Why don't you use this site.

[TractorBoy]

Re: VVV Score.
The medals were assigned based on minmum participation numbers. It might work if we extended the scale to assign points to non-medal winning entries where there is enough participation. That would involve change the fixed points scale to something more variable. (I.e. a gold with only 6 entries would be worth less that one with 10 entries. but that might allow 4th or 5th place to get points, too.

When I started this thread, this idea is more or less what I had in mind, but I was hoping it might be suggested by one of the participating members.

You have a Vanilla VVV section and 26 guys made the full commitment, I am sure these guys would not have made such a commitment unless they intended to participate for a long period of time. I am sure that not many of those 26 were aiming to get to the very top but just liked the idea of a kind of league where they could participate against other players of a similar standard.

The hotter the competition became at the top end, meant less points/medals to be shared around elsewhere. In retrospect I know that I was (and still am) the biggest culprit of grabbing other peoples points in an effort to catch the man at the top, and he responded by denting other players points tallies even further. I am still participating on the Vanilla VVV and every time I take someone's gold medal away they could drop down as much as four or five places in the table. If we had a scoring system whereby the extra participant just scored slightly more than the previous guy on gold then the positions from sixth place through to 26th would be relatively unaffected.

Why should one mans choice of which game to play have such a big affect on others who have put in a major effort to be where they are? This is why we need a change to the scoring system.

 

[Salomo]

I submitted several games for HoF (only deity, except 2 gauntlets that I got 4th both time ), and I have participated GotM for more than 10 games now, so I think I can bring up some issues that stopped me from playing HoF and play only GotM and DC. Some of them will be very similar with Tabarnak's point.

1. Rules are not clear: I am not saying anything like this should be allowed, this should be banned, this feels like cheat, etc. It's just not clear at all. Moriarte, Maxym, and I had a short discussion at gotm57 after action thread about HoF rules and it seems that we had different 'HoF rules'.

For example, what I understood was that one cannot DoW and peace if one did have any lump sum gold deal, unless one takes AI's cap or half of AI's cities. Maxym said that he allows one lump sum gold deal break to be allowed (for example, to rush buy worker at the beginning) as the rule prohibits doing that "repeatedly". Moriarte says one can DoW without lump sum deal and get good peace deal continuosly and this is basically similar to lump sum trick and so-called tommynt style aggressive play. Then Tabarnak says it's not allowed.

At this point, I am not sure what's going on - clearly, I followed the most strict version and no wonder my submissions got accepted. But on the other hand, I could have done better if I could use some of those tactics.

I believe that it's safe to assume that those 4 players mentioned above (including myself) are fairly competitive players. The fact that such players interpret rules differently means that rules are just not clear enough. I personally prefer to have rules to allow everything except barb/self pilliage thing (as this one does not get diplo penalty and risk), but I won't argue for it here. My point is that, as long as we have clear rules or mods such as Tabarnak's suggestion, more people will participate.

This is exactly my problem as well. Yet it feels like the HoF staff are deaf on that ear. To them the rules are as clear as possible, no matter how unclear they seem to others.

 

[Salomo]

By the way, here is what Sun Tzu Wu said on the topic in another thread. I couldn't have put it better:

Googling phrases used in the exploit rules for clarification? Either write clear and concise exploit rules or none at all. Vague exploit rules are neither good for players or the volunteers checking the games. It also hurts participation and puts too much pressure on both players and the volunteers checking the game.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Denniz]

I submitted several games for HoF (only deity, except 2 gauntlets that I got 4th both time ), and I have participated GotM for more than 10 games now, so I think I can bring up some issues that stopped me from playing HoF and play only GotM and DC. Some of them will be very similar with Tabarnak's point.

1. Rules are not clear: I am not saying anything like this should be allowed, this should be banned, this feels like cheat, etc. It's just not clear at all. Moriarte, Maxym, and I had a short discussion at gotm57 after action thread about HoF rules and it seems that we had different 'HoF rules'.

For example, what I understood was that one cannot DoW and peace if one did have any lump sum gold deal, unless one takes AI's cap or half of AI's cities. Maxym said that he allows one lump sum gold deal break to be allowed (for example, to rush buy worker at the beginning) as the rule prohibits doing that "repeatedly". Moriarte says one can DoW without lump sum deal and get good peace deal continuosly and this is basically similar to lump sum trick and so-called tommynt style aggressive play. Then Tabarnak says it's not allowed.

At this point, I am not sure what's going on - clearly, I followed the most strict version and no wonder my submissions got accepted. But on the other hand, I could have done better if I could use some of those tactics.

