Too many people cheating in Civ III?

[KoalaBear33]

How come the solution to everything that you don't like is to change it in the editor? This is cheating and I can't believe so many people are endorsing/doing it. If corruption is very high, resources are too low, science too slow, and so on, it's part of the goals of the developer. If you go and change what's the point? You are basically circumventing the game to suit your desires...

Changing graphics, interface, or something like that is all right... but when you go and change everything just because you don't agree with it, that's cheating!!!

KoalaBear33

[Eli]

Agreed.

[Wexu]

Well.. no. I think people just to want game more realistic for their own taste by using the editor. I don't think that they'll use it to give themselves an advantage. If you change like unit's attacking rating, the unit's attacking rate also changes for the AI, so where's the cheat??

[Pembleton]

Well I don't think it's cheating. But I stated in a different thread that I don't want to do this because then the strategies they read, or strategies I post are useless because we are playing different games. This also applies to stories of my game, complaints to possibly be addressed in a patch, etc.

One person actually dismissed my comment by saying I should play a different game if I don't want to customize the game rules. I guess he doesn't understand the concept of customer feedback and how complaints get addressed in patches.

[Pembleton]

EDIT: Soren has rendered this post obsolete.

[yavoon]

once the good players play the game some, and can disciminate the working strategies to the masses of editor changing newbies, then it will slow down. until then, the reaction to something being hard will be to change it in the editor. sides its just a game yall.

[Wexu]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Well because the AI has been programmed to play given the set of rules that it has originally has and not the ones you gave it. If then conditions are not a strong strategy when rules are changed.

True but still I don't think people are trying to give themselves an advantage (which is same as cheating).

[BiggN]

What was the point of them including an Editor if people didn't change the game to the way they like??

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by yavoon
sides its just a game yall.

Not for me.

Civ2 is the greatest game I have ever played and I have the same expectations for Civ3.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by BiggN
What was the point of them including an Editor if people didn't change the game to the way they like??

For scenarios. Or faster production for quicker games in multiplayer.

[Ming]

Why should ANYBODY care if people are using the editor to change things to their liking... Unless they are making changes, then posting records or bragging.... WHO CARES. It's a game... It's meant for entertainment... Let people do whatever they want. Now, when MP comes out

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Ming
Why should ANYBODY care if people are using the editor to change things to their liking... Unless they are making changes, then posting records or bragging.... WHO CARES. It's a game... It's meant for entertainment... Let people do whatever they want. Now, when MP comes out

I don't care what other people do.

I was giving my reasons why *I* don't do it and I believe this is was at least part of the original poster's intent.

It's a response to everyone suggesting that you edit the game every time you have some sort of complaint. They dismiss everything you say as useless because "well you can just edit it".

[Ralf]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
How come the solution to everything that you don't like is to change it in the editor? This is cheating and I can't believe so many people are endorsing/doing it.

In what way is this cheating? The rule-changes in the game-editor most often apply to ALL participants - the HP and the AI-civs alike. Besides; what make you think that every change a rule-tweaking player does in that game-editor, must be favourable towards himself?

You are basically circumventing the game to suit your desires...

And thats the beauty of it. You are free to make things easier and to make things harder. To lay the burden even more on the shoulders of the human player. Its a free choice...

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Ralf
In what way is this cheating? The rule-changes in the game-editor most often apply to ALL participants - the HP and the AI-civs alike. Besides; what make you think that every change a rule-tweaking player does in that game-editor, must be favourable towards himself?

Because the suggestion is mostly made to people who are complaining about something that hampers their playstyle. It's not usually given to people who complain the game is too easy. If the game's too easy then play at a higher difficulty level. And if Deity is too easy then it's time to suggest the editor, but at that point it would be best to change the game differently for you and the computer and I don't know if this can be done.

And it's a question of semantics about cheating. It's probably too strong a word, but I understand why it's being used. I already stated in this thread is that it is because the AI IS PROGRAMMED FOR THE ORIGINAL RULES. Not the ones you gave it. It already does a lot of stupid things. Now you are most likely giving it a handicap because its particular strategy may possibly be totally moronic because it's not supposed to be done in a particular "aritificial" environment that you gave it.

