 |
| |
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
No surprises, at least in my viewpoint... and exactly to your point: The balance between AI advantages and AI starting units, from level to level, is slightly off-kilter.
As an interesting sidenote, Nathan, any comments on differences in CP (esp. distance) and also the relevance of bonus/strategic terrain? I find the AI to be quite weak at CP in regards to sea/ocean bonuses, for instance, and I wonder if the *number* of Settlers available during REX might be related.
BTW, for anyone who hasn't done so, these kinds of 'tests' are quite interesting to watch. Nathan, you might like to post one or more of the saves for people to experience directly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Nathan, maybe you should also play a game on Mythic. I'm guessing that you will trounce it just as convincingly as you do on Emperor (and I mean how easy it will be for you, not how quickly you win or some other statistic). But of course you will claim that its scholastic value is just great, because you find it fun.
On that note, I say let's let the poll do the talking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, the reason why I view your position as tyrannical is that your only basis for opposing the additional difficulty level seems to be that you want players to do things the way you think is best instead of the way they prefer. That, in my book, constitutes tyranny.
|
Your use of the word 'tyranny' makes me think that you are simply afraid that you will not get your way. Remember, you are on the AU mod panel, while I am not; what tyrannical power do I hold? Does the mere defense of my point of view constitute tyranny?!
Tyranically(?), I want players to become better at Civ3. I do not think Mythic will help them in this regard. I also want them to have fun. You just want to have fun. The fact that you are not getting this leads me to tire of this discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Your use of the word 'tyranny' makes me think that you are simply afraid that you will not get your way. Remember, you are on the AU mod panel, while I am not; what tyrannical power do I hold? Does the mere defense of my point of view constitute tyranny?! |
Certainly, you have no direct power to exercise tyranny, but you do have a certain amount of influence around here. The reason why I argue that your attitude seems tyrannical to me is so people who do have direct power to decide will think twice about whether they should vote to support your position even if they personally, for their own games, agree with your preferences.
As of the time I write this, the poll has five votes in favor of Mythic Hero and four against. If the ayes get their way, the nays will not be harmed in any meaningful way (at least aside from the possible impact on MP game set-up as long as the same Mod is used for both SP and MP). But if the nays get their way, the ayes will be denied a choice. Unlike most situations the AU Mod panel faces, this is not a situation where we have to force a single choice onto everyone.
quote:
Tyranically(?), I want players to become better at Civ3. I do not think Mythic will help them in this regard. I also want them to have fun. You just want to have fun. The fact that you are not getting this leads me to tire of this discussion. |
Look at your first two words of explanation: "I want." Your focus is entirely on what you want, and not at all on giving other players what they want. That's why I view your attitude as tyrannical no matter how little power you have to enforce it. In contrast, while I certainly do have selfish interests involved, the orientation of my arguments is toward giving players a choice, not toward expecting anyone else to do what I prefer for them to do. Indeed, I don't really care whether players ever use the new level or not; I just want it to be there for however many do want to use it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
The reason why I argue that your attitude seems tyrannical to me is so people who do have direct power to decide will think twice about whether they should vote to support your position even if they personally, for their own games, agree with your preferences.
|
So, my arguments are tyrannical because you want the panel vote to go your way?! 
quote:
Look at your first two words of explanation: "I want." Your focus is entirely on what you want, and not at all on giving other players what they want.
|
What are you talking about? I fully support the current poll, because I do want AU to be "of and for the people". Just because I personally want to players to learn something when they come here does not mean I do not respect the majority's wishes, nor does it make me a tyrant.
This discussion is bordering on absurdity, just because you do not like my point of view. Just relax, the poll will take care of everything.
quote:
That's why I view your attitude as tyrannical no matter how little power you have to enforce it. In contrast, while I certainly do have selfish interests involved, the orientation of my arguments is toward giving players a choice, not toward expecting anyone else to do what I prefer for them to do. Indeed, I don't really care whether players ever use the new level or not; I just want it to be there for however many do want to use it. |
Might I point out that, from a certain perspective, the AU mod panel is in the business removing choices from players. Should Jags be 15 Shields or 10? Maybe two mods should be made, one for players who want to play with the 15-Shield version, one for players who like the old version. What makes it all right to debate this point ad nauseum but not difficulty levels? Who cares if the 10 Shield version is unbalanced if players are having fun with it?
alexman''s signature "Do you play Civ3 on autopilot" IMO captures the essence of the AU mod: to challenge players in new and interesting ways (while maintaining the "feel" of Civ3). My argument is that Mythic will do little-to-nothing to challenge players in new and interesting ways. If you cannot get past feelings of oppression and look at this non-tyrannical argument for what it is, then I believe we are at an impasse.
