 |
| |
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tall Stranger
I wouldn't mind the ivory requirement IF SoZ wasn't such a potential game breaker. If its game impact was no greater than, say, Colossus, then it would be a cute, secondary Wonder that could be considered a "bonus" Wonder for those lucky enough to be near ivory.
|
Like maybe simply rebalancing the EFFECTS of the SoZ might make the Ivory requirement less painful and missing the wonder for whatever reason no more painful than missing Colossus...
quote:
As it stands, I'd urge our distinguished panel to first eliminate the ivory requirement and see how that affects things. As Arrian points out, it's hard to determine how that change will affect the choice the AIs make in which wonders to pursue and thus how easy it is for the human to get it.
|
I agree with that, but I also agree with the first point, which, contrary to...
quote:
Once we see how that works, we can then figure out whether AC is too powerful or whether the SoZ should produce them less frequently (if possible). |
... sounds like we should try two fixes independently.
1. Remove Ivory requirement and observe. Post analysis.
2. Reinstate Ivory requirement and balance the effects of the wonder. Observe. Post analysis.
3. Reconcile the observations from 1. and 2. to decide if changing either the requirements of the wonder(ivory, shields, upkeep) alone or the effects(unit frequency, unit strength, culture) alone will be sufficient.
4. THEN, based on that analysis, come up with a merged gameplan that takes into account the information fro the two isolated and minimal tests.
I think part of the reason this debate keeps bouncing back and forth is that a)we're debating both the requirements and the effects, sometimes in isolation, sometimes in combination and b)there hasn't been any testing that I'd call conclusive.
Let's pick either the requirements/cost or the effects and tinker with that. As it stands, we're trying to balance 3 things all at one go: a Wonder, free units, and (essentially) a Unique Unit.
I think we can - at least initially - separate AC from the SoZ and start by tinkering with just one of them. I'd say let's tinker with the front-end of the Wonder(requirements/cost) and ignore the back-end(effects) as well as the AC. There's already a precedent for 3-2-2 units in the Ancient Age, so it's not out of line with its contemporaries, and there's no shortage of 3-defense units, either.
That's just my opinion, I may be wrong, but I'd like to see us work on just one end of the wonder for a first run. It just might be enough.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
If the Ivory requirement from the Wonder is removed, then clearly the Shield cost of the Statue of Zeus must go up.
But we only need to worry about this later. The question now is do we want the Statue of Zeus to require Ivory or not? Game balance issues are neither here nor there, because we can make it as powerful or as weak as we want to afterward (we've already semi-decided that it's a good idea with the Ivory requirement).
Like I've said previously, the Wonder cascade thing is not really an issue. The AI prebuilds for always starts building a Wonder at some point, regardless of which are available. It even sometimes prebuilds for two. This means that by the time Wonder cascade begins, the AI has already invested a bunch of Shields. The Statue of Zeus simply gives it more options to switch to when it loses the race to a particular Wonder. Would you rather have an AI that wastes 200 Shields because it has nothing big to build, or one that jumps to another Wonder instead?
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Personally I think ducki's suggestion misses the mark.
Because securing the Statue of Zeus is more or less a random thing with the Ivory requirement, you would have to play a ridiculous number of games to determine whether it's preferable as it is or with the Ivory requirement removed.
I can even reasonably guess at the answers to your two test cases: 1) "the Statue of Zeus is too cheap and powerful when it does not require Ivory", and 2) "the Statue of Zeus is too powerful and random when it requires Ivory". When know these things already, what's the point in testing them?
Removing the Ivory requirement is somethat that adds strategic options, it has nothing to do with game balance, which must be dealt with seperately.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
The problem is that the AI, depending on its level of expansion, often builds all available Wonders at the same time! In this case one less commonly available Wonder in the Ancient Age is a good thing. |
I've never seen that happen in Debug mode. Two or three appears to be the maximum. Perhaps only on Huge map games?
It's clear that the AI spends too many resources early on prebuilding Wonders, but that's something we cannot help.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Come to think of it, I have seen that effect (in a Boot Camp game over at MZO). However, correct me if I'm wrong, but the civs you mention:
1. Only have a few cities (around 4-5), and that's basically the number of Wonders that are availalbe to build at that point, without the Statue of Zeus.