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Because the suggestion is mostly made to people who are complaining about something that hampers their playstyle. It's not usually given to people who complain the game is too easy. If the game's too easy then play at a higher difficulty level. And if Deity is too easy then it's time to suggest the editor, but at that point it would be best to change the game differently for you and the computer and I don't know if this can be done.

And it's a question of semantics about cheating. It's probably too strong a word, but I understand why it's being used. I already stated in this thread is that it is because the AI IS PROGRAMMED FOR THE ORIGINAL RULES. Not the ones you gave it. It already does a lot of stupid things. Now you are most likely giving it a handicap because its particular strategy may possibly be totally moronic because it's not supposed to be done in a particular "aritificial" environment that you gave it.

The AI is not hard-coded with the original game rules... it should be able to adapt to most changes made to the BIC file. This is not to say that you can't create something that the AI won't know how to use (like, say, a tank which can also found cities), but making minor gameplay tweaks (like adjusting corruption) should not have a noticeably detrimental effect on the AI.

Or at least, that's the theory.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Ming
Why should ANYBODY care if people are using the editor to change things to their liking... Unless they are making changes, then posting records or bragging.... WHO CARES. It's a game... It's meant for entertainment... Let people do whatever they want. Now, when MP comes out

hey, ming said something i actualy agree with!

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
Or at least, that's the theory.

Well that's impressive that you tried this. I obviously did not expect this. Still though, this doesn't change my stance on why I won't change the game's rules.

I will emphasize that I have no objection to others doing it and they should feel free to do so if it fits their needs.

I want to share my game's experiences and strategies with people who are playing the same game. I apologize if I'm sounding like a broken record, but it seems clear that few people read all of the posts in the thread and always object to something I already clarified or addressed earlier.

[Rasputin]

would be nice to know what the AI can and cannot tell the difference in the rule tweaks, you mention tankls building citys.. but what if a unit attack /defence is altered, will the AI give more/less importance to the unit.

I agree that editing rules is not a problem as the only person you affecting is yoursself and as ming says, provided there is not a Hall of Fame made then who cares. But we all know, some one will start braggging soon how good they are and in reality it will most probably be some rules tinkering (just like in Civ 2).

I hope as Ming does too obviosuly, that when MP comes out Rules tinkering will be more obvious so all players know what is changed!!!!

[Jamison]

If people wanna change something in the editor, LET THEM! Jesus Christ, it's their own game. Get the hell out of how they do their thing. What is this; a cyber dictorship?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
but making minor gameplay tweaks (like adjusting corruption) should not have a noticeably detrimental effect on the AI.

Well, this is the kind of changes Im taking about. Personally, Im looking forward to play with the default rules - but I also think it will be fun to...

A: Lower the number of free units for early gov-types (in order to avoid "infinite unit sprawl")
B: Increase the war-weariness under republic/democracy even further.
C: Increase the settler pop-reduction from 2 pops to 3 (if possible)
D: Increase the corruption distance-penalty (but at the same time make courthouses and maybe some other apropriate building a little more counter-corruption effective)
E: And so on, and so on.

Its not a question of if above changes are wise, or not. Its a question of the fun with "trial and error" tweaking. If one just save the default settings, one can always change back to factory settings later.

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by Jamison
If people wanna change something in the editor, LET THEM! Jesus Christ, it's their own game. Get the hell out of how they do their thing. What is this; a cyber dictorship?

No, I'm not trying to enforce a dictatorship. And I'm not saying that you should change nothing either (why else is the editor there for?). Let me answer the comments posted above...

Some say that they are changing the game to make it harder. This is fine but the vast majority of the people are not doing it for that reason. Most haven't finished the highest difficulties.

The biggest problem with editing things is that nothing will be standardized after a while. Posting strategies is completely meaningless if people start editing stuff. Even comments about the game will be misunderstood. For example, I might say having 8 cities is good (just made up a number) and you might say something else just because you played with a different "settings".

Significantly editing the game is clearly cheating. The reason for this is because you are avoiding a challenge. Isn't cheating all about getting out of challenging situations? Most of the changes will not really give anyone an advantage (changing an attribute will have the same effect on you as the computer). But it will make you avoid the initial challenge. I consider this to be cheating.

