 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
If something is in the game, I want it to be useful often enough that it gets built sometimes. Some improvements (Colosseums and Coastal Fortresses) are not built often enough, so we make them more powerful. However, if there is no good way to make them more powerful without a big change (Longevity), I am willing to consider that change. The same goes for things that are so powerful that you cannot imagine not trying to build them (ToE). If you can't weaken them, I'm not opposed to making a big change so they are not as powerful. |
Alexman, this is where your philosophy and mine are light years apart. To me, the idea of there being elements in the game that are rarely or even never worth building is not in and of itself a problem. So what if I only build colosseums before temples/cathedrals if exactly two more happy faces are what I need for WLT?D? So what if I never bother to research Genetics and build Cure for Cancer or Longevity? So what if I practically never build city walls or coastal fortresses? I'm no worse off than if those features were not incorporated into the game at all, and may, under some circumstances, be better off.
Under such conditions, I tend to view tinkering with the rules to make things more worth building as worthwhile only if it tends to help the AIs more than it does human players. Otherwise, changes are at best unnecessary deviations from the default rules and at worst (as I believe is the case with moving Longevity) directly contrary to the goal of helping the AI.
Nathan
Last edited by nbarclay on 16-12-2003 at 10:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
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. |
That sure sounds like a "help the AI mod" to me. Not that that is all that the AU Mod is about, but it certainly is an important part of it.
Further, changes that make something that was formerly useless useful, or that make something that was only rarely useful useful more often, do not automatically enhance the strategic depth of the game. As long as they help the AI at least as much as they do the human player, they certianly can. But if the net result is to provide a greater relative advantage to the human player, with the only "strategic depth" being the question of what to build first, any new "strategic depth" comes at the expense of depth that already existed. That is my fundamental complaint about moving Longevity to the industrial era, and is also my big concern about what might happen if Electronics is removed as a prerequisite for tanks (although I think that idea is definitely worth testing).
Also, there is a serious question of how much strategic depth a change needs to add before it is justified. Otherwise, the AU Mod would add dozens of new techs, units, and other features to the game in the interest of "adding strategic depth" until the game is all but unrecognizeable. Making minor changes to existing elements is often justified, but the bigger the changes get, the more they are tantamount to adding something entirely new in their practical effects on gameplay. To go back to the Longevity example, there are whole new wonders that could be added to the industrial era with less effect than moving Longevity has.
As for the idea of just playing on a harder level to help the AI, all that does is cause the AI to "cheat" more in playing by different rules. It does not improve the AI's basic level of ability, and any improvement in balance comes only from the difficulty of doing well enough in the tech race to take advantage of balance issues.
And frankly, with how much of my playing style is centered around a good REX, I find levels where the AI gets a second settler for free (Demigod and higher) seriously annoying. The idea of an AI that plays better throughout the game appeals to me. The idea of just starting off in a deeper hole to have to dig myself out of is far less appealing, which is why I gave up even trying to play on Deity long ago and an not sure I'll ever try even a single game on Sid.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
And frankly, with how much of my playing style is centered around a good REX, I find levels where the AI gets a second settler for free (Demigod and higher) seriously annoying. The idea of an AI that plays better throughout the game appeals to me. The idea of just starting off in a deeper hole to have to dig myself out of is far less appealing, which is why I gave up even trying to play on Deity long ago and an not sure I'll ever try even a single game on Sid.
|
Unfortunately, the game was designed with one AI that simply gets bonuses or penalties based on difficulty level. I'm still amazed at how well this worked out, but I admit it can a tad frustrating at times (especially when you pass that "hump" on Deity and realize the rest of the game will play out just like it does on Emperor or Monarch).
Back to the point.
The purpose of the AU mod is not solely to improve the AI. Since the AI is always the same (ha! I knew I wrote the first paragraph for a purpose!), the game gets pretty repetitive if you're just looking for the AI to challenge you in interesting and different ways. No matter how hard we try with the AU mod, it will never do this.
