 |
| |
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Which other thread? If there's been some discussion on possible workarounds for the GPT bug, I'd be interested to see it.
I recognized the problem of getting 50% of an AI's gold in one deal and then 50% of what's left in another before I posted. But between increased purchasing power for the top AIs and decreased gold for humans, such a rule would at least mitigate the bug's damage. Trading two techs and a luxury to get 7/8 of an AI's gold isn't as bad for the AI as getting 8/8 of the AI's gold for a single tech. Also note that the multiplicative effect helps compensate for the fact that if an AI gets full value at half price, that shifts the balance of advantage in the AI's favor.
I came up with another approach that is even more elegant from a technical perspective, but didn't post it earlier because it is tougher to implement. The basic idea would be to sell techs for 60% of what an AI is willing/able to pay and then treat the AI as if the other 40% did not exist for the 20 turns of the deal. Thus, human players would get 20% more gold for their GPT deals than they would under normal rules, while AIs would get to keep 40% of the gold they would have paid. In practical terms, the procedure for a deal would be something like:
1) Find out how much GPT the AI has available. (The transition to "would never accept the deal" marks where an AI doesn't have the GPT to make a deal even if it wanted to.)
2) Calculate the total current GPT the civ is paying you and subtract 2/3 of that from the result of Step 1. (40% is 2/3 of 60%.)
3) Determine which is lower, the amount the AI is willing to pay or the amount from Step 2. Sixty percent of whichever is lower is the most GPT you can ask the AI for.
That way both the human player and the leading AIs end up better off financially than they would without the bug and workaround. It's not a perfect solution, but it provides a way to do GPT deals without completely upsetting the balance or providing an unfair advantage for more, smaller deals compared with fewer, bigger ones. Unfortunately, the calculations involved would be a bit of a pain, and I'm not sure how many AU players would want to go through that kind of hassle.
By the way, my biggest reservation about a rule against accepting GPT payments at all is that I routinely acquire luxuries by trading a tech for a lucury or luxuries plus whatever else I can get. In my second C3C game, I've been trying a self-imposed rule against trades involving GPT, and not being able to ask for GPT as part of my "whatever else" is proving to be very painful.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
That way both the human player and the leading AIs end up better off financially than they would without the bug and workaround. |
But if your strategy is to impoverish the AI so they can't buy anything from anyone else, the whole idea of the House Rule completely removes this strat.
I know that I will often sell something for far less than it's worth just to keep the AIs poor to prevent upgrades, lux trades, etc.
Not that I'm not willing to play with a house rule, it's just that those posing solutions seem to be missing the point that the main idea of the previously posted strat is not to make money - it's to clean the coffers of the AI to keep the other AIs from selling them anything and to keep them from buying anything. It's the trade equivalent of pruning, and if you don't clean them out, it defeats the purpose of the strat.
Either way, it'll be a fun game, I just feel that in a search for a solution to the over-enrichment of the player, some of us are forgetting that AI impoverishment is often a very important strategy. Only taking half is equivalent to outlawing that strat.
What if there was another solution? Like units you can buy outright and then disband outside a city, bleeding off your extra income? Or an improvement that bleeds off x amount of GPT that every player starts with, or something like that?
Since house rules depend on the integrity of the player, why not allow the impoverishment of the AI strat, while giving the player someplace to honorably dispose of the extra income? Or is that just not doable with the current editor?
p.s. - Finally got Conquests, first epic start as Mayans, riverside, with 3 sugars on river. Whee!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cort Haus
|
 |
London
Apr 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
I voted a resounding no to an AU course on the current C3C. It might satisfy some eager impatience, but can only dilute the quality of the AU. Catt has articulated this excellently, I thought, so I do not need to repeat the arguments. 
I haven't had the chance to play C3C yet, but a two-minute glance at the wish list says that the epic game ain't ready yet. It might feel like Santa didn't show up, but lets be honest - we run the risk of wasting our time if we are trying to educate ourselves on broken training material. Time perhaps alternatively spent on a conquest, or even a PTWDG 
However, the fun of playing a collective game doesn't need the sober stamp of the AU - so just set up a game along whatever lines people are into - post it up and let people informally share it. Just don't call it an AU course - pleeease. Or, use some of that time you would happily spend on an AU course now to help out your DG team, so that when Conquests is finally ready, your team-mates may have the chance to enjoy the AU course too!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:32
|
|
Well I think I begin to see you reasons, if I do not share them myself. There is nothing riding on this - no money, no reputation, nothing that gives the similes you have used any impact on me. From my POV, waiting because of some undesirable effects is like saying that I must send my computer for repair as soon as one or two errors creep up - everything must be fixed for it to be worth my while to use it at all. I disagree with this view, as apart from perhaps some minor annoyances there is plenty that can be enjoyed, and unless the game is rendered unplayable (I challenge anyone to seriously say this about C3C as it currently is), then there is a lot that can be looked at.