SO, let's get back to that poll. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
So, my arguments are tyrannical because you want the panel vote to go your way?! |
No. Your arguments are tyrannical because you want to see your preference imposed onto others even though you cannot make a case for why my proposal would harm you, or anyone else, in a meaningful way in the process.
In most of the decisions the AU Mod panel has to make, the only way some players can get what they want is to force their will onto others. Your example of the Jaguar warrior is a good one: in practical terms, the cost has to be the same for everyone. Granted, looking at any one change in isolation, we could offer different Mod versions. But with even just ten independent changes - and the AU Mod involves a lot more than that - it would take over a thousand different versions of the Mod to support every possible combination. In practice, we have no real choice to vote on what rules will be in place for everyone who uses the Mod. Even if we did something like offer a separate MP version, each version would force everyone who uses it to play by the same rule (unless they make a custom version for themselves)..
But the Mythic Hero difficulty level idea poses no such threat. It would be a new option, not something that displaces existing difficulty levels, so players who don't want to use it could simply ignore it. There would be no danger of their being stuck playing by rules that they oppose.
In addition, I reject the idea that a democratic vote automatically means that the decision of the majority is not tyrannical. If such a presumption were valid, racial segregation and even slavery would not have been tyrannical as long as a majority supported them. A wise majority will consider not only what it wants from a purely personal perspective but also how its decisions might interfere with the desires of minorities more than is genuinely necessary to protect the majority's own rights and interests. After all, people who are in the majority on one issue or at one time might be in a minority on another issue or at another time, in which case a precedent that the majority is supposed to avoid undercutting the desires of minorities any more than is truly necessary may turn around and benefit them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
Nathan, you are getting emotional here. Not Dominae, not anyone else. |
My main emotion is frustration at the nature of the arguments used against Mythic Hero. If Dominae just argued that he thought the extra level was unnecessary and left it at that, it wouldn't bother me nearly so much. But when he tries to superimpose his ideas about what goals players ought to be pursuing onto me and onto other players, that hits a raw nerve. And the fact that Dominae's attitude echoes the attitudes of people I've debated regarding real-world political issues, people who want to impose their will onto others whether they can show a genuine need to do so or not, makes the nerve a bit more raw than it would be otherwise.
quote:
I don't see the need for Mythic Hero, just as I wouldn't agree to add a level between Monarch and Emperor, or between Regent and Monarch, or whatever. Some transitions should be hard, to make people learn. Making things easy doesn't. |
There is a difference between being less hard and being easy. I've argued based on the editor parameters that the difference between Emperor and Mythic Hero is comparable in magnitude to most of the other differences in difficulty levels, and I haven't seen any real counter-arguments against my assertion. If the other transitions are not easy, I see no basis for claiming that the transition from Emperor to Mythic Hero would be easy.
Granted, for a player who routinely trounces Emperor, a jump to Mythic Hero would presumably be pretty easy and the choice to play on Mythic Hero would be more a matter of taste. But for a player whose margins of victory on Emperor aren't so great, it would be possible to move up to Mythic Hero sooner than the player would be ready to move up to Demigod. That's especially true in public games, where the tendency is for players not to pick a difficulty level where they risk suffering a defeat in public.
For players who want hard games, I see no basis for an argument that making Mythic Hero available would do more harm than good. On the contrary, the ability to move up to Mythic Hero before they feel ready for Demigod would, at a certain stage of players' development, give them the ability to play on a harder level than they would otherwise.