There are two broad sources of "challenge fun" in Civ3 (and in games in general):
1. You versus the AI.
2. You versus your own abilities.
The first one is obvious, the second one less so. By it I mean the challenge that arises out of trying to play to the best of your ability. In a TBS like Civ3, this involves knowing strongest economic strategies and how to implement them (like a strong REX phase); in a FPS this involves acquiring game-specific reflexes (like aiming for an opponent's head in Counter-Strike). Like I've said above, we can only do so much to improve point 1 in the AU mod. So the rest of our efforts lie with point 2.
Clearly providing more strategic options for the human player results in a more challenging game:
"Hm, these new Colosseums are pretty attractive. But is it better to build Temples to allow Cathedrals?"
"Well, well, Republic is a lot weaker than in stock. Maybe I should try Monarchy-Democracy instead."
"Interesting, this modifed Conquistador may actually be worth building!"
So, changes which force the human player to think more, even without the AI's influence, are a good thing IMO. Of course, too much change is not a "good thing" for the AU mod (as I've posted above), because what makes the AU mod special (for many) is that it does not "feel" like a mod.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Sorry, that sounded bad, but it came from increasing frustration with nbarclay in numerous AU mod threads, first refusing to even acknowledge his nomination to the panel, and then disputing not only already voted changes, but the entire philosophy and method of the mod. |
Refusing? That seems rather strong.
The reason I haven't pursued trying to get on the panel is that it's a responsibility I don't have time for, or at least that I don't need to take the time for, especially on an ongoing basis. If I've "refused" to acknowledge my nomination, it's really more just a matter of never having gotten around to explaining that fact. Just getting involved in the discussions of some of the matters I'm most interested in or concerned about takes more time than I'd like. If I were on the panel, I would need to carefully evaluate every issue that's raised, which would involve even more time.
I'm sorry about being so "prickly" sometimes as Theseus put it in another thread. It's easy to get frustrated when we think we're right and have a hard time convincing each other.  I'd like to think we can avoid taking the occasional heated passions too personally, though.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cryptor
|
|
I was wondering, Alexman, or anyone else for that matter, if you have a AU like mod running on C3C at the moment, based on some of the easy to carry over PTW changes, such as the changes to the AI build often lists, possibly extended to new civs. Even if its not "official" or "balanced" it would be nice to have the AU mod running for C3C with a few suggested changes for everyone to experiment how suggested changes or old PTW changes effect balance and other factors in a AU like context.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
In the Statue of Zeus thread, we are experiencing difficulty in narrowing down the proposals for voting.
Any voting system to choose between more than one proposal will produce flawed results once in a while, but here are the proposed voting systems so far:
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
This is how it currently works:
We vote for a proposal when we think it will improve the game from what is already in the mod.
An approved change doesn't end the process. If there is another proposal for consideration, the panel will vote for it if they consider that it's better than what's in place already. |
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
I still like my idea of having each panelist suggest his preference for weakening the wonder, having a vote among those, and having a run-off if none of those gets a majority. That would avoid creating a bias based on which of the ideas is chosen to put up for a vote first. |
quote:
Originally posted by vulture
How about the good old single transferable vote system, just to make life confusing; although it is actually less confusing than it sounds.
Say there are 4 options: A, B, C and D. Each voter lists the options in order of preference. You then go through a loop of discarding the option(s) with the lowest number of votes, and reallocating those votes according to their next preference.
e.g. 5 voters, 4 options. Each lists their order of preference as
1) ABCD
2) ACBD
3) BACD
4) BCAD
5) CBAD
So after the initial round, A has 2 votes, B has 2 votes, C has 1 vote and D has no votes.
So we delete option D, and re-allocate it's votes. There are none, so this doesn't take long. Then we delete option C, since it is the next least popular. That vote (number (5)) is reallocated. The second preference there is B, so 5's vote is added to B's total, giving A 2 votes and B 3. B wins.
