28-04-2004 23:22									#1
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Sorry - I missed this thread & Googlies mail. Been swamped recently.

As for setting up the game - I would not mind doing it, however my experience in modding the txt files is very limited.

I usually don't get complaints about giving players fair starting positions and have quite some experience in making/adapting maps, so if the game is pretty much vanilla otherwise I can do it, but if you're planning on various custom alterations to aspects not normally set at the start of the game (such as disabling facilities, changing tech prereqs or characteristics of units or factions) I really cannot recommend myself.

I have not really done this before and would not like to have the game restart 8 times before I get it right.

Likewise - if beefing up the AI - I have usually resorted to the simply method of giving them more or larger bases, better territory and a tech head start rather than tinkering with the way they behave.

What would be workable would be either no modifications or I am supplied a finished alphax.txt done by someone else. Other than this I am fine on doing it.

	29-04-2004 00:40									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Buster:

either Darsnan or I (or both) can work with you via e-mail (or your Civgaming chatroom) re .txt alterations (D's done more imaginative stuff than I have, such as nerbegas missiles, etc - all I've done is cruiser probes)

We're both pretty comfortable with tweaking the AI's attitude to diplomacy, strategy, etc thru the Scenario Editor, which also lets you disable SP's etc etc - pretty much self-explanatory once you get into it

But obviously neither D nor I would see the map or start positions - but you're pretty much an expert at those anyway

That would work

G.

	29-04-2004 00:42									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I wonder about including native grav busters

	29-04-2004 05:45									#4
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Googlie Buster: either Darsnan or I (or both) can work with you via e-mail (or your Civgaming chatroom) re .txt alterations (D's done more imaginative stuff than I have, such as nerbegas missiles, etc - all I've done is cruiser probes) We're both pretty comfortable with tweaking the AI's attitude to diplomacy, strategy, etc thru the Scenario Editor, which also lets you disable SP's etc etc - pretty much self-explanatory once you get into it But obviously neither D nor I would see the map or start positions - but you're pretty much an expert at those anyway That would work G.

I agree with Googlie's assessment. The quickest way would be to do screen captures and forward synopsis of the impacts of each tweak, which buster could then choose from as he feels appropriate from each subcategory (i.e. Googlie and I wouldn't know what fine tweaks buster had done to the game, even though we fed him the variables! ). Could be very interesting how buster sets up the game, as well as possibly opening new horizens for busters CMN'ing capabilities!

Of course that would mean Googlie and I would have to share all of our CMN'ing secrets with each other first - no way would we each give up all of our well guarded secrets, thus creating an Uber-CMN, without at least getting something in return.......


D

	29-04-2004 13:37									#5
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

One would hope that the nature and intent of the tweaks that D & G provide to Buster would be shared with the rest of us as specifically as possible so that everyone has the same insight into the setup. I enjoy the surprises that CMN's are able to put into the game, so I don't really want to know everything that D & G have up their sleeves, or precisely what Buster is going to do, but it might not be too fair if D & G know too many things that the rest of us do not know about what Buster is thinking about. It could also diminish their own enjoyment of the game if they had inside dope that they were trying not to take advantage of and/or to edit out of their conversations with their factionmates.

Of course, we could all make suggestions for Buster

(How about taking all the fungus and lurking Native Life out of Gaia and putting it into Morganland ?)

	29-04-2004 19:41									#6
	Put an end to popups!

I think all that D&G is going to do is to help buster to acheive whatever change is needed in alpha.txt to reach what we decided. I do not think buster is going to let anybody know what surprises he's going to put into the game for us.

	29-04-2004 21:07									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Just to ensure I am current with the scene.

If I get it correctly we are looking at 4 factions:

Morgan
Sparta
Gaia
Angels

large map - normal climate - 50 to 70% ocean- normal level of natives

AI - if any - not yet worked out and amount of bolstering also not decided.
Tweaks/modifications to game - undecided - lots of very diverse opinions from what I see.
Settings & difficulty level - undecided.
Except shared victory option off (wipe the rest, buy them out or transcend - end of game, only one winner)

As we have a mix of factions and at least sparta already started honing the slogans - I guess it should be a map where all playstyles can be done (ie: not each on an Island far apart & nobody in danger of getting attacked on turn three either).

Please correct me if I missed something and/or confirm.

