A list with what people might consider an exploit

[unmerged(18425)]

First a note:

This is a list of what can be considered as an exploit and/or gamey behaviour. I know no two players will have the same list of what an exploit and/or gamey behaviour is.
It’s a list GM’s can use to make their OWN list of what they consider as an exploit for their games. A handy resource for everyone who wants to draw a quick list of what is forbidden in their games. This is not a definite list with exploits, but the list tries to be as complete as possible. So, if you know something that can be considered as an exploit/gamey, please post it in the thread and I will probably include it in the list.

A LIST WITH WHAT PEOPLE MIGHT CONSIDER AS AN EXPLOIT / GAMEY BEHAVIOUR

General rule for players: if you think something is an exploit, then it is likely that it is one. When in doubt ask the GM. This list has NOT included all exploits, only the most common ones.

1. Attacking an enemy fleet with pirates, as well as comparatively very small fleets, only made to inhibit loading/landing.
2. Releasing one or more vassals during wartime, to hinder an enemy.
3. Force-burning of manufactories, i.e. repeated move and halt orders to an army in a province with a manufactory.
4. Using lag to your advantage. This includes (but is not limited to): Sending lag colonists, building lag fortresses, sending lag missionaries, using lag diplomats. (An exception can be made for using lag diplomats to send cash).
5. Declaring a 'fake' war on a country, with the aim to:
   • Increasing the stability of the nation you declare war on.
   • To get around a rule that bans map-trading, by sacking the capital of the nation you want maps from.
   • To change the religion of a protestant or Counter-Reformed-Catholic nation back to Catholicism before the Edict of Tolerance.
6. Exploiting Simultanity: Using the game engine to break a deal, that would occur simultaneously in the real word. This includes (but is not limited to) the 'sale' of something in game.
7. Using bugs listed in the bug thread to your advantage.
8. Converting from Catholiscism to either Counter-reformed-Catholicism or Protestant and then switching back to Catholiscism before the edict of Tolerance.
9. Breaking a truce, when at negative stab.
10. Sending loans to the AI.
11. Not leaving a human alliance, despite the alliance leader asking you to do so.
12. Landing armies in the port of a country you are in war with, because of Military Access.
13. Trading maps with the AI.
14. Cancelling being the vassal of another player within 10 years, except when an event allows you to do so.
15. Vassalising countries when you are below centralization 8
16. Avoiding the Spanish bankruptcy events, despite owning the provinces that trigger them for the majority of the time.
17. Choosing the option of the Bej events that places the Ottoman Empire in the Orthodox techgroup.
18. Not leaving the territory of a player during peace-time, when he requests so to avoid you exploring his territory.
19. Stealing sieges.
20. Signing a peace deal with the AI, that bankrupts it in the same day.
21. Releasing vassals and/or investing in them to let them build manus and forts.
22. Taking TPs in a war in order to help another country to get rid of badboy.

Thanks to everyone who helped with this.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Now, as I said, every GM will have his own ideas of what an exploit is. So, as a reference, I will list here what I will allow and what I will not allow in my games.
RED means the exploit is not allowed. GREEN means it is allowed.

1. Attacking an enemy fleet with pirates, as well as comparatively very small fleets, only made to inhibit loading/landing.
2. Releasing one or more vassals during wartime, to hinder an enemy.
3. Force-burning of manufactories, i.e. repeated move and halt orders to an army in a province with a manufactory.
4. Using lag to your advantage. This includes (but is not limited to): Sending lag colonists, building lag fortresses, sending lag missionaries, using lag diplomats.(An exception can be made for sending lag diplomats to send cash).
5. Declaring a 'fake' war on a country, with the aim to:
   • Increasing the stability of the nation you declare war on.
   • To get around a rule that bans map-trading, by sacking the capital of the nation you want maps from.
   • To change the religion of a protestant or Counter-Reformed-Catholic nation back to Catholicism before the Edict of Tolerance.
6. Exploiting Simultanity: Using the game engine to break a deal, that would occur simultaneously in the real word. This includes (but is not limited to) the 'sale' of something in game.
7. Using bugs listed in the bug thread to your advantage.
8. Converting from Catholiscism to either Counter-reformed-Catholicism or Protestant and then switching back to Catholiscism before the edict of Tolerance.
9. Breaking a truce, when at negative stab.
10. Sending loans to the AI.
11. Not leaving a human alliance, despite the alliance leader asking you to do so.
12. Landing armies in the port of a country you are in war with, because you still have Military Access.
13. Trading maps with the AI.
14. Cancelling being the vassal of another player within 10 years, except when an event allows you so.
15. Vassalising countries when you are below centralization 8 (only with the recent beta patch).
    
