Re: New Pitboss Game Discussion (Jan 17/09)

**Bernout** · 01-18-2009, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by oyzar

Easy experience to their military units? We are not playing the same game are we? I am not talking about the times where you get just easy experience against barbs, then they are obviously nothing more than a minor nucience, i am talking when they win at incredible odds and totaly destroy your army... It is not any more fun if you do win, but it is so much less fun if you do lose to them. Adding a game element just to make the game less fun, seems plain wrong to me(however i'll be able to live with them if they have to be on).

Winning at incredible odds is just part of the Civ combat engine and it can work both ways. If you lose a unit and lose a city as a result then maybe you should have had 2 units there.

My experience has been that it is usually easy to stay tech wise ahead of the barbs and be fielding units which allow you to get good combat odds, thus my easy experience comment. In TTT for example, I must have a good 8 or so units that are maxed out at the 10 experience points. And we both know you can mitigate the Barb threat by having less hidden terrain.

I know you find it less fun and that is fair enough. You've already stated it goes against REX which is what you like to do. But it would be wrong to extend that and say it makes it less fun for everyone. This is one of those things that may ultimately have to end up being a vote to see where the majority want to take it.

I really don't like the idea of a costum difficulty given that it requires modding of the game, which might lead to some unforseen problems, not to mention extra hassle actually joining the game every time.

That's admittedly a possibility. But I think it may be worth trying just to give everyone a different playing experience from what they've seen before. If all we are doing is modifying XML files then hopefully the problems will be minimal. If we go this route, expect a test server to be up so we can give it a good workout before going live.

Maps - Given that you want to mod so many other aspects of play, it wouldn't be very hard to just remove most of the thundra and ice from any standard map, or just use a costum script with the option of no ice and thundra... This requires way less effort than actually creating a mod...

I'd be willing to give the custom script thing a try but I've never used it before.

Originally Posted by Niklas

I had a quick look in the Python code for the demographics screen, and just as I expected it is really easy to remove that information if we want.

Regarding a tech-trading delay, I believe that would require changes to the C++ source code, and I don't think we want to go there. Unfortunately, as I agree it would have been a very interesting option. I'll have a look at it some time when I'm not as tired though.

Thanks for taking a look at that Niklas! If you could continue to take the lead in trying out some of these modifications I'd really appreciate it. I think you're going down the right track of only modifying XML/config files. Beyond the required learning curve, the effort should be kept minimal.

If I'm not mistaken the primary goals would be:

1. Remove the "meta-game espionage" as per the direction the original mod was headed down. Removing global demographics would be good.

2. Create a custom difficulty level with the goal being to extend the life of the tech tree and limit the impact of a nation being turned over to the AI.

Bernout

**da_Vinci** · 01-19-2009, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by oyzar

The above ideas was mostly to add a twist to the game. I realize that in any standard game better people have more chance to win, not only for their technical skill but often also for their ability to better use other people in their favour.

lol ... !

I tend not to have strong preference about most of the issues under discussion, maybe because my expectation of victory is low enough that I won't experience disappointment if I don't win, and so it doesn't really matter much to me ...

Given the quote from oyzar above, let me explain how his promotion of permanent alliances is an example of his using other people in his favor ...

Seems clear to me that oyzar wants permanent alliance so he can have at least one civ that will not declare war on him when he is running away with the game. This comes from his recent experience in oobs 4th game were "king of the hill" Munro entered as a sub and organized a world revolt against oyzar (including turning two of his former allies) to replace his cakewalk to victory with a more challenging path. So oyzar hopes that with a permanent alliance, at least Brutus will not be wielding a daggar ...

Which illustrates perhaps the main effect of PA on: harder for the world to reel in the game leader, if they pair up with another strong power. So it tends to lock in the relative power establihed in the mid-game. Is that what we want?

dV

**oyzar** · 01-19-2009, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by Bernout

Winning at incredible odds is just part of the Civ combat engine and it can work both ways. If you lose a unit and lose a city as a result then maybe you should have had 2 units there.

My experience has been that it is usually easy to stay tech wise ahead of the barbs and be fielding units which allow you to get good combat odds, thus my easy experience comment. In TTT for example, I must have a good 8 or so units that are maxed out at the 10 experience points. And we both know you can mitigate the Barb threat by having less hidden terrain.