And for those of us who, for reasons of fun, want to be reasonably competitive through the whole game instead of starting in a big hole, I don't see any legitimate reason why you should take an interest in preventing us from having Mythic Hero available. The whole concept of "make people learn," as opposed to merely encouraging people to learn, strikes me as tyrannical - not to mention self-defeating if we respond by sticking to Emperor instead of by moving up to Demigod.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:17
|
|
The analogy is all I need to vote against a new difficulty level. You yourself said, that it would be easy to jump from Emperor to Mythic Hero (sorry, Theseus  ). I find such transitions less than encouraging. I had an easy time on Regent, and had almost no problems with Monarch. What did I learn between those two levels? Almost nothing, I'm afraid. Only the big jump up to Emperor made me actively seek ways to improve my game. The fun I get out of learning things returned, and I rediscovered the game. Like I said, taking the challenge out of the transition doesn't help educating anyone. It can even make it boring.
At one transition the AI gets that free Worker, right? So, should we now add a level that gives the AI every bonuses it has on Emperor, except for the extra Worker? I don't think so. It's a big difference, and so is the difference between Emperor, and Demigod. Can paople beat it? People can beat even Sid. Case closed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
If Dominae just argued that he thought the extra level was unnecessary and left it at that, it wouldn't bother me nearly so much. |
This remains the basis for my whole position here (just scroll up and follow the discussion); I believe Mythic is an unncessary transition between Emperor and Demigod within the context of the AU mod. Your sole argument for this new difficulty level is that it is necessary for your own personal enjoyment. We have to versions of "necessary" here, and I wish you would stick to one or the other.
Your feelings of oppression arise from you casting this debate as me spoiling your fun. But, you must understand that, while AU aims to please, it is more than just about what you or any other individual considers fun. Adding options to the AU mod until everyone is having their own version of fun is not something I consider a good idea. You may disagree. Fine. So a poll is started to see what other players want (because AU is a community), and you argue that a democratic vote is not the right way to approach this! So now we should include every option that a minority wants as a matter of course!?
And here's my emotional bit:
Calling my position tyrannical just because it is at odds with yours is one of the worst examples of rhetoric I have seen in a long time. I am sorry that we see AU so differently, but I retain the right to express my opinion no matter what you feel, think or say. The fact that you are not letting this issue end with the poll is particularly frustrating. Thankfully, the poll is going your way, so this will all be over soon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Modo44, what I said was that the jump from Emperor to Mythic Hero would be pretty easy for players who can easily trounce Emperor. In other words, it's an easy transition for people who have long since been ready to move upward but who have not yet done so because they don't find Demigod enjoyable. (Or, in my case, who find Demigod enjoyable only with a huge advantage in starting position - which, coincidentally, produces an effect a lot like Mythic Hero would with a more normal start.) That is a completely different situation from people who always try to play on the hardest level they can handle and are still on their way up, who would find Mythic Hero a serious challenge when they first try to make the transition because they would do so before their margin of advantage on Emperor becomes overwhelming.
The reason why the jump from Regent to Monarch is easy for good players is not that the jump itself is insignificant, but rather that the advantages the AIs get on Monarch are so slight that it doesn't take much of an advantage in human skill to offset them. I only played one game on Regent before moving up to Monarch. Just what I knew from other 4X games (especially Call to Power) plus a little understanding of how Civ 3 was different was enough. Moving up to playing Emperor on a regular basis took longer because it required a larger margin of superior skill compared with the AIs, and developing that margin of superiority took a while.
Similarly, for players who can win pretty consistently on Emperor but who don't dominate it yet, Mythic Hero would offer a serious increase in challenge. The reason why I wouldn't find Mythic Hero especially difficult now is not that the difference between it and Emperor is so small, but rather that I've stayed mostly on Emperor and kept improving for so long after I could have moved up if I found higher levels enjoyable. Had Mythic Hero been available when I was originally ready for it, I'm confident that I would have found the transition about as challenging as I did the transition from Monarch to Emperor.
Which brings me to one last point, a point you still don't seem to get. When going to a difficulty level above Emperor, what changes is not just the difficulty level but the fundamental nature of the game. On Emperor and below, the civs start essentially even. Whether a player falls behind or pulls ahead from that roughly even start depends on the player's level of skill and willingness to micromanage. The same can even be true on Demigod with a big enough advantage in starting position.
But on Demigod with comparable starting positions, the fundamental nature of the game becomes different. Instead of the game being one where the civilizations start roughly equal and a good enough player can compete through the entire game, the game becomes one of the human player starting with a clearly inferior civilization and having to dig out of a hole. Even Dominae admits that.
