one of my many abandonded 20k attempts I was wondering why I was suddenly falling behind in tech, well I did that and there was my answer. I did it on my own side to compare and they had over twice as much money, so I knew I had trouble. It's reasonable that if you can know down to the last penny how much cash he has on hand that you can know his income, too.
Another thing I just noticed for the first time just recently was about the age changes. Normally you would hit the big picture on getting your age change and trade around to get all the starting techs before you get your free tech to try to get four techs at the age change. Usually, during the trading some gpt is involved, you usually get it back with your last free tech but that comes after the break so there's one turn where they are paying back gpt that you aren't anymore. I was really surprized to see it as this could be getting a negative gold situation because they really aren't going to pay me 50gpt normally for chivalry if I didn't by feudalism for 55 gpt, but it's only for one turn and usually like my example you don't get all your money back, so this wouldn't be breaking this rule either, but it scared me that it could be. There are aspects of this game I'm still learning as well. I really never thought about before this whole discussion began.
When you know, really know, that the AI doesn't have any money except for the money you are giving them to cover a gpt deal and plan for your end then this is exploitive and banned. How can you know? Check first. I'd admit it's impossible to know exactly what the AI can afford with out the 999 trick but you can estimate in extreme cases. Actually, sometimes it amazes me how much money they do have at times.
Lets take the first example. First ask them for gpt and put 99999 in the box and you will get a figure. Now, they might have 1200gpt available, but won't give you more than 40 gpt for scientific method, but if you are supplying them with 700gpt (bringing them upto about 1900gpt even though temporarily) and ask them they might part with 500gpt. Now you do the deal breaker with England. Their 1200 gpt would cover your 500gpt so I don't see a problem. You've put them in a serious financial problem, let them deal with mortgaging the colusseum to pay for it. But if you check first and they only had 400gpt to start, then you shouldn't ask them for more than that. More than that is intentionally asking for more than they have, and having taken their on hand treasury this wouldn't be allowable.
To sum up, in both questions you can do it, but you have to check before you start the trades.
Now everyone please feel free to why you disagree with this.
BTW, I am aware this doesn't work with Vanilla/PTW, but most games in the HoF by far are conquests. If you don't have conquests you need to be extra careful not to do this.
As an aside, I use this with no intention of making a deal but just to see how bad my economy is on demigod or higher. In one of my many abandonded 20k attempts I was wondering why I was suddenly falling behind in tech, well I did that and there was my answer. I did it on my own side to compare and they had over twice as much money, so I knew I had trouble. It's reasonable that if you can know down to the last penny how much cash he has on hand that you can know his income, too.
Another thing I just noticed for the first time just recently was about the age changes. Normally you would hit the big picture on getting your age change and trade around to get all the starting techs before you get your free tech to try to get four techs at the age change. Usually, during the trading some gpt is involved, you usually get it back with your last free tech but that comes after the break so there's one turn where they are paying back gpt that you aren't anymore. I was really surprized to see it as this could be getting a negative gold situation because they really aren't going to pay me 50gpt normally for chivalry if I didn't by feudalism for 55 gpt, but it's only for one turn and usually like my example you don't get all your money back, so this wouldn't be breaking this rule either, but it scared me that it could be. There are aspects of this game I'm still learning as well. I really never thought about before this whole discussion began.
Personally, I don't see much distinction between your types I & II. They are both just different means to the same end: Extracting GPT in return for little or nothing in return. Both can lead to the same problem.
The statement the his exploit had been okayed it not really accurate. Somebody else asked about a strategy article in another forum. That article was an early version that really didn't spell out the just how far it could be taken. Had he posted the information in his HOF forum thread and asked if it was legal and it had been approved, then this whole situation could have been avoid. Even PM'ing us, if he wanted to keep things a secret, would have worked.
_______________________
Dealing with something retroactively is not a fun or popular thing to do. It is very difficult to know what is right here. Players that have posted really good dates/scores in the past deserve to be respected for their accomplishments. Allowing a new exploit to change the playing field isn't fair to them. How would you feel if the it was your #1 efforts that were being devalued by a new exploit?
Lord Emsworth has behaved very honorably. He has identified games where he has uses his agreements. I would feel much better about the integrity of the HOF, if more players who have used those kind of agreement would come forward as well. I am sure he would feel less singled out if that were to happen.
________________________
Asking us to define a line between what is okay and what isn't, is not really workable. Each game is different. How much is too much is subjective. The problem is that these kind GPT deals all run the risk of pushing the AI into negative income. Stacking them only increases the odds that at least one of the AI's could go negative.
So, if you were to put a gun to my head, I might say that the limit should be your total GPT at 0 research. i.e you shouldn't be getting more than your current GPT in 'free' GPT at any point in the game. It would also be better to spread that out over more than one AI so it is less likely to push them into negative. I don't know, should that be the rule?
I'm not sure its so simple. I mean if this were "the rule" we would still be left with questions. Consider:
I am making 500 gpt assuming i spend 20 percent on luxuries. I turn it down to zero which would cause riots and I take all my high corruption cities off the land and make them all taxmen. That means they are all running huge food deficits for now. OK now I am up to 1000 gpt.
Next I contact my good buds the Sumerians who are way ahead of me in tech and I pay them 1000 gpt for a variety of IA techs, their 2000 gold and an alliance against England. I then kill off England on the same turn, change my taxmen back, and put luxuries back at 20 percent.
What have I done? I've seriously cheated an ai of both money and tech, to the tune of 1000 gpt equivalent value. What I have not done is create any money out of thin air whatsoever. So I have not violated any rule spoken of here on this thread. But the technique is disturbingly close to the banned technique and the value to me is identical.
What it comes to is this. What is allowed and what is banned will have to be clearly defined and the situations for which these rules are designed will have to be clearly understood by those who write up the rules. If not, loopholes will keep popping up to hound us.
Similar threads