The reason for doing this procedure rather than going for a simple majority is basically to compensate for a split of the protest vote. For example, suppose at the next US election, the candidates are Bush, Dean and Hillary Clinton standing as an independent  Bush gets 40%, Dean and Clinton both get 30%. But all the Dean and Clinton supporters want Bush out. First past the post leaves him in. STV would mean that Hillary got eliminated, with her supporters votes going to their second choice candidate (which one assumes would be Dean - or there might be a 'even Bush is better than Dean' thing going on).
Back to the AU. We could either adopt the most popular choice after transferable voting (or poll between the two most popular choices), or use this as a method to select which option gets put to a yes/no vote first. |
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
The biggest problem I have with such a system that doesn't involve comparing each proposal head-to-head against every other proposal, is that votes between similar proposals can get split, while a third (more unique) proposal might win even though it would not win head-to-head against either of the other two proposals.
But a single vote asking panel members to order the proposals will be sufficient to determine any head-to-head winner, although not exactly by the single transferable vote system described above.
Example of a difficult vote:
Four proposals, A, B, C, D
Five voters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
A and B are similar and can be considered almost the same proposal.
C, D are unique.
Voter 1: ABCD
Voter 2: BACD
Voter 3: CBAD
Voter 4: DABC
Voter 5: CBAD
Note that A and B are always next to each other, as they are almost the same idea.
Under nbarclays system, C would win, even though more panelists prefer the A/B proposal over C.
Under the transferable vote system, A would win, even though most panelists prefer B over A.
But if we move down the list, comparing A to B, then the winner against C, and then the winner against D, (essentially what we have been doing) B would win, as I think it should.
|
quote:
Originally posted by vulture
It is worth bearing in mind "arrow's theorem" (IIRC), which amounts to there being no voting system which doesn't throw up pathological results once in a while, although some do better than others. Actually there is one which perfectly represents the voting population: one man, one vote (as done by Terry Pratchett: "The patrician was the Man. He had the Vote.")
The flaw in a simple vote is fairly obvious. The flaw in single transferable vote system is pretty much what Alexman says - there are combinations of cotes that leave the 'wrong' answer in place,
The flaw (or one of the flaws - most systems can fail in a variety of amusing ways) in Alexman's proposal is this:
3 voters, 4 options, voting in order of preference
1) ABCD
2) CDAB
3) BCAD
compare A to B: A comes ahead of B twice. Compare A to C: C beats A twice, so become the preferred choice. compare C to D: C always beats D. So we have a clear winner: C. Or do we? Compare C to B: B beats C twice.
So B beats C, C beats A, A beats B. Rock-paper-scissors scenario, where it is impossible to chose a winner.
Incidentally, using tiebreakers under STV, A, B and C all get one vote, so there is no lowest candiate to throw away (well, apart from D, but that doesn't change anything at this stage). Looking at the second preferences as a tiebreaker, B, C and D all get one vote. D is gone, so 1)'s vote goes to his third choice - C. C wins the tiebreak 2-1 (if there is a tie at this stage, you can repeat the process of course). |
quote:
Originally posted by sabrewolf
or, you could give everyone a vote for each x from {+2, +1, 0, -1}. where 0 can be used more than once.
the higher average wins. at a tie, the one with the smaller standard devation wins (so +1+1 is better than +2+0).
next vote decides, how many things get included.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
How about this:
1) Panelists vote for all proposals in order of preference.
2) The head-to-head method is used, going down the list of proposals, to determine a potential winner.
3) The winner is then compared head-to-head against all other proposals to make sure it wins against all of them. If it does, we have a result.
4) If the 'winner' actually loses to another proposal in head-to-head, then there is a paper-rock-scissors cycle that we need to break. A transferable-vote system is used until one of the proposals in that cycle is eliminated. After the cycle is broken, a clear winner should be able to be determined.
Am I missing something? Notice how all the above requires just one single action from each panel member: order the proposals.