16. Avoiding the Spanish bankruptcy events, despite owning the provinces that trigger them for the majority of the time.
17. Choosing the option of the Bej events that places the Ottoman Empire in the Orthodox techgroup.
18. Not leaving the territory of a player during peace-time, when he requests so to avoid you exploring his territory.
19. Stealing sieges
20. Signing a peace deal with the AI, that bankrupts it in the same day.
21. Reading the history log of the host save.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Why this thread?

I got convinced that this is necessary, after I witnessed for the umpteenth time players having a different opinion than the GM about what an exploit/gamey is.
The GM having a general rule that forbids exploits simply does not work, IMO.

I want a list to which I can refer when a player uses an exploit. It justifies me punishing the offender. I can imagine other GM's having the same desire.

Now, if you know something that can be considered as an exploit, don't haste to share it. I will probably add it to the list.

Hopefully this helps to clear some confusion about what the community considers an exploit/gamey behaviour.

 

[unmerged(10915)]

1. Attacking an enemy fleet with pirates, as well as comparatively very small fleets, only made to inhibit loading/landing.
2. Releasing one or more vassals during wartime, to hinder an enemy.
3. Force-burning of manufactories, i.e. repeated move and halt orders to an army in a province with a manufactory.
4. Using lag to your advantage. This includes (but is not limited to): Sending lag colonists, building lag fortresses, sending lag missionaries, using lag diplomats.
5. Declaring war on a country, with the sole aim of increasing the stability of the nation you declare war on.
6. Exploiting Simultanity: Using the game engine to break a deal, that would occur simultaneously in the real word. This includes (but is not limited to) the 'sale' of something in game.
7. Switching to Counter-Reformed-Catholic just before a war, only to switch to your original religion after the war again.
8. Using bugs listed in the bug thread to your advantage.
9. Switching to Protestantism to gain cash, when at negative stab.
10. Breaking a truce, when at negative stab.
11. Sending loans to the AI.
12. Not leaving a human alliance, despite the alliance leader asking you to do so.
13. Landing armies in the port of a country you are in war with, because you still have Military Access.
14. Trading maps with the AI.
15. Cancelling being the vassal of another player within 10 years.

 

[Chaingun]

Mulli could you please change that green to text to lighter green? I almost have to highlight it unless I have to make a concentrated effort to read it (or as I did, highlight it).

IMHO (as always in these matters), I don't find breaking a truce particulary exploitive, even when at -2 stab only. There are times and reasons for that. Usually the reason for breaking a truce is that the country breaking was not happy with peace terms for whatever cause. After a big war with loads of WE a country should rest anyhow, unless the former condition applies in which case the war can be regarded as a continuation anyhow.

IMHO it's worse if there's a X province rule per war and the victim is DOWed immediately after a war.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Breaking a truce is never "gamey." It is pretty severely punished (-5 stab). Further, it falls under the category of "things that, if you do them, your reputation with your fellow players will take a significant hit, making it very difficult for them to believe you in the future." Players of the game Diplomacy know all about that category.

For that category, the best punishment is having to live with what you've done the rest of the game.

In general, anytime you exploit the game's mechanics to accomplish something that the game wouldn't allow if it wasn't for the dynamics of MP play, or for the simple fact that the mechanism can't be fixed without breaking something else, you are doing something "wrong." Using "lag" to your advantage should fall under this category. However, we all know that people use "lag" all the time to make instantaneous payments when buying things or paying off a peace deal at a later time. So we can see that even with this relatively simple concept of "exploit" and "gamey," some commonly accepted wiggle-room exists.

On the other hand, exploiting bad play by an opponent is not "gamey." If I have granted military access to England as France, and I then declare war upon England, and don't revoke their military access, I deserve to see English troops walking down planks at the harbor rather than spilling over the sides of the boats down the strand. The game doesn't automatically revoke MA when you declare war; Johan has had ample opportunity to do so, and chooses not to, so it isn't an "exploit."