If players enjoy that different nature of the game, they move on from Emperor to Demigod, and perhaps from there to Deity or even Sid. But for those of us who want to start fairly even instead of having to dig out of a significant hole, the highest we can go and still play the kind of game we enjoy is Emperor, or maybe Demigod with a huge advantage in starting position if we're good enough. No possible amount of skill can change that reality, at least unless there is a whole new level of skill that no one in the entire Civ 3 community has discovered after more than three years of play.
So a Mythic Hero level would provide two advantages. (1) It would allow Emperor-level players to move up to a harder level sooner than if they have to wait until they are ready to tackle Demigod. And (2) it would provide a level that is harder than Emperor but that does not completely break the paradigm of the civs starting roughly even. In the absence of any significant offsetting disadvantages, I view that as an unambiguously good thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Dominae, when I started this thread, I specifically included the following: "If I'm the only one who feels that way, it's not that big a deal. But if there are others who find Emperor too easy but who find Demigod too hard to be fun, the situation is worth doing something about." My reason for bringing up the idea in the context of the AU Mod has never been just a matter of what I desire personally, but the belief that others could benefit from the new level as well.
Further, while I have expressed why the level has value to me in spite of the fact that it would not push me to my limits in terms of difficulty (and thus why it can have similar value to other highly skilled players whose feelings are similar to mine - Theseus, for example), I do not believe that players in my position would be the only ones who benefit. Players who would like more challenge than Emperor provides, but who have not yet developed their skills to a point where they feel ready to tackle Demigod, could also benefit from having a level in between.
Your persistent efforts to paint the issue as nothing more than me trying to get something I want personally misses that larger picture.
quote:
Calling my position tyrannical just because it is at odds with yours |
You still don't get it. I agree that calling someone's position tyrannical just because he disagrees with me would be a reprehensible abuse of rhetoric. The tyranny I see in your position has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with me, but rather with your idea that just because you believe that players ought to be pursuing certain goals, we ought to reject any proposal that could help players pursue different goals. If you presented a case that Mythic Hero would harm you (or someone else) in some meaningful way, I could view your position as merely an effort to protect your own interests (or the interests of others). But what I see is you trying - through the power of persuasion - to impose your preferences onto others even though letting them get what they want would not cost you or anyone else anything of consequence. And that, in my book, fits the definition of tyranny even if it is on a small scale.
By the way, it's not inconceivable that there could be a cultural difference involved in our concepts of tyranny. When I view your position as tyrannical, I view it as such not in the sense of a dictator as tyrant, but in the sense of tyranny of the majority. If you aren't as familiar with the concept of tyranny of the majority as I am, you may be reading connotations into what I write that I do not intend.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:17
|
|
I think I didn't make myself clear. The analogy is very much there, exactly as you present your difficulties with Demigod. My transition to Emperor was after I could completely dominate games on Monarch, not just win them. And I still found Emperor a big challenge. Yes, it was extreme, and only then did I learn new things about the game. If I understand you correctly, a very similar thing happened to you at the Demigod level. The additional AI Settler at Demigod is extreme, but so was the additional Worker at Emperor. The production bonus won't hurt me, if I don't get outREXed. I want to get outREXed on the next difficulty level, otherwise I won't need to learn anything new to beat it. Will play one game, and then leave it. No, thanks. Especially not with the AU Mod. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Modo44, I think you're overestimating the impact of the extra worker. I reran my test scenario without the extra worker on Emperor, and here's the difference, with the first figures (in cities/settlers format) being without the extra starting worker and the second being with.
Rome: 5/2 vs. 7/0
Egypt: 6/0 vs. 6/1
Greece: 6/0 vs. 6/2
Babylon: 3/0 vs. 3/1
Germany: 6/0 vs. 6/0
Russia: 1/0 vs. 1/0 (Remember, they can't grow enough to build settlers.)
China: 5/1 vs. 5/1
America: 5/0 vs. 6/0
Looking at the five civs I focused on earlier (and ignoring Babylon, Russia, and China), the extra worker resulted in 0.6 extra cities and 0.2 extra settlers per civ. That's enough to make a difference, especially on top of the cost factor advantage and other advantages that Emperor-level AIs get, but I would hardly call the difference the extra worker makes "extreme." The extra settler on Demigod made a bit more than twice as much of a difference in my test scenario: 1.6 cities but no settlers. (And remember that Demigod provides a third worker in addition to that extra settler.)
