Thread Tools
Old December 15, 2004, 17:09   #61
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
Does this mean delaying or changing the vote?
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline  
Old December 15, 2004, 17:11   #62
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
No, we have already voted, but we would have a new vote for any new proposal that might take place.
alexman is offline  
Old January 3, 2005, 16:32   #63
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
So I would like to place the following proposal under consideration for the Colosseum:

Yes/No:
  • Restore maintenance to 2gpt (as in stock)
  • Add tourism bonus.


There has been a fair amount of discussion and analysis in pvzh's A neat bug thread, without any clear conclusions.

To summarize, adding the tourism bonus would make the Colosseum an interesting strategic choice, exchanging short-term gold and shields for a long-term benefit in tourism income.

The downside is that because of the benefit of building the Colosseum early to get the tourism bonus, there is a significant departure in strategy compared to stock.

Voting in one week.
alexman is offline  
Old January 5, 2005, 09:44   #64
JimiD
BtS Tri-LeagueApolyton University
Warlord
 
Local Time: 13:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 102
Playing devils advocate
Adding tourism attribute to a standard building seems to me to be an unconservative proposal (much as I like the feature), and it does add another strategy. I have some concern that the additional strategy means that it is a deviation too far from stock for the AU mod.

The new strategic option is for the early game - investment in buildings for cash rewards later, (regardless of government, MM, trade etc.). It is significantly different from other AU Mod changes in that it is not a refinement of an existing strategy, improvement of the AI, or a fine tuning of sheild cost for game balance.

For example:
It is a subtle strategy that would not be appreciated immediately by someone fresh to the mod, because the cause & effect are so far appart, whereas other changes can be appreciated immediately (eg Light and Heavy cavalry - a quick skim read of the Read Me, and you understand that the old Cavalry is weakened, but gains its full impact a few techs later).

It will also change the way that those familiar with the mod play as, regardless of civ, an appraisal of the value of investment in Cols needs to be made.

The other pillar of the AU Mod is improving strategic choice for the human, which this does indeed acheive.

Done on principle arguments, how about game mechanics?

Has the implications in the later game of a militaristic civ building early half price colleseums been investigated? Potentially a big cash bonus - they are effecient happiness buildings, and now quick to build, so they can be in more build queues early, with less impact on other production (of military units?).

I like the military flag, but this might have compund issues.
JimiD is offline  
Old January 5, 2005, 12:09   #65
Moonbars
Apolyton UniversityCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III PBEMC3CDG Desolation RowC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
King
 
Moonbars's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,431
There are many aspects of civ that would benefit by being studied in depth before starting a game - you could do studies on any number of things, from the benefits of food over trade in the early game, to the return on rushing marketplaces with gold by the end of the game - and so and and so on.

I do not feel that giving tourism bonus to Cols is any different in that aspect, but I do accept that it is a new 'feature' that is not present in stock.

If you read the Read-me, you know about the cav change, and the col change. i do not agree that the cause/effect is any worse than it is with, say, the changes to naval exploration (which has a huge impact on most map types, but that's not what it says in the read-me.). If this is felt an issue, we can always put the cuase and effect of the new Colls into the read-me.

What we really need to think about is:

1) Do we want to improve the Col?
2) Is adding tourist bonus the solution, if we do?

The answer to the first one has got to be YES - I do not think I have built more than 5 Cols in my entire civ lifetime. the AI, however, builds plenty. So if we improve the worth of Cols, we help the AI.

I think it might be. Certainly making it MIL gives it *some* use, but it might be a bit overkill coupled with tourism.
__________________
The Best Multiplayer Game Ever
Moonbars is offline  
Old January 5, 2005, 12:58   #66
JimiD
BtS Tri-LeagueApolyton University
Warlord
 
Local Time: 13:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 102
1) Agree that Cols need improving / making more interesting.

However if the problem is that the AI is building Cols when it should be building temples (and caths), then perhaps the answer is to make the AI build more temples and less Cols.

2)I think Mil is enough with the other proposals previously discussed. Makes them more worthwhile, and Mil adds interest. I think tourism is the wrong answer, even if Mil is removed.

I dont vote though....
JimiD is offline  
Old January 5, 2005, 14:58   #67
Moonbars
Apolyton UniversityCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III PBEMC3CDG Desolation RowC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
King
 
Moonbars's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,431
Quote:
Originally posted by The pirate
1) Agree that Cols need improving / making more interesting.

However if the problem is that the AI is building Cols when it should be building temples (and caths), then perhaps the answer is to make the AI build more temples and less Cols.

2)I think Mil is enough with the other proposals previously discussed. Makes them more worthwhile, and Mil adds interest. I think tourism is the wrong answer, even if Mil is removed.

