 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zero
why dont you guys just allow all exploits period... this **** is getting ridiculous. |
Because we (the team as a whole) thinks that the use of exploits is not how this game is supposed to be played. We are of the opinion, that If we play a good game (which we have done, an all fronts up to this point) that We (or anyone else) should use an exploit.
Now, with that said, I was talking to Arnie yesterday in chat (more like ranting, I was SOOOO PI$$ about this whole thing) and If GWT/GCA wants and is granted the use of this, that we have the greater brainpower to make the most of the use of this tactic. They will rue the day that they wanted to have this kind of play, because not only can we beat them (and will) with playing the "good player", we will stomp them if we just "turn to the Darkside...", because we have the knowledge and experiance to be their worst nightmare!!
Now, I'm not advocating us doing that in any way, but Again, as with the Unit Warp Issue, if they want to open that door, then they had better be fully ready to deal with all of the problems that they will reap from it.
E_T
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
 |
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:34
|
|
While we are thinking about this.
Do you recall us debating on whether we should keep our CGN city or disband it ?
The question, was if GCA could attack it on the next turn.
We realised, that GWT could gift "Hi Guys" to GCA, and then GWT could march straight threw and attack our city.
It was one of the reasons why we decided on disbanding the city.
Note however... not one person spoke up and said that if GWT/GCA did this, then it would be an exploit.
We accepted it as a possibility...a valid option...and disbanded the city.
Why is our attitude changing now, just because it looks like an ally is going to get a ass whooping.
IMO, I do not think swapping cities to move troops is an exploit.
Switching the city every turn, so that both teams can move troops is starting to smell funny. Double movement exploiting.
Getting double duty of barracks, improvements & wonders, I would definately call an exploit. Its taking the game mechanics too far.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
quote:
however... not one person spoke up and said that if GWT/GCA did this, then it would be an exploit. |
The primary difference is the swapping occuring every turn. City gifting itself isn't an exploit, doing the double duty thing is. And if anyone meant in that thread that GWT would gift the city to GCA, gca would accept, march through, and gift it back on the same turn, then it just never occurred to me that that was what was meant. IMO that is an exploit whereas gifting the city and keeping it for more than a partial turn is not. ie. GWT should have to go without it for at least 1 full turn for it not to be an exploit in my book.
Also, but my primary reason for arguing that we should abandon those cities was not that GCA could attack them and thus take them, but that WE were exploiting the game administrator by getting him rule GCA had to make peace when we had cities on their continent.
EDIT:
After thinking it through, I think the rule we should push for (and I don't see why GWT/GCA should object since they basically get what they want) is that a team can't gift a city on the same turn it is gifted to them. If we do that, then I don't think its that cheesy to swap every other year, its just the idea that both teams get access to the city on the SAME turn that bothers me.
Last edited by wervdon on 11-03-2004 at 08:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:34
|
|
Some good points here. The most important is that we may fall into the trap of automatically opposing any questionable or novel tactic becuase they are our 'enemies'. OK. I have nothing against GWT. Lucky is a *****, but I don't hold the transgressions of one war criminal against all GCA.
Let me look at this objectively. This is flagrantly against the game's inbuilt concepts for diplomacy. In SMAC you could pass your troops through allies' cities, and even heal in them. There is no reason that could not have been implemented in Civ3. Yet it was not, so I can but conclude it was deliberately left out. Any tactic, however clever, that goes against a deliberate design decisions like this is an exploit and not just questionable, but technically a cheat.
And how to legislate against this? Here's an idea: what if we did just get mongoose to rule on city gifting where the same city is swapped more than once in, say, 5 turns? It would not come to him having to rule on every case imaginable - if this case is frowned upon GWT/GCA would be effectively stalling/killing the game by insisting on a rethink every other turn. GWT has shown they want to continue and are prepared to compromise a little to keep the game going. GCA is, despite everyone's best efforts and greatest wet dreams, still in the game. If we want something not to happen but can't find a way to legislate, let's just ask for a UN/mongoose ruling in each case, then we either force someone to choose between infuriating everyone or being a team player and accepting it is illegal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
HE:
I don't care about the baracks double duty thing....well I do....but my main problem is this:
GWT gifts city at the end of their turn.
GCA gifts it back at the end of their turn.
GWT starts its next turn with the city back.
I'm fine with city gifting so long as the civ that gifted the city does not get it back at the start of the next turn. The fact that both of them are getting full use of the city (and any benefits that might involve....unit movement, canals, healing, rushing units, income, research, etc.) every turn is what troubles me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
Alright, but I still have a problem with GWT gifting a city at the end of a turn, then getting it back at the start of the next turn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wervdon
HE:
I don't care about the baracks double duty thing....well I do....but my main problem is this:
GWT gifts city at the end of their turn.
GCA gifts it back at the end of their turn.
GWT starts its next turn with the city back.
I'm fine with city gifting so long as the civ that gifted the city does not get it back at the start of the next turn. The fact that both of them are getting full use of the city (and any benefits that might involve....unit movement, canals, healing, rushing units, income, research, etc.) every turn is what troubles me. |
The only benefit they would get, by swapping the city every turn, is the ability to move troops through the city.
No other benefits are derived, unless they hold the city for at least 1 full turn.
IMO...this is not exploitive. Just good allied multiplayer tactics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
Honestly, I wasn't thinking about them having to accept to get the city. My closest experience is when you get an AI civ to give you a city for peace, and it just shows up as yours at the start of the next turn.
There's still the issue with both civs getting double usage out of rush builds and improvements like baracks though if they can swap every turn.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2004 07:58
|
|