That you bring up TTT is a really good example since it just proves my point. While you and snarlin spent hammers on barb defense me and twahn/niklas spent hammers on maximal expected value of expansion. Sure we lost a city to barbs a long the way due to the naturally higher risks that come from higher expected value, but that doesn't mean we are terribly behind you now does it? If you want to play the game with any chance of winning you have to take risks(some small some big), and that certainly opens the door for the barbarians to own you and hence make the game less fun...

Why does limiting turning over a nation to AI help anything? The AI can hardly fight it's way out of a wet paper bag, even on diety if they start behind they aren't going to catch up with competent humans, they'll just be abused by the players who know how... Better to leave them as good as possible.

@ dV: I don't really care about that, as i said i just wanted to try out PA as a twist(despite it's unbalancing nature), I'll by no means be the only good player in this game, as such i am not too worried about finding friends/allies or getting ganged up on...

**hsoft** · 01-19-2009, 05:49 AM

Whoa oyzar, such hatred for barbarians!

Alright, in TTT, you took a risk, but you could very well have been way less lucky. You took the risk, you won the gamble, congratulations. However, that does not make the presence of barbarians unfun. I understand that barbarians don't fit your favorite way to play, but not everyone like to play the same way.

Yeah, for the next game, I guess a vote on barbarians will be necessary, since the opinions about them are so polarized. The choice should be barbs OR events, not both.

EDIT: does it mean, oyzar, that in early game, you make an easy rush target, considering your play style? That's good to know if I end up next to you in a future game.

**oyzar** · 01-19-2009, 08:04 AM

Lol, what a question, i've been rushed and rushed other people in the past, but generally i perfer to get naps with the people around me

. Dealing with humans is fine(thogh without demographics i guess it will be troublesome), dealing with barbs is something else entierly...

**Bernout** · 01-19-2009, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by hsoft

EDIT: does it mean, oyzar, that in early game, you make an easy rush target, considering your play style? That's good to know if I end up next to you in a future game.

Yep. It drives me crazy when he forms non-aggression pacts with everyone around him and they let him expand like crazy.

Bernout

**oyzar** · 01-19-2009, 11:45 AM

They could just expand like crazy too you know..

**Shaq Zora** · 01-19-2009, 12:05 PM

I vote no to any kind of handicap system. For me it just takes away some of the fun in a multiplayer game if you know you can choose an easier level. This is a contest after all. In TG where this was tried, I believe everyone except 1 person chosed the same level anyway (so it'd seemed a majority did not care about it.)

I have no problem with score personally. Can there be a winner if it's removed?

I also vote for normal speed and that this game should not be a team game. There's already one team game in process on Tactical gamer.

Also, if it's possible have a map with large continents. People ending up isolated on small islands may find that more boring than being part of a larger continent.

**Niklas** · 01-19-2009, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Bernout

Thanks for taking a look at that Niklas! If you could continue to take the lead in trying out some of these modifications I'd really appreciate it. I think you're going down the right track of only modifying XML/config files. Beyond the required learning curve, the effort should be kept minimal.

If I'm not mistaken the primary goals would be:

1. Remove the "meta-game espionage" as per the direction the original mod was headed down. Removing global demographics would be good.

2. Create a custom difficulty level with the goal being to extend the life of the tech tree and limit the impact of a nation being turned over to the AI.

My pleasure. Do we have some sort of timeframe for this, when we want a test-server up? Just so I know what I have to work with. And yes, I agree that those are the goals we are looking at.

**Hoplosternum** · 01-19-2009, 06:47 PM

I am not really sure why you want no scores showing. This will just make the very good players even more likley to win. I know it doesn't always work but by seeing the scores you can gang up on, or at least stop trading with the runaway leaders.

I don't mind playing with no scores on but I don't think it will do anything except favour the good players. And they tend to do well anyway

I like Barbs. And I like Events. But I would like to see those early barbarian uprising events removed if any modding is going on. I think you can safely have barbs and events on if that can be done. Having said that I would rather an unmodded game as it is a real pain swapping mods. I like Huts too and would vote for all three, but prefer Events and Barbs.

