The gift exploit

[Yyrkroon]

I use this in (non ladder) MP games alot - especially in games where a dropped player has been replaced by an AI.

Attack player A.
Take whatever cities you can, and then gift the worthless ones (perhaps due to be awash in enemy culture) to the AI.

Player A can now only retake those cities (quickly) by declaring war on a third party.

[Mao]

Originally posted by xxFlukexx
I remember gifting cities as an exploit in civ3 and civ2 too. I believe that cities should not be tradeable or at least 'redded out' 99% of the time.

Wait, you could gift cities in Civ2? Really?

[Enigma_Nova]

So, people still think of the AI as dumb machines rather than enemy players.
So be it. I find it better to pretend I'm owning the heck out of an enemy player than entering 1s and 0s into a machine.

[Urban Ranger]

I dunno about this. If the AI fails to execute a particular strategy that a human player can perform is that an exploit as well?

[Monsto]

tbph i have absolutely no qualms about doing crap like this anyway. the ai is NOT 'artificial intelligence' by definition. it's an 'expert system' (with some randomization) that is defined by parameters that let it enjoy the benefits of relaxed rules. it makes the game more difficult for better players when the game gives it's multiple players various discounts.

IOW the game itself cheats SPECIFICALLY to make it harder on the human (i.e. skill levels) which is the way the game was designed. Personally, I find strategies like this a rather tasty irony.

as defined by wikipedia . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Mao


Wait, you could gift cities in Civ2? Really?

Yes, in Multiplayer.

[Dis]

Re: The gift exploit

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
Firaxians-

Peopleses are gittin' all up-in-arms about the gift exploit. You give someone you don't like a worthless city and they like you for it. Since you can't disband cities (And why is that?), they're stuck.

If the algorithms can be made to decide whether a TRADE is equitable or advantageous, why not set one up to make the same decision on accepting gifts?

Is it that much an exploit? They still get a little bit of science production from those cities. Even with the high upkeep.

[Monsto]

Re: Re: The gift exploit

Originally posted by Dis
Is it that much an exploit? They still get a little bit of science production from those cities. Even with the high upkeep.

getting 1 or 2 beakers from a city with 18 maintenance isn't worth it.

i started a game last night specifically to see how well this worked.

isabella was crawlin up my ass from WAY across the continent. i 86'd the jap. who were right next to me but strung along the coastline. their closest cities were 3 maint for me, but the furthest were 8 or 9 maint. I gave the 2 furthest landlocked cities to spain and they're a good 40 turns away by scout.

over the next 100 turns, i watched her slowly drop down the score list. She even tried attacking me from that city. which i rebuffed easily (1 stinkin axman? you call that a war)

bottom line is that it's a resource drain. While strategically it's smart, cuz it's right next to me, it's of no use to her cuz she can't do anything there to take advantage of it. . . therefore it loses it's strategic value.

you and i see that easily right off. The so-called AI, however, can't add it up.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I dunno about this. If the AI fails to execute a particular strategy that a human player can perform is that an exploit as well?

I have no problem with this. If the AI fails to use the tools provided to it as well as a human, well, good. Cuz otherwise we're kinda S.O.L.

But does the AI have the ability to reject a gift, just as a human player does? If the AI were to offer a human player a useless or costly city that human player may very well reject it.

Assuming the AI DOES have the ability to reject gifts, then perhaps the AI is simply programmed to accept practically all gifts. (i.e. "anything at all" > "nothing", thus gifts are always accepted.) This would not be an exploit, just another example of humans being more advanced than the programs they design.*

Assuming the AI DOES NOT have the ability to reject gifts, then I believe it does qualify as an exploit.

(Likewise, I feel this applies to units, though the effect is more benign since I assume that the AI can disband its units just as human players can.)

*Essentially, what we're doing is percieving a red herring. Some would say its a result of mistrust or cynicism, which is an inherent human trait but cannot necessarily be algorithmically represented. However, I think that it is actually an expression of an inherent human understanding of economics: "There is always a cost, although its terms of expression may not necessarily be equivalent or even immediately perceptible." I know this is a problem of semantics, rather than syntax, but I think it could be done to give an AI the vocabulary necessary to read the "cost" of a gift.

[inca911]

Originally posted by Monsto the ai is NOT 'artificial intelligence' by definition. it's an 'expert system' (with some randomization) that is defined by parameters that let it enjoy the benefits of relaxed rules. it makes the game more difficult for better players when the game gives it's multiple players various discounts.

...

as defined by wikipedia . . .

Well, as long as we call it the right thing. I guess that's what's important.

The only time I gift a city to the AI is if one culture-flips to me and I don't want it. I personally would prefer Firaxis to fix those things for which I don't have a way to eliminate the inequality (e.g., Ironworks in the first patch). For this exploit, just say "no" if you feel it isn't fair and let Firaxis work on the significant issues.

[Datajack Franit]

what is peopleses? is it german?

[Monsto]

Originally posted by inca911
Well, as long as we call it the right thing. I guess that's what's important.

It's important for people to realize that the game isn't thinking or learning or even reacting. the term AI implies that the game should "know better" than to take a city gift that is in a van down by the river. All it's doing is comparing opposing actions (whether yours or its schizophrenic self) against a weighted list of potential responses

. . . then it rolls a d100.

[djpsychonaut]

Originally posted by Monsto i have absolutely no qualms about doing crap like this anyway. the ai is NOT 'artificial intelligence' by definition.

I'm with Monsto on this one. The AI will never have all the advantages/disadvantages of a human. And why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT A HUMAN!

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
Some would say its a result of mistrust or cynicism, which is an inherent human trait but cannot necessarily be algorithmically represented. However, I think that it is actually an expression of an inherent human understanding of economics: "There is always a cost, although its terms of expression may not necessarily be equivalent or even immediately perceptible." I know this is a problem of semantics, rather than syntax, but I think it could be done to give an AI the vocabulary necessary to read the "cost" of a gift.

The main problem is this: There are numerous different ways to assess the value of anything.

Ask three people how much something is worth and you get three different answers. I really don't think that a "fix" to this "exploit" you're all talking about is even possible.

An expert system is not sophicated enough and does not have the ability to think nonlinearly in order to be able to formulate its own strategies. This would require it to set goals, and think up all sorts of novel and unique ways to meet these goals. That's the problem though -- computer programs are procedural, they don't "think."

The AI has to be guided by general concepts and then gets its bonuses and handicaps to make up for the stupid fumbles it's still going to make on the way.

In addition, I really think the overall effect of this exploit is so minor compared to the problems with the civilopedia and some of the game crash issues, etc. that Firaxis shouldn't really be devoting that many resources to it. So, one civ suddenly loves you, there's so many other ways to make another civ crazy about you (declare mutual war, convert to their state religion, etc). It's really just not that big of deal in my eyes, sorry guys...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I dunno about this. If the AI fails to execute a particular strategy that a human player can perform is that an exploit as well?

No, it's a flaw of the game mechanics. An exploit is a human player taking advantage of said flaw.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by djpsychonaut

The main problem is this: There are numerous different ways to assess the value of anything.

Ask three people how much something is worth and you get three different answers. I really don't think that a "fix" to this "exploit" you're all talking about is even possible.

Although three people name three different nominal values for the same thing, the theoretical value is identical:

Return - Cost = Value

That's all the program is doing whenever it decides whether or not it will accept your trade. The only reason it might not be able to perform such a function is if it has not had either "return" or "cost" defined for it.