MP C4DG Chat Poll 3: GP Gifting

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by BigFree
I guess I can believe it was an oversight if you mean they didn't think about it being "unbalancing."

The fact remains that the same amount of GP points have to be earned by a Civ in order to get the requisite GA. It just makes the logistics of doing so a little easier.

A lot easier, considering you have to manage what type of GP you get.

How many cities do you want to specialise to food to be able to generate GPs?

To 'manage' GAs you need cities that are not 'polluted' by percentages for the 'wrong' ones. The first GA is pretty easy. You'd have to be unlucky not to manage it.

The 2nd gets harder. The 3rd much more so. The 4th is very problematic unless you get very lucky. However, two teams cooperating can assure themselves of the 3rd GA and make the 4th very easy to get (only need 1 GEng or GArtist and several world {and national} wonders give chances for these).

[asleepathewheel]

to this.

On GS last term, we pushed the limits of game mechanics, sometimes to ends that in retrospect were uncomfortably close to exploits, if not over the line.

I'd rather not enter a game fully aware of exploits not being closed off, which I believe this to be.

And frankly speaking, the trading of GPs will lead to a very boring game of grab your partner and dosey-do to the end. I'd rather not be a part of a game with such strong ties to bind teams to another, which this clearly is. I'd prefer a much more fluid game, this would seem to lead to a snoozefest for me.

[BigFree]

I guess I can believe it was an oversight if you mean they didn't think about it being "unbalancing."

The fact remains that the same amount of GP points have to be earned by a Civ in order to get the requisite GA. It just makes the logistics of doing so a little easier.

Overall I think it will just add to the diveristy of diplomacy as will "open borders" and "defensive pacts."

The game will play differently than a SP game that is for sure.....is that bad?

If a team chooses to shun diplomacy as a valid tool in this game then not trading GP's is the least of their worries.

Some people are arguing that only the "haves" will be able to make the most out of allowing GP gifting/trading/selling. How is that different than the real world? How is that different, for the most part, in a SP game? If you are lacking in a SP game the AI doesn't feel sorry for you, they just eat you alive.

[notyoueither]

I'm not sure, BF. It could be an oversight. They would have to add another unit property to allow some units to be gifted, but not all.

Abandoning cities was allowed in Civ3, and then the developers had a front row seat to watch 'combat settlers' and the effect they could have on the PBEM game.

They (combat settlers) are gone from CIV, both in the ability to abandon the useless cities you build only for tactical advantage, and in the effects of newfound cities on cultural borders of established cities.

[BigFree]

The AI will not trade GP. But, the game allows for the trading of GP. Does that not say that the games' developers intended for human players to trade GP?

[Addled Platypus]

hey how about this....

lets play the game trying this idea

AND

if the idea is as bad as feared-restart

I would not call it a waste of time

[binTravkin]

I guess I didn't see how big an issue this was, it seems like the only way to avoid debate though is to make it illegal, that's not saying don't trade techs etc. just not GP. They are built for a certain civ and should remain there. To end debate I say just don't allow it.

You see, the only difference why tech trading is legal without doubt and GP trading legality is being questioned is AI - the fact AI does trade tech but doesn't trade GP.
Is that a justification?
Are we using an inferior creation to measure what is good for us, humans?

[Metaliturtle]

I guess I didn't see how big an issue this was, it seems like the only way to avoid debate though is to make it illegal, that's not saying don't trade techs etc. just not GP. They are built for a certain civ and should remain there. To end debate I say just don't allow it.

[binTravkin]

Lets define 2 things:

Strategy is a set, collection, combination of actions aimed at creating advantage over opponent.

Strategy has following properties:
- it has low predictability at the start of execution - when you decide chop rush, you don't know whether you'll run into problems later as of having no more forest to rushbuild something else and at least as important as initial settler.
- it is variable - most strategies can be adapted on, go by changing the order of actions taken, or the actions taken themselves.
- it is optional - each and every action of strategy is optional. Failing to do that or other action or deciding to do other action instead can lead to failure of strategy, but it's fully optional as at the moment action is taken, in most cases there's no real clearance whether the desired action is indeed the best action possible.


Example: Early Game Chop Rush
At the moment you decide to rush, you do not know whether the path you've chosen is the best as there are multiple factors that can alter the efficency of this strategy, and most of them are unknown at the moment you take the decision.


A 'must-do' is a single or several well defined actions that are aimed at keeping a civ competitive

'must-do' has following properties:
- it's predictability nears 100%. There can be speculation on how effective it is, but it is agreed that it is always effective when done (as compared to strategy, which, whilst taken can turn out wrong).
- it's invariable, or it's variability is close to zero - a must do is a distinct action or defined set of actions which can't be misinterpreted and adaptability to situation is very low. It's either you do it, or don't.
- it's obligatory in the sense that if you don't take it, you're sure to hit yourself a blow (as compared to strategy, which can turn out either good or bad for you depending on a wide set of factors)

Example: tech trading

If tech trading is enabled, you either trade tech or you lose (assuming the playing field is somewhat equal).


