FIRAXIS: Another possible multiplayer exploit

Inverse Icarus · June 16, 2002, 13:20

i was just playing a single player game of civ3 ::sigh:: and i was romping the zulu as persia.

they came to me begging for a treaty, so i made them hand over 3 border cities and 15 gold per turn.

when i went to check the border cities, all the people in them had turned into persians.

this would DEFINATELY be a problem in multiplayer, if you had a friend and you took over someones capital city, and thenm traded it back and forth, you could make it have none of the originial civ...

what would happen if a city had revolting people in it and it was traded in such a way.

thanks in advance, hope this helps you firaxians from rushing a new patch 3 days after PTW's release

Solver · June 16, 2002, 13:24

Hm, I haven't noticed people from traded cities instantly swap nationalities.

Oerdin · June 16, 2002, 13:26

I don't see this as a problem; more like a concession to game balance. If another country trades you cities then you want them to stay part of your Empire and not flip back in a turn or two.

Uber, I could use your own logic in reverse. If the nationality didn't change then I would simply trade a few of my border cities to some unwitting fool knowing full well that I will have them back in a couple of turns.

It's better to keep nationality as it is because it avoids having an even bigger loop hole.

Solver · June 16, 2002, 13:49

And of course, everyone is free to reject a gift.

Inverse Icarus · June 16, 2002, 13:53

i think your "Reverse logic" is better than the current scenario.

if you give someoen a city full of zulu citizens, and they dont go out of their way to quell them with temples/libraries, or starve them out and rebuild it, the city should flip back.

i think my loophole is much more serious, and would pose a major problem in MP against multiple humans, essentially eliminating resistance and culture flipping.

Oerdin · June 16, 2002, 14:27

I conceed that it could, possibly, be abused. However, you'd have to have TOTAL trust that the oher person will give you your cities back. I'm not sure there will be hordes of people running around risking their cities like that.

Inverse Icarus · June 16, 2002, 16:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
I conceed that it could, possibly, be abused. However, you'd have to have TOTAL trust that the oher person will give you your cities back. I'm not sure there will be hordes of people running around risking their cities like that.

if it's anythign like the zone, two friends would go in and join the same game, and be all buddy-buddy.

also, there were rumors of a 2 v 2 ladder somewhere... cant find the link.

Capt Dizle · June 17, 2002, 12:20

Yeah, lots of games will be cooperative or team games. This is a problem it trading cities is allowed, but remember, in SMAC, the only way you could gift a base (city) to another human was for them to capture it outright.

So, maybe this will be a non-problem.

DrFell · June 17, 2002, 12:46

Not the best solution but you could make cities in resistance unswappable.

Oerdin · June 18, 2002, 13:11

There is the other small consideration that cities that are traded lose all of there buildings and accumulaited culture. It is minor but still a consideration.

Inverse Icarus · June 18, 2002, 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
There is the other small consideration that cities that are traded lose all of there buildings and accumulaited culture. It is minor but still a consideration.

if i capture a city it loses them all anyway...

DrFell · June 18, 2002, 21:14

Stuff like harbours and barracks can stay behind undamaged.

Ninot · June 18, 2002, 23:34

any building producing culture is lost.

June 22, 2002, 23:29

I dont know if this one has been mentioned yet, but what about the ability to quit a saved gamed (after that days multi session is over) and see where everyone is at on the map video. The next days play will be easier for the cheater to go strait to the nation...