I dont vote though....
The AI builds them because it has already built all the other buildings, or it makes a silly decision and decides to make the COL early - at least that's my experience The AI does not, as far as i can tell, build improvements to any kind of dynamic global objectives, like say "increase happy citizens" or "increase research"

Oh what a good thing it would be if it did..

By adding tourism to the Col, we make it an interesting choice, rather than a no-brainer "never bother" improvement. Just making it MIL does not do this.

By just making it MIL, all we are doing is make it almost-worth building for MIL civs - no benefit to the rest at all.
__________________
The Best Multiplayer Game Ever

Last edited by Moonbars; January 5, 2005 at 17:30.
Moonbars is offline  
Old January 5, 2005, 17:27   #68
Moonbars
Apolyton UniversityCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III PBEMC3CDG Desolation RowC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
King
 
Moonbars's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,431
I am going to Pick up Modo's comments from the other thread:

Quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
Under AU mod, the AI did build Temples in core cities, because Construction is not exactly a cheap tech. But, once it was there, almost all new AI cities would build Colosseums, often as the first structure.

Then, I tried it with the proposal: Colosseum back to 120 shields, but Militaristic. Non-Militaristic AI would build Temples first, Militaristic AI would go for Colosseums in new cities.

It's hard to find out, when those Colosseums become active.. ..It seems, that 1000 year old Colosseums should be pretty common... ...they might even cross the 1500 year mark, making a civ quite rich.
The fact that the AI built Colls over temples when not flagged as MIL makes me think that restoring the COL to it's stock cost and flagging as MIL is 100% the right way to go.

On the cash front, it is important to remember that this will be true for all civs.. especially the AI, which as you've seen in your debug game, seems to love building the Colosseum. If it earns the intelligent human player 50GPT, or 100GPT, it is likely earning the AI something similar, or possibly even greater, itself.

The AI does not order sensible things. having a building that sucks so badly, as the Coll does under stock, really hurts the AI.
__________________
The Best Multiplayer Game Ever
Moonbars is offline  
Old January 5, 2005, 17:33   #69
Moonbars
Apolyton UniversityCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III PBEMC3CDG Desolation RowC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
King
 
Moonbars's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,431
Hehe, here is another idea to add fuel to the fire... Set the Col's Culture to zero

That way you could capture other people's cash cows!
__________________
The Best Multiplayer Game Ever
Moonbars is offline  
Old January 5, 2005, 18:02   #70
Modo44
Apolyton UniversityPtWDG2 Monty PythonCivilization III PBEMCivilization III Democracy GameDiploGamesACDG3 SpartansAlpha Centauri Democracy GameC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton Team
Emperor
 
Modo44's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: in western Poland
Posts: 6,038
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbars
Hehe, here is another idea to add fuel to the fire... Set the Col's Culture to zero

That way you could capture other people's cash cows!
Only if you could make absolutely sure, that the AI won't try to build a Colosseum for culture. This is flagged to "build often" for some civs. I hope the AI can check the cultural value of a building, but I don't know for sure, and I didn't see it tested.
__________________
Seriously. Kung freaking fu.
Modo44 is offline  
Old January 6, 2005, 05:01   #71
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbars

The answer to the first one has got to be YES - I do not think I have built more than 5 Cols in my entire civ lifetime.
I usually build cathedrals before colosseums, but sometimes build colosseums first due to the peculiarities a city finds itself facing. Colosseums are cheaper than cathedrals, so they can alllow a city to start growing again sooner than a cathedral would if I don't have enough luxuries to keep it happy. And in some situations, having two additional happy faces is important to me but a third isn't as important, at least in the short run. Part of building colosseums is looking for opportunities where they make sense instead of always following a standard set of build priorities.

That's not to say that my choices to build colosseums are necessarily always the best ones. I haven't taken the time to do a detailed analysis of the long-term impact of different build orders in different situations. But at the very least, colosseums are competitive enough in certain situations to attract my interest.

Also note that in the current version of the AU Mod, we've reduced maintenance on colosseums from two to one. As a result, colosseums have the lowest upkeep cost per happy face of any happiness improvement.

So my anwer is no, the colosseum as it now exists in the AU Mod is fine. It's not usually a priority, but there are enough times when it can be worth considering that strategic options are in fact involved.

As for the tourist attraction idea, I view it as too big a change from stock for too little net gain, if in fact the advantages outweigh the disadvantages at all. One of the lessons I learned in comparing Civ 3 with the Call to Power games is that there is elegance in simplicitly. Part of Civ 3's beauty is that it allows players to focus on their core strategy without as many peripheral elements to the game distracting them.

In my view, the distraction involved in thinking about how best to deal with a tourist attraction bonus would do more harm than good. It would be an extra gimmick that players would have to worry about in order to play optimally, but would not enhance the game's core strategiic issues.