	29-04-2004 21:09									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I guess difficulty Transcend, as usual?

	29-04-2004 21:19									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by johndmuller One would hope that the nature and intent of the tweaks that D & G provide to Buster would be shared with the rest of us as specifically as possible so that everyone has the same insight into the setup.

Thats not going to happen. Personally I am loathe to share all of my secrets, and is the primary reason I resisted Rubin's suggestions I write a guide for CMN'ing, as people reading such a guide could then be aware of all the sneaky CMN tricks and strategies, and design strategies to counter them.
A good idea Googlie has is to create a "CMN Smoking Room", where CMN's can share ideas, strategies, etc. . However here again I envision this to be more of an assistance tool for game creation, as opposed to creating a standing list of definitive strategies used by various CMN's. I am pretty sure it will be starting up at CGN soon. FYI.

quote: I enjoy the surprises that CMN's are able to put into the game, so I don't really want to know everything that D & G have up their sleeves, or precisely what Buster is going to do, but it might not be too fair if D & G know too many things that the rest of us do not know about what Buster is thinking about. It could also diminish their own enjoyment of the game if they had inside dope that they were trying not to take advantage of and/or to edit out of their conversations with their factionmates.

I can't speak for Googlie, but assuming buster does sign on to be the CMN, then all I plan on doing is opening up my playbook to him, with a short synopsis on each item in my playbook. What buster chooses from there is completely up to him, and I will have no knowledge of what he tweaked, nor how he has tweaked it.

quote: Of course, we could all make suggestions for Buster

Isn't that the purpose of all the threads here deciding which Factions are going to be played, how big the Planet is, the land/ water ratio, etc.?


D

	29-04-2004 23:49									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by buster large map - normal climate - 50 to 70% ocean- normal level of natives

Slightly les than Large map, although around there, and what was voted for was the low end of 40-60% water. However that's just a guide, IIRC, and so tweak it as you see fit to make a good game

quote: Originally posted by buster Settings & difficulty level - undecided.

Transcend I think was already decided.

Everything else sounds great

	30-04-2004 00:13									#11
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Darsnan Thats not going to happen. Personally I am loathe to share all of my secrets, and is the primary reason I resisted Rubin's suggestions I write a guide for CMN'ing, as people reading such a guide could then be aware of all the sneaky CMN tricks and strategies, and design strategies to counter them.

IMHO it's not important to know the exact way the AIs could be boosted, but I do hope any and all changes to the alphax.txt will be made public and agreed upon.

	30-04-2004 04:45									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Drogue, since the majority vote on may size was huge, i don't think "slightly less than large" was agreed on at all

C

	30-04-2004 04:50									#13
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Actually only 13 of the 42 votes voted for Huge. So there's an absolute majority for a non-huge map.

(Doesn't taking the average seems fairest to you?)

	30-04-2004 04:55									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Maniac IMHO it's not important to know the exact way the AIs could be boosted, but I do hope any and all changes to the alphax.txt will be made public and agreed upon.

The only section of the alpha(x).txt file that gets embedded into a game is the #UNITS Section (where Googlie's Probe Cruiser line goes). These units can then be viewed via the Datalinks in the Units Section. There won't be a text blurb for them, but you can at least see their attributes. FYI.

quote: Drogue, since the majority vote on may size was huge, i don't think "slightly less than large" was agreed on at all

I'd have to agree with this statement. Isn't this vote supposed to be a case of Majority Rules, and not a case where the decision is skewed to reflect a statistical center of the voting pattern? If it is the latter, it would make it exceedingly difficult for the person setting up the game to decypher the exact settings for the game.


D

	30-04-2004 05:11									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Besides the issue what the majority wants, there's also another element to consider when deciding what map size to take. Namely the fact that the Spartans are most powerful on a tiny map, and become weaker compared to other factions the larger the map becomes. Though Angels can also play well as builders and thus it's less worse for them, the same counts for them: the larger the map is, the further other factions are away from them, and thus the less they can use their probe skills. So IMHO, even if a majority was in favour of a huge map, I think for the fairness of the game and giving all factions a decent chance, the map size should be absolutely at max Large size, and preferably smaller. "Standard" is the medium map size, so even on Large builders will still have the better end of the deal...

	30-04-2004 05:26									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

But Maniac, if the majority wants a huge map and not a large one...Who are you to deny them?

