MP C4DG Chat Poll 3: GP Gifting

[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.

[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.

[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).

[binTravkin]

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.

[asleepathewheel]

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.

[Chaunk]

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.

[binTravkin]

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?

[binTravkin]

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.

[Metaliturtle]

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

[UnOrthOdOx]

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

[GeoModder]

[Fried-Psitalon]

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.

[Jon Miller]

After seeing the talk, I now think GP trading should not be allowed

don't know about the rest of Vox though

JM

[binTravkin]

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..

[Fried-Psitalon]

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.