In the middle is the concept of things you can do that don't exploit the game's mechanics, but which cause such difficulty and which can be manipulated in an unrealistic fashion. An example would be releasing vassals during war with the result of avoiding province losses, accumulating negative warscore, or hindering troop movement by the enemy. In real life, vassals didn't get released and absorbed repeatedly. Because such actions often carry a negative impact that can create problems for the person who tries them, they cannot automatically be put in the 'do not ever do this' bin.

So my concept, if I were to GM a game, would be to say:

If it is an exploit of the game's mechanics, don't do it. If you do it, and I don't like it, you might have the action reversed, or you might even be punished, if you do it knowing I don't like it. When in doubt, ask.

If it is taking advantage of a mistake by your opponent, or bad play by your opponent, it is fair game. It's up to individual players to decide what "good will" they wish to bank in a game by refusing to take advantage of "bad play."

If it is in the middle, the GM should list the rules, if any, he intends to enforce, along with a general philosophy on such rules. Players with questions may always ask ahead; a good GM who is not neutral in the game would understand if something not specifically discussed is used against him/her without prior query.

If a player does something that is not in the bounds of what the GM is willing to allow, the GM should stop the game upon finding out about the action, deal with the consequences, and warn the party(ies) not to do it again. Done with a minimum of interruption, this would make most people happy, except those who love to enter into endless arguments about pushing the envelope of the "rules." A good GM simply shuts them up and moves on.

In my opinion, having played MP a while now, most fights in MP games break out because of poor GM'ing. That is, a GM who either fails to inject himself into the situation forcefully enough, or who overdoes the enforcer role, will cause difficulties. The weak GM will not stop bad behaviour before egos are bruised and emotions are hardened. The players will push the situation around to their advantage. The overly zealous GM will create problems where none truly exist, damaging feelings and unleashing unintended consequences. This is made even more possible by the fact that GM's in our games usually are also players (contrast the D&D concept of a GM).

Finally, I will return to a concept I advanced shortly after starting MP play. We are way too often really scared of the possibility of losing a player. While we should not go out of our way to insult or upset our players, we shouldn't mollycoddle them, or, worse, allow them to abuse our good natures and fears of player loss. If a player does things which upset a game, inform the player that this won't be allowed to continue. Be polite, but firm. If the player doesn't get the message, remove the player from the game. I'd much rather lose Spain as a nation, than spend 8 more sessions of unhappiness with a Spanish player who causes trouble each session. A player who is excused from enough games will either get the hint, or will go away and will not trouble our games again.

 

[ForzaA]

I think the protestantism one (#9) needs an "and then switch back to catholicism" to be clear, or alternatively; I *strongly* disagree with it.

 

[Fredrik82]

[*]Breaking a truce, when at negative stab.

This is not gamey. The game mechanics is flawed when their is a bottom at -3, as this can be abused. An idea could be to get a minus value when at -3 stab when you get futher stab hits then.

Cancelling being the vassal of another player within 10 years.

I wouldn't call this gamey either, depending on the situation of course.
When you become someones vassal you are obviously weaker then your enemy, and thus canceling the vassalship is a hugh risk perhaps.

Also, your overloard can do stuff that you just cant accept etc.
It is also up to the overlord to look after its vassals. And treat them well, or they risk to loose them.

I agree with the rest, good job

 

[unmerged(10915)]

This is not gamey. The game mechanics is flawed when their is a bottom at -3, as this can be abused. An idea could be to get a minus value when at -3 stab when you get futher stab hits then.

Thats kind of why he coloured it green .

And i think the goal was for everyone to create a list and decide what they think about all those 15 exploits so that some kind of statistic can be made.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Thats kind of why he coloured it green .

Exactly.

Everyone,

This list with exploits is not what *I* consider as exploits, but what can be considered as an exploit, by someone.
If you try to argue that something on this list is not an exploit, I might perhaps even agree with you! That´s not the point nor the goal of the thread.

