Too many people cheating in Civ III?

[Pyrodrew]

i think there are two issues here

Exactly. I merely said changing rules in the editor which affects all players isn't cheating, which Koola initially suggested.

I'm kind of confused as to why everyone seems to care so much

For me, someone taking my sentences out of context or someone else assuming the "2 issues" you explained were 1.

[Grumbold]

If the game had been released perfectly stable and perfectly tested then I could accept that editing the parameters was moving the game away from some ideal Firaxis standard. That the game does contain bugs, the units and some settings have changed since the manual was printed etc shows to me that the version we have now is not the final, perfectly tested version that we may ultimately get once all the patches have been issued. In the meantime anyone who want to use the editor to fix perceived problems in any way they see fit is ok by me. Its only by having serious gamers fool around with these settings that we are really going to find out what this game is capable of. Once it is known better people can make serious value judgements as to what rules should become the de facto standard for multiplay. 100,000+ players can and will achieve more than 20 beta testers did.

[tmarcl]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33


The biggest problem with editing things is that nothing will be standardized after a while. Posting strategies is completely meaningless if people start editing stuff. Even comments about the game will be misunderstood. For example, I might say having 8 cities is good (just made up a number) and you might say something else just because you played with a different "settings".

Granted, but enough people will play the game at normal settings for there to be a good consensus of what is and isn't a good strategy (see f/ex, the Civilization Fanatics site, it has an entire section on game strategy-and Civ 2 had the cheat mode built in!)

Significantly editing the game is clearly cheating. The reason for this is because you are avoiding a challenge. Isn't cheating all about getting out of challenging situations? Most of the changes will not really give anyone an advantage (changing an attribute will have the same effect on you as the computer). But it will make you avoid the initial challenge. I consider this to be cheating.

Depends on what it is you're editing. As soon as I figured out how to edit the game w/out screwing the tech screen, I put the Huge map settings to the max (256x256)-I like big maps. I tried on normal settings, but it just took way too long for my units to go from place to place, especially for finding colonies and establishing trade routes (my last attempt took two hours to build a road between me and the Romans!) Too make things easier, I doubled the move rate on all the units. I also gave settlers the build road/clear forest/jungle command. (either the increased movement or the changing of the settlers crashed the game, I haven't figured out which yet). I also increased the road modifier from 3 to 5, and gave my workers alpine ability.

In addition, to combat what I feel is the excessively high corruption rate in the game, I gave the police station the ability to lower corruption. I've also changed the Intelligence Agency to a CIA/FBI, in order to combat corruption. (I confess, I *like* big empires!)

These are, I'm sure you'll agree, significant changes. I don't feel, however, that they make the game easier for me in from a balance point of view. The game is just as challenging, and just as fun. Aside from the big empire thing (which is not only a preference, but kind of necessary on a huge map-especially with resources spread out as they are!), nothing I've done is really cheating, at least, IMO.




Marc

[yavoon]

ur right marc, ur not cheating.

but if u think ur not effecting balance, u couldn't be more wrong. all the things u do scream making the game easier for urself, and harder for the computer. like I've been over already, universal changes DO change balance, no matter what some ppl would like u to believe.

so ur welcome to do it, but I'd prefer u not be under the false assumption that ur not changing game balance.

[Pyrodrew]

If the AI expands faster than Marc (and for most people it does), lowering corruption will NOT make it harder on the computer... it will make it EASIER for the AI since they have more cities in far off places. And as Soren said, the AI wasn't designed for only 1 type of environment - it can adjust (unless you can prove it cannot).

[yavoon]

the ai was deisnged and tested to work under the current rules. unless u can prove otherwise. u just want to find a n excuse for ditching a part of the game u find challenging. and u don't have the perspective or intelligence to realize the implication changes have on the ai.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
re-read my post there was no complaint there.

Cheating is giving the human player an advantage over the AI players. And I agree that is wrong.
By wrong, I meant not fair.

I realize that the specific example you discussed did not fit the above comments. Does that mean that these were random, irrelevant statements? I'd gladly accept that, but until you say otherwise I'll presume you meant to say something.

Why the frustration? I'm sick of the BS attitude against those of us who see the purpose of this game as personal enjoyment. Pyrodrew is actually not the worst of these; he just had the misfortune of using the buzzwords at the wrong time.

[n.c.]

For an example of this attitude see below:

Originally posted by Rhysie
I agree that people are using the editor to remove challenges or parts of the game that they find too difficult

I also believe I know why these people resort to this... It is because they are so paranoid about people thinking they are not 'hardcore' because they don't play on the higher levels

[Pyrodrew]

the ai was deisnged and tested to work under the current rules. unless u can prove otherwise. u just want to find a n excuse for ditching a part of the game u find challenging. and u don't have the perspective or intelligence to realize the implication changes have on the ai.

