 |
|
alexman
|
 |
Hunt Valley, MD
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
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. |
Actually, I believe there are plenty of people playing on Demigod or higher. The last AU course was an exception because of the restriction to remain peaceful in the beginning of the game.
As for the idea to add a level between Emperor and Demigod, you're still making the gap between those two levels even greater than it is in stock, because of goody hut results.
Last edited by alexman on 04-01-2005 at 00:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
But from my experience thus far, the Mythic Hero difficulty level is certainly no joke. The new level provides a very definite increase in difficulty from Emperor. |
Yes, we already knew that. So does Demigod. I am not at all surprised that you like your new dififculty level, but that is not the point at issue here since the AU mod is not your mod.
By the way, to be fair in your testing (referring to your other thread), you should play the same game out a third time at Demigod.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Yes, we already knew that. |
Did we? It sounded to me like your impression was that the difference between Emperor and Demigod would be too small to justify separate difficulty levels.
quote:
So does Demigod. I am not at all surprised that you like your new dififculty level, but that is not the point at issue here since the AU mod is not your mod. |
And if I were the only one interested, I would be content to let the issue drop. I've tried to make that clear from the beginning. But I'm not the only one interested.
quote:
By the way, to be fair in your testing (referring to your other thread), you should play the same game out a third time at Demigod. |
I would word it, for my testing to be as complete as possible, I should play the same game out on Demigod. I seriously considered doing so, but decided against it (at least for the time being) because (1) of the time it would require and (2) I felt like our collective experience base with Demigod was strong enough that the additional game wouldn't really be needed to provide us with adequate information.
Do you have specific questions that would require a Demigod game to answer? If so, I may need to reevaluate the importance of such a game. But so far, no one seems to be asking any questions that would make a Demigod game necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Did we? It sounded to me like your impression was that the difference between Emperor and Demigod would be too small to justify separate difficulty levels.
|
Well, you have my position all wrong then. I said that the difference between Emperor and Demigod is sufficient/acceptable, and that there need not be an intermediate difficulty level in between in the context of the AU mod. You clearly do not like the difficulty of Demigod, but find Emperor too easy, so it is not surprising that you will enjoy anything in between. Personally I feel you should just get used to Demigod (and start dominating there), but there I go being a tyrant again!
quote:
And if I were the only one interested, I would be content to let the issue drop. I've tried to make that clear from the beginning. But I'm not the only one interested.
|
Good! So how about you get things moving and make the proposal to the panel? It was created to avoid long, heated, and ultimately pointless discussions such as this.
quote:
I would word it, for my testing to be as complete as possible, I should play the same game out on Demigod. I seriously considered doing so, but decided against it (at least for the time being) because (1) of the time it would require and (2) I felt like our collective experience base with Demigod was strong enough that the additional game wouldn't really be needed to provide us with adequate information.
|
Without playing the same test game on Demigod, all you are showing about Mythic is that:
1. Mythic is more difficult than Emperor.
2. Mythic is more enjoyable to you.
Did we need a test to convince ourselves of this? All I am seeing from your test games is that you are in relatively the same position of power on Mythic as you are on Emperor; calculate GNP, Productivity and tech lead all you like, you are still dominating. So, no, I do not see Mythic as providing you with the level of challenge I believe an increase in difficulty level should. You, we all know, disagree, because you like Mythic. So let us just drop it and let the panel decide.
Last edited by Dominae on 08-01-2005 at 21:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
All I am seeing from your test games is that you are in relatively the same position of power on Mythic as you are on Emperor |
No I'm not. In the Emperor game, I achieved technological superiority over the other continent with me having virtually all of the top-branch techs (Navigation and a turn away from Banking) before even Engineering on the bottom path of the medieval tech tree had been researched. From my experience, reaching that point means massive technological superiority by the time I enter the industrial era - the kind of superiority that makes domination victories with cavalry (possibly supported by artillery depending on when I'd make my move) easy on a standard-size map. In the Mythic Hero game, as of 1320 AD, I have four mandatory techs that my closest competitor doesn't but my closest competitors have Nationalism and I don't. Yes, I'm ahead, but I'm not in anywhere near the kind of totally dominant technological position that I would be in if I played the Emperor game to the same point.