A GM can copy/paste from this list what he considers as an exploit and/or gamey behaviour. The players then have a more clear insight in what is allowed and what not.
In my games it is allowed to break truces, in others perhaps not. That's precisely the reason that a 'exploits are forbidden' rule is flawed and a list is necessary.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I think the protestantism one (#9) needs an "and then switch back to catholicism" to be clear, or alternatively; I *strongly* disagree with it.

Good point.

And I also add ´Vassalising countries when you are below centralization 8 (only with the recent beta patch).´. No idea why I forgot that one.

 

[Fredrik82]

Oh, in that case this is what i normaly ban in my games.

1. Attacking an enemy fleet with pirates, as well as comparatively very small fleets, only made to inhibit loading/landing.
2. Releasing one or more vassals during wartime, to hinder an enemy.
3. Force-burning of manufactories, i.e. repeated move and halt orders to an army in a province with a manufactory.
4. Using lag to your advantage. This includes (but is not limited to): Sending lag colonists, building lag fortresses, sending lag missionaries, using lag diplomats.
5. Declaring war on a country, with the sole aim of increasing the stability of the nation you declare war on.
6. Exploiting Simultanity: Using the game engine to break a deal, that would occur simultaneously in the real word. This includes (but is not limited to) the 'sale' of something in game.
7. Switching to Counter-Reformed-Catholic just before a war, only to switch to your original religion after the war again.
8. Using bugs listed in the bug thread to your advantage.
9. Switching to Protestantism to gain cash, when at negative stab, then switch back to the original religion.[/COLOR]
10. Breaking a truce, when at negative stab.
    [*]Sending loans to the AI.
    [*]Not leaving a human alliance, despite the alliance leader asking you to do
    [*]Landing armies in the port of a country you are in war with, because you still have Military Access.
    [*]Trading maps with the AI.
11. Cancelling being the vassal of another player within 10 years.
12. Vassalising countries when you are below centralization 8 (only with the recent beta patch).
    

 

[BiB]

harbor rather than spilling over the sides of the boats down the strand. The game doesn't automatically revoke MA when you declare war; Johan has had ample opportunity to do so, and chooses not to, so it isn't an "exploit."

That isn't exactly the best argument. There are plenty of things in games by Paradox that don't work as they should and that will remain so for various reasons (most often not having the resources to fix them). But that doesn't make it any less unintended.

 

[HolisticGod]

FAL,

I'm actually of the opinion now that turbo-burning isn't gamey. It's like giving your troops the scorched earth order, a la Tamerlane, Sherman's march to the sea, etc.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

FAL,

I'm actually of the opinion now that turbo-burning isn't gamey. It's like giving your troops the scorched earth order, a la Tamerlane, Sherman's march to the sea, etc.

Interesting. I toyed with allowing it in my RPG game too, but I guessed it would only mean countries like Austria could no longer build manufactories safely, while especially England could. Thus allowing them to hypertech even more.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Oh, in that case this is what i normaly ban in my games.

What are your white coloured exploits?

 

[HolisticGod]

FAL,

That's a fairly accurate situation, though...

One of the central reasons England industrialized before the rest of Europe is that its own territories were spared the ravages of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

FAL,

That's a fairly accurate situation, though...

One of the central reasons England industrialized before the rest of Europe is that its own territories were spared the ravages of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.

Good point.

But in game those countries already hypertech too much and I don't want to give them yet another economical advantage.

That said, I certainly see a solid reason for a burned-earth rule in game. As long as all players know that it is allowed, why not?

 

[DSYoungEsq]

That isn't exactly the best argument. There are plenty of things in games by Paradox that don't work as they should and that will remain so for various reasons (most often not having the resources to fix them). But that doesn't make it any less unintended.

Except that this one has drawn the attention of the MP playing community from day one, and it isn't a "trivial" concern.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Good point.

But in game those countries already hypertech too much and I don't want to give them yet another economical advantage.

That said, I certainly see a solid reason for a burned-earth rule in game. As long as all players know that it is allowed, why not?

For the simple reason that it is exploiting the game's engine. Sherman was given orders to burn everything in his march to the sea. He didn't do this by starting a march out of Atlanta, stopping it, starting it, stopping it, and starting it again until his troops managed to put the city to the flames.

So TRYING to use the stop/start/stop/start/stop method to burn the manufactory down is an exploit. Marching back into a province, leaving it, returning, etc., to burn it down is not.