Last edited by nbarclay; January 6, 2005 at 05:08.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 6, 2005, 19:06   #72
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
In my view, the distraction involved in thinking about how best to deal with a tourist attraction bonus would do more harm than good. It would be an extra gimmick that players would have to worry about in order to play optimally, but would not enhance the game's core strategiic issues.
I would say that "Which improvements do I build, and in what order?" is one of the game's core strategic issues.

Yes, making Colosseums better is an significant departure from stock, because it would make the Colosseum versus Cathedrals question a lot more difficult to answer. I personally think this is the type of change that the AU mod is all about. However, if Colosseums were only attractive to Militaristic civs (as I believe is being proposed), the strategic option would not be all that interesting ("When playing a Militaristic civ with the AU mod, build Colosseums"), and the departure from stock a lot more difficult to justify.
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old January 6, 2005, 19:42   #73
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Under the current proposal, militaristic civs have a good incentive to build some early colosseums, but they have to balance that temptation with building early military units to take advantage of their cheap barracks and promotions. Also, keep in mind that a building a colosseum instead of a cathedral is worthwhile only if the game lasts into the modern age, something that doesn't happen very often. It's an interesting decision for a militaristic civ, IMO.

On the other hand, non-militaristic civs are probably more likely to be building improvements instead of units in the ancient age, so they might afford to build some early expensive colosseums. In the middle ages, a 120 shield building is not that big of a deal, so the militaristic trait is not such a big factor in deciding which improvement to build. Worthwhile colosseums are by no means limited to militaristic civs in this proposal.

I think the major concern here is whether a few ultra-early colosseums are going to be overpowering in the modern age, and whether we think the change in colosseum stategy is appropriate for this conservative mod.
alexman is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 03:08   #74
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae

I would say that "Which improvements do I build, and in what order?" is one of the game's core strategic issues.
Under the standard rules (and also the current AU Mod rules), the answers to that question are governed almost entirely by which improvement has the most value in the near term. If you need a barracks now but won't need a temple until later, you build the barracks first. If you won't need a barracks until later, it makes more sense to go ahead and build a temple now to start accumulating culture from it and to make the doubling effect kick in earlier. Good decisions regarding build order can be made just by looking at relatively short-term needs, without having to do a lot of mathematical analysis of long-term impacts. The only even slightly significant exception that I can think of is the culture doubling effect after a thousand years, and even that is fairly simple and straightforward.

In contrast, while the tourist attraction bonus could affect the question of build order, the way it would affect the issue is completely beyond the scope of how build order decisions are normally made. The concept of building an improvement now in order to pursue a benefit that won't kick in at all for a thousand years is totally foreign to Civ, and the kind of detailed mathematical analysis that would be needed to make good choices in making use of the feature is even more foreign.

[Edit: I'm assuming here that most people regard the tourist attraction issue associated with wonders pretty much how I do: it's an interesting gimmick, but not a particularly significant factor in determining whether and when to build wonders. In contrast, the main motive for adding the flag to the Colosseum seems to be a desire to influence build order decisions.]

Our current approach of reducing the maintenance cost for colusseums improves their value in a manner completely in keeping with how build order decisions are normally made. And under a lot of conditions, the current approach improves the value of colosseums more than the tourist attraction approach would.

Nathan

Last edited by nbarclay; January 7, 2005 at 03:21.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 05:18   #75
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
The concept of building an improvement now in order to pursue a benefit that won't kick in at all for a thousand years is totally foreign to Civ, and the kind of detailed mathematical analysis that would be needed to make good choices in making use of the feature is even more foreign.
As the Corruption Nazi and democracy game players all around well know, you can apply a whole bunch of mathematical analysis to Civ3 if you so desire. Most players do not. Thus they rely on heuristics like: "I am playing a Builder game and will probably benefit from the extra Colosseum Commerce when I hit the Space Race." Having Colosseums at least cross their mind is, I think, a major improvement from stock Civ3.

Incidentally, Colosseums would retain a short-term benefit of granting two Happy Faces. So the nearsighted among us could expect something useful right away.

It may well be that building a bunch of Colosseums really early is unbalancing and therefore too much of a departure from stock; my gut tells me no, especially considering that the AI builds them already. All I am arguing here is that this is an interesting change that should not be thrown out the window just because it forces players to think a bit more (because, you know, that's sort of the point of the AU mod).
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 08:35   #76
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae

As the Corruption Nazi and democracy game players all around well know, you can apply a whole bunch of mathematical analysis to Civ3 if you so desire. Most players do not. Thus they rely on heuristics like: "I am playing a Builder game and will probably benefit from the extra Colosseum Commerce when I hit the Space Race." Having Colosseums at least cross their mind is, I think, a major improvement from stock