I come from an RTS background so maybe I'm expecting something different (RTS games are online oriented so they are standardized). All I can say is that, in the RTS genre, you don't change anything unless you are doing scenarios or something. No one ever goes around changing unit statistics in a normal game, for example, because it completely alters the tactics in the game (RTS games rely on tactics more than strategy). If you are doing a scenario, say an "RPG game", go ahead and bump up the hero's health to 1000 or something. That's ok but you just don't do it for a "regular" game. Having said this, if there are flaws in the game or if the majority of the people accept a certain change, then it's all right. In Starcraft (an RTS) for example, a map called BGH with "infinite" resources became popular so it's accepted now (BGH destroyed SC IMO but that's another story ).

Let me give you my opinion on what I think is all right to change in the game. If you are doing a particular scenario or something logical it's all right. For example, if you think the governments are too simplistic and too similar (I think they are ) then go ahead and alter effects of govt in a scenario or something. Similarly, you can alter units to accurately reflect say World War II if you are building a scenario.

Where I have a problem with people is... when people keep telling a person encountering difficulty to go and change it in the editor. For example, someone might say that science is too slow and he/she is having problems. Many people respond to that person by telling them to change it in the editor. That totally defeats everything. Using the editor should be the laste option--not the first!

KoalaBear33

[n.c.]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
You are basically circumventing the game to suit your desires...
when you go and change everything just because you don't agree with it, that's cheating!!!

I agree. Firaxis needs to implant a device in the game that tells them when someone does this. When the message comes they can send out a team of commandos to not only change it back but force the offender to play it as they intended.

There is no reason to expect enjoyment- our obligation is to simply play the original game, like it or not.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
Many people respond to that person by telling them to change it in the editor. That totally defeats everything.

Look, Koala. That game-editor actually exists, and its gonna be extended with even more tweak-options as well. There is nothing you can do about that, so try to live with it.

Besides: I dont think its likely at all that civers generally wants to openly publicize Hall-of-fame results based on secretly altered game-rules. Why go through the hassle of doing this? Why not simply fake some boast-figures out of the blue? The very satisfaction lies in the fact that one achieved it on equal terms.
Likewise; If you play any future MP-session (whenever this gets implemented), then everybody is forced (by the MP-software) to play by the rules of the guy who initiated that MP-session. You cannot play by "personal rules" there, even if you wants to.

For me; "personal rules"-games are more about single-player games that one play just for the fun of it, without comparing results. Also, I think altered rules will add much variation and fun to scenarios and setup-gams. Its just a question of openly state that rules have been changed, and why.

Using the editor should be the laste option--not the first!

Just apply that conviction to your own game-sessions only, and everything is OK.

[Pyrodrew]

How come the solution to everything that you don't like is to change it in the editor? This is cheating and I can't believe so many people are endorsing/doing it.

Cheating is giving the human player an advantage over the AI players. And I agree that is wrong. However, my suggestions to increase the # of resources on a map (not a game currently in progress) is NOT cheating since that quantity of resources is equally distributed among ALL the players. Same with corruption... decreasing corruption on a map (not a game in progress or only for 1 player) affects ALL the players. You cannot give yourself an unfair advantage over others if you give EVERYONE the same advantage.

Because the suggestion is mostly made to people who are complaining about something that hampers their playstyle.

Some people have a play style that they prefer a map with arid & cold terrain while others prefer a wet & warm map. Yet those options in the beginning are not "cheating"... and if Civ3 designers add an option for say Resources being "Rare Normal Abundant" to choose from, that is NOT cheating either. Cheating is giving oneself an unfair advantage over others (giving themself 200 F-15s). I agree with you that cheating was too strong of a word to use.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by n.c.
I agree. Firaxis needs to implant a device in the game that tells them when someone does this.

OK, no standard game Hall of fame-scores if game-editor rules have been altered. Or at least those results should have a game-screen note saying "altered rules" all over them. Satisfied? Its perfectly OK by me.

When the message comes they can send out a team of commandos to not only change it back but force the offender to play it as they intended.

