 |
| |
|
|
isak
|
|
Airhose, Denmark
Mar 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
A second FP does increase the rate of rank increase, but slightly less than three times the original. I didn't bother to figure exact numbers because by that point I was sure it was a bug, not a feature. |
Oooh, so now, with three FP's in the DYP mod, we can officially start calling it the 'Kamikaze mod' - neato. 
I'm sure this will be fixed. It's probably just some unforeseen sideffect of some other fix, and Arnelos is probably right that there were no statisticians on board the dev team to check that. Spotting a bug like this, does require a somewhat .. erm.. dedicated style of playing 
(No offense, Alexman, I'm very glad you figured it out  )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mimi
|
|
Where Moose are Meat
Feb 2002
time: 01:32
|
|
I just have to interject that, not only do I find it rather odd that someone wouldn't buy a game because of some intangible aspect (go ask some casual player and see if they have a clue what you're talking about in this thread)... but I ALSO haven't got a freaking clue what this whole thread is about.
Well, ok, I understand the corruption, etc etc... I just don't get the focus on it. I play all the time and, other than knowing I can't build a university in an outlying conquered town, I don't bother with corruption and just play the game - as a whole, not as an analysis of each bit of game play. Call me CRAZY!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncnunn
In that case, there was no need to change it if cities after the tied cities have the proper values. |
Still you get much more production and commerce out of your cities than you rightfully deserve. Imagine, you have a capital and eight range-4/4.5 cities like in the picture below. Only one of these cities would be rightfully rank 1, the others would be rank 2, 3, ..., 8. But since they are placed in equal distance (4 and 4.5 are equal distances in terms of the game), they all get the rank 1 and are a kickass core, compared to what the AI would get. It doesn't matter at all, that the next ring of cities gets rank 9.
With the fix, all these cities get rank 8. That's for certain not the appropriate fix. Either they get rank 1..8 in some way (like by build order), or they get an averaged rank, like 4 or 5.
I applaud the fact, that it was fixed, but absolutely hate the way how this was done. And no, I won't buy the game till that's patched out.
 Attachment: 4ring.jpg
This has been downloaded 388 time(s).
Last edited by Sir Ralph on 13-11-2003 at 17:06
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
OPD
|
 |
Birmingham UK
Jun 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
I've been thinking about the effects of the new rank corruption and FP system....
Say you have 2 palace cities and 10 other cities. With 5 nearer to each core. (ignoring RCP effects) Before finishing the FP the cities would have ranks of
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. (55)
After finishing the FP the ranks would be
0,2,4,6,8,0,2,4,6,8. (48)
Whereas under the old system the ranks would be (discounting rank exploit effects and assuming similar placements)
1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5. (30)
Am I right in thinking that this means the following?
The FP does little to reduce corruption due to rank, only slightly reducing it. (still reducing distance corruption considerably)
The FP does however redistribute ranks more evenly around your cities (assuming you put it in the right place) ranks near the capital go up and the ranks near the new FP go down. Basically averaging rank corruption rather than reducing it.
The FP must be built in the right place or it will screw up corruption rather than reducing it. I hope the AI can handle this.
Rank corruption is now a much bigger corruption factor?
And overall
FP is now more just a means to reduce distance corruption.
The FP is simply not as good as before. This could be a good thing if intended. Rather than being absolutely essential perhaps now it is just important.
Perhaps it was decided that corruption overall should come down (I think I read somewhere that it had) but that the FP should be less effective to balance this.
Good FP placement is now essential counting tile distances to minimize overlap?
With rank corruption eating more sheilds and commerce larger empires as less effective?
Building the FP before you have your second core developed is a bad idea. No more rushing the FP at a distant spot then building around it, to see positive effects it has to be built in an already good area.
If it was intended for rank corruption to work this way now then I think it's a nice change
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Nor Me
|
|
That was one of the first things I was going to chack when I get conquests.
I'd heard that it was going to require the palace so wondered if this still applied. Requiring the palace is no good as you can rush it elsewhere.
