 |
|
EyesOfNight
|
|
Fine, I'll leave you morons to continue pondering the complexities of incremental buying. My only hope is that you'll find your answer before the end of your miserable little life.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
I'll preface this by saying:
1) No, I do not know any of the programmers so anything I say about their intent is purely speculative.
2) If you're playing single player (and not posting records), or if all players agree to any rule; then it's fine to use that rule.
quote:
As noted it doesn't work for improvements.You can save turns but not gold.Why? |
Because improvements always cost 2 gold per shield no matter how many improvement shields you're buying. Buying a bank outright is just as cheap as buying a library then quickly buying a bank the same turn. Unit shields, however, increase in price the more you buy at one time. If you already have 5 shields in your box, buying a warrior and then quickly switching and buying a phalanx on the same turn will cost less than buying a phalanx outright.
Phalanx outright: The program says "Whoa, this guy's trying to by 15 shields (one and a half rows) all at once. Stick him with the one and a half row price (3 per shield? I don't know the exact number)."
Warrior: "Just five shields? Ok, make him pay 2.5 (or is it 2.2?) coins per shield."
Then Phalanx: "Just 10 shields? That's a row or less. Charge him 2.5 coins per shield."
You save 7 or so coins. Clever micromanagement or loophole?
quote:
Not being able to change would be disastrous. |
Agreed. They certainly intended for you to be able to switch production- even multiple times a turn if you're that wishy-washy. Otherwise, why would they have an explicit 50% penalty when changing production types? The question is, did they intend for you to evade the higher per shield cost of unit shields by changing production types many times a turn?
quote:
I think it was meant as a finer point or undocumented feature to be used mainly against deity level. |
A stadium has security guards at the entrance to check your ticket or collect money. During your repeated visits to the stadium, you notice that they never lock one of the windows. I'm willing to bet that waiting until no one's looking to climb in the window to see a concert or sporting event was not intended by the stadium owners; even though it is possible to do so, and even though the owners (with more knowledge, "playtesting", foresight, and money) could have made it very difficult or impossible. Is climbing in the window cheating, or merely good use of resources? I don't think that climbing in the window is a "fine point" that the owners know about and intentionally leave available but don't feel like "documenting" in their ads. I don't think that climbing in the window was left as a legitimate option to be used by experts tackling difficult economic problems. I don't think the owners would congratulate you on using the stadium's aspects to your advantage ('though others having a difficult time successfully seeing the show might thank you for the tip). I say this because the owners set up a very obvious and intuitive way of getting into the stadium - one with an obvious created cost; while in contrast, the window is closed (but unlocked) and has no stairs leading up to it and is awkward to fit through. I don't think the stadium owners purposely leave the window open to reward physically fit and creative fans. I think the mere fact that the stadium collects money at the door shows they intended for you to use the door. And I say all this without consulting or knowing any stadium owners!
(Note: I'm not saying you're a thieving low-life scum if you use incremental buying. I'm just saying that it's pretty obvious that the programmers didn't intend it. I don't mind if anyone uses it as they see fit, but I can't swallow someone stating that incremental buying was an intended feature.)
quote:
I think there is a fine line between cheating and using the game's aspects to your advantage. |
Agreed.
quote:
If that is a cheat - is forcing a city to celebrate in Monarchy dubious by manipulating the workers around the city tiles? (First you put all the workers out to sea and gain arrows at the expense of food/production to celebrate. After gaining the double arrows you place some of the workers back on food/production squares but manage to sustain the double trade benefits) |
I didn't realize you could do this. Yes, I'd call that a cheat too. Pretend the programmers intended for you to be able to switch worker squares to celebrate, then quickly switch them back the same turn so as to get celebration benefits without losing out on food/production. Why would the programmers force you to run around to each of your cities every turn, try and max arrows to see if you can celebrate, the switch back to the squares you really want to work? Why not just program cities to celebrate whenever any possible arrangement of worked squares would let you celebrate - whether or not you choose to work those squares? Remember, in this scenario the programmers fully intend for you to get the celebration benefit without ultimately working the squares that turn. Are the programmers sadistic and want to make things as hard as possible when there's an easier interface they could have used? Are they stupid and couldn't figure out how to check for possible celebration without the human rearranging worked squares? Or (hold on here, this'll sound crazy) did they actually not intend for you to get the celebration benefit without working the arrow squares and overlooked the fact that the code let players switch from one to the other the same turn and keep the celebration advantage (thus defeating the need to work the arrows).