I believe that it's safe to assume that those 4 players mentioned above (including myself) are fairly competitive players. The fact that such players interpret rules differently means that rules are just not clear enough. I personally prefer to have rules to allow everything except barb/self pilliage thing (as this one does not get diplo penalty and risk), but I won't argue for it here. My point is that, as long as we have clear rules or mods such as Tabarnak's suggestion, more people will participate.

2. Re-rolling for the best start: especially for lower level difficulty games, there's no chance to compete unless you get a great starting position. Lots of desert hills, next to mountain, marble, etc. More than that, if one does not get good ruins (early culture, pop, tech) one has to reroll. If you miss GL/Petra, no need to continue.

For me, this is just too much. I believe that rerolling lots of times for the best possible start and ruins is just complete waste of time. That's why I play gotm, and I think the number of games submitted for gotm and that of gauntlet show that there are lots of people who just don't like to reroll and want to compete and compare their games with the same condition, in particular the same starting position.

This is exactly my problem as well. Yet it feels like the HoF staff are deaf on that ear. To them the rules are as clear as possible, no matter how unclear they seem to others.

By the way, here is what Sun Tzu Wu said on the topic in another thread. I couldn't have put it better:

Googling phrases used in the exploit rules for clarification? Either write clear and concise exploit rules or none at all. Vague exploit rules are neither good for players or the volunteers checking the games. It also hurts participation and puts too much pressure on both players and the volunteers checking the game.

Sun Tzu Wu

Trying to get a clear statement that is understood by anyone is more difficult that you would think. Like with lawyers in real life, "rules lawyers" can go to great lengths to stretch and distort the wording to create reasonable doubt.

It is easy to criticise. I would challenge those of you that are complaining to help come up with something better.

Start a thread and wordsmith your way to a more perfect rule. Just make sure your heart is pure. That you only have the best interests of the community in mind. Once you are done you can put up a poll to see how many people think it is clear.

While you are at it, if there is something else you thing isn't worded clearly enough. Feel free to offer an improved version. HOF Staff is a volunteer organization. You don't have to be on staff to help out with things like this.

 

[sanabas]

I can definitely write you a clear proposal for a scoring system that I think is better, if you want.

Dunno about exploit wording, got no idea exactly what the current list says, to be honest.

 

[sanabas]

OK, just went and read the first bit. On my least favourite rule, which I think should just be banned entirely:

Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)
Repeatedly selling Gold per Turn (GPT) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)

That is somewhat vague. Only phony wars are bad? You can have a phony war or two, just not 'repeated' ones? You can repeatedly break deals, provided it's a proper war?

If you sell a resource or gpt, and break that deal by declaring war, you may not end the war until you have captured either the AI's initial capital, or half their cities.

 

[Salomo]

Trying to get a clear statement that is understood by anyone is more difficult that you would think. Like with lawyers in real life, "rules lawyers" can go to great lengths to stretch and distort the wording to create reasonable doubt.

It is easy to criticise. I would challenge those of you that are complaining to help come up with something better.

Start a thread and wordsmith your way to a more perfect rule. Just make sure your heart is pure. That you only have the best interests of the community in mind. Once you are done you can put up a poll to see how many people think it is clear.

While you are at it, if there is something else you thing isn't worded clearly enough. Feel free to offer an improved version. HOF Staff is a volunteer organization. You don't have to be on staff to help out with things like this.

When I did that, interest of the mods (in particular you) to allow for any change did not seem particularly high. See my post and your reply to it below:

Would it be possible to revisit the rules on exploits for the purpose of comming up with a single post (ideally the first in the thread) clearly naming what is and what is not allowed and dropping all rules which cannot be explained in sufficient clarity?

Taking the "lump sum gold for resource before war" exploit, a clear rule would be:



This is actually included in the second post, without indication whether that is the rule to follow or not. It is quite restrictive, but it also is a rule everyone can follow and that can actually be checked.

An unclear rule would be:


The words used to make up the rule require too much interpretation and judgement: What is "systematically"? What is "normal play"? At what point does behaviour become a "clear pattern"? Three different judges might give three different rulings on this.

Abstract rules are good in the real world where more is at stake and the leeway of judgement is required to make up for the inevitable injustices strict laws create. They may also be needed when the game is new and so many exploits still to discover. But I believe none of us wants to start publishing or researching a compendium of Civ5HoF decisions for precedent cases and at the present development of the game it should not be needed.

Hence we need strict rules that require no interpretation and are clear to see from reading the first post alone or - even better - the rules page. Is there a chance we can get that and is any help needed for devising them?

We have been down that road before. It is not possible to be totally specific. The more specific we tried to be, the more exceptions and borderline issues that came up.