Conclusion:
- by disabling options like trading tech and trading GP you lessen your opportunities in game, chop down your game.
- less opportunities often means, less possible strategies
- less opportunities and less possible strategies usually means less fun

[fed1943]

Speaking just as individual,I agree with Fried'last post:if one singe strategy is a sure advantage,then the game becomes poorer.
About the mercenaries(as conceipt)role:I think they should remain mercenaries,not imigrants or supliers(just rent military unities).
Best regards,

[Kataphraktoi]

Any team that does not make additional cities will lose or be at a disadvantage.

Any team that does not research will lose or be at a disadvantage.

Any team that does not explore will lose or be at a disadvantage.

Any team that does not follow common sense like roading specials will lose or be at a disadvantage.




The bottom line to me is, you want a game where out-of-the-box orginal thinking, and actually improvising for a change, are banned. So in 6 months one of the teams is using a 'unbalanced' strategy, not nessicarily GP trading, and they are then disqualified?

[Fried-Psitalon]

The problem is very, very simple:

If we allow GP trading, any team that does NOT swap with another team in the fashion NYE suggested will obviously lose, or be at a massive disadvantge. If you don't see that argument's rather clear case, then everything else falls to the wayside.

Now, having established the above point, the problem stands thus:

Do we want to allow a strategy which clearly and obviously forces all others to play the same way? I find it ironic that those who WANT GP trading are the ones saying "I think my opponents want us to play only one way."

If you allow GP trading, you are enforcing the fact that there WILL be only one way to play - swapping GP to ensure three Golden Ages, because it is certainly NOT "just a little harder" to do that on your own. If you choose not to, the staggering amount of commerce and production you are ignoring is critical.

Adding one rule to ensure that multiple styles of play are possible, and not just uber-builder-friendly "swap GP or be left behind" strategies, is not throwing a dozen rules in place. It is one situation, obviously an abuse, and no less so than Unit Suicide Training... or would that be okay with you too?

Game Balance isn't about being equal - it never has been, and never will be. Game Balance is about ensuring that, properly manipulated, every strategy has a significant, real, and potent chance of winning. GP swapping destroys that balance because anyone who chooses NOT to adopt that strategy will NOT have a real, significant, and potent chance of winning.

Here are the last points:

- If you want only one way to play, then you want GP gifting.
- One rule ensuring an enjoyable game for all does not make a mountain of red tape, nor holes all over the place.

[binTravkin]

This question would not have come up, in my opinion, in the absence of a single team that intends to play a different game from everybody else.

I would like to point out that assumption mercenaries are the only team wanting full unit trade allowed, could turn out very wrong.

The problem is in argumentation, not in someone wishing to play that or that type of game.
Some people are trying to confuse everyone by saying that no line can be drawn.
As I showed in my post, not only a line can be drawn, it has already been drawn by developers of the game.
If you want to redraw that line, you have all rights to do so, but please explain to the confused, we're not playing cIV here, then.

I for one am here to play cIV, I know the game has flaws, some of which are still to be revealed, however if Im being completely honest to myself and others, and as logical as I can be, I see no problems distinguishing between something that should be used and something that shouldn't.
I also have the mod people, to ask for advice if needed, and they can provide the anonimity needed, so the revelation doesn't get exposed to other teams.

Furthermore, I would like to once again point out that the whole concept of 'game balance' is an illusion.
There's no such thing as 'balance' out of the game itself.
If all civs were prohibited any contact whatsoever, still some would evolve to be more powerful, some to be less, no matter what the mod or game developers do to even them out, it's an IRL situation, which has happened countless times in history.
Balance starts where there's diplomacy, balance starts where there's cooperation, and unless teams deliberately ignore some team getting away from them, nothing bad, or rather 'unfair', can ever happen.


And the last points
- noone can make rules against everything
- the more rules there are, the more one seeks a hole in them, the less one hesitates to use that hole

[Kataphraktoi]

This question would not have come up, in my opinion, in the absence of a single team that intends to play a different game from everybody else. In such a situation it is not unreasonable that the game might require some additional rules.

Where is it put down that one team is going to play a different game? My understanding is we are all playing CIV4 and have access to everything the other team has access to such as unit gifting\selling\trading.

[Golden Bear]

I reject the straw dog that because I, and others, oppose GP selling, we are against good play in the game. This is a spurious argument and only distracts from the real issues.

This question would not have come up, in my opinion, in the absence of a single team that intends to play a different game from everybody else. In such a situation it is not unreasonable that the game might require some additional rules.

I doubt that any of this discussion is actually changing peoples' minds. I wonder what should be our next step? It might be good to proceed to a resolution process rather than prolonging a debate that shows promise of inflaming rather than informing.

GB