I'd again like to say that if you want to use these strategies and everyone in your game agrees to it, that's fine. One might even be able to debate whether or not they're cheats (on the grounds of wide acceptance or game balance). But I'm surprised anyone actually thinks they were intended by the creators. In addition to not being intended, I don't think that either incremental buying or free celebrations are "smart" strategies that the creators would have made the AI use if they'd only thought of it and it was easy to program, nor do they coincidentally mirror some real-world situation and therefore make sense and enhance the game, nor do I think they're in the spirit of the rules of the game seeing as how they avoid explicit costs for given actions. They're just loopholes to be exploited (or not).
In the words of the infallible EyesOfNight:
quote:
It's nothing more than a flaw in the equation they use for buying something...Lets face it, the game was never truly play tested fully and it shows. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:14
|
|
I think the analogy about the stadium is not a good one because in that example someone IS cheated, the stadium owner. He is not aware or did not agree to the unintended behavior. In addition as the owner, he makes the rules and anyone not following them is breaking the rule.
To me its more like basketball. When the game was invented by Dr Naismith. the backboard was intended as a backstop (ie to stop the ball from going all over the place after shots). Over time people realized they could bank the ball off the backboard and make shots - (not its intended purpose). People could have made a rule outlawing shots that hit the backboard but they didnt. Over time it became part of the game. Everyone knows about it and everyone uses it.
When players play pick-up games, if everyone agreed, they could outlaw bank shots for that game. Some might like this because it preserves the intent of the original rulemaker, others might not because they've developed thier shot and game around this unintended, but generally accepted behavior.
Ultimately if everyone agrees on what is allowed and what isn't, either is acceptable. It just becomes a rule.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
Smash,
Yes, in my previous post I agreed that the designers wanted players to be able to change production orders and to rush-buy stuff. My position is that they intended for the players to use this to change their minds about what the city should build and to "rush" an item in one turn. However, they did not intend for players to use this feature to circumvent the increased cost per shield of unit shields. Otherwise, why even have an increased cost if it can be avoided by incremental buying?
And I think EOL is correct. The reason the designers made it more costly to buy lots of units shields (as opposed to improvement shields) is they thought it should be harder to quickly gather together and train a lot of people than to quickly gather together and assemble a lot of resources. Good or bad, this was the intent of the designers. If you personally think it should be just as easy to rush units and therefore you use incremental buying as some a sort of civil disobedience to knowingly defy authority - then I'd see your side. However, I won't back up the opinion that incremental buying was intended.
Deity Dude,
It looks like you agree with me that the designers didn't intend to allow players to use incremental buying to avoid paying an increased price per shield. You argue that a tactic merely not being intended by the designers is insufficient to prove that that tactic is "cheating". I'll agree. However, in the case of incremental buying, there is good evidence that not only was it not intended; it also goes against the spirit of the game.
If all players in a game were to agree on a particular issue, then that wouldn't be cheating for that game. However, I think that something that circumvents a rule of the game is, at a minimum, not in the spirit of the game. (Auto-irrigating landlocked squares, "waiting" a plane to keep it in the air, etc.)