	30-04-2004 05:31									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I can try to appeal to everybody's sense of fairplay, and challenge you to win this game by having good skills, and not by having very favourable game settings.

Besides, there is no majority for a huge map...

	30-04-2004 08:09									#18
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Well we can fairly say that some factions want standard map and other factions want huge map. So it seems to me that large is a good conpromise.

	30-04-2004 08:20									#19
	Support Apolyton

Yeah, I wasn't saying that the masses say huge, merely that the modal answer was huge not "slightly less than large". I'm all for a huge map from a morganic point of view, but know it'd be terrible for the spartans, and therefore huge, going against the modal vote, but perhaps closer to a mean.

And in fairness, Maniac, there's no majority for any map. Should we then not have a demo-game?

C

	30-04-2004 08:23									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Chaunk I'm all for a huge map from a morganic point of view, but know it'd be terrible for the spartans, and therefore huge, going against the modal vote, but perhaps closer to a mean.

This really shows you really want huge I suppose.

	30-04-2004 09:13									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

We should try a preferential voting system for map sizes. The only problem is who would be trusted to count all the votes. Actually, if the voting was transparent (everyone's vote visible to the entire public) then these results would be fair.

	30-04-2004 14:01									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Jamski Simple MULTIPLE CHOICE poll. If no single option gets 50% or more, then the winner will be determined by taking the AVERAGE result in each category, and rounding up or down to the nearest whole number. Make sense? World Size Tiny Small Standard Large Huge

A little reminder of the setup Jam gave...

	30-04-2004 15:32									#23
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Oh yeah, another argument against a huge map size: The larger the map is, the longer it will take before factions meet each other. And what were the most entertaining years of the previous ACDG: those while you were still in solitude, or those while you had interaction with other factions?

	30-04-2004 15:57									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Chaunk Yeah, I wasn't saying that the masses say huge, merely that the modal answer was huge not "slightly less than large". I'm all for a huge map from a morganic point of view, but know it'd be terrible for the spartans, and therefore huge, going against the modal vote, but perhaps closer to a mean.

Actually, as I showed in that thread, the mean vote is 3.714, counting tiny and 1, huge as 5, and averaging. Since 3 is standard and 4 is large, 3.714 is a little smaller than large.

quote: Originally posted by Chaunk And in fairness, Maniac, there's no majority for any map. Should we then not have a demo-game?

No, we take the mean, as Jamski said at the begining, and as I worked out. Everyone chooses the option they want, and we work out the mean, which is used.

Straight majority isn't the way to do it either. If 12 people want a tiny map, and 13 a huge, surely a standard is the fairest (or slightly bigger than standard), not a huge, because it has a majority.

	30-04-2004 16:09									#25
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Chaunk Drogue, since the majority vote on may size was huge, i don't think "slightly less than large" was agreed on at all

quote: Originally posted by Darsnan I'd have to agree with this statement. Isn't this vote supposed to be a case of Majority Rules, and not a case where the decision is skewed to reflect a statistical center of the voting pattern? If it is the latter, it would make it exceedingly difficult for the person setting up the game to decypher the exact settings for the game.

No. There was no majority, and as was posted by Jamski when starting the poll, and has been used in all the ACDGs since decisions in DG1, when it is a case of a "small, medium, large" poll, the average is worked out.

There was no majority for huge, as Maniac said, there was 13/42 people voting for it. Even with a majority, imagine this scenario:
12 people vote for tiny
13 people vote for huge
What is fairest? IMHO, something slightly larger than standard. If someone wants to play a tiny game, they will be at a significant disadvantage if the map size is huge, so thats 12 people, almost half, who have their worst map size possible.

That is why we have always used the mean, because it is fairest.

The decision is not skewed, it is how the poll was publicised, and the rules on which we voted. Therefore there are two options, either disregard the poll, and vote again, stating that it will use the majority option (though what happens when there's no majority I don't know) or we accept the poll and the rules that were posted with it. IMHO, if people want to vote again, let buster make the poll, using whatever rules he believes is fairest, and let him interpret it as he wishes. However you cannot accept the votes cast in that poll while not accepting the rules that were used for it.

As always, it is up to the GM to decide the map size, these are just a guide. If buster wants to use one of the pre-sized maps, then large would be the best option, due to being the closest to the average vote. If buster wants to do a different map size of his choosing (even shape, could be fun ) then something around the mean, slightly smaller than large, would be the best, IMHO. But the polls are just a guide, and buster can use them as he wishes, IMHO.

