 |
| |
|
|
Trip
|
 |
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
Given the discussions going on in the ISDG1 and 2 about rules and exploits, I think we may want to develop a list for this game especially as there has been no attempt to do so since the very beginning of the game.
I will post the MZO DG rules list here and the different teams may review and discuss it. Amendments can be made, new rules added, other deleted, etc. depending on what the teams desire.
We will have either one large poll or a round of polling for each disputed issue in order to come to a final and complete list of what is and is not allowed in the game. 
quote:
Here is the banned exploit list from the game:
==================================================
==
The following is a list of some known exploits. Note that these are not all the exploits, so if an exploit doesn't appear here, it is still illegal. The administator may edit this list as exploits are discovered/fixed.
1. Alliance tricks
Basically the idea of most points in this section revolves around two teams flipping back and forth between peace and war to abuse certain game mechanics.
1.1 Getting double-duty out of artillery and Workers
Two (or more) teams can get double (triple...) use of bombardment units and Workers by using the units on their respective turns, then letting their "enemy" capture and use them in turn. When facing an alliance of two civs with 20 Catapults among them, it's quite disconcerting to have to face 40 rounds of bombardment.
The simple solution is to require alliances and peace treaties to be respected through in-game diplomacy.
1.2 Sharing a Luxury or Strategic resource
Two teams can get the use of a single resource by repeated gifting and then cancelling of the trade. One Iron should only supply one civ at a time.
Repeated cancellation of trade is okay for supplying bursts of a resource for a civ upgrade, as long as it is not also being used for making a dual supply out of one resource.
1.3 Generating Leaders and Golden Ages by sacrificing cheap units
A team can build a bunch of Warriors and let another team slaughter them with Elites, in hopes of generating a Great Leader. This is actually quite costly, but the results can be dramatic (fast Forbidden Palace or Palace) if the teams get lucky.
The same applies to the generation of golden ages through the use of war with allies.
The solution to this one is the same as in 1.1.
1.4 Declaring war for happiness
Two teams can declare war on each other for purposes of generating a little Happiness, which can lead to increased production through WLTKD.
1.5 Exchanging map/minimap information before Navigation.
In Conquests, map trading is pushed back to Astronomy. If two teams can exchange maps out-of-game, the Seafaring trait becomes a lot less attractive.
2. Metagame tricks
2.1 Reloading to alter unwanted random results
It is possible to alter the results of combat (even with preserve random seed turned on) by reloading the save and playing out the turn slightly differently (i.e. by attacking in a different order, or basically by playing around with things that trigger the RNG). This can result in finding highly one-sided battles, and the appearance of an inordinate number of Elites and Great Leaders.
The simple solution is to require each team to open the save only once. This means that only one sequence of moves/orders is allowed to be viewed per save.
2.2 Manipulating a savegame file
Crafty players use the PBEM savegames to obtain information, or worse.
Again, let's play Civ3. If we allow tools like MapStat, then the door is wide open for any other file-manipulation program, which is a can of worms.
2.3 Loading a save while zoomed out
A team's turn-player can configure his or her game to be zoomed out, then load a PBEM savegame, which can reveal certain facts about the previous team's location.
Solution: all teams must agree to zoom in before loading the savegame and/or zoom in before saving the game.
2.4 Renaming units/cities to confuse/mislead opponents
Cities can be renamed to names of techs ('Monotheism') or sums of Gold ('210 Gold') or anything else that can be traded in the diplomacy screen. This allows a team to screw over another in a very weird way.
Worker and Settler names can be interchanged to hide their identities in stacks (since their stats are the same). Units with identical stats can be renamed for the same effect (Enkidu Warriors and Spearmen, Ancient Cavalry and Gallic Swordsmen).
Units/cities, therefore, may not be renamed for the specific purpose of fooling opponents.
3. Game Mechanics tricks
3.1 Fortifying a ship without any movement points left to obtain extra vision radius
A ship that fortifies sees an extra 1 tile in all directions at the beginning of the next turn. This can be accomplished by waking up the passengers of a ship (if there are any), and giving the Fortify All order.
3.2 Hitting F1 to change production
It is possible to use F1 to go into city views and change production before a city has been reached in the pre-turn production queue. This can result in tech-enabled units and Wonders being completed the very turn the tech is researched, or production to be changed in response to an enemy's actions (like Walls if a stack moves toward a specific city and not another).