I've had a mod for months in which there's a communism specific small wonder called the Kremlin which reduces corruption and requires the FP. Of course that still has some effect in other goverments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
heysewa
|
|
St. Louis, MO
Feb 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
So I was using the RCP exploit by accident, mostly because I was playing hub and spoke. It just seemed the most efficient way to run an empire. Also I noted that cities with roads to the capitol were less corrupt than those without. Was true in PTW at least. All roads lead to Rome theory. I think there should be some benefit to RCP (slight); like averaging the ranks and rounding down to nearest whole number. As for forbidden Palaces any formula with multiplication in it is going to cause problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
this would be very easy to Implement, atleast in psudocode:
Step 1: create a table for city corruption figures. Input city names and turn bullt
code:
Table 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| City | Dist to Palace | Dist to FP | turn built | is Palace | is FP | closer Palace | closer FP | Same |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: figure the distance of each city.
a: using Pathagorian Math (use the SQRT(X^2 + Y^2)) with the X-axis as the NE-SW line through the capitol and the Y-axis as the NW-SE line through the capitol (or FP). Figure the distance to both and put into table.
b: flag that it it either closer to Palace, closer to FP or same
Step 3: Flag FP & Palace (is Palace/FP)
Step 4: Parse through table, sorting the cities to 2 separate tables with just distance, turn built, is palace/FP and same flag.
code:
Table 2 & 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| City | Dist | turn built | is Palace/FP | Same | Rank| City Culture |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 5: Bubble sort both tables, by the distance, keeping Palace/FP at the top
Step 6: Parse through table, looking for cities that have the same distance.
a: Bubble sort sort the ones that are they same distance by turn built.
b: IF more than 1 have same turn built, then also sort by city culture.
c: If more than 1 have same turn built AND same city culture, then sort by Random Number.
Step 6: Assign Rank from 0 to whatever.
Step 7: Parse through both tables, looking for same flag.
a: IF a city is same, toss from the table that has the highest rank.
b: IF rank on both tables is the same, then toss from the table that had the lowest Palace/FP culture.
Final Step: Assign Distance and Rank to each city for later corruption calculations.
What this would do, is to have the ranking of each city, first by being Palace or FP centric, then by distance, then by age, then by culture and possibly then by a random factor. Also, if a city is the same distance between both Palace & FP, it initially gets ranked as both, then the better rank wins.
This routine would be run every time a city is built, the FP is built, The Palace is moved or a city is gained or lost somehow. The distance and rank figures would be used for each city.
The distances are floating point values, the Rank is Integer.
E_T
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Dominae, I see what you're saying about how from a competitive perspective, good FP placement gives the human player a huge advantage pre-Conquests. But some of us enjoy Civ 3 more from an empire building perspective than because we want the AI to play us as close a game as possible. (Consider Arrian's "Ultimate Power" games.) From an empire-building perspective, the ability to benefit from good palace/FP placement is extremely important because without it, conquering additional territory starts to become almost completely worthless long before the domination threshold is reached.
Granted, the new specialists and the boosted power of scientists and tax collectors provide a way to get some value out of totally corrupt cities. But to me, something doesn't feel right about having huge numbers of cities where the only viable strategy is to make everyone farmers and specialists. So while I wouldn't mind too terribly accepting some increase in corruption as a price for the improved specialists (not that I'd exactly enjoy even that), I absolutely hate to see the ability to benefit from solid two-core empires taken away. Even if the FP bug/change helped make the AIs more competitive, I'd still regard it as a problem that needs fixed.
Regarding the RCP situation, the worst thing about the change in my view is that it increases the potential for a city on bad terrain to be a liability rather than an asset. The question, "If I build a city here, will it produce enough to be worth displacing more distant cities by a rank?" was already an annoying one when faced with desert or tundra near the capital under the original rules. Now, not only does building a mostly desert or tundra city near the capital hurt the rank of every city further away, but it hurts the rank of cities the same distance from the capital without even letting the poor city take over the displaced rank. (By the way, if I understand what’s going on with the FP situation correctly, the FP change adds still another penalty to low-value cities near the capital.)
At best, the RCP "fix" accomplishes little more than to replace one set of rules through which adjusting city placement to fit an "unnatural" quirk in the rules provides an advantage with another. As others have alluded to, replacing one set of winners and losers with another doesn't really fix anything. Arnelos’s idea of averaging the penalty is in line with what I’d already been thinking would be the ideal way to resolve the situation if Firaxis wanted to do something about it (I've had a couple statistics classes myself  ), although I was never annoyed enough with the RCP bug to raise a fuss about it.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-11-2003 07:09
|