	30-04-2004 18:40									#26
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Drogue If buster wants to do a different map size of his choosing (even shape, could be fun )

Buster, the Ringworld Engineer???

	30-04-2004 18:45									#27
	Inflate your Upload Space

my thoughts exactly...

	30-04-2004 18:48									#28
	Increase the size of your Attachments

There are some points to consider here:

1) Minority rights

As far as game settings go most will tend to vote for maps/settings etc that suit their playstyles. A situation could arise where the agreed upon parameters would effectively make it impossible for someone wanting a different playstyle.

For instance map so large and each player on far apart islands that only build would be a realistic playstyle, because there is no or only very cumbersome & resourcedemanding ways to attack anyone until the game is well progressed - at which time factions suited for agression will usually be so lagging in tech they no longer pose a threat. Likewise placing everyone so close that hostilities could break out on turn 5 makes it hard on the builders.

As the next game will have a mix of playstyles it needs to be setup so that everyone has a chance. That means regardless of how large the map players decide to use players should not be too far apart and they should be connected by land. If they are not it is in my view simpy not viable for an agressive player. Placing players two & two would likely be death sentence to the the builder paired with the agressor and so place that faction at a huge disadvantage.

Thus it must be something like all 4 connected - not close or on a huge blob of land but connected with some turns & twists and narrow points - builders having about the same distance to agressively disposed factions (ie: you could come under attack well before planes and choppers arrive on the scene by an army of worms or rovers - not because there is not enough land for everybody but because the others are close enough that it is a realistic possibility if that is the way they decide your relations should develop & so you need to take the threat seriously and cannot just ignore defenses knowing the worst you are likely to face is a unity rover landed from a boat in 2130).

At least that is how I see it. In my view deciding on a different setup means agressive factions need to accept that they will probably end of playing as handicapped builders or that you pick factions that benefit equally well or little from alterations to above setup.

Anyway my point is - three deciding on a setup that gives number four a major disadvantage just wont do if you want a fair game. In this case number four should either change faction or the choice should be overruled or I guess the fourth faction can accept to play with a handicap.

Practically speaking the choices made here as I see it necessitates a few limitations:

a) As we have a green player (Gaia) - amount of worms & fungus should be standard (none or few = big disadvantage, lots = big advantage)

b) Mix of build and agressive factions = factions landbound and spaced so that you will be likely meet each other on turn 20 or so.

c) most other choices should be - in my opinion left at default. At least if some choice is decided to be changed from default - it should compensated by some other choice. Say you turn on steal tech (good for agressors) something else should be turned the other way (example getting artefacts from pods) meaning more techs will need to be actually researched. Still in my view it is not completely fair as Gaia (with their worms) will tend to do more podpopping than others but maybe that could be balanced by cranking up the amount of fungus.

And now when I am at it - the reason some factions are considered "underpowered" is in my opinion because most setups tend to favor build for the simple reason that usually pbems are played 4 or so instead of seven and on larger maps.

I personally would have no problem playing believers in a seven player game on the standard size planet map that comes with SMAC, knowing there is likely at least a couple of unfortunate players not too far away who are undoubtedly behind with their tithes.

On Angels we will fix the main impact of the probe bug with a rule (ie: if they are running at 4 probe they are immune regardless of whether the game allows you to probe them or not). Meaning check their SE settings from the comm link before probing and if they are at above three don't do it. I will work it out in detail - it does not solve all complexities but will take care of the most damaging ones.

Anyway - that my view in generalized terms. If it seems "the people" is with me I will submit one list of settings etc for approval/disapproval. If there are lots of dissenting voices I guess we will need a whole series of polls to decide on individual factors & then on how to balance it out in the end.

	30-04-2004 18:58									#29
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

What else can I say besides

	30-04-2004 19:08									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I voted standard map because I was a DA at the time and I would want to change my vote to huge now that I'm a Gaian. However this seems unecessary since what buster said seems very reasonable to me.

I do not have many MP experiences. One thing I have a little concern is that if factions will meet around 20 turns, would it be likely a faction could be wiped out by the Spartans before it has time to develop the necessary defense technology? I do not wish a faction be eliminated this early.