Let all cities finish their growth/production phases, and only enter the city views when the first unit is highlighted and ready to move. This does away with tricks like avoiding riots, using tiles twice per turn, and other such nonsense.
3.3 Using GoTo to get extra movement
The last civ in the turn order can issue a GoTo command to a unit, and have that unit move twice before the next turn begins. This is very strong in war-time, and benefits one team only.
3.4 Chaining naval transports to quickly move land units across water
It is possible to wake a land unit at sea, and transfer it from one transport to another. Given enough ships, a chain can be created to instantaneously move units across bodies of water (by ending in port).
3.5 Teleporting units by abandoning or gifting cities
A team can instantaneously transport units from any city back to their capital by simply disbanding it or gifting it to another team. This results in very weird strategy.
3.6 Accepting a Peace Treaty from a civ then immediately declaring war
A team at war with another can accept the latter's Peace Treaty, then declare war afterward in order to eliminate War Weariness from that civ. This results in a huge advantage if the peace-seeking team is not aware of the trick.
==================================================
=== |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
Wonders through city gifting has to be out, if sharing a single resource is.
So you consider going into F1 (rule 3.2) an exploit, eh Trip? So be it if everyone agrees, but I'm therefore surprised you never said anything to us about it.
edit: ah, those are the MZO rules (it's good when I read your post, huh?). So, what is your opinion on that one, Trip? I'm fine with it either way, except for reusing tiles, which AFAIK, GS never did.
-Arrian
Last edited by Arrian on 20-04-2004 at 18:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
I agree with the rules except for:
no galley chaining
no misleading name changes on the world map (distinguised from trade menu)
I think those are just strategic maneuvers by players and should be allowed.
also the breaking into f1 like Arrian mentioned.
and probably something else as well, if I had time to notice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:35
|
|
First of all, I think it's strange to start on this list now, after 200 turns, and over a year of play. I don't think this game saw a lot of exploits (none deliberately AFAIK), and all teams have been reasonable when discussing this. OTOH, our team has been criticized for exploitive behaviour before, so if we can avoid that, I'd welcome this discussion.
I'm comfortable with most points, but not these:
quote:
Originally posted by Trip
2.4 Renaming units/cities to confuse/mislead opponents
Worker and Settler names can be interchanged to hide their identities in stacks (since their stats are the same). Units with identical stats can be renamed for the same effect (Enkidu Warriors and Spearmen, Ancient Cavalry and Gallic Swordsmen).
Units/cities, therefore, may not be renamed for the specific purpose of fooling opponents.
|
Bah, we did it before, and it didn't fool anyone (battle settler called "worker". I don't think we'd try that again, however since the beginning there has been some discussion on our forum to change names of units to hide our strength, or to falsly let others believe we were strong when we were not that strong. I don't think it's necessary to leave that out: if anyone wants to keep on editing dozens of names each turn just to fool the opponent in thinking there is one more spear on that mountain, let them. GS seems to be the only team who doesn't have a lot of named units, but the moment teams fear that the names are giving away their intent, all named units would disappear... I don't care if anyone renames their units, even if it fools the enemy a little.
quote:
3.2 Hitting F1 to change production
It is possible to use F1 to go into city views and change production before a city has been reached in the pre-turn production queue. This can result in tech-enabled units and Wonders being completed the very turn the tech is researched, or production to be changed in response to an enemy's actions (like Walls if a stack moves toward a specific city and not another).
Let all cities finish their growth/production phases, and only enter the city views when the first unit is highlighted and ready to move. This does away with tricks like avoiding riots, using tiles twice per turn, and other such nonsense. |
I strongly disagree here. No more precisely timed prebuilds? Oh, come on! This rule is much too restrictive. Changing production does not alter anything in the game, not when it is done when completing a tech (and going to F1), nor when one city builds something, the player 'hacks' into the city view, and uses the arrows to change the build queue for a later on city. That is not an exploit! If it is being used to complete walls in a city under attack, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Modern units the moment they are discovered? Fine by me!