If the words used are not clear try googling the phrase and use the "reasonable man" test. (i.e. Would a reasonable man interpert the phrase that way.)

_____________________________________________

Reminder: Guys, this thread is not for dissussion of the rule. It is for specific questions about the rule.

 

[Salomo]

Trying to get a clear statement that is understood by anyone is more difficult that you would think. Like with lawyers in real life, "rules lawyers" can go to great lengths to stretch and distort the wording to create reasonable doubt.

Oh, and being a lawyer in real life, I know quite well how difficult it is to draft clear (but concise) rules. Otherwise people wouldn't spend thousands of dollars to have us draft contracts

I can also assure you that creating reasonable doubt about the meaning of a clear rule is not an easy task - at least when compared to the complete lack of effort required when dealing with an unclear rule as the ones we currently have.

Now I don't usually draft rules for games, but for a game like this where you do not want to have several pages of rules and where do you not want to have a compendium of court cases shaping the rules the key seems to be to cut down on the exceptions made and on the phrases that give leeway for case by case judgement. Such factors do allow for more justice in the individual case, but they are what contribute most to being able to argue about the rules.

 

[Mesix]

If you sell a resource or gpt, and break that deal by declaring war, you may not end the war until you have captured either the AI's initial capital, or half their cities.

This is a step in the right direction. I second this change to the wording.

 

[Moriarte]

That is somewhat vague. Only phony wars are bad? You can have a phony war or two, just not 'repeated' ones? You can repeatedly break deals, provided it's a proper war?

Given the wording, one of the meanings of the proper war is: the war, which does not involve lux/GPT deals prior to that war. So, you can have as many 'proper' wars as you like and accept favourable peace deals as many times as you like, which can net you as much gold as if these wars were phony.

In other words, according to rules, i can DoW everyone on sight (without lux/gpt involved) and keep DoW'ing every time the peace deal expires, so i'll be swimming in cash all the way, since half of my earnings will be spent on military and AI will keep paying me to end wars.

So, maybe it is worth it to expand the meaning of phony war in order to cover the aforementioned case? If that is in the spirit of HoF, of course, because, frankly, i don't see the difference between 'my war' and 'phony war'.

 

[glory7]

Given the wording, one of the meanings of the proper war is: the war, which does not involve lux/GPT deals prior to that war. So, you can have as many 'proper' wars as you like and accept favourable peace deals as many times as you like, which can net you as much gold as if these wars were phony.

In other words, according to rules, i can DoW everyone on sight (without lux/gpt involved) and keep DoW'ing every time the peace deal expires, so i'll be swimming in cash all the way, since half of my earnings will be spent on military and AI will keep paying me to end wars.

So, maybe it is worth it to expand the meaning of phony war in order to cover the aforementioned case? If that is in the spirit of HoF, of course, because, frankly, i don't see the difference between 'my war' and 'phony war'.

hm this is a really interesting point. I think I have read something like this before from one of your thread, but haven't considered this in detail. 'DoW everyone in sight' gonna work well till emperor for sure, based on my experience. Does that work on immortal as well? I don't think it's gonna work at deity.

 

[Moriarte]

Yeah, works great on immortal. If you build up military constantly, they just keep coming back and ask for peace. I had some luck with it on Deity too, but it's very situational, as you can guess. Tommy makes it work on Deity consistently, from what i saw. Latest example: babylon GOTM, part of this game used to be on his channel.

 

[Denniz]

OK, just went and read the first bit. On my least favourite rule, which I think should just be banned entirely:

Originally Posted by old wording
Repeatedly selling a resource (luxury, strategic, etc.) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)
Repeatedly selling Gold per Turn (GPT) and declaring war or otherwise bringing about a war that breaks the deal. (i.e. a phony war just to break the deal.)

That is somewhat vague. Only phony wars are bad? You can have a phony war or two, just not 'repeated' ones? You can repeatedly break deals, provided it's a proper war?

Originally Posted by suggested new wording
If you sell a resource or gpt, and break that deal by declaring war, you may not end the war until you have captured either the AI's initial capital, or half their cities.

Look at the second post in the thread. DaveMcW's rewording that presents it a little better. (I just added a comment directing people to that as well.)

Also, please note the rule as you specified was suggested. It was considered too restrictive.

That's why I mentioned putting together a poll on new wording.

 

[Denniz]

Originally Posted by Salomo
Would it be possible to revisit the rules on exploits for the purpose of comming up with a single post (ideally the first in the thread) clearly naming what is and what is not allowed and dropping all rules which cannot be explained in sufficient clarity? ...