I don't like tech trading much, especially on normal speed. No tech brokering is slightly better but still bad IMHO. I think TGS was unusual in that there did not appear to be tech alliances until late on. But such settings do favour the better players as it prevents/hinders catch ups. So I can see why we may not want this. However I think this helps the 'leaders' later - when its probably too late to change the pool of nations the winner will emerge from anyway - so I don't think it is that crucial. While no scores will let fast starters get off to a flyer without anyone noticing. So no one will even try and check their growth.

I do hope that whatever settings are decided on that there is as much space as possible. Most of us like to do at least a little bit of rexing, not just oyzar

So let there be land! I appreciate in an 18 person game that may be difficult but any map setting that maximises land would get my vote

If a mod is used then I hope most of the Tundra is removed. It adds more land and stops the Tundra neighbours being hammered twice. Once by having poor land and second by having plenty of barbs (assuming that setting).

**Bernout** · 01-20-2009, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by Niklas

My pleasure. Do we have some sort of timeframe for this, when we want a test-server up? Just so I know what I have to work with. And yes, I agree that those are the goals we are looking at.

No time frame really in mind although most would argue sooner than later.

Do you think you could have something in say a week or so? If we can easily get rid of the barbarian events then that would be good to know as well.

Originally Posted by Hop

I am not really sure why you want no scores showing. This will just make the very good players even more likley to win. I know it doesn't always work but by seeing the scores you can gang up on, or at least stop trading with the runaway leaders.

I don't mind playing with no scores on but I don't think it will do anything except favour the good players. And they tend to do well anyway

That's a fair statement. I would just like to try it if only to see what happens when everyone has a "crutch" removed and has to do without information that is normally readily available to them. I think it also shifts the focus a bit more towards diplomacy in order to figure out what is going on. In other words, I think it will make for an interesting game.

Bernout

**da_Vinci** · 01-20-2009, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by oyzar

@ dV: I don't really care about that, as i said i just wanted to try out PA as a twist(despite it's unbalancing nature), I'll by no means be the only good player in this game, as such i am not too worried about finding friends/allies or getting ganged up on...

Well, to quote the friar from the musical, "Man of LaMancha"

"What a comfort to be sure ... that your motives are so pure."

(or maybe quote Shakespeare "the [oyzar] doth protest too much, methinks"?)

dV

**Levgree** · 01-20-2009, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by Hoplosternum

I am not really sure why you want no scores showing. This will just make the very good players even more likley to win. I know it doesn't always work but by seeing the scores you can gang up on, or at least stop trading with the runaway leaders.

I don't mind playing with no scores on but I don't think it will do anything except favour the good players. And they tend to do well anyway

Although, you can find all that stuff out in other ways, especially if you gang up on them with spies, and sharing of information.

score equals

Land area (just need to update your maps of their land)
+
Population(need to roughly know the size of their cities)
+
Wonders(easy to know what wonders people have)
+
Techs (with alphabet, easy to know this)

I think score is most important to know early on, when you haven't explored as much and borders aren't set. The only way to know what is happening can be score.... you can know if a certain player is expanding faster, teching faster, and/or growing faster.

Later on in the game, it is usually somewhat obvious who is doing better than others if you want, with all the tools of knowledge at your disposal.

So then, maybe the question is, is there a purpose to hiding this when all can be obtained through effort? I suppose it would put more value on espionage, the lead player may want to spend some on espionage to protect knowledge about their various assets.

**emperor** · 01-20-2009, 07:11 AM

I don't have much time, but I'd just like to say one thing for now: "Tech Brokering" is a really bad option, IMHO. It doesn't solve any of the issues with people gathering together in teams and gifting all their technologies to each other (which is apparently what some people think it prevents - that's just not true). All it does is to put up an artificial barrier so that those who don't engage in diplomacy enough are immune to danger. Personally, I heavily dislike this, because to me MP Civ is largely about diplomacy - and tech trading is an integral part of diplomacy. Removing the risk from tech trading removes a lot of the thrill of the game, IMHO. (For instance, you have to trust your ally enough not to trade the tech you give them away too soon, or else talk with them to arrange an agreement... but if they betray you, then you probably won't risk trading with them again anytime soon, and so on.)

We shouldn't have a setting that only really benefits players that are diplomatically lazy and/or uncommunicative - and for that reason I strongly oppose tech brokering.

**oyzar** · 01-20-2009, 01:46 PM

If there was a vote i would certainly vote against such a mod, but i wouldn't have any problem playing with it...

Thread Tools

Display