Why don't you use this site.

[BobiB420]

"If you trade a resource or GPT to the AI and receive a lump sum from the AI in return, you may not DOW that AI player until all of the turns of that trade have completed."

That sounds reasonably fair, but i think there should be some sort of clause or exception, again with it's own specified rule, regarding situational politics. It's good practice to avoid situations where it becomes necessary to DoW to save yourself from something, but you can't always predict the future, especially in marathon games (my preferred type). I try to calculate a reasonable amount of the lump sums difference and, if I have the funds, return the due amount to the civ right before DoW. a simple calculator will do the trick, something I know every computer has.

round to the nearest whole number, round up at 0.5

Lump Sum = X, length of deal = Y, number of completed turns + 1 = Z, I say +1 because the deal does not complete on t90 (marathon), it is "finished" on t91

((Z+1)/Y)*X = what you pay the Civ before DoW.

Example:
lump sum 250g, completed turns 47, length of deal 90

(47+1)/90 = 0.5333, 0.5333*250= 133.33, round to the nearest, and you owe the Civ 133g before DoW. Not hard once you get into it.

Does that sound like a reasonable clause in case you have to (or want to?) DoW prior to the deal being completed?

 

[Xger]

Perhaps the rule can be made more clear by eliminating the reference to taking cities entirely. Something like this perhaps:

"If you trade a resource or GPT to the AI and receive a lump sum from the AI in return, you may not DOW that AI player until all of the turns of that trade have completed."

If you want an example of the type of behavior this rule is trying to prevent, have a look at this GOTM42 game. It is in fact the winning submission for this game. Take a look at about 12 minutes into the video. He trades GPT to take all of the gold from Austria. Then he DOW, and trades the same GPT to Sweden. Having effectively stolen enough gold from the AI player, he buys a settler on turn 17 which he would not otherwise have been able to afford. This early expansion gave him a leg up on the AI, and also on the other players in the competition.

The problem with a drastic change like that is it would invalidate large numbers of current Hof games. I would suggest:

If you declare war with any per turn deal (except open borders) active, you cannot end the war until you have taken either the capitol or half the cities.

This gets rid of the potentially confusing "repeatedly". It can also be expanded to include worker steal and free money peace deals if the HoF people so desire.

 

[Mesix]

To be honest, I don't see a problem with per turn deals. It is the lump sum deals that are abusive (as seen in the video I posted above). If you trade GPT for a resource, both sides of the trade end when war is declared. If you take a lump sum of gold in return for a resource or GPT and then DOW to get your side of the trade back while keeping the gold, that is where the game is being exploited IMHO.

I think a great fix would be to disallow trading gold until Currency is researched. This would of course be a patch to fix a balance issue rather than a rule to be enforced by the HOF staff. This would fix most of the abuse of this game mechanic as the lump sum gold would not be so game changing by the time Currency is researched. Perhaps disallowing rush buying anything with gold until Currency is researched would also go a long way to balancing the game.

 

[Salomo]

I vaguely remember this. Coming up with a complete list doesn't seem possible. Anything missed then becomes implicitly allowed. People were asked to contact us for specific rulings, instead.

A simple wording solves this:

The following behaviours are deemed abuse of an exploit:

<insert list>

The HoF Mods reserve the right to add further forms of abuse to the list as deemed appropriate.

If its not possible to be complete, you don't need to be complete. All I'm asking for is clarity, not impossible completeness.

Clear rules have to be simple. But if the real situation isn't simple then you get unintended consequences. I am sure you have a few examples where that has happenned.

This one is damned if you do and damned if you don't. I think most people would agree there is an exploit, at least privately. The problem is everyone wants to draw the line somewhere different. Some argue to protect their self interest. Some honestly disagree. Some just like to argue.

I will give half my annual HOF salary (0.00), to anyone who can solve this delima.

You risk unintended consequences and discussions on where to draw the line no matter what you do. Not drawing a clear line is no solution to that and brings its own unintended consequences and discussion.

I would be glad to help you draw the clear lines needed with as little unintended consequence as we can manage. What I would need for that is your willingness to discuss and draw clear lines, even if they deviate from your approach so far. What I would ideally also need is some understanding of how you actually check the games, so that we can make sure that new rules do not increase your work too much to be efficient.

Perhaps you could send me a PM and we can have a chat if you are willing to give it a go?

