exloit civhopping testing...

[MattijsV]

Well, clearly civhopping can be exploited. Several people have already notified that, but nevertheless it wouldn't be a bad idea to reiterate this.

What I've done: I started a game in which I was already added automatically (grrrrrr), but wasn't playing the first days. I actually started 3 days after start of game. I did it for fun... "let's see where I can get" kinda feeling.

I founded a Civ, and from there on started to do some hop hop hopping, barbarian-hunting, hopping to a civ with some techs, finishing one and running away again, hop hop barbarian-hunting, ......

I'm back in my one-man civ, kinda waiting for the first fool that thinks he'll grab my advanced tech by waging a war with 40 catapults now... I could attack all civs but top4 and win it easily, even civ 3 and 4 are maybe within reach, depending on their coordination.

By myself.

Not trying to show off here. Just letting devs know that something really has to be done about civhopping. Normally I'm a civstayer, as it should be I think. Changing civs should certainly be allowed in certain cases, but civhopping should very much be restricted.

[AlibechM]

I don't want to rain on your parade, but the only scenario for what you are describing, is a game full of new people not knowing what they're doing or people not playing seriously for whatever reason.

[Glinda]

The problem with squashing civ hopping is that it punishes way more people who might want to change for legit reasons than it prevents "exploits".

If I can't change civ when a) no one else in my team contributes, b) someone in my civ is a jerk who is harassing me, c) people in my civ are doing other stuff I don't like either in game or in chat, d) I started a civ and no one else joined, then I am MUCH more likely to just quit playing, since my play experience is upsetting or just frustrating.

It's been said several times that hoppers don't necessarily do better than people who stick with a civ and work to make it successful, so I REALLY don't see why it is so important to prevent it, and potentially cause a lot more problems.

[William Allen Simpson]

It's been said several times that hoppers don't necessarily do better than people who stick with a civ and work to make it successful, so I REALLY don't see why it is so important to prevent it, and potentially cause a lot more problems.

It's been said by you. Repeatedly. Proof by assertion doesn't make it true.

There are plenty of extant proofs otherwise, and a fair amount of exploit bragging.

In my current game, the others in my team got so sick of the hopping exploit that they tossed everything in favor of closed borders. Nobody could gain a medal for builds, population, or gold, because others hopped in and stole the award -- leaving us with an empty minister for long periods of time.

[Glinda]

Proof of assertion doesn't make hopping a universal problem. I haven't seen someone do it to the extent you have been describing, but oddly enough, I am not calling you a liar.

I think closed borders needs tweaking, actually. Closed borders was made punitive to economy after people complained so much about small civs and their exploits, but now small civs are much less worth doing, so maybe closed borders could go back to being neutral without much of an effect on play. That would certainly stop people coming into your civ and stealing your medals, which seems to be your main worry. Interesting that you accused me in another thread of being a fame☺☺☺☺☺.

How would you address my other concerns with regard to banning changing civs altogether, then?