Edit: I guess we can still have a tie when using the TVS to eliminate proposals (example: ABC, BCA, CAB). In that case, we're in big trouble no matter what system we use though. Perhaps a public poll to eliminate one (or more, in case of a tie) of the choices in the cycle?
Last edited by alexman on 15-01-2004 at 19:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
I realize there are differing opinions and mine is not necessarily the most popular, but here it is...
Any democratic or committee sort of venture MUST have a guiding hand, a president, an executive in charge of pushing, poking, prodding when necessary. Must. I know some of us are coders - if noone drives the project, what happens to it? That's right, nothing good.
Even in the new voting model proposed, we're still going to need someone to realize when we're wallowing in "Design by Committee" and call for a vote on something.
Someone has to drive.
I think - even though it was far less formal than it is now - alexman did a phenomenal job of this in previous versions, plucking things out of the AU ether(forums) and (I assume getting a feel for consensus, tempered by his own knowledge) simply and efficiently implemented changes. If something didn't meet with approval, it was rechanged or removed.
The point is, it worked. The mod actually happened. No, it wasn't always right, I'll grant that.
But without a project manager type, we will slowly drift into design-by-committee, as seen in the SoZ discussion for one. The fact that none of us can agree on how to change it, or even on what to vote about, tells me that we really need someone in the driver's seat, sucking it up from time to time and being the "bad guy", acting unilaterally, though not randomly.
I don't care what voting model we pick, but I propose we also pick a mod-moderator of sorts. Some who decides when things have gone beyond the point of progress, when things need voting on, when things need to be tabled for the time being, and yes, even what to vote on.
I nominate alexman due to his past experience and excellence in this role, though it may be more work/responsibility than he wants any more. I'm sure it was a lot to manage way back before we had a panel and is undoubtedly moreso now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
In the absence of a "driver" here's an idea I copied from the SoZ thread, which I daftly posted in the wrong place.
----
(Here's a thought - instead of gathering _all_ proposed ideas, gather only those that have been "seconded" by someone other than the originator? Like lockstep's post would be considered seconding my "move the wonder to a later tech" proposal. Just an idea to trim down the number of single-supporter, no-votes ideas that might potentially get on the ballot.)
----
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
I really dislike the "SoZ style" of voting. It just adds another level of complication to something that was designed to be a simplificator, the AU mod panel.
Additionally, I dislike the ranking system for our purposes on methodological grounds. Some proposed changes I simply cannot support, even for half a vote, or even a quarter of a vote.
I thought the original idea was to only implement changes that received general consensus from the community and/or panel, and leave controversial items out of the mod. With the ranking system under consideration, every proposal will end up in a implemented change, resulting in a "that sounds cool - flavor of the week" type mod, one that ultimately lacks focus.
I much prefer the system I set up originally: changes are debated by the community, and only if there's an impasse does the panel step in and make a verdict.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
|
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
If you dislike a proposal, simply rank the "no change" option higher than that proposal! If the majority of the panel members do the same, there is no way that proposal will get implemented.
Edit: Also, not all proposals make it into the voting. Only proposals that have received some support from previous discussion.
Last edited by alexman on 16-01-2004 at 21:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
With a new system whereby we rank all options on all suggestions, there's bound to be more changes than if we just stuck to the "minimalist" approach we've used so far. Why? Because every proposal is bound to have it's supporters (who rank it high), and those neutral to it (who rank it medium), resulting in a high vote count overall. So far in the voting there's been a major preference for making changes rather than leaving well enough alone, probably because it's fun to make a mod.
If we do use the system, I suggest we make the "no change" option count for a lot more than any of the other votes. This is the only way of making sure we're not just changing stuff for the sake of change.
Again, I dislike the idea of voting on every single issue. But perhaps this is a necessary evil to get the mod off the ground. Afterward, however, I would prefer if we went back to the old system.
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 16-01-2004 at 21:53
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-12-2003 02:48
|