quote:
So, no, I do not see Mythic as providing you with the level of challenge I believe an increase in difficulty level should. |
Why not? Within a few games of my move from Monarch to Emperor as my normal difficulty level, the difference between Monarch and Emperor for me was similar: I could win reliably on Emperor (at least with a decent starting position), but not run away with games by big margins nearly as often or as easily as I could on Monarch. Thus, I would argue that either the difference between Emperor and Mythic Hero is big enough to justify an increase in difficulty level or the difference between Monarch and Emperor is not.
It seems to me that you're judging how my Mythic Hero game ought to look as if I were a novice Mythic Hero player when in reality I am at the level of a veteran Mythic Hero player (and indeed a player with a fair amount of experience on Demigod, albeit usually giving myself exceptionally good starting positions when I play on that level). Would you judge the difference between Monarch and Emperor to be too small to justify an increase in difficulty level just because an experienced Emperor player can win by significant margins on Emperor? If not, why judge Mythic Hero as having too small an increase just because I - who am capable of winning on Demigod but stick to Emperror in AU games because I enjoy it more in the absence of a really fantastic starting position - can win by a pretty decent margin on Mythic Hero?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jshelr
|
 |
pittsburgh
Apr 2002
time: 00:17
|
|
I just read this thread and can't help sticking in two cents, late or not.
There is a right answer here. I personally agree with Dom's attitude. Since I can always beat emperor, every time regardless of start, it's boring. I want to get clobbered sometimes, or at least be worried that I might be clobbered.
So, demi is more fun, although, like Sir R, I get a bit frustrated by the early game.
I won't be using a level that simply delays the inevitable victory, as Nathan's proposal would probably do. On demi, I have to take some chances, and once in a while I get caught off guard.
But, nonetheless, Nathan is clearly correct. Choice is never bad. The lower levels are useless to us. Adding an extra level can only make things better for some, and not change things for others. A clear win.
Nathan's overstating to call a vote against this tyrannical. Governments routinely make bad choices and the leadership panel of AU is no exception.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
It is not the fact that Dominae opposes the idea of a Mythic Hero level in and of itself that I characterize as tyrannical, but rather the reasoning behind his position. To me, his attitude comes across as, "These are the goals you ought to be pursuing, and if you don't share these goals, what you want doesn't matter." I view that kind of attitude as very different from, and vastly more dangerous to freedom then, an attitude of, "I know you want that, but I have to oppose your getting it because letting you have it would cause too much harm [or danger] to others."
Yes, I know we're just talking about a game here. But attitudes similar to Dominae's have harmed freedom enough in the real world that they tend to rub me the wrong way no matter where I encounter them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Need we dig this up again?
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
To me, his attitude comes across as, "These are the goals you ought to be pursuing, and if you don't share these goals, what you want doesn't matter."
|
Why must you stick with "comes across as" and simply listen to my words regarding this issue? Here they are: "These are the goals I, Dominae, think Apolyton University and its mod ought to be promoting, and if you don't share these goals, let your voice be heard but accept the panel's the final decision."
I think your voice has been heard on this issue many times. Keeping on attacking my "attitude" makes me wonder what the real problem is here. I'm prepared to have things not go my way, to have Mythic Hero become part of the mod despite my opposition to it (if that's the way the panel votes). You, on the other hand, keep hammering at the issue like it's Mythic Hero or bust.
quote:
I view that kind of attitude as very different from, and vastly more dangerous to freedom then, an attitude of, "I know you want that, but I have to oppose your getting it because letting you have it would cause too much harm [or danger] to others."
Yes, I know we're just talking about a game here. But attitudes similar to Dominae's have harmed freedom enough in the real world that they tend to rub me the wrong way no matter where I encounter them.
|
Yes, this is a game, and you are getting a little too intense. Remember that you are ultimately "free" to do whatever you please with respect to this whole issue: mod the game yourself and play Mythic Hero to your heart's content. But you want it to be part of the AU mod really really badly. Well, the AU mod is not just about you, it's about a whole community. Some members of this community do not necessarily want what you want, and therefore there must be some arbitrator of disputes. A panel has been set up to decide what changes will be made (to the mod) that will affect that community, thus acting as an arbitrator. So your constant complaining about my attitude (which has neatly replaced the real issue) is not really productive.
