MP C4DG Chat Poll 3: GP Gifting

[Addled Platypus]

just remember units are for rent with Team Merc....should never be to sell

this should be stated clearly with all teams

[UnOrthOdOx]

I have received a special request to reply to this thread with a team Mercenary position on this issue.

Team Mercenary would like the opportunity to make a Great Person Auction in this game. We have stated this from the beginning, and have not changed that stance based on the arguments made here.

Team Mercenary factored this possibility into the leader choice process when no fuss was made at our mentioning the idea long before leaders were decided.

That said, Team Mercenary will not complain about it's leader should the option no longer be viable.

Finally, Team Mercenary reserves the right to sell units if we so deem fit. We have never stated we are for rent only, and see no need to make such a comment as to close off another possible course of action for our team.

On a personal note:

I don't see the horrible unbalancing myself. Even assuming 2 teams coordinate GP: in the case of golden ages, each has spent the proper amount of GPP.

In the case of speeding research, it's no different than the teams using 'their' GP to speed 'their' research and then trading said research.

And my final personal note:

Allot of you guys are WAAAAAAYYYYY too serious for my taste. It detracts from the fun.

edit: I have been and will continue to watch the thread, but have no intention of participating further as I could honestly care less at this point. I think you all are making mountains of molehills. If you wish me to respond, address me or Team Mercenary specifically.

[Fried-Psitalon]

You don't see why it's unbalancing? Well good on you. Perhaps it doesn't bother you that two civs will have vastly more gold to purchase from you; it bothers all the civs that don't want to engage on this activity. This isn't about speeding research, it's about a massive production and commerce boost, three different times, a whole lot easier than you can do it alone. Maybe you've missed the part where different leaders are required for each Golden Age?

I'm sorry I'm being too serious - I can just see a runaway train before it hits the station. If I want to commit a year or more to a game, I want to take the situation beforehand seriously, because MY fun requires my time not to be utterly wasted by exploits.

Don't try and take the high road when you get the most direct benefit from looking away from the problem. You choose to see it as a molehill, because you will be king of the mountain.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx

Team Mercenary would like the opportunity to make a Great Person Auction in this game. We have stated this from the beginning, and have not changed that stance based on the arguments made here.

all proceeds to your favorite charity ?

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Finally, Team Mercenary reserves the right to sell units if we so deem fit. We have never stated we are for rent only, and see no need to make such a comment as to close off another possible course of action for our team.

sure sell us your weak, lame and sick


could you link me to where I could get all "The Mercs" facts (contracts, prices etc)

[UnOrthOdOx]

FP.

We disagree. I do not see the unbalancing golden ages, no. It CAN be done by yourself. Doing with another person, while EASIER, is not going to get you there any QUICKER assuming a 1-1 trade ratio. If you have had in game experience with it being otherwise, I would be welcome to hear it. All I see is theories.

First golden age, you need to produce 2 GP
2nd, 3, and trade 1
3rd, 4, and trade 2

Easier, not quicker, in theory. I don't see easy a bad thing, and good luck/good job deciding who does what GP's and timing it all together.

Some folks thought the tech speed would be more unbalancing than the golden ages, thus I mentioned it.

I have seen theories of possible exploits, not evidence of real exploits. There is a vast difference.

Finally, by the apparant tone, you took exception to my above post. For that I am sorry. Our ideas of fun may well be incompatible, and that's ok. I will have my fun whatever you serious folks decide on as far as rules, which I will abide by. Until then, I wish to remain out of this discussion I find a point of lunacy. I would appreciate a more polite tone in the future however.

PR:

We don't have a defined cost yet. Since trading isn't possible till some time into the tech chart it hasn't been a supreme priority over civ choice, opening moves, etc. I assure you it'll be hard to miss once we decide on all that. All info currently available can be seen in our sign up thread. For basics, contracts can be anything your team wants. And cost of units will be based on hammer cost. Beyond that is in debate.

[UnOrthOdOx]

You know, stepping back, and following the various discussions there seems to be 2 types of folks playing.

The first group wishes to play with a few broad rules oulawing the most blatant 'bad' things, trust folks to act in the spirit of the game, and allow the mods to step in if there's a problem and decide how best to handle it.

The second wish to make strong rules that encompass as many possible problems as can be foreseen and trust people to follow these well written and extensive rules to the letter so that mods do not have to decide, but rather just enforce.

I, obviously, fall into the former category. Hence, allot of the current discussion seems to be strangling and unfun. I'm to the point, like I expect allot of category A folks are, to where I just want to hit 'go', and start playing so I can start having fun.

That is all I meant above. Sorry if it sounds or is taken any different.

Category B, on the otherhand probably sees category A folks as being wreckless and think the game will grind to a halt and die due to some problem bound to pop up due to a lack of rules, lack of defined exploits, or fear the mods will determine the game rather than the players.

It is really an interesting dicotomy if you step back and watch.