 

[Xger]

To be honest, I don't see a problem with per turn deals. It is the lump sum deals that are abusive (as seen in the video I posted above). If you trade GPT for a resource, both sides of the trade end when war is declared. If you take a lump sum of gold in return for a resource or GPT and then DOW to get your side of the trade back while keeping the gold, that is where the game is being exploited IMHO.

I think you misunderstood what I mean. My rule says you cannot declare war with a per turn deal active, which would stop exactly what you are saying. If I give gpt or a lux to get a lump sum, I then have a per turn deal active and cannot declare.

I think a great fix would be to disallow trading gold until Currency is researched. This would of course be a patch to fix a balance issue rather than a rule to be enforced by the HOF staff. This would fix most of the abuse of this game mechanic as the lump sum gold would not be so game changing by the time Currency is researched. Perhaps disallowing rush buying anything with gold until Currency is researched would also go a long way to balancing the game.

I disagree with this in its entirety. The game was designed with the idea of rush buying, and disallowing that in the beginning would severely unbalance the game. Every game I have bought 1-2 (if I'm lucky with bullying, more) by currency and I don't use any exploits.

 

[BobiB420]

Did nobody read my reply? No offense to anyone, really. But come on, you have to admit what I said makes some degree of sense. Let me Simplify it even more.

You sign a deal and recieve 90 lump gold. you break the deal half way through, so you now owe the Civ half that gold, or 45g, before DoW.

Does that not make sense? Am I just peeing in the wind here?

Also, as for previous games, I don't see a need to rewrite history to fit the current times. Did they rewrite american baseball history to include african-american players who, because of segregation, were not allowed to be hall of famers? No, they made a mention of them and moved on. It sucks when current rules say one thing that contradicts the previous play, but that doesnt mean you have to redo everything, you just leave a note, a little asterisk that says "Played with old exploit rulings, which no longer apply"

 

[Xger]

Did nobody read my reply? No offense to anyone, really. But come on, you have to admit what I said makes some degree of sense. Let me Simplify it even more.

You sign a deal and recieve 90 lump gold. you break the deal half way through, so you now owe the Civ half that gold, or 45g, before DoW.

Does that not make sense? Am I just peeing in the wind here?

Also, as for previous games, I don't see a need to rewrite history to fit the current times. Did they rewrite american baseball history to include african-american players who, because of segregation, were not allowed to be hall of famers? No, they made a mention of them and moved on. It sucks when current rules say one thing that contradicts the previous play, but that doesnt mean you have to redo everything, you just leave a note, a little asterisk that says "Played with old exploit rulings, which no longer apply"

To the first point: This entire discussion has come about because some feel the rules discourage participation. The amount of bookkeeping, math, and tediousness of this suggestion I feel would discourage even more participation.

To the second: The difference would be that a lot of games would not be able to be beat under new rules, so by making it harder if not impossible to get medals once again it would discourage players from participating.

 

[kirbdog]

While they may not be the most vocal, I suspect that the rerolling required to be competitive for finish times is keeping a lot of people from playing for the HoF. Not merely because it is a nuisance but also because it flattens the strategic depth of the game (i.e., it is fun to have a game without desert folklore).

 

[BobiB420]

I'll reroll if my starting area is just plain dog poo, like all plains no food, or all hills no lux. Generally though, i'm happy with 2-3 lux and 2-4 food to start, regardless of terrain. I can't stand trying to roll a legendary start, it's such a pain, especially since I play a sub-par system.

I can only play the game in strategy-mode, to give you an idea of how bad my PC is

 

[Xger]

While they may not be the most vocal, I suspect that the rerolling required to be competitive for finish times is keeping a lot of people from playing for the HoF. Not merely because it is a nuisance but also because it flattens the strategic depth of the game (i.e., it is fun to have a game without desert folklore).

Unfortunately I don't think there would be a way to avoid this. Even if you nerf the living heck out of Desert Folklore and Petra, the next ideal situation will be the new desert hill river start. Fixing this would require a level of normalization that would probably make the game much more bland.

 

[dribnairb]

Couple of other things to consider:
1) Mods - there's the unofficial patch (which is now linked on the front page of civfanatics). I'd like to give it a go, but mods aren't allowed in the HoF. An official mod (like the Buffy mod on Civ4) would go a long way to making it better (IMHO)
2) There's no link to the Hall of Fame on the front page of civfanatics (there is for Civ4)

Just my two cents.