When I did that, interest of the mods (in particular you) to allow for any change did not seem particularly high. See my post and your reply to it below:

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.

Oh, and being a lawyer in real life, I know quite well how difficult it is to draft clear (but concise) rules. Otherwise people wouldn't spend thousands of dollars to have us draft contracts

I can also assure you that creating reasonable doubt about the meaning of a clear rule is not an easy task - at least when compared to the complete lack of effort required when dealing with an unclear rule as the ones we currently have.

Now I don't usually draft rules for games, but for a game like this where you do not want to have several pages of rules and where do you not want to have a compendium of court cases shaping the rules the key seems to be to cut down on the exceptions made and on the phrases that give leeway for case by case judgement. Such factors do allow for more justice in the individual case, but they are what contribute most to being able to argue about the rules.

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.

 

[sanabas]

Look at the second post in the thread. DaveMcW's rewording that presents it a little better. (I just added a comment directing people to that as well.)

Yeah, fair enough. I only looked at the OP, didn't try and wade through thread.

However, it still seems very vague/contradictory. The OP explicitly mentions that the problem is 'repeatedly having a phony war just to break the deal'. The second post explicitly says that if you declare war to break a deal, it must not be phony. It's not clear if that second post is just a clarification of what makes a phony war, or if it is a rule in its own right, meant to supercede the first post.

Going back to what I had before:

Only phony wars are bad? You can have a phony war or two, just not 'repeated' ones? You can repeatedly break deals, provided it's a proper war?

So the first & third are fine. Break as many deals as you want, enter into as many fake deals as you want, provided breaking them involves a proper war. But the second is not clear at all, because post 1 & post 2 say different things.

I genuinely don't know what the rule is. It's safest to just not have any phony wars. But if you want to be as competitive as possible, you're going to be better off 'cheating' to within the absolute limits of what's allowed, for instance to have a phony war or two for more money and to get a foothold on the next continent in a peace deal. I don't think it's hard to make the rule clear, to explicitly say 'no phony wars', or to explicitly say 'one phony war isn't grounds for exclusion, repeated phony wars are, and what constitutes 'repeated' is a judgement call by the HOF staff member checking the game.'

 

[Peets]

If we decline a game and you think it is not fair why don't you answer to the mail we sent?
We haven't received that many mail so far from rejecting games.
Then we will look at it again and perhaps then you might be right and the game gets accepted then. Since we are all humans we might make mistakes.

 

[sanabas]

If we decline a game and you think it is not fair why don't you answer to the mail we sent?
We haven't received that many mail so far from rejecting games.
Then we will look at it again and perhaps then you might be right and the game gets accepted then. Since we are all humans we might make mistakes.

Not sure if that's directed at me. I don't have an issue with games getting rejected, there are a grand total of 4 rejections on my civ 5 game list. All are back in July 2011 when I first started submitting civ5 games. 2 were crappy g-minor 9 entries, rejected for playing in a single session with no intermediate saves to submit, 2 were attempts to upload a 2mb+ file that didn't work.

I'd prefer to (and do) completely avoid phony wars, I'd prefer to (though I don't always) completely avoid fake deals to get the AI's money. I just think the rules, particularly when it comes to breaking a fake deal with a phony war, could actually be clear about whether it's always unacceptable, or acceptable at least once, and beyond that is a judgement call. I think there will be more active players if when it comes to common exploits, it's clear what level is ok, and what's not. I think this is one of, if not the most common, and I think it's easy to change the first two posts of the exploits thread to make it clear, to not have the two posts contradict each other. That's all.

 

[Peets]

Not sure if that's directed at me. I don't have an issue with games getting rejected, there are a grand total of 4 rejections on my civ 5 game list. All are back in July 2011 when I first started submitting civ5 games. 2 were crappy g-minor 9 entries, rejected for playing in a single session with no intermediate saves to submit, 2 were attempts to upload a 2mb+ file that didn't work.

No, it was a general message
When a game is rejected without enough saves, just send them and you have a big chance to get it accepted unless another rule is broken.
Next month I might have some time to have a clear look at it and see if I can also help to make the rules more clear. But for me personally they are clear enough.

 

[BobiB420]

I'm trying to figure out the definition of "phony war" in my head, but every time i think I've almost got it figured out, I read another post that throws me way off. I propose a question then: If a "phony war" is one where deals are broken and no Caps or half the towns are taken, then looking back at real history, would World War I, where neither side actually gained anything from the war, be considered a "phony war" by HoF standards?

I know, comparing real life to a game is pointless, but i think my question is not too far from the pulse. Or maybe it is and i need to stop eating "Chocolate" covered pretzels.

 

[Mesix]

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.