I am sorry I rub you the wrong way; I've done it before to others. But you rub me the wrong way too. So who is right? A internet game fansite is not a good place to try and resolve such disputes. So let's just drop it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
It is not the fact that Dominae opposes the idea of a Mythic Hero level in and of itself that I characterize as tyrannical, but rather the reasoning behind his position. |
Oh, and another thing: I suspect that many players who also oppose Mythic Hero (scroll up to see which ones) feel more or less the same way I do: they do not think it fits the goals of the AU mod. Whether or not we are all tyrannical is for you to judge, please do not polarize this as Dominae's tyranny versus the AU community's freedoms.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Why must you stick with "comes across as" and simply listen to my words regarding this issue? Here they are: "These are the goals I, Dominae, think Apolyton University and its mod ought to be promoting, and if you don't share these goals, let your voice be heard but accept the panel's the final decision." |
But look at how you try to define the goals. When I look at how you define the goals you think Apolyton University ought to be pursuing, I see in those goals the message, "These are the goals players ought to be pursuing, and if you don't share these goals, what you want doesn't matter."
My view of the purpose of Apolyton University is much broader. In my view, the goals of AU are to learn and to have fun. Thus, any way players want to approach Civ is compatible with the goals of Apolyton University as long as they're having fun and hopefully learning something along the way. So if we can make the game more fun for some players without harming others in the process, why not do it?
What I hope is that when this issue is officially placed up for a vote, panelists will vote based on a concept of Apolyton University's goals that is oriented toward freedom for players to play in whatever way they enjoy most and not in a way that tries to impose particular panelists' views of what goals players should set for themselves onto the entire community.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
But look at how you try to define the goals.
|
I am not trying to define anything; the goals existed before I even came to AU.
quote:
When I look at how you define the goals you think Apolyton University ought to be pursuing, I see in those goals the message, "These are the goals players ought to be pursuing, and if you don't share these goals, what you want doesn't matter."
|
Is it my fault that you are reading into my words for hidden messages that do not exist? What AU players want is very much an important thing to me. However, I'm more interested in what AU players as a group want, rather than one specific player. Is this wrong? Sure, you are being singled out in this instance because I happen to dislike your proposal (for whatever reason), but this does not imply the message that it's "my way or else". If anyone is guilty of this attitude, it's you, because you are unwilling to let the panel make a decision.
quote:
My view of the purpose of Apolyton University is much broader.
|
Fine, this is your view. Is it better than mine? You see, it's irrelevant what our actual views are when you are criticizing me for close-mindedness in having my own view, because you are just as close-minded.
What is wrong with an AU that promotes a little learning here and there, instead of just letting players learn only if they reall want to (which is, for most of us, too much like work!). I consider this the main attraction of AU (although the comparison games are, admittedly, pretty fun), because while anyone can have fun with Civ3 on their own (we hope), it's more like work to try to learn stuff without a community to back you up.
quote:
In my view, the goals of AU are to learn and to have fun.
Thus, any way players want to approach Civ is compatible with the goals of Apolyton University as long as they're having fun and hopefully learning something along the way.
|
You see, this is the fundamental difference between our views: you do not see the learning aspect as an integral part of the system. This is not surprising to me, because you have very little learning left to do yourself (with respect to game mechanics) and therefore are just playing to have fun. I, on the other hand, take it for granted that if players have fun playing Civ3, and therefore what AU offers is a "value-added" component that helps them improve in various ways. They may or may not improve, but at least AU promotes it (and, thinking back on many players who have come and gone in the past couple of years, AU has been quite successful in this respect). This is not to say that we should only do stuff at the expense of fun (like only play really hard courses, like no tech-trading), as my little debate with Sir Ralph made apparent.