2. Are isolated, probably not competitors, and therefore are good only for stealing Wonders from the rest of the main civs.
In any case, what you've mentioned is a special case (ha!), so it's not really a good argument in this case (ha! ha!).
I'll run some tests in Debug mode without the Ivory requirement to see if the AI really cannot handle it.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Personally I think ducki's suggestion misses the mark.
|
I probably didn't express myself clearly enough because...
quote:
Removing the Ivory requirement is somethat that adds strategic options, it has nothing to do with game balance, which must be dealt with seperately.
|
That was my entire point. We shouldn't be nominally debating the balance of one thing when in fact we are debating the balance of several and muddying the waters.
Yes or no, "Change requirements/cost of wonder?". Fine with me either way.
Decide this, THEN we can move on to
"How do we balance AC's strength, production rate, and (in effect) production bonus(in shields)?"
All I was trying to say was that these are separate and the options and needs of the latter are dependent on the decision made for the former, IMO.
I just didn't say if well, but your last sentence was exactly what I was trying to say. They are separate issues and should be treated as such, since the one has a meaningful impact on the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
I just didn't say if well, but your last sentence was exactly what I was trying to say. They are separate issues and should be treated as such, since the one has a meaningful impact on the other.
|
ducki, I thought you were calling to test both things independently. I'm doubtful such tests would reveal anything we do not already know. I think it's a decision we must make: "Should we remove the Ivory requirement, which increases the strategic options for the human player instead of luck-of-the-draw game experiences, or just leave well enough alone." Personally I do not feel that the game is "well enough" with the stock version instantiation of the Statue of Zeus.
quote:
Success in Civ (ESPECIALLY for the AI civs) is built upon a foundation that is very much 'luck of the draw'.
|
I feel exactly the opposite way. As a strategy game, success in Civ3 should be obtained through good decisions rather than "what the RNG serves up today". The randomness element of the game needs to be present to be sure, but it should occur in numerous minor instances, not in few major ones. The whole point of strategy is to minimize luck, and when this is impossible strategy goes out the window. Sure, life is filled with lucky and unlucky events that define our experiences, but Civ3 is not life, it's a strategy game.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
The way I look at the game, the starting position is luck and what you do with that starting position is skill. Different starting positions present different opportunities to exploit and different challenges to overcome. The ultimate test of a player's skill is not measured against some particular absolute standard such as score, but rather by making the best possible use of the opportunities available in a particular game. That's why we regard Aeson's "So Very Cold" game as such a great accomplishment.
And that's why I like having the SoZ tied to ivory: it increases the variety of opportunities and challenges from one game to the next. In some games, you get to build the SoZ and adapt your strategy to use it. In some, you have to cope with a neighbor who has it. And in many, it's not really a factor because the only ivory in the world is halfway around the globe.
Without the ivory requirement, in theory, we have more choices in every game. But in practice, such choices easily wear down into ruts where we do more or less the same thing game after game unless we have a special reason to do something different. (At least I know that happens with me.) The ivory requirement - and the fact that if you have ivory, chances are that there's an AI nearby that has it too - is a pretty good rut-shaker.
Further, does eliminating the ivory requirement eliminate the random luck factor? Only if the human player takes advantage of the change to build the SoZ himself. Otherwise, the random luck factor is merely deferred from the time when the map is generated to the time when AIs actually build their wonders. From the perspective of comparison games, that actually makes things more random, not less, because less of the luck element is predetermined when the game is set up.
Note that eliminating the ivory requirement reduces the luck factor only to the extent that building the SoZ ourselves instead of letting an AI get it is worthwhile for us humans. That is, if the change works in our favor at the expense of the AIs (and favoring warmongers over builders in the process), it reduces the luck factor. Otherwise, it might make the luck factor less visible but it does not actually reduce the luck factor.
On the other hand, I agree with Dominae that having a single luck factor with too much importance hurts the game. That's why I'd like to see the power of the SoZ toned down regardless of whether or not we eliminate the ivory requirement.
Nathan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
Nathan, you're almost there. 
