It did, but that's ok.

Given that it was my post you refer to, I'll explain.

Tactics that allow you to gain advantage by exploiting a loophole in the AI, will let you win. But so will cheat codes. It's the same principle. You've found a way to beat the game without really playing by its rules. That is to say, it's allowed in the game, but the game structure can't compensate for it and provide a challenge. It's like rushing with a one point fighter and picking off unarmed defenders until you get transports; you can do it, but why?

If that's what you're looking for, great. But if you're going to do that, why not just use a cheat code and not worry about it?

As for helping the devs, sure, pointing out bugs help. But after you've found it, why use it?

That's true enough, but when it gets to the point where you just sit there and peg away 57+ unarmed ships because the AI won't install it's superior weapons until the end of the year it gets cheesy. It has the ships, it has the weapons, it's just not coded to use them yet and so it keeps churning out blanks for you to shoot down.

If you find a way to win the game because of a tactic that takes advantage of a previously unknown loophole, then you report the problem to the devs, well thats just being a good citizen.

If you continue to use said tactic to win metaverse games and pump up your score, thats just cheesy.

For instance, buying all of an AI Civs Fleets then turning around the next turn and throwing your transports at them is a known cheese tactic.

but good for you if you find something that beats the AI.

This is the crux of the issue. If its a logic error or an omission or an oversight, and you win the game using tactics that exploit those holes, then you haven't "beaten the AI", you took ADVANTAGE of a loophole in the code. Don't fool yourself, these are not the same thing in any respect.

If you can pull off something and afterwards say, "A good human player would never do that/ never allow that to happen" then you are probably looking at an exploitable situation.

I want to add a thought to what quixotecoyote said above, its about playing within the *spirit* of the rules.

Cheese tactics in a single player game usually don't matter since the only person you are cheating when you use them is yourself. The metaverse, however, makes this more of a concern because some players are more interested in being at the top of *something* that they are willng to cheat to get there.

Face it, if you bought any game and found out that if you typed the word "skunk" on the startup menu that you would automatically win every game from there on, you would get bored and pretty quickly stop playing it.

Wouldn't you?

Cheers,
Reaver

Well, ....what can I say. I could say I was playing devil's advocate to save some face here, but why! When I read your responses, you all really set me straight. I particularly appreciate the fact that you responded without getting defensive and gave me some terrific examples to completely make me re-think the whole issue of exploits. You are so right..."Using exploits is, indeed, cheating yourself." "Exploiting a loophole is really the same principle as using a cheat code." "...reporting exploits to the developers, etc. accomplishes the other issue I brought up. You ALL had amazing perspectives on something that should have been so obvious to me. Thank you for taking the time to chime in. I'm feeling a little embarrassed even posting the question now, so thank you and thank you, too, for not really knocking me over the head. lol

Sincerely, Helo

It's up to you how you want to play your game. But for most people using cheat codes or major exploits will result in a boring game soon enough. Cheese tactics are everywhere, e.g. there's one thing that works in most games were randomness plays a role: A reload. And deliberate reloading is considered cheating by most people.

My stance on exploits is the following: When I find out about a cheese tactics, often enough I'll try it out to see what it does. But then I'll write about it on the forum or somewhere else, thus allowing others to do the same (levelling the playing field in the Metaverse somewhat) and the developers to fix the loophole, if possible. Normally I'll move on and try something else, as winning with the same tactics, especially when it's cheesy, gets boring.

I have to say that I was really proud of myself the first time I thought of putting a lot of engines and one weapon on a cargo hull to pick off constructors, and really disgusted when I found out that building one or two ships like this guaranteed me a win in the first couple scenarios. That should not be an exploit, because it doesn't feel like cheating. Actually exploits never feel like cheating to me, even selling the computer all five levels of laser in a row. You gotta do what the game lets you do, it's the game's fault, not yours.

That's true. If you play the computer at precisely its own game, it's going to win. Because playing the computer at its own game involves sending unarmed transporters against enemy fleets, building capitals on Class 4 planets and so on But the AI is better at maximising its economy (theoretically) so it can just outclass you.

You just have to decide yourself whether it is cheasy or not. Some things seem to me to be ridiculously cheesy (gifting/concouring the same planet repeatedly for tech?). But other things I don't consider cheesy that others might (buying and selling tons of tech from the AI). As far as I can see, diplomacy is intended. Otherwise it wouldn't be there. Getting tech from taking planets is also intended, but to give that planet away so that you can get more tech? That's where it gets cheesy.

I agree with most of what's been said here, in fact I made a post not too long ago that explained a bit of cheese that I've found to work and did so in the hope that the information could be used by Stardock to fortify the AI against it and such. I would like to point out however, that it can often be a fine line between clever strategy and cheese. It's a difficult thing to define and most people probably wouldn't agree on everything, especially in those grey areas.