But, there is possibility for cheating here, and that has to be forbidden. It is possible, by 'hacking' into the city view, to change worker allocations and therefore share shields between cities, doubling their effectiveness. That can't be allowed. So, amend this rule to: "build queues can be changed, rushing is allowed, but no worker force changes can be made" and I'm happy. That will even keep the avoiding-unhappiness tactics out, which I'm not feeling strongly for (could be in or not, I don't care)
quote:
3.4 Chaining naval transports to quickly move land units across water
It is possible to wake a land unit at sea, and transfer it from one transport to another. Given enough ships, a chain can be created to instantaneously move units across bodies of water (by ending in port). |
Chaining is not free, it requires you to build and upkeep more boats. It has several disadvantages that offset the gain you get from it. There are several ways of avoiding an enemy chaining. True, it gives 'infinite' movement over sea (provided the boats are in the right position), but the same exists over land (RR), and by air (airports, rebase). I see no reason whatsoever to keep it out, if teams are willing to cope with the the extra tedium and costs involved, it is their good right to use it.
quote:
3.5 Teleporting units by abandoning or gifting cities
A team can instantaneously transport units from any city back to their capital by simply disbanding it or gifting it to another team. This results in very weird strategy. |
I'll probably be alone on this one, but I think the strategy involved interesting, not weird. the only real problem I see in this is that it is possible to move units with 0 movement remaining, for instance attacking someone, moving them into safety of a city with the last movement, and gifting the city to an ally hence keeping the enemy from attacking injured units. If this rule was amended to say that all units teleported need to have full movement, I wouldn't object.
'weird' strategy is one of the only things that makes this game interesting, otherwise you could just as well play against the AI.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Trip
|
|
Hunt Valley
Apr 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
First of all, I think it's strange to start on this list now, after 200 turns, and over a year of play. I don't think this game saw a lot of exploits (none deliberately AFAIK), and all teams have been reasonable when discussing this. OTOH, our team has been criticized for exploitive behaviour before, so if we can avoid that, I'd welcome this discussion. |
There have been some questionable acts in the, past, and since there's plenty of game left to play, there may be more in the future.
While I have no problems giving a thumbs up or down to certain actions to teams, I would rather the teams decide amongst themselves what is or is not allowed.
I've posted the MZO list as a base for discussion (so keep in mind I did not come up with these  ). Additionally, if people would like other issues discussed, this is the place to do it.
On the particularly controversial or divided issues I will run polls instead of having a large vote on the document as a whole (which will come later).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:35
|
|
Trip, don't get me wrong, I prefer that you ask for input on these things instead of doing it purely on your own judgement. You have evolved a bit from eye to judge, and I welcome some kind of framework in which a judge can rule. So no complaints there.
However, stuff like prohibiting going to F1 when a tech is dicovered, mere turns after we used that tactic to get the ToE before anyone could interfere is not something I enjoy reading about. Every good player uses this in SP, and judging it to be an exploit now, so soon after we used it is not pleasant to say the least. What was first an accomplishment (precise planning of a wonder), now becomes something foul...
I understand you use the MZ list as a starting point, but the PTWDG has not been a place where a lot of new exploits were tried out (or AFAIK not deliberately), and imposing too many rules now simply creates some sort of hindsight-bad-taste-in-the-mouth where none is needed.
This game has been relatively friendly, even with wars being fought, and I hope nobody is going to start exploiting stuff now. Personally, I don't feel there's a need for many rules, but of course I'll obey any rules imposed. (and otherwise my team will force me when playing )
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
I think the timing of GS’s use of the F1 function had nothing to do with it…..(Which is an exploit IMO) |
Could very well be, but this is the kind of things you should expect. Everybody knows about F1, and it never even occured to me that other people would see it as an exploit. Maybe I don't visit MZO enough
I'm not saying it wouldn't be good to have rules, and in case of the F1 it doesn't matter even: If we knew we were not allowed to use it, and if we knew nobody used it either, it was a simple matter of planning to complete ToE one turn later. It wouldn't have made any difference in this case, we wouldn't have lost a single shield or gold, if only we knew it well beforehand.
However, there is some gain to be made, sometimes, in being more on the edge with prebuilding 'new' stuff (universities completing the turn education is discovered, wonders taking effect right on the mark, etc.), and frankly I can only say that teams who don't do it are missing out on some of the potential of their game. Calling it an exploit because some teams rahter play the game intuitively instead of by the calculator?
