Legitimate vs Cheating Strategies

[polypheus]

In any computer game, whether it be Civ3, EU2, etc. there will be certain loopholes or exploits that clever players might notice and use to advantage to beat the computer. However, most of these strategies really should be considered forms of cheating rather than as legitimate gameplay.

Some players find joy in trying to figure any and all possible loopholes in the game to exploit in order to win. However I take pleasure in playing the game as realistically as possible. Therefore I claim any strategy is really cheating if it does any of the following:

(1) Accomplishes something that was clearly unintended by the game designers.
(2) Accomplishes something that simply would make no sense whatsoever and is totally unrealistic.
(3) Accomplishes something which the AI is obviously not programmed to counter.

This is not an exhaustive list but does demonstrate the basic idea.

This is a good thread to compile a list of exploitative/cheating strategies as well as discuss this topic in general. My ultimate goal is to compile a list for realistic-style players that should be followed if one wishes to avoid (even unintentionally) cheating against the computer.

[Jaybe]

Sorry, I have to disagree with your concept.
Since everyone's knowledge, experience and perspective are different, what is 'cheating' to one is hunkey-dorey to another. It's all individual choice.

You cannot (ie, it is unwise) to try to impose your ideals on another with this game. It has been created to be modifiable so each can get their own greatest value out of it.

The best you can do is try to come up with some guideliines for multi-player games.

[Blaupanzer]

I, on the other hand, would note that the exploiting of loopholes does matter if individuals are going to make claims on this forum regarding their success. The large numbers cheat (9999999 gold from or to the AI) or the sell them a city and promptly retake it exploitation can be used in the game but reflect no reality. War for resources orprovoking an attack are legitimate and intended design decisions. So, play anyway you want, you bought the game. However, don't come here and say the game is "easy" or that you are good at it if you figured a way around the rules and/or the programming.

[MarshalN]

Well, I think cheating is doing what is obviously a problematic loophole, like the 999999999 gold cheat. If you don't call that cheating, you've got really, really lax rules. Jaybe, you don't think that's "personal choice" do you?

That said, I think beating games means finding ways to beat the AI/system of the game. I think IFE is a legit strategy. You can think of it as planting trees and cutting it down for more lumber. Now, putting more workers making the trees grow faster could be problematic, but maybe you can think of it as putting more workers will make more trees grow. Who knows. That I think is not cheating.

As to taking and selling a city back.... you can still think of it as a problem in the AI in that while the computer values a city X as 6 gold per turn + 30 gold in Lump Sum (what you sell for), but they're not willing to give you 6 gold per turn and 30 gold lump sum when you sue for peace, while they do give you that city. I find it the case that sometimes things like this happen -- what is clearly equivilent to the AI don't seem to be so in negotiations, so in those cases, I don't think it's cheating to take a city, sell it back. If you can take it again.... why not? Unless you change the whole structure of the game, this is always going to be there. Games are like that... there are always things that seem somewhat on the edge of legit, but you have to live with it or else you make a different game.

[Blaupanzer]

MarshalN, good to see you again. I agree, and withdraw my sell, take, resell, retake point. I also think IFE is within the program parameters. HOW more workers make trees grow faster is clearly metaphysical, not scientific, but the programmers put it in there, so it's legit. As to the relative value of cities, techs, etc., the programmers limitations will be meaningless in MP, since the humans can make their own choices. I only ask that if one is exploiting a clear loophole, don't brag about the results here, especially without noting that exploitation. One can win easily at any level easily if a few $100,000 to $10,000,000 bonuses come into play.

[HugoHillbilly]

I think there should be a mid-way between the two arguments.

If you use something that obviously wasnt intended for normal gameplay (Ie GODMODE in fps', the cheat menu in Civ2) or a bug (The 1m gold bug, the Dupe bug in Diablo) then it should be regarded as cheating, and not a "legitimate" strategy.

However, if you find a way to beat the AI in a clever way that the game designers didnt think of then great, you deserve your win, and its not cheating, as you were playing within the boundaries of the game.

Remember, this only applies if you wish to compete with other players, or brag about what level you beat, but if its for your own enjoyment do whatever you want with the game.

[sachmo71]

Who really cares what someone claims to have done on this board? If they cheated to get there, then they are probably missing out on a big part of the fun in the game, but it's their choice. Now if this were for money, I would have my knife in my boot...

[MarshalN]

Blaupanzer? I don't think I recognize the name. Blue Baron??

[mgblst]

Multiplayer...