What if the patch comes out and these things are not fixed, by simple omissions, by the accidental inclusion of another related bug, or from the fact that Breakaway WANTS the game more as it is now? Do we wait for another patch? And how many of the bugs must be fixed before the AU game is worth making? The gpt is the most important, but IMO the corruption changes are neither game-wrecking nor unbalancing nor unbearable.
My point is that we are waiting for what we hope will be the perfect state of affairs for C3C - a pie in the sky ideal. Looking back at Civ3 and PtW, the first patch wasn't perfect, and there were always things that "should" be changed for the next one. Were AU games ruined by the fact that GAs could not be started by the UU of England or Korea - surely a bug and extremely unbalancing where those civs were in the game. If we went back to the old model of MGLs rushing GWs then I am sure some would regard THAT as rendering the game too unbalanced.
I just want to make sure that everyone has reached a decision about how long they are willing to wait, and we cannot assume any patch will make C3C the perfect game it seems to need to be. As for me, I certainly will wait for the patch (I have no choice), but if it arrives and is less than desired, I will once again lead the clamour for playing with what we have rather than waiting for a hopeful fix that may or may not come. I would rather AU keep interest up than die the slow death of being put off for too long.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cort Haus
|
|
London
Apr 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
MWIA,
1. I'd have thought there is a world of difference between a design decision to require the Koreans (who are not in every game) to build wonders for their GA, and the fact that corruption and the FP are fundamentally broken in every game of C3C, affecting every civ and every city.
2. We are not talking about minor annoyances, we are talking about major faults.
3. No-one is expecting perfection, just playability.
4. No-one is stopping anyone enjoying the game as it is - we just want to save people from having their time wasted, and new players being misled, or at worst, being taught how to get round major bugs which will hopefully be fixed soon.
5. The AU will not wither and die. Newcomers will learn more if more experienced players like yourself have had the time to suss out certain aspects of the game not affected by the bugs, and then pass it on to others in the course. It may even add interest when we get "The Return of the AU..."
6. I applaud you for defending your point-of-view , even if we disagree. The votes, however, speak for themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
MWIA -
To take Cort Haus' points a bit further, I quote from the top of the AU History 101 thread.
quote:
"Apolyton University is a school of strategy, where students sharpen their Civ3 skills and share their experiences in a series of thematic games. When playing an Apolyton University game, gaining and sharing knowledge is more important than getting a high score, or even winning the game. Participants are encouraged to share their strategy after the game, and even to try several attempts.
For single-player games we have developed the AU mod, whose main purpose is to challenge the player with a need for deeper strategy. To accomplish that goal, the mod tries to improve the AI and present the player with more strategic decisions, while changing as little as possible." -- alexman |
Many of us feel that the GPT and Corruption issues are such big bugs that anything learned, any strategies developed, and any proposed changes to the AI behavior for the mod would be a "waste" of time.
As Dr.Spike said, if there's a desire for a comparison game, there's nothing stopping us from starting one, but to try to learn more about deep strategy, empire management, trading, etc. with what many of us feel is a broken system is counterproductive to the goals of Apolyton University.
I'm also all for a comparison game, but I don't think it should fall under AU.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Funny that you should quote that, ducki, because to me it looks like an argument against your case:
quote:
"Apolyton University is a school of strategy, where students sharpen their Civ3 skills and share their experiences in a series of thematic games. When playing an Apolyton University game, gaining and sharing knowledge is more important than getting a high score, or even winning the game. Participants are encouraged to share their strategy after the game, and even to try several attempts."
|
The bit about the AU mod is a secondary goal to AU, IMO. The idea is to learn strategy by comparing games and having fun, not the other way around (if that's possible). If all you wanted to do is learn strategy, there are better (less time-consuming) ways of doing it than AU.
Many people (myself included, I admit!) prefer playing the game to a victory, then posting an AAR of how glorious their game was. Clearly the gpt and Corruption bugs work against this, because people feel these will get in the way of a sleek victory. So although I can understand the reticence to play with these bugs, I think it has less to do with the goals of AU and more with an aversion to the game in its current state (which, to most, is confusing and annoying to play).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Many people (myself included, I admit!) prefer playing the game to a victory, then posting an AAR of how glorious their game was. Clearly the gpt and Corruption bugs work against this, because people feel these will get in the way of a sleek victory. So although I can understand the reticence to play with these bugs, I think it has less to do with the goals of AU and more with an aversion to the game in its current state (which, to most, is confusing and annoying to play).
|
Dom - I'm sure that you didn't mean this to be disrespectful or a denigration of others' motives, but that's how it came across to me upon reading your post.
I haven't seen one person indicate that waiting made sense because their chances for victory, or for glorious victory, or for a sleek victory, are impeded by the present state of the game. In fact, I've seen several posters, including myself, put forward a number of reasons why the idea of an AU game now seems counterproductive to the goals of AU. I've seen two posters who intially voted "play now" change their minds after either being persuaded by argument or becoming more familiar with the presently buggy game. Many more votes have also been cast against starting AU without additional comment. Your view that an opinion to wait for a patch equates to an aversion to the game, and how successful one might be with it, has absolutely no objective basis -- it seems to rest on nothing more than your diasgreement with stated reasons for an opposing view, and, since those views are deemed not credible, a search for the "real" reason to oppose an AU game under these circumstances.