As for how many games you would play on Mythic Hero, that depends on when you would make the transition. If you wait until you are ready for Demigod to start trying Mythic Hero, chances are excellent that you would play virtually no games on Mythic Hero - unless you decide that the difference in the nature of Demigod games makes them less fun. But if you take advantage of Mythic Hero as an opportunity to move up before you are ready for Demigod, you would probably find yourself playing quite a few games on Mythic Hero before you move up. Similarly, there is a good bit of room for players to be able to out-REX Emperor AIs but to be out-REXed in Mythic Hero games with comparable starting positions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Edit: Forget it (an unproductive comment deleted).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
|
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:17
|
|
See, now you convinced yourself, that another level is needed. We need to draw the line, I agree. Stay conservative. Or should I really restart my ideas about Panzers, Berserks, and what not? Should I then ask for a poll for those, I admit, fun modifications? 
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Modo44, I think you're overestimating the impact of the extra worker. |
Again, you try to convince me with numbers. You can't. I know what my experience was, and it was of an overwhelming AI. I don't really care what the reason was. It made me start in a hole, and that's precisely what I needed to learn to play better. I don't want it to be easier. Not for my fun games, and even less for a mod that is supposed to make the game harder, and more interesting.
EOT, I have nothing to add.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
See, now you convinced yourself, that another level is needed. |
That is a serious misrepresentation. I've said that an intermediate level between Monarch and Emperor "would be practical...if there is sufficient interest to justify it," "might have value," and would "possibly" satisfy the criteria I consider necessary to justify an intermediate level. That is a long, long way from arguing that such a level is needed. I'm not trying to convince people that a level between Monarch and Emperor is needed, but rather to see whether there is sufficient (and sufficiently reasonable) interest to justify such a level.
quote:
Or should I really restart my ideas about Panzers, Berserks, and what not? |
An additional dfficulty level is something that people can use or not as they see fit. The only people signfiicantly affected would be people who want to be affected.
In contrast, changes to units have a direct impact on everyone, not just people who like the changes but also people who dislike them. Conservatism is a lot more important when a change that helps some people carries a significant risk of harming others than it is when a change that would benefit some people poses no meaningful risk to others.
quote:
Should I then ask for a poll for those, I admit, fun modifications? |
I'm not the one that broke from the normal AU Mod procedure and asked for a poll. My intent was to follow normal procedure, waiting until the matter was thoroughly discussed and then putting my proposal under consideration for the panel.
quote:
Again, you try to convince me with numbers. You can't. I know what my experience was, and it was of an overwhelming AI. I don't really care what the reason was. |
You were trying to portray the situation as if the Emperor-Demigod transition were no different from the Monarch-Emperor transition. My point with the numbers was to show that they are not the same, that the Emperor-Demigod gap is bigger because an extra settler has a lot more impact than an extra worker. (Not to mention that Demigod also provides an extra worker in addition to the settler.)
My understanding is that you don't have the kind of first-hand experience with Demigod that would be needed to judge the issue for yourself. If that is the case, and you refuse to listen to numbers that show how the distances between difficulty levels vary, I'm really curious as to the basis on which you consider yourself competent to judge the issue.
quote:
It made me start in a hole, and that's precisely what I needed to learn to play better. |
Is it? My own experience was that the size of the gap between Monarch and Emperor hurt at least as much as it helped because it had me chasing "false leads" of feeling a need for early military conqeust instead of focusing my attention in directions that would help me beat Emperor in the economic game. There are advantages as well as disadvantages to not taking big jumps all at once. The fact that the big jump resulted in your learning to play better does not mean that you couldn't have learned just as much moving in smaller steps.
quote:
I don't want it to be easier. Not for my fun games, and even less for a mod that is supposed to make the game harder, and more interesting. |
I'd like to quote from what you wrote in your first DAR in AU 504: "I'm playing AU mod, Monarch level. Normally it would be Emperor, but I'm still well capable of loosing at that level. "
Are those the words of someone who doesn't want it easier? Your situation in that game illustrates the potential value of intermediate levels. Had a level between Monarch and Emperor been available, you would have had the option of moving down roughly half a level from Emperor instead of a full level, thereby playing a harder game than you actually did, not an easier one.