Similarly, using chaining has advantages and disadvantages, and everyone is aware of these (or should be, there are no bad players in this game). It is not an exploit because some people forgot to check for all posibilities. Besides, it has to be a very specific case in which chaining will give you the winning edge, one that you couldn't also have had a few turns later, with adequate planning... it gives you small advantages, but this is no game-breaking stuff. And others can do it just as well, there is no advantage for one team over the other.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
 |
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:35
|
|
I also have used the F1 trick in a PBEM.
Here is how my PBEM ended….
I wanted to hide the production of some marines, so I used the F1 trick to produce them on the turn I needed them.
And then on the same turn, I used a transport chain, to invade a coastal city.
And then on the same turn, MA entered the city, and took over a few undefended core cities. (including a city with a harbor)
And then on the same turn, a settler (also on the transport chain) created a city to capture an aluminium resource.
This was what I needed to build my last space ship part (I was getting creamed by a MA/MI invasion, which took my resource).
I changed my prebuild over, and I won by SS on the next turn.
However…
Given what I know now, I think the F1 trick is an exploit.
Although it was not my intention, it hid their build against an enemy who could have used a spy to sabotage their production.
Or used the knowledge of marine building to beef up security on coastal cities.
So…it is my opinion, that not giving your opponents the opportunity to see your prebuild switch over for one turn, disadvantages them.
ie had it been on a coast city, they may of rushed a marine invasion to destroy it.
They could use spies to sabotage it.
They could switch their build over to something else to avoid losing more shields on their own prebuild.
Building wonders, infrastructure or units on the turn you finish the tech just does not feel right.
I don’t think civ game mechanics was designed to allow it…other than this loophole which we all know about.
I’d prefer it be classified as an exploit.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
H_E, that sounds like a extremely well planned and cunning way out of a bad situation 
Exploit? Not at all. Why, because the others didn't see marines coming? When you're ready for a SS victory, so some 50 turns after you first could have discovered amph. warf.? I have no compassion whatsoever with those you beat, and if I would have been your opponent in that game I would have congratulated you.
If you use this story as a way to explain why either chaining, or F1 building is an exploit, you have exactly the same arguments for telling to people that the use of RRs is an exploit (as these were also part of your tactic), or that starting to build a SS component using a resource you are sure to have lost when the component completes is an exploit. (as I take it you only kept the alu city for that one turn). You did nothing illegal, not even fishy in that game, IMO. You just used the well-known game mechanics well.
DeepO |
Ummm... as it was me on the receiving end of this extremely well planned and cunning way out of a bad situation, I guess I might add a few words here...
First of all... I hold no grudges against H_E - we have had quite a debate after the game and I hope we have remained good friends despite the rather bitter end of an exciting game (which was pretty much ruined by the map generator even before it came to the end H_E talked about).
The problem was not I did not know about ship chaining and thus did not see the invasion coming. I knew about it and believed it to be disallowed (H_E can attest that my tactics matched that). You can hardly say you have no idea why... the opinions on ship chaining differ, from being OK (C3C ISDG) to being banned (MZO C3C DG).
I can live with either way... after mulling it over for few days, I came to the conclusion that even if designers did not plan to have it work that way (which we do not know), it enhances the game and to an extent levels the ground for the attacker and defender. There are certainly much worse "exploits" possible... however, as I automatically considered it disallowed, I consciously did not plan for the possibility and lost the game.
So, I more than welcome this effort of H_E and Trip - let's talk about what is allowed and what is not. I hope we all understand that we are not trying to cast shadows on what happened in the past. Everything that was not expressly forbidden was allowed. No need to feel bad about the ToE build or anything. We may very well end up simply allowing almost everything... however, the important thing will be that we all will know that this or that is allowed and may be used without feeling bad about it.
See... like this F1 thingy... Trip can attest that few turns ago, Lego happened to have a wee little problem with a luxury supply. A game quirk made us lose one luxury supply even though we had it on turn X (last turn of the previous deal) and on turn X+1 (first turn of the next deal). I knew about the way how to fix the problem, but it involved, in a way, the F1 trick... I felt it was grey area at best, so I did not use it and consequently, Lego had some of its builds messed up. It was only afterwards that I posted about it in our forum and asked Trip about whether it was ok to use it or not (he said it was ok). Now I hear GS is using the trick with no hesitation... had I known, I would have used it, too.