You annunciated quite well my feelings about the roles of luck and skill in the game... consider my response to Dominae being in complete agreement with same (that's what I meant by "foundation"... prolly the wrong word, at least without further context).
But what I'm further trying to say is that "positive" luck is part of the game too, for both us and the AI civs.
Would you eliminate the possibility of one or more civs getting, oh, 5 cows at the start? 3 luxuries? A Settler from a hut? A weak-*ss SCI civ next door?
Think both as the human player, and in the interests of KAIs being generated.
I think it's cool.
I also think that the SoZ is just not that almighty powerful. 3.2.2 units? Non-upgradeable? Can't generate MGLs?
Heck, on reflection, is the positive luck of getting ivory all that much better than the positive luck of getting horses or iron when your neighbor doesn't? 
BTW, does anybody have a problem with the Iron Works?
* Theseus blows a raspberry at everyone.
Even if it IS all that powerful, I'd still rather keep it... the odds of it helping 1) a KAI or 2) a marginal AI civ, on average, are prolly equal or better to it helping the human player.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
I also think that the SoZ is just not that almighty powerful. 3.2.2 units? Non-upgradeable? Can't generate MGLs? |
Clearly, you have little experience actually using those guys. (Edit: either that or your luck with them wasn't all that good.) The fact is that Ancient Cavalry can generate MGLs, and indeed are the most potent unit of the ancient era for doing so (since their extra hit point and ability to retreat makes elites more likely to survive long enough to generate leaders). And Ancient Cavalry armies are just plain awesome. Basically, the AC is a Gallic Swordsman with an extra hit point - for free, every five turns until Metallurgy.
Granted, the lack of upgradability creates something of a "use it or lose it" phenomenon for those who otherwise would not fight in the early game. But even in the cavalry era, ACs (like knights and Gallic Swordsmen) retain some value for picking off counterattacking AI longbowmen and MedInfs. And once the ACs do become fully obsolete, they can still be disbanded for shields. In the meantime, even if they are never used in combat, ACs help increase a civ's power and thus reduce the likelihood of AI attacks and extortion attempts.
Nathan
Last edited by nbarclay on 10-01-2004 at 07:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
|
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
I've used them Nathan, and yes they were STRONG. But not overwhelming.
Are you sure they can generate MGLs? I thought in vmxa1's thread it was determined that they could not (and I haven't gotten any... limited sample though, obviously).
I still maintain: They are a form of positive luck, and that's fine. For the AI civs, either a KAI-reinforcer or a mediocre civ savior. For the human player... yeah, it "limits" strategic choice, of course you'll build it, but so does great terrain (i.e., you're NOT going to build a pump on that great spot, or you're NOT going to build an IW?).
I'm not really worked up about it either way, btw. If the consensus is to change either the ivory requirement or the strength of the benefit, I'm cool. I just think it's a neat addition to the game, and maybe we should sit with it awhile to see what we think.
* Theseus is getting pumped for whatever this next 'official' patch is gonna be, and for the AU C3C Mod 1.0, and for the first game!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Yes/No: Remove Ivory requirement.
|
Yes. (Thanks alexman.)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Nor Me
|
|
No.
I still don't see the logic is fixing a wonder that you always build when you can by allowing you to always be able to build it.
This mod isn't designed to be used in MP and it is going to be used in AU games. In AU games, many of the players are going to use stock rules so the map designer is going to think about where the ivory is and about interesting human strategy and killer AIs. None of the changes under consideration for the AU mod are going to affect map design as muich as this does.
I don't see where the fairness that is appealed to here comes from the goals of the AU mod. Personally, I'd imagine that a wonder that may only make 1 of the AIs on another continent strong is a good idea.
The problem is that the human is almost always going to build it when they have ivory, not least because if they don't, an AI on the same continent will. That's why I'd like a cost increase. There are times when you can clear a continent of AI with the equivalent of 300 shields (and a barracks) in one city. This would be harder if you had to face ancient cavalry. That would make building the Statue a strategic decision.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-01-2004 21:27
(I think my first were under the 1.02 patch, and I've also gotten at least one with 1.12 installed after 1.02.)
|