In basketball, you have to dribble the ball. You can't run with the ball in your hands. What if you had the ball and a teammate lifted you up on his shoulders and then your teammate ran around the court. He isn't holding the ball so he isn't travelling. You aren't taking steps so you aren't travelling. Yet this is clearly (in my mind) against the whole intent and spirit of the no travelling rule. The rule was made because Dr. Naismith wanted to give opponents a chance to snag the ball while it's being dribbled and avoid having some big strong guy clutch the ball and force his way to the basket (which would be more like football or rugby). Piggyback riding avoids breaking the travelling rule as stated, but is certainly against the spirit of the rule and the game. Similarly incremental buying, while possible, is clearly against the spirit of the increased cost penalty for unit shields. You're avoiding an explicit penalty by doing something convoluted. Banking off the backboard (in contrast to piggyback riding) doesn't circumvent any obvious penalty or intent in basketball.
Also basketball has the distinct advantage of being a set of easily changed rules. Civ2, on the other hand, is a computer program which requires a lot of money, time, and effort on the part of the programmers to correct and release revisions. While I can agree that if a practice becomes common in basketball and isn't outlawed then one can assume that people like it and it has become part of the game. I do NOT agree that if a bug/feature/practice in a computer game isn't "corrected" in a patch, then the programmers intended for people to use it and it should be legal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Edward
It looks like you agree with me that the designers didn't intend to allow players to use incremental buying to avoid paying an increased price per shield. You argue that a tactic merely not being intended by the designers is insufficient to prove that that tactic is "cheating". |
I agree with both points.
quote:
However, in the case of incremental buying, there is good evidence that not only was it not intended; it also goes against the spirit of the game. |
I agree it wasnt intended. I think the it is impossible to determine whether or not it goes against the spirit of the game since that is subjective.
quote:
In basketball, you have to dribble the ball. You can't run with the ball in your hands. What if you had the ball and a teammate lifted you up on his shoulders and then your teammate ran around the court. He isn't holding the ball so he isn't travelling. You aren't taking steps so you aren't travelling. Yet this is clearly (in my mind) against the whole intent and spirit of the no travelling rule. . |
Here's where I have to disagree. First of all, it is illegal in b-ball to assist a teammate in that fashion. Why? Because it was decided that this unintended feature/practice was not desirable. So a rule was made outlawing it. (Believe me, if there were no rule against people would be doing it.) Just as low scoring games were considered undesirable so a shot clock was put in. These unintended features/practices were veiwed by the rulemakers as negative. Use of the backboard is an unintended feature/practice that people have found positive. Hence, no rule was made to stop it. Over time people wanted the game to be more exciting so a 3 point shot was added (that in my mind would be like modifying the rules.txt file with everyone's consent). I highly doubt when these changes were considered that the determining factor was the intent of Naismith. (In Naismith's day a shot from 3 pt distance would have probably been considered impossible.) It was the enjoyment of fans and spectators that was the determining factor.
I guess ultimately what I am trying to say is who cares what the intent was. And as far as spirit of the game goes a) its highly subjective and b) if you could objectively define it, should it stop players from doing something they all want and agree to do. Or should they be called cheaters for doing it. All that matters is the enjoyment derived. Having said that, I don't think that is the reason people use inc. rush buying. (i.e. it makes for a better game) I think it is more of a pandora's box issue. It's out there and there is really no way, other than honor, to enforce a rule against it. And if you did make a rule against it and everyone was an honorable player, incremental rush buying would still occur unintentionally. ( i.e. you rush build a warrior then notice an enemy a few squares off, so you rush build a phalanx, enemy gets knocked of by a barb and you dont need a phalanx, you switch to diplo to bribe the barb, but the barb goes the other way so now you decide you need a settler)
To get back to another sports analogy, this time football, making a rule against it would be like telling coaches they couldn't discuss strategy during the 2 minute warning because the break was intended to inform coaches about the clock. How would you enforce it.
Having said that, I hate incremental rush buying (but I always use it) and hope it is eliminated in civiii. I don't think it was intended and I don't think it adds to gameplay.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
Deity Dude,
quote:
And as far as spirit of the game goes ... if you could objectively define it, should it stop players from doing something they all want and agree to do? |
I concede that if a feature makes a game getter and all players agree to it, it should be used. I also grudgingly admit that it's a bit priggish to call these consenting players "cheaters".