I will ask if there's a type B person on Team Merc to debate this stuff, but the team concept wouldn't appear to lend itself well to type B folks at first glance.

[Fried-Psitalon]

C3PTW ISDG.

'nuff said.

[Golden Bear]

I think that there is a type "C" here... willing to cover the broad topics with a, "just don't cheat," statement, but feeling strongly about maybe one topic.

Uno, that one topic for me is GP sales. I would not have brought it up, but since it was, I will state my opinion.

It would be unbalancing.

GB

[ChrisiusMaximus]

This issue wont go away, and will undoubtedly expode mid game or later, me i hate the idea also, its most definitely an exploit, so I see no reason for any team to want it allowed.

We would be better off agreeing now to no Great Person trading/gifting allowed !

[PJayTycy]

My opinion is: if you have somebody in charge of diplomacy who is capable of setting up such things, more power to that team!

I don't have any problem with a diplomacy game being decided for a great part on the diplomacy-front instead of in-game. That's part of the goal of this game...

GP trading is just a good strategy. If I would have such an out-of-the-box idea, I would not make it public, but actually try to realize it. All these rules-talk make me wonder wheter we will be allowed to even think of alternative strategies.

I really get the impression here of "There's only 1 way to play this game, and we all have to follow it".

If somebody comes up with a strategy that makes something easier/better, some people call it unballancing. Well, if the game was completely ballanced, none of our choice would matter. Good strategy only exists because there's no perfect ballance. Some people here though, want "their" fixed strategy to be the best one and if any ohter strategy comes up that's easier/better, they call it unballancing.

[Kataphraktoi]

Speaking as an individual.

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
You know, stepping back, and following the various discussions there seems to be 2 types of folks playing.

The first group wishes to play with a few broad rules oulawing the most blatant 'bad' things, trust folks to act in the spirit of the game, and allow the mods to step in if there's a problem and decide how best to handle it.

The second wish to make strong rules that encompass as many possible problems as can be foreseen and trust people to follow these well written and extensive rules to the letter so that mods do not have to decide, but rather just enforce.

I, obviously, fall into the former category. Hence, allot of the current discussion seems to be strangling and unfun. I'm to the point, like I expect allot of category A folks are, to where I just want to hit 'go', and start playing so I can start having fun.

That is all I meant above. Sorry if it sounds or is taken any different.

Category B, on the otherhand probably sees category A folks as being wreckless and think the game will grind to a halt and die due to some problem bound to pop up due to a lack of rules, lack of defined exploits, or fear the mods will determine the game rather than the players.

It is really an interesting dicotomy if you step back and watch.

I will ask if there's a type B person on Team Merc to debate this stuff, but the team concept wouldn't appear to lend itself well to type B folks at first glance.

QFT. I agree with all Team Merc says...

If you want a perfectly balanced game, with no ''unfair'' opportunity to get ahead, why not play something like chess? No random elements, just you and the other guy. Stifling rules take away from the fun of the game, and actually are trying to change the game by preventing things that are in it. If you dont like 2 civs pairing up, get your own ally or two. In a game with 8 players, i find it silly that the majority couldnt find a way to slow down a pair of runaway civs.

Hmm i suppose of one of the teams found a great new way to play and blew the doors off the others, they would be disqualified for cheating? After all they had better players on their team=cheating

And where do you draw the line? Is trading GP unbalanced and using faction attributes OK? Or is someone starting with a 'chopping' civ and chop-rushing ASAP unbalanced? After all they could do it better+faster than the others.

'I really get the impression here of "There's only 1 way to play this game, and we all have to follow it".'

[binTravkin]

'I really get the impression here of "There's only 1 way to play this game, and we all have to follow it".'

[Fried-Psitalon]

Ah, excellent. So by your thinking, if after a year's worth of play, I suddenly discover a means to produce infinite production and research every turn, simply by manipulating the game controls, you will clap me on the back as I pour highly advanced units over your border and say, "Well played, old chap!"

Of course not. You'd be furious at the wasted year thrown away on an obviously unintended exercise. That's an extreme example, but where is the line? Total and complete swap/exchanging GP was no less intended than an infinite production/research tool. In SP, you will never get the AI to do this; in MP, it is no less ridiculous than C3C's "unit teleport."

Be very careful what you ask for when you say "Hey, if someone finds a great trick, bully for them and let them use it."

You just might get exactly what you asked for.

There are dozens of ways to play this game - it just happens that carte blanche on abusing game mechanics isn't one of them.

[binTravkin]

The line is very easy to draw.

There are things that are intended to be possible in game, like unit trading.

And there are things intended to be impossible, like your and many other probable cheat examples.

One can ask Firaxis if he's not clear upon something.


IMO that solves this vastly exaggerated problem.

[UnOrthOdOx]

You will never get the AI to coordinate an attack on a specific enemy city.

You will never get the AI to tell you what they are researching.

You will never get the AI to agree to owe you a payment in the future.

Are we to outlaw all things the AI cannot do? That will become quite an extensive list.