So, I believe we simply need to publicly state what IS allowed and what IS NOT. Let's talk about pros and cons and let's accept the will of the majority... allowed or not, no big deal either way - we are all players good enough to play by just about any kind of rules of house rules set. Let's just make sure we all play by the same rules. Trust me, having a game ruined by something you thought was not allowed feels very bitter (and you have NOBODY to blame, not even yourself... ). It would feel even more bitter in this game we have all spent so much time with.
Last edited by vondrack on 26-04-2004 at 11:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hot_Enamel
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
Aug 2002
time: 14:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
H_E, that sounds like a extremely well planned and cunning way out of a bad situation
DeepO |
The move was certainly not well planned out.
Cunning maybe…. but I think my good friend Vondrack came close to calling me a different name starting with cun* as soon as he realised what I did.
The tactic just happened to just fall into place, because I was using transports as a naval early warning picket line along vondracks coast. The transports just happened to be in the right place at the time when I needed them.
I thought the plan up on turn 1, and tweaked a couple of transport positions.
Lost my aluminium on turn 2 to vondracks rampaging army (the very turn I needed it for the last SS part). I built marines on turn 2 with F1, invaded on turn 2 with a transport chain, took his resource on turn 2, and switched my prebuild to the last SS part on turn 2.
On turn 3, the SS was complete.
I was very lucky to pull the whole thing off. Vondrack had me completely outclassed on the battlefield.
The bad feeling was simply because we had different views on transport chaining being an exploit. As Vondrack said, he could have easily defended his coastal cities better, had he known that I could use a transport chain.
Similarly, I would have not of even considered the move had I not thought the manoeuvre was completely valid.
In order to avoid something similar happening in this game **again** , Trip posted a suggested rule list.
So my vote would be yes to transport chains.
And although I understand the arguments for the use of the F1 trick, my gut tells me that I would prefer it banned…(or limited to fixing bugs under the supervision of Trip)
And the rule regarding the warping of units should be reworded to say that if the intention of gifting a city is to warp units, then it is against the rules. Ie city gifting happens sometimes, and a side effect is that units get warped. Side effect is OK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vondrack
|
|
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
The bad feeling was simply because we had different views on transport chaining being an exploit. As Vondrack said, he could have easily defended his coastal cities better, had he known that I could use a transport chain.
Similarly, I would have not of even considered the move had I not thought the manoeuvre was completely valid. |
To be fair, I should note here that had I known ship chaining was allowed, I would have had to deploy more of my troops defensively throughout the war and likely to build more navy on the expense of the sorely needed MA/MI, consequently having a bit less to throw at H_E in my desperate attempt to break his neck in time (which almost happened, though ). Perhaps I'd have been unable to reach his aluminium as fast as I reached it and he would have won anyway...
But ultimately, it's not about who won that game in the end. Considering the game as a whole, H_E did more or less deserve to win it, for numerous achievements. This was about the frustration I felt after opening the last save - I immediately knew what happened, since I knew the only way to pull a seaborne invasion was a ship chain. But at that moment, it was too late to discuss any rules. It was obvious H_E used a manoeuver he considered valid - asking him to replay without it would only bring in more frustration (this time on his side), so I didn't even try... it just felt very wrong and sad...
When it comes to voting on ship chaining, I am probably not going to want it banned now - I'll either abstain, simply accepting what others will want or even vote in favour of it, as I - after much thinking about it - came to like the twist it adds to the game.
As for F1... that's a different story. If it's going to be allowed, then we need to precisely list what is allowed and what is not. Clearly, double-use of tiles is a no-no, while changing production may be acceptable to the majority.
I would personally ban reassigning labourers in the city screen, be it tile->tile or labourer->specialist (though I would like to hear then, if taking a labourer off a tile and putting him immediately back there is ok or not... .
I only have a feeling about one other MZO list point: worker/arty double duty. Clearly, a double-duty is a no-no, but requiring alliances and peace treaties to be respected ingame goes beyond just preventing double duties. It makes even capturing (and using on the next turn) arty impossible, makes cutting resource trades impossible etc. Perhaps just rewording or dropping the "ingame alliance/peace" requirement would make it fine with me. Just state it's not allowed to use captured arty/workers on the turn they are captured if they have already been utilized on that very turn by another team (this would have to include "early completed" PBEM terrain improvements).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-04-2004 04:38
, you gain speed but lose capacity. You can only transport one shipload per chain. An alternative use of this exploit is to move units over dangerous waters. You lose some ships but the cargo is never at risk.
|