And ultimately it's pretty irrelevant what comes of this argument ('though I'm certainly enjoying it  ). As you noted:
quote:
I think it is more of a pandora's box issue. |
quote:
...making a rule against it would be like telling coaches they couldn't discuss strategy during the 2 minute warning because the break was intended to inform coaches about the clock. How would you enforce it? |
Incremental buying is unenforceable and it's left up to the players to decide if it makes their game more fun. As I stated in my first post, I think the reason I no longer use incremental buying is not so much that it's "cheating", but more because 1) it makes the game against the AI more challenging for me and 2) I play single player, so I'm not put at a disadvantage because of it. Here, for me, it does not meet the criteria of a feature that "makes the game better".
A parting argument. I think one's view on rules (whether or not they actually come out and say something is cheating) can be determined by how they would have the game work if they could redesign it.
1) Right now (without the patch) I think you can avoid having a fighter crash ("run out of fuel") by hitting "Wait" at the end of that unit's turn. Would you prefer that:
a) You shouldn't have to hit "Wait". Your fighter should always be able to hang in the air at the end of your turn.
You disagree with the rule that fighters need to land at the end of their turn. If you use the Wait trick, it's a form of civil disobedience to make the game work the way you want it to.
b) The game is fine as it is. The plane crashes if you don't hit wait, but hangs if you do hit wait.
You think hitting Wait is some clever tactic - like remembering to refuel. It somehow adds some element of management and strategy to the game.
c) Fighters not ending their turn in a city/airbase/carrier should always crash.
Whether or not you admit it, you think that Waiting fighters is an unrealistic cheat.
2) Right now, according to Scouse Gits (SG(2)), you can switch your workers to high-arrow squares, lock a city into celebrating, then switch back to food/shield squares the same turn. After doing this, you get the benefit of both the celebration and the food/shields from working the low arrow squares for the turn. Would you prefer that:
a) You get the production from squares you work. The game looks at all the possible combinations of worked squares in a city to see which would result in the greatest arrows. This check (not what squares you actually work) determines whether or not a city celebrates.
You think that being near the arrows is good enough to make the people happy. Players shouldn't have to work them. If you use SG(2)'s trick, it's a form of civil disobedience where you try to get the game to work "correctly" or "realistically".
b) The game is fine as is.
You think that switching squares to gain the benefit of both the arrows and the food/shield production is a form of management. The act of temporarily switching to arrowed squares "exposes" your citizens to that trade and makes them happy. If other players don't do this, they're just being lazy or stupid and not taking advantage of the game's "manual exposure" element.
c) Celebration should be based on the squares you actually work.
You think temporarily switching to arrows is an unrealistic cheat ('though you might do it in a multi-player game depending on the agreed upon rules).
3) Right now you can avoid the increased coin per shield cost on units by incremental buying. You think it should work like:
a) The game has a fixed price for unit shields. Forget this increasing cost junk.
You think the creators were wrong in changing the price per unit shield based on the number you buy all at once. If you use incremental buying, it's a form of civil disobedience to make the game work the way it should.
b) The game's fine as it is. In order to reduce rush-buy costs, players should be forced to go through the tedium of switching and buying 5 things they don't really want.
You think incremental buying is a strategy, some form of micromanagement. Perhaps rapidly changing your production orders reflects greater recruiting efforts or more efficient training. Players should be rewarded for putting this much effort into production management.
c) The game should base your price per unit shield on the shields you had in your box at the beginning of the turn. This way changing production midturn will never reduce your per shield cost.
You agree with the increased unit cost per shield and see incremental buying as a sneaky, illogical, unrealistic workaround (a "cheat"). If you use incremental buying, it's to keep pace with other players in a multiplayer game, or to make it easier for yourself against the AI.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
quote:
My god, Edward, this was a long post! |
Yes, I'm trying to take the title away from East Street Trader.