An example of an AI weakness that you can 'exploit' is the whole first-strike issue. The AI doesn't focus enough on sensors and engines and even on a level field, will rarely be able to out manuver a decent human player. This doesn't stop me from designing ships that I know will perform better, or making sure that I initiate every conflict possible. I doubt most players would consider emphasis on first-strike cheesy, though I think there is an argument for it. The obvious advantage of the Eyes of the Universe is a bit more cheesy and I even skipped it a few times, but in the end I found that all it does is save me the micro management of using sensor ships, so I don't restrain myself anymore.

Anyway, I agree that everyone looks for different things in the same games, and they get different things out of it. Some insist on a "level" playing field for all players in the galaxy and are content to defeat the AI at that level whether using cheese or not. Some would rather be challenged and forced to look for and exploit every tactic they can to win (justified by the insane AI bonuses on suicidal etc). Some people prefer to be able to wipe out the galaxy on their own (myself included), while others are content play a small part in an epic conflict (which I would love if the AI were only a bit stronger / agressive / cooperative). I try to avoid what I consider to be extreme cheese, but I am unwilling to give up things that just make sense to do, even if the computer is weak in that area. Should I choose to build my planets in less than optimal ways just because I know the AI does too? Should I wait and let their fleet attack me when I can stop it just to give them first-strike 1/2 the time? I just adjust the difficulty to help compensate and let that be the end of it.

My point is that it is not fair to call any of these play styles any more worthwhile than another. Even people who pull what most would consider extreme cheese to inflate their metaverse scores, they are finding the challenge, not in trying to be a galactic ruler / strategist in a fair or realistic setting, but in analyzing what affects the scoring system and trying to 'milk' it for all they can. Many often assume that the motive is a higly ranked empire / character and that they just want to show off. Although that may be true for some, for others, getting the best possible score can be a challenge in itself. For some who might find the other aspects of the game as no longer interesting, their main competiton may become each other, not the AI.

My attitude / approach to this game seems to be closely aligned with the majority of the posters here so far however, I don't think that I can say that my way of playing is any better than anyone elses. I'm not going to say that people are cheating or deluding themselves by not trying to create the same gaming experience that I am. I can't tell them how to play and I've given up on moralizing these views and play styles because there simply is no ultimate standard, no final word, no god of galciv2 that is going to hand down commandments outlining what is right or wrong (except maybe Frogboy ). It's a game. Have fun with it. Mod it if you want. Play in the metaverse or in your sandbox. Whatever you do though, it might be easier to enjoy it if you spend less time worrying about what others are doing and focus on your own experience.

Wow that ended up more preachy then I expected / wanted. Sorry about that, but it's not quite over.

Concerning the Metaverse:
If someone only plays to pad their scores and show off medals, let them. Why complain about them being able to achieve better scores if you don't care about the scores? Everyone knows, or should know, that the scores are far from being an accurate measure of skill, intelligence, honesty, etc. If you do care about scores, then beat them at their own game, prove your superior ability to manipulate them and play sandbox games or use another character for the fun experience you desire. There is no perfect scoring system, tweak it all you like, but manipulation to an extend will always be possible.

I admit that I like seeing my medals down there below my posts, but you don't have to sacrifice playing games that you enjoy, the way that you want to in order to get them. The main thing I like about the metaverse is that it records your game history so I can always look back on my conquests and laugh about games I had like pushing to tech victory as the Arceans on a tiny map (My first and only tech victory so far.). Fun times.

Now um, what was the O.P. about? Oh right. Geez I talk~er type too much... [/rant]

Nice post Metaphase - When you going out kissing Babies and pinning ribbons and whatnot? I'll vote for ya!

How few turns is that? It would be fun to have a benchmark. What difficulty does your friend play on?

There is no such thing as an 'exploit' in GC2 for the simple fact that the AI can't win a game against a human player. It might make it tough to win (for a while). But that's it.

LOL

All hail the mighty Precursor10 !! The most powerful force in the universe (well, since captain Kirk hung up his wig and corset!).

There is no such thing as an 'exploit' in GC2

So you are saying that the fact that the AI only redisigns and build ships once per year is not exploitable?




Cheers,
Reaver

The only two things I thought were cheesy (and got fixed in the latest upgrade) are:

1) being able to by mining starbases from a computer player that gave you a ridiculous advantage.

2) Running up a 6 figure debt upgrading warships because the debt would automatically fall to 2000 credits the next turn... which could be erased by selling a minor tech to all the other players.

But I gotta admit, the starbase buying exploit was fun. You could go from painted in a corner to influence victory in a few turns by locating and buying all the powder blue cube mining starbases. If it were still there, I'd make a drinking game out of it.