Potential Multiplayer Exploits

Über KruX · March 18, 2002, 23:58

might as well start them

if you give a city to someone, they get one of their best defensive military units in the city. if you traded the same city back and forth, while moving that unit out of the city each time, you could get tons of units for free.

notyoueither · March 19, 2002, 00:04

Giving a city away converts all pop to the people of the recipient (doesn't it?).

If it doesn't, I suck.

Salve

Dienstag · March 19, 2002, 03:28

This has been mentioned elsewhere, and by more devious people than me, but it might be possible for you and an ally to engage in "military excercizes" (really good-natured wars) merely to try to produce some Great Leaders. I haven't seen a feasibilty study on that, but theoretically it would take 12 or 16 "enemy" cannon-fodder warriors to give you a GL (assuming you have a decent elite unit), and the same in reverse for your ally. So, for less than 200 shields, you each get a GL that's worth at least that much. Yeah, that seems like a good deal, and a pretty wicked MP exploit.

E_T · March 19, 2002, 03:34

[Elmer Fudd Voice] Be Very Very Quite, we don't want to delay MP by giving something to try to stop before it happens. Ha Ha Ha [/Elmer Fudd Voice]

E_T

notyoueither · March 19, 2002, 03:44

Too late Elmer. Bugs F***in Bunny is too quick for us.

Salve

Dienstag · March 19, 2002, 04:24

Me: "Multiplayer!"
Firaxis: "No Multiplayer!"
Me: "Multiplayer!"
Firaxis: "No Multiplayer!"
Me: "Multiplayer!"
Firaxis: "No Multiplayer!"
Me: "No Multiplayer!"
Firaxis: "Multiplayer!"
Me: "No Multiplayer!"
Firaxis: "Multiplayer it is, and that's final!"
Me: "well, if you insist..."

I just had to do that, sorry.

notyoueither · March 19, 2002, 04:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Dienstag
Me: "Multiplayer!"
Firaxis: "No Multiplayer!"
Me: "No Multiplayer!"
Firaxis: "Multiplayer!"

I just had to do that, sorry.

Figures someone else would come up with that. D*mn!

Oh well

Dienstag · March 19, 2002, 05:45

Quote:

Figures someone else would come up with that. D*mn!

Well, I'll let you have the French skunk jokes, if you like.

Actually on topic: If the whole thing about citizens' nationality changing when a city is given away works like I think it does, then I see a small exploit here above and beyond the convenience of swapping cities with your ally.

Basically, it's people-laundering (similar to money-laundering, but with people). You may not want all those inefficient foreign slaves, but what to do with them? Well, if you add them to your cities, then give that city to your ally, and than get it back, you've essentially turned a slightly useful unit of foreign population into a slightly more useful unit of local population. It works much faster than assimilation, and bypasses any added threat of culture flipping. I call this an exploit, moreso because it would never ever have occured to the AI (or, for that matter, the programmer), than because it's unfairly powerful. If you have any cultural improvements in said city, they get lost in the transfer, no? Anyway, that's yet another unexpected new possibility with MP. Any more?

DrFell · March 19, 2002, 06:09

The way I see it there are very few 'exploits' in MP. Anything a human can do alone with a civ is legal and above board, unless it offers a crazy advantage (like the old forest bug). So forget about the AI... I never play an MP game with AIs, and I generally play without barbs. Both are for players who want buffers between the humans i.e. are afraid to fight me.

The city trading bug sounds pretty stupid. It can be very easily fixed, just make it so you don't get free units when giving the city to another human (the city should go undefended), but it can't be left in. I can just see it, two allies in a tribe trading cities 30 times a turn to build up an army of pikes, not good.

'Giving a city away converts all pop to the people of the recipient (doesn't it?).'

I don't think it does, but it's no big deal if it does. Imagine if you ally gives you most of his cities if he has to leave the game. Now imagine some newbie comes into the game and picks your ally's old civ. If they were all still the old civ's population, they'd all start culture flipping back to the newbie, which would be infuriating to say the least. All you have to do is make your opponents 'foreign' citizens stay of the same nationality when you gift the city, and make sure your own change to his nationality.

'it might be possible for you and an ally to engage in "military excercizes" (really good-natured wars) merely to try to produce some Great Leaders'

Never thought of that. There were much worse 'exploits' in civ2 (clicking to find hidden units and cities locations!), and you need an ally to do it, plus if you're building units, you're not doing much else in those cities (you could be expanding or building a proper army).

philler · March 19, 2002, 06:32

also, the interest of a MP game is to challenge the other human player... so what would be the point of using exploits such as those to help the other human player? to get rid of the AI? well then, simply don't put any AI players in the first place!

DrFell · March 19, 2002, 06:39

In MP there is sometimes cooperation. 'Tribes' aka 'Clans' (groups of two or more players cooperating against rival groups in a game) are one particular situation where this could occur. The only games I play which are total war are generally duels, or perhaps 3-ways.

philler · March 19, 2002, 07:22

oh, you're right, I forgot the group vs group thing...