The problem will come about with multiplayer games, but these rules can be agreed upon before. Recently i had a multiplayer mathc with 2 friends on civ2, and they seem to believe that bribing each others units is unfair? I just wish there wasnt so many of these cheats, like in civ2. It is quite frustrating to not play as best you could, because it is cheating!

[darthx86]

Re: Legitimate vs Cheating Strategies

Originally posted by polypheus Therefore I claim any strategy is really cheating if it does any of the following:

(1) Accomplishes something that was clearly unintended by the game designers.
(2) Accomplishes something that simply would make no sense whatsoever and is totally unrealistic.
(3) Accomplishes something which the AI is obviously not programmed to counter.

You realize, of course, that the AI itself may be programmed to "cheat." Witness the uber-triremes, the instant wonders, and the invisible caravans in Civs 1 and 2.

Now, in Civ 3, I have not seen that the AI "cheats" anywhere (yet), but according to your second rule, there's no way a bunch of guys in grass skirts hurling wooden spears knocks off my mech infantry! (And, yes, I think lumberjacking is lame.)

Now, I do agree with your post; in D&D, this is called "munchkinism." To this end, I will take my licks whenever I hit a bad hut in the early game and not reload. But if I decide by around 1AD that the map is poor, I will restart (I did drop $50US on it, after all!)

How's THAT for a first post?

[vmxa1]

I agree with Poly. It is not a case of one person seeing it as fair and others as cheating. We can disagree on what is a cheat, but if you use a hole that is not intented to be there (and may not be fixed) and claim it is not cheating, that is just a rationalization, same as thiefs and drug users do. I have not played enough to know the game inside out, but claims of getting stealth in 1300 AD do not sound legit to me. IFE is a case of reasonable doubt, 9999999 is just someone looking for holes. I do not see winning with that as rewarding. Finding the hole may be rewarding, but using it is the same as looking at the cards your kid is holding. Oops, I guess some with not have a problem with that.

[rah]

I agree with mgblst. What you do playing by yourself is your own business. Unless you come here to brag. Then you must limit yourself to what's generally accepted.

For MP, we're fortunate to have the sp experience knowing that MP will come so we can start discussions. With CivII, MP kinda just showed up and coming to a general concensus took lots of experience and a lot of the argueing ruined many a game. It took almost 3 months before people even knew what should be discussed before a game started. Then another few months before there was any agreement.

Fortunately the 15 to 20 people that I played with finally came to concensus and "RAH" rules (I was always annoyed by that designation, but I think that's why they use it) became the standard. As a result almost all argueing ceased during games and it no longer took 3 hours setting up games while everyone hashed out what rules would be used. I've played hundreds of MP games over the last few years, with NO arguements. This helps keep the game fun and desirable for replay. Now we get on ICQ and someone asks what rules are we using, Someone says RAH rules and after 2 minutes of reading off the list, we're playing. Beats the old days by a lot.

We need to start these discussions NOW. Granted different groups will want different settings, but at least we'll get an idea of what issues should be discussed. A lot of issues will dissapear in MP, if there are no AIs in the game. (if not by patches) Unfair negotiating will dissappear. Selling a city to just reclaim it will be considered fine if you can find someone dumb enough to pay for it. But there will ALWAYS be issues.


Rich

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Legitimate vs Cheating Strategies

Originally posted by polypheus
(1) Accomplishes something that was clearly unintended by the game designers.

It deserves repeating: If you can accomplish something that was clearly unintended by the game designers, the fault lies with -the game designers.

There is a cure for that. It´s called thorough playtesting.

Unfortunately Firaxis got that wrong, and replaced it by no playtesting.

[mongolhorde]

Since this is a single player game, whether something is legitimate tactics or cheesey cheating is a moot point. You should play the game the way you want to. And if you feel that you must use cheesey tactics, then in the end you are really just cheating yourself out of a great gaming experience.

[polypheus]

It is self-evident that people can play however they want. But the point I was trying to make is what others here have already alluded to. If you want a good gaming experience you should try to play as realistically as possible and avoid exploiting loopholes and such.

Of course thorough playtesting can eliminate many loopholes but it is simply impossible to eliminate them all. And the fact of the matter is that abstaining from using the loopholes is almost as good as if the loopholes were closed via upgrades or patches.

Therefore, for the realistic minded game players who play for the best game experience possible (instead of playing to "beat up" the computer via exploiting loopholes), which of the strategies that have been posted should be considered legitimate and which strategies should be considered loophole exploitation and therefore really cheating?

Any takers?