If you talk about MP-sessions, dont worry. These games always playes by the rules of the player who initiated that session (I dont know the exact term here).

our obligation is to simply play the original game, like it or not.

"Our obligation"? For Christ sake, give it a rest.

[n.c.]

Ralf- That was sarcasm. (However, you're not being able to tell reveals the absurdity of the comments I was critiquing.) Watch out for more in this post.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Cheating is giving the human player an advantage over the AI players. And I agree that is wrong.

Please sign up now for the AI Defense Coalition. We must do everything possible to prevent the abuse of these non-sentient computer entities.

Picture this: AI #XJM572 is playing human Johnnie Nogood, when all of a sudden Johnnie changes the rules! He thinks that its okay to try do what he pleases with the Civ III experience (please, don't call it a game). What's worse, his motivation is the most banal, crass of all: personal enjoyment.

We must join together to protect helpless AIs from the evil Johnnie Nogoods of this world.

[yavoon]

ur all taking this out of context. yes everyone is welcome to use the editor, no1 is gna stop you. yes you can use the editor to make it harder for urself too. but wut the post was in resposne to was basically ppl playing civ3, finding a challenging part, resource scarcity, ai diplomacy, corruption, nething relaly. claiming its "broken" then valiantly nominating a change to the editor to rectify this "heinous" situation.

and I think thats bullshit too. running around w/in a week of release lessening the hardships of the game.

now to address the other naive observation. that changing a rule will affect you and the ai equally. nothing could ever be farther from the truth. the ai is very hardwired, it can't adapt. hell you can still wombat it to death. changing rules is VERY likely to benefit you, much mroe than the ai. especially considering that the rules ppl are changing at present are all the parts of the game they have trouble with. but like I said, as soon as the good players settle down, and effective strategies begin to become widespread, the editor changing newbies will slink back.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by n.c.
Ralf- That was sarcasm. Watch out for more in this post.

Thats a good sign. For a short while I actually thought you where dead-serious.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by yavoon
the ai is very hardwired, it can't adapt. hell you can still wombat it to death. changing rules is VERY likely to benefit you, much mroe than the ai.

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
The AI is not hard-coded with the original game rules... it should be able to adapt to most changes made to the BIC file. This is not to say that you can't create something that the AI won't know how to use (like, say, a tank which can also found cities), but making minor gameplay tweaks (like adjusting corruption) should not have a noticeably detrimental effect on the AI.

[Leonid]

"ur all taking this out of context. yes everyone is welcome to use the editor, no1 is gna stop you. yes you can use the editor to make it harder for urself too. but wut the post was in resposne to was basically ppl playing civ3, finding a challenging part, resource scarcity, ai diplomacy, corruption, nething relaly. claiming its "broken" then valiantly nominating a change to the editor to rectify this "heinous" situation.

and I think thats bullshit too. running around w/in a week of release lessening the hardships of the game.

now to address the other naive observation. that changing a rule will affect you and the ai equally. nothing could ever be farther from the truth. the ai is very hardwired, it can't adapt. hell you can still wombat it to death. changing rules is VERY likely to benefit you, much mroe than the ai. especially considering that the rules ppl are changing at present are all the parts of the game they have trouble with. but like I said, as soon as the good players settle down, and effective strategies begin to become widespread, the editor changing newbies will slink back."

DITTO



I agree with koala and yavoo. Peeps here are using the editor to cheat and make th egame "easy". To em editors totallyu ruin the game. Hell, why your at it why dont ya give yourself a few B2 bombers to help ya battle those pesky Roman legions in the stone age?

Personally I like a challange. I hate mods and editors myself for the most part. The only one I ever thought was kinda cool was the civ 2 mod replacing fundamentalism to facism and those fundametalist osama bin laden wannabe units with Nazi stormtroopers.

Other than that I am not messing with the editor. giving the map tons more resources kills the challange, BORING. I like having to search for that strategic deposit of iron and fighting tooth and nail for it and possibly going to war ove rit. Now thats cool. If everyone had iron, rubber, and oil deposits all over the map..that defeats the entire reaon for strategic resources and trades. SHEEESH you people!!