Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MP C4DG Chat Poll 3: GP Gifting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • binTravkin
    replied
    I can edit it back.

    Leave a comment:


  • UnOrthOdOx
    replied
    They've played competitive PBEM's where it's never come up.

    I threw out something out of the ordinary (as usual) and it brought up these other possibilities which sound possibly bad on paper, but have never actually been played out in a game.

    I thought financial and philosophical looked incredibly bad on paper before the game came out. What looks on paper isn't always reality. That's why I'm opposed to the idea of making rules against something that might be, possibly bad sometime somewhere in a specific circumstance somehow.

    If they can show me a game it's been done and determined an exploit, like the other's we've discussed that have actual history of being used and determined to be excessive, I'm all ears.

    edit, oh sure edit away your question.

    Leave a comment:


  • binTravkin
    replied
    EDIT: nvm

    On the poll - AC team already voted yea, earlier in the thread.

    Fried - have you ever played a MP game with competitive people with GP trading on and being used by at least 2 persons?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fried-Psitalon
    replied
    Yes, it is what I assume it will amount to, and respectfully, I've got just a tad more experience and background in MP than you do. Ultimately, no one can know beforehand, but some of us have a little bit more practical understanding of these situations than others - as evidenced by your comment that easy GP swapping really requires three teams. You have actually done GP-specific training city specialization before, right? You do have some experience in this concept you're discussing? Your comment strongly suggests you do not.

    In any case, the positions are pretty clearly stated and no one seems to be moving. Why don't we go ahead and crack a vote thread? One way or another, we should get this done and move on. We can wave our fingers in the air all day long and the game won't get started.

    Leave a comment:


  • binTravkin
    replied
    intended to make GAs hard to get
    Hapiness is also intended not easy to get.
    Trading happiness resources = abusing a loophole?

    Techs are also intended not easy to get.
    Trading techs = abusing a loophole?



    That's what this amounts to.
    That is what you assume it amounts to.

    Trading techs leads to hard alliances?
    Trading hapiness resources leads to hard alliances?
    Who ever said that there must be 2 allied teams to trade GP successfully.
    As far as I can think of it, there must be 3 of them (1 making science GPs, one culture GPs and one engineering GPs), so that makes the alliances 50% looser..

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Miller
    replied
    After seeing the talk, I now think GP trading should not be allowed

    don't know about the rest of Vox though

    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • Fried-Psitalon
    replied
    It is abusing a loophole intended to make GAs hard to get by making them much, much easier - it isn't about "you get the same number of GP points either way" - it's about specific types, the number of cities you have to type-specialize, and the amount of real effort going into the process.

    GAs are supposed to be tough, taking a great deal of internal effort and planning. This makes them trivial, and is truly bad for game balance. Why don't we just agree to use Permanent Alliances and have teams of 2? That's what this amounts to.

    Leave a comment:


  • GeoModder
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • UnOrthOdOx
    replied
    It's covered under unit gifting if you want to go by the manual. GP are a unit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metaliturtle
    replied
    I just RTFM, map trading, special resource trading, and tech trading are in there, GP trading isn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • binTravkin
    replied
    Anyways:

    AC Team vote:

    12 Yea
    0 Nay
    0 Abstain

    to being type A people, henceforth allowing GP trading.

    Quote from discussion:
    I've read the thread it is ridiculous. If we disallow everything that AI can't do I can play SP also.

    Leave a comment:


  • binTravkin
    replied
    Apparently I don't find your rants to be persuasive, go figure.
    Well, if you read all my posts, there is one pretty thought out up there.
    EDIT: there are actually >1.

    Stretching something to the nth degree is rarely makes for a convincing argument.
    Umm, example?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chaunk
    replied
    Personally, whilst I understand the reasons for stopping this tactic, I don't feel that it should be stopped.

    Obviously, there may be problems with two or more teams co-operating for golden ages. However, those teams still have to pay the required number of points for their GP, and with trading they will likely have top wait longer to start their GAs due to movement time with the GP. Also, it's quite probable that one team will create the GP faster than the other. Are both teams going to be really happy with that situation, one being held back by the other, and one feeding an already stronger rival? Surely not.

    Consider then leaving this tactic open. Most likely, the majority of GP will be used by the team they originate in, as any trading will have to be to the advantage of both teams. Also, the turn advantage of using the GP immediately is probably considerable compared to saving that GP up for a long time and waiting while an ally sends you a different GP. 10 turns with a tech, or a new building, or 5 gold/turn or whatever, is infinately better than 10 turns of no benefit.

    Personnaly, I think the fears of overbalancing exploit are over stated. Yes, there may be an advantage to be gained from trading, but there is likely an equal advantage to not trading.

    In addition (And mildly unrelated) I'm of the opinion that any rule which arbitraily limits options available to players is a bad thing, unless that option is clearly an obvious exploit. GP trading is not so clear, as there are obvious advantages to not trading, in adition to those advantages for trading.

    Leave a comment:


  • asleepathewheel
    replied
    Originally posted by binTravkin
    Think about it, and then make a decision.
    I have, and maintain my point of view. Apparently I don't find your rants to be persuasive, go figure. Stretching something to the nth degree is rarely makes for a convincing argument.

    The fact is, that Firaxis hasn't closed all the loopholes it should or could have. It remains to us to fix those issues. Civ4 is certainly vastly better on this level than 3, but by no means is it perfect.

    Leave a comment:


  • binTravkin
    replied
    I'd rather not enter a game fully aware of exploits not being closed off, which I believe this to be.
    I demand tech, map and special resource trading be switched off!
    They're exploits!


    Would we oppose tech trading if it first came available - it surely changes the gameplay, but it adds opportunities.
    Would we oppose any other 'must-do' ingame (Maps, special resources)?

    Or are we opposing this only because some of us haven't yet tried it and are afraid of anything new, which would disrupt their finely built cardhouse called 'My Superb cIV Strategy'?

    Think about it, and then make a decision.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X