Scouse Gits (SG2),
I'm sorry I misinterpreted you. Your restating of city celebration makes sense and doesn't seem to be cheating to me (in fact, it's pretty much impossible to avoid).
I agree that it's much better to analyze and change worked squares (rather than let the computer choose). I hope you didn't see my condemnation of the (incorrectly) perceived "celebrate without hunger" loophole as a general condemnation of changing worked squares. I think my first post may have also been misleading as to my style of play. In the early game, I do check my worked squares every turn. However, I like to have a lot of cities. Come mid to late game, it's too tedious for my lazy mind to check every city's worked squares. When I have a lot of cities, I only look at worked squares just after a city has finished building something. It's a very good idea to check city squares every turn but, as with other good ideas (exercise, healthy eating), my id often overrides my super-ego.
Smash,
Continuing to celebrate after going from 40% to 30% luxuries is not cheating. The game is designed to have you celebrate when the number of happy people exceed the number of content people (or is it equal to?). In this case you haven't tricked the program into getting "stuck" at 40% luxuries so as to get an undeserved continuation of celebration. Those cities would have celebrated if you went directly to 30% and never hit 40%.
The documentation is terrible (and could never predict all methods of play anyway), so using undocumented features is not, in and of itself, against the spirit of the game. I do, however, object to some things (like waiting fighters and incremental buying) which are (to me) obviously circumventing an intended rule (and doing so with no logical or realistic basis).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
EOL
|
|
Oxford
Dec 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Edward
Smash,
Continuing to celebrate after going from 40% to 30% luxuries is not cheating. The game is designed to have you celebrate when the number of happy people exceed the number of content people (or is it equal to?). In this case you haven't tricked the program into getting "stuck" at 40% luxuries so as to get an undeserved continuation of celebration. Those cities would have celebrated if you went directly to 30% and never hit 40%.
|
I thought the point was that if not in Rep/Demo the city wouldn't celebrate if going straight to 30% since it would still only be getting single arrows on squares, whereas going to 40% first to start celebration gives double arrows allowing continued celebration after dropping the lux rate back down. This can make a huge difference under fundie/communism (monarchy's corruption makes it slightly less effective).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
Ah! I'm sorry Smash and EOL. Now I think I see your point.
You're in a non-representative government. You crank up the luxury rate so as to celebrate. Next turn you're legally celebrating. Now we slightly lower the luxury rate. If we hadn't already been celebrating (and thereby getting extra arrows) this new rate would not be enough to push us over into celebration. But because we're already celebrating, were getting bonus arrows. With these bonus arrows, we can celebrate at this lower luxury rate. Very clever! Sort of like giving your happiness a jump start and thereafter it's easier to maintain. Happiness begets happiness. I have no idea where I stand on this issue, but it's very clever indeed!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
Or alternately in Scouse Git's example, bump up the arrows produced and still celebrate when you switch back to food/shield squares.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
Back to the original topic.
If your city is producing 20 or more shields and you are in the middle of building a city improvement but want to rush it, first check and see if there is a another city improvement available that costs 20 shields less. If so, switch to that cheaper improvement and rushbuy it. Then switch back to the original improvement you wanted to build and use your city's shield capacity to finish it off. This saves 40 gold.
In the late game, when rushbuying units, the cheapest unit available might be a diplomat, costing 210 shields to rush from scratch. Could be it's cheaper to rush a barracks from scratch for only 160 shields, suffer the 50% penalty to shift to units before continuing to rush the military unit you want.
Barracks are also a cheaper way to start off a wonder you want to rush in just one turn, too.
However, rushbuying from scratch is a last resort. Starting any build by disbanding any unit in the city is always the cheaper way to go.
Simliar tricks help when using caravans and wonders to build spaceship parts. See Paul's OOC guide for a great examples of this.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-07-2001 09:39
|