I won't rehash many of the opinions already expressed, but it seems to me that those in favor of starting an AU game now owe at least a reasoned explanation for their view (and you already gave one Dom )-- and I would argue that such an explanation should be specific to AU and not just to any comparison game (since it's been pointed out many times that anyone can post a comparison game for play). I'd also argue that, in the face of reasonable and civil explanations of why a poster voted "after," even if one doesn't agree with the explanations, it is not simply enough to argue for playing with a "what could it hurt" argument or an "it would be fun" argument.
Catt 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Yes, I'm sorry if I sounded like I was putting people down.
What I meant to say is that, despite AU's goals, people like to win when they play. The current bugs in C3C are serious impediments to this (especially Corruption). Edit: As you say, I'm probably way off base.
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 27-11-2003 at 23:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
|
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Just in defense of my above post (two posts up, actually): how many who voted 'no' to this game would be opposed to doing an "unofficial" but Agricultural AU course? My guess is not the majority. Somehow the buggy C3C we have now is okay when playing Agr. Arguably, a Seafaring scenario suffers more from the bugs than an Agricultural one, but IMO that's just because Agr. is better overall. This is very telling, I think. |
It might be telling to some degree if your guess as to how a vote would come out is correct; until then, I'm not too sure that it is telling in any way.
I don't understand what an "unofficial but . . . AU course" is. My opposition would be the same for any AU game under the present bugs when all available information indicates that a patch is being worked on feverishly.
And, to be clear and speaking only for myself, I'll repeat that, despite the buggy version, I still find C3C enjoyable, I am still playing it (up to 5 epic games, now, no conquests). C3C is fun; and comparison games are fun. The fundamental issue for me is whether playing under the AU moniker makes sense. I respectfully repeat my view that it does not.
Sorry to post and dash (won't be around to respond) but Thanksgiving celebrations and travel call.
Catt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cracky
|
|
Well, I've reread this thread several times and find myself agreeing with both the 'yes' and 'no' arguments, but more frequently with the go ahead'ers. But I think the gpt bug in and of itself offers a great, if off-kilter, AU JC (Junior College ) game. The Power of Inflation. This is just an off-the-cuff idea I came up with this morning, but how about allowing, and even encouraging gpt deals, but adding 25% to the cost of all industrial buildings/units, and 50% to all modern ones (maybe with 25% for all medieval buildings/units, then 50% and 100% for the next ages). As more and more gold comes into circulation, it requires more and more of this devalued currency to build/operate your civ. As for the corruption/FP bug, just make a yes/no decision about it for this pre-patch game. Either one *must* build the FP, or just remove it with the editor (not sure what would be done about the Secret Police one...). Yes, both of these are fairly clumsy work-arounds, but as long as the AI civ's benefit from the gpt deals as well, I think this is a lot simpler than keeping track of how much gold one really shouldn't have, let alone keeping track of the interest incurred (no offense intended at all by this of course).
I don't remember who I'm agreeing with here  , but I always considered the AU games comparative rather than competitive. If it can be made clear from the beginning of this Jr. AU that, of course, these particular strategies/tactics will not really be applicable after the coming patch, and the course be given a special, well, warning I guess, in the list of AU's thread, I think we could all go ahead and give it a shot and compare anti-inflation tactics. I'll even have a go at making the map and changes in the editor, but this is probably best left to someone who's actually *used* the editor before... And heck, if this idea gets shot down, again can't recall who I'm agreeing with , and I can figure out how to do this in the editor, I'll just post it as a comparison game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
|
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catt
...it seems to me that those in favor of starting an AU game now owe at least a reasoned explanation for their view (and you already gave one Dom )-- and I would argue that such an explanation should be specific to AU and not just to any comparison game (since it's been pointed out many times that anyone can post a comparison game for play). |
Bugger. I would love to give such an explanation, but I am not sure I really can grasp the ideals of AU without having tried it before. I will rest (a little uneasy, yet not feeling put upon at all) with the knowledge I have lost this debate.
However, from what I DO understand of AU, and from a lot of posts here, it is clear at least some consider AU to be about learning experiences, especially testing areas of the game that may be neglected in the course of normal SP games, and that deserve to be learned. Thus I still believe an AU game pre-patch is valid, as there is a helluva lot to learn in C3C as it is. And I stick to the idea that any patch may not fix all the supposed broken issues. The gpt is obviously a problem, but I don't see the corruption as that much of an issue, nor an obvious breaking point of the game. No-one yet has touched upon my question of what will happen if corruption stays as it is, or is not "fixed" to the level many want it to be, in upcoming patches....
Something to keep in mind.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-11-2003 12:04
|