GOTM is about two things: competitiveness and having fun. But GOTM is not likely to give up the competitive aspect (ranking of players, etc.) just because some players are just interested in having fun (by using cheats, reloading, etc. - note that none of these things "harm" other players). That's because GOTM is offering a competitive system where players can either participate and have fun, or not participate if they think the competitiveness is not for them. I see AU as analogous to this.
Putting it all together, this is why I do not think that changes that are made "just" to increase the fun aspect of AU are within the spirit of the AU mod. Otherwise (as we have discussed above), we would have to open our doors to a whole bunch of "fun" things/mods that would complicate the system incredibly. Yes, this surely sounds tyrannical of me if you cast it as "me against your fun". A better way to cast it, therefore, is that we have different views concerning what AU is all about. Again, why is my interpretation worse than yours? And again, we have a way of resolving these disputes, the panel, so why not just leave it up to them?
I would prefer you challenge my view on an independent basis instead of opposing it in the context of a mod change you particularly want to see happen.
quote:
What I hope is that when this issue is officially placed up for a vote, panelists will vote based on a concept of Apolyton University's goals that is oriented toward freedom for players to play in whatever way they enjoy most and not in a way that tries to impose particular panelists' views of what goals players should set for themselves onto the entire community. |
Are you trying to impose your personal view of what AU is all about on the rest of the panel!? I think we can agree at this point that this is a big no-no.
Last edited by Dominae on 16-01-2005 at 21:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Again, why is my interpretation worse than yours? |
Because yours undermines individual choices for no good reason, or at least no good reason that you’ve been able to explain. If Apolyton University were a real-world university teaching people to be doctors or lawyers or some such, I could see a good reason for it to make sure its students learn to do their jobs well even if doing so requires it to limit students’ choices. But Civ 3 is just a game, something people pursue for fun. So learning more about it is beneficial only to the extent that it helps people have more fun. And it is individual players, not the mod panel or the community as a whole, that are in the best position to know what balance of fun and learning fits them best.
Yes, learning is an integral part of why Apolyton University exists. But in my view, the focus should be on providing opportunities for people to learn, not on deliberately trying to manipulate people’s choices in an effort to push them to learn more even if they end up having less fun as a result. When interfering with the fun of a minority is an unavoidable side effect of a decision the AU community makes in order to provide a better combination of learning and fun for the majority, that is fine because the alternative of compromising learning and fun for the majority in order to cater to a minority would be even worse. But I contend that getting so caught up in the learning aspect that we undermine some players’ fun even when there is no need to do so is completely out of place when what is at stake is just a game, a recreational activity.
quote:
Putting it all together, this is why I do not think that changes that are made "just" to increase the fun aspect of AU are within the spirit of the AU mod. Otherwise (as we have discussed above), we would have to open our doors to a whole bunch of "fun" things/mods that would complicate the system incredibly. |
But the Mythic Hero concept is not just a matter of fun. In explaining the philosophy of the AU Mod, alexman wrote, "Stronger opponents encourage the player to rely more on sound strategy, and less on one-dimensional approaches that work against weaker opponents." For myself, and for anyone else who would use Mythic Hero if it is available but who would otherwise play AU games on Emperor, Mythic Hero provides stronger opponents than we would face otherwise. Further, if any change we’ve made in the AU Mod for the purpose of helping the AIs comes even close to making as big a difference in AI competitiveness as having a player play on Mythic Hero instead of Emperor would, I can’t think of what that change might be.
Yes, you can argue from a theoretical perspective that having players move all the way up to Demigod would help the AIs even more. But for me, and for any other players who would play on Emperor rather than Demigod if Mythic Hero is not available, that argument is purely theoretical, with not even the slightest glimmer of practical relevance to the actual situation involved.
Further, what we are dealing with here is a game set-up issue, not an issue of rules of play. Indeed, unless I’ve missed something, the choice of difficulty level is the only set-up parameter that individual players are able to choose in AU games where inserting an intermediate choice in between stock choices would even be possible. So I don’t see the Mythic Hero concept opening the kind of Pandora’s box that you seem to fear.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2005 00:00
|