I play turn by turn MP games (heroes 3 mainly), with a friend over my LAN of 2 PCs, and I was figuring the same for Civ III that's why I didn't take into account group vs group games. (who would want to wait that long between turns anyway?)

DrFell · March 19, 2002, 08:46

Well 2v2 doesn't take that long between turns. Plus you'll be doing other things between turns anyway, like planning the tech path, planning attacks, reporting anything interesting that turn, etc.

DrFell · March 19, 2002, 08:50

In fact 2v2 games can be pretty intense at times, which is why I like em. 3v3 can get a bit slow.

philler · March 19, 2002, 09:17

Quote:

Well 2v2 doesn't take that long between turns. Plus you'll be doing other things between turns anyway, like planning the tech path, planning attacks, reporting anything interesting that turn, etc.

you're right, I've played CTP in MP and in 1 vs 1 it barely slowed the game if at all.
I guess that 2 vs 2 gives you more time to micro-manage every turn, which is probably good.

my vision is distorted by heroes of might & magic. You can't do anything but some watching between turns, so beyond 2 players the wait is unbearable. We've tried 4 players once but didn't renew the experience

I too am waiting for that MP extension. Perhaps we will face some day... or even team up.

philler · March 19, 2002, 09:28

Quote:

This has been mentioned elsewhere, and by more devious people than me, but it might be possible for you and an ally to engage in "military excercizes" (really good-natured wars) merely to try to produce some Great Leaders. I haven't seen a feasibilty study on that, but theoretically it would take 12 or 16 "enemy" cannon-fodder warriors to give you a GL (assuming you have a decent elite unit), and the same in reverse for your ally. So, for less than 200 shields, you each get a GL that's worth at least that much. Yeah, that seems like a good deal, and a pretty wicked MP exploit.

and even if some people were to do that, do you think it would really help them in the game?
wouldn't the cannon-fodding units be best used elsewhere?

it remains to be seen that you can spawn a GL by killing warriors... from my experience I would say that you have a much higher chance of spawning a GL by attacking stronger units than yours...

Aeson · March 19, 2002, 09:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Über KruX
if you give a city to someone, they get one of their best defensive military units in the city. if you traded the same city back and forth, while moving that unit out of the city each time, you could get tons of units for free.

This has been fixed in the 1.17f patch.

Über KruX · March 19, 2002, 17:22

having my icon back would be nice. ming.

Skanky Burns · March 19, 2002, 18:30

I think AH has since "borrowed" it...

Besides, only 469 posts to go

warmachine · March 19, 2002, 19:37

A Communist or Monarchist player could declare war on a Democracy so far away, no attacks would ever happen and refuse all peace treaties. The war weariness would be an ever increasing burden. The Democratic player could switch to other governments but this would break their preferred strategy.

Über KruX · March 19, 2002, 20:02

lol, thats an idea

Dienstag · March 19, 2002, 23:23

Ok, here's on for you 1v1 fans (not too well thought out yet, so bear with me):

ASSUMING that they don't change the tech devaluation model (which I think they should), and
ASSUMING that you will be able to find out what your opponent is researching (big assumption; there's nothing to suggest this, at the moment, right?), then...

...you MAY be able to start researching whatever your opponent is researching, and set your science rate for half of his rate. When he finishes researching, the tech immediately costs half, so you basically have it too, plus a lot of money.

I admit it's a stretch, assuming that I even got the current tech devaluation model right. But if this does come to be, it will be a strong incentive to have the lowest tech rate, which just seems flat wrong to me. Any thoughts?

----
P.S. the commie war-weariness trick is "slap-my-forehead" obvious. Why didn't I think of that? In other news, I'm running out of steam trying to think of MP exploits...must actually play MP for more...

Ethelred · March 20, 2002, 05:57

Quote:

Originally posted by warmachine
A Communist or Monarchist player could declare war on a Democracy so far away, no attacks would ever happen and refuse all peace treaties.

I am pretty sure that won't work. The only effect that will get is to give the population the shorth thrill they usually get when another civ declares war. If the attempted exploiter didn't actualy make effective attacks there would be no war wearness from what I have seen.

Your population doesn't seem to care if there is a declared but phony war. They only start getting riled when units are destroyed or land is taken. I have had a couple wars that went on very long times but my enemy wasn't able to do anything to me. So my population stayed calm. They didn't mind my winning without loss one tiny little bit.

Of course I suppose this could be a matter of perception. I may just have been lucky those times or it might have been that it was the first long war. Or a hated enemy. Or anyother thing that Firaxis has chosen to keep secret.

Whoha · March 20, 2002, 10:58

even if you solve the unhappiness problem(8 lux, 40% lux rate,police stations and Sufferage have already been done) there is a counter, stay in war for x turns and get treated to some 8 turn anarchy... so declaring war and not doing anything would eventually hurt. Also keeping units in enemy territory will cause its effects alot sooner. Just park a stack of some heavy defenders on a mountain, and watch him scramble and waste all his units or watch his civ burn itself down. War weariness will of course have to be fixed.