I don't need an excuse, I never said I did change anything. Your making assumptions to fill the gaps in your mind. Your entire perspective is based on assumptions. As far as my perspective - I've read Soren's comments on the AI being able to adjust, you're just so naive & bitter you wouldn't believe him if he told you to your face.

Originally posted by n.c.
I realize that the specific example you discussed did not fit the above comments. Does that mean that these were random, irrelevant statements? I'd gladly accept that, but until you say otherwise I'll presume you meant to say something.

They meant something, but not what you thought they did.

Why the frustration? I'm sick of the BS attitude against those of us who see the purpose of this game as personal enjoyment. Pyrodrew is actually not the worst of these; he just had the misfortune of using the buzzwords at the wrong time.

"Not the worst of these"? Did you miss my posts to Marc/Yavoon? Here, let me introduce you to someone... Yavoon this is N.C., N.C. this is Yavoon... enjoy.

[yavoon]

whats the matter pyro? can't handle n.c.. I've made my disclaimer psot, so hpoefully ppl like that would stay off my back.

and I guarentee you that the YOU(no matter how bad u r) can exploit lessened corruption far better than the AI ever could. its just observational reality. I'm sorry your not bright enuff to see it.

[yavoon]

whats the matter pyro? can't handle n.c.. I've made my disclaimer in the hopes of keeping ppl like that off my back.

and hate to break this to you, but I guarentee you that you can exploit lessened corruption far better than the ai could. but hey, nething to rationalize to yourself eh?

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
They meant something, but not what you thought they did.

I thought they meant that IYO changes favoring humans are wrong/unfair/cheating. If I misunderstood I apologize. However, since that is almost a quote I'll simply acknoledge that my response was overly harsh. You caught the brunt of of others' comments.

Of course, that doesn't mean I think they are any less lacking in perspective.

[Pyrodrew]

N.C. - I think it is cheating to give oneself an unfair advantage (say giving themself 200 tanks) over the AI, just like playing solitare & peaking underneathe all the piles would be cheating, BUT I don't think it is unethical or needs to be stopped because as you said it's a single player game & hence no one is getting hurt & the fun of the game is more important. At any rate, I'm glad we cleared up the confusion.

Yavoon - N.C. is fine. A player changing the options & making a mod - which Dan from Friaxis even mentioned, is not cheating when all players are equally impacted. My statements have been based on what Firaxis has posted here, your theories are based on your assumptions which you fail to prove. You have my pity.

Edited to add this excellent statement Grunthex (a member here) mentioned in another thread:

That's exactly right. They ((the AI)) suffer the same corruption, and they're slower than you to build courthouses.

Thus less corruption helps the AI more. You're alone on this one Yavoon.

[CygnusZ]

The only thing to be concerned about is that Firaxis is going to listen to all those incompotent players and hardcode the game that it becomes as ridiculously easy as CivII. If someone feels that corruption is bad, and decides to get rid of it... fine. But please, please, please Firaxis, don't let this incompotent players attribute become part of the game!

Otherwise ... I see no harm.

[adaMada]

The AI is not hard-coded with the original game rules... it should be able to adapt to most changes made to the BIC file. This is not to say that you can't create something that the AI won't know how to use (like, say, a tank which can also found cities), but making minor gameplay tweaks (like adjusting corruption) should not have a noticeably detrimental effect on the AI.

Or at least, that's the theory.

The only person who, as far as we know, knows ANYTHING about the computer AI and who's posting here has just said, quite clearly, that minor (numerical) changes shouldn't affect the game... so... why are we still arguing over this? Unless someone can prove better, I'm inclined to take Soren's word on this, since he is the expert... unless someone knows something I don't know...

THAT being sed, they're a buncha editor changing newbies.

--yavoon

I personally don't change the game -- play it in standard (don't have any plans to that, but who knows) -- but, with all respect to yavoon, it's pretty stupid to start insulting people over something like this... Again, I just don't see why it's worth this much! I mean, yavoon, has someone's using the editor personally harmed you? As for the thing about 'harming' the AI, see the quote above. Also on that subject, if someone WANTS to change the game, and the AI is hurt because of that, then what's the big issue? As long as they 'fess up to changing the game... maybe they don't realize they're hurting the AI, and that might be a minor issue for some people, but having said that, it's not worth getting this upset over... certinally not something to start fighting over!

N.C. - I think it is cheating to give oneself an unfair advantage (say giving themself 200 tanks) over the AI, just like playing solitare & peaking underneathe all the piles would be cheating, BUT I don't think it is unethical or needs to be stopped because as you said it's a single player game & hence no one is getting hurt & the fun of the game is more important. At any rate, I'm glad we cleared up the confusion.

-- Pyrodrew

Very well put. Though I'm not sure I agree that editing the game is giving anyone an unfair advantage, even if it is, this should be the most important issue...

In conclusion,
Why so much agression over a TOTAL NON ISSUE? And why, why, yavoon, do you CARE so much what other people do to their games, especially when Multiplayer isn't even out yet?! I don't get it...

-- adaMada