The reality is that whether an intermediate level makes the game easier or harder depends on which level a player would play on otherwise. If a player would play on the harder level otherwise, the intermediate level makes the game easier. But if a player would play on the easier level otherwise, the intermediate level makes the game harder. For me, the Mythic Hero level would make AU games harder, not easier, because in the absence of that level, I'll keep playing most if not all of my AU games on Emperor. That is in direct contradiction to your characterization of an intermediate level as just making things easier.
And as I've also said before, players who always want to play on the hardest level they can possibly cope with could move up to an intermediate level before they are ready for the next regular level. So if you view throwing yourself in the deep end as the best way to learn, why not support the Mythic Hero level and move up to it as quickly as you can?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
Well Nathan, the only way to validate your claims of it being needed, and would be used, is through a poll. A thread, especially this type of thread in the AU Forum, is not particularly inviting to lurkers to show their opinion, or even for anyone who is intimidated from the AU's so called "elitism." |
A poll asking people whether they would be likely to use a Mythic Hero difficulty level would be compatible with the normal AU Mod procedure. We don't normally do it, but in this case, such a poll would provide the panel with useful information without undercutting the normal procedure.
The reason I characterized your poll as breaking from the normal AU Mod procedure is that it calls for an up-or-down vote on a proposed change and, worse, started the vote before discussion even reached a point of placing a change officially under consideration. I'm not questioning your motives, nor am I trying to make a big fuss about it. But the practical effect of such a poll does contradict the procedure we established for making changes to the AU Mod.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Again, I'm not trying to make a huge fuss here, but take a look at the timeline. You suggested the idea of a poll at what, in my time zone, was 1:00 a.m. on December 26. You posted the poll at what was, in my time zone, 1:09 p.m. the same day. My next post regarding the Mythic Hero issue after you suggested the poll was not until 2:15 p.m, after the poll was already posted.
I did see the suggestion for a poll in between the time you made it and the time you posted the poll, but I didn't want to respond off the top of my head without thinking about the issue a bit, and you moved so quickly that I didn't have much time to think - especially since I was asleep during much (and probably the majority) of the time involved. So I resent your idea that just because I didn't speak up quickly enough during the limited amount of time you allowed for possible discussion, I have no business saying anything now.
I'll repeat once more: I'm not trying to make a big fuss about this. But in the future, I think it would be better if polls aren't posted without allowing a lot more time to discuss whether they are needed and what form they should take.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
I don't think this sort of change belongs in the mod.
Yes, many players are stuck between Emperor and Demigod, but the jump between those two levels is small compared to the jump between Deity and Sid. I would add a level after Deity before I would add a level after Emperor.
But more importantly, there is the fact that if you add a level between Emperor and Demigod and remove Chieftain, it will affect the score of all games of Emperor level and below. This would make AU mod scores uncomparable to stock scores for a given scenario (such as AU courses). Many players use score to compare their games to others' in an AU game, especially in the early part.
Even more importantly, goody-hut outcomes are hardcoded to the order of difficulty levels, so the proposed change would give better huts to all levels on Emperor and below. That's a difference from stock that can affect strategy in some cases.
If there is strong support for a fun level between Emperor and Demigod, I would suggest changing Chieftain into that level, and living with the nice goody huts and the low scores that would come at this level. But I don't think it's a good idea to re-order the difficulty levels.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Alexman, you appear to have missed my edit to the first post. My latest idea is to add a new level and move Demigod, Deity, and Sid up a slot, with Mythic Hero fitting where Demigod is now. So it would be the levels above Mythic Hero rather than the ones below that have their scores and hut outcomes altered. Since almost no one is currently playing on those highest levels in AU games, the impact would be minimal. If we reach a point where more players are playing on Demigod or higher, we could reconsider. On the other hand, with Mythic Hero inserted in between Emperor and Demigod, an accidental side effect that makes levels above Mythic Hero a little harder wouldn't exactly be a horrible disaster.
I agree that the jump from Deity to Sid is bigger than the one from Emperor to Demigod. Indeed, looking at the normal progression, it's at least what would normally be expected from a jump of two difficulty levels. If there is significant interest, I would certainly view adding a level in between as a good thing. But unless and until I see interest in actually playing on such a level, I'm skeptical about the value of adding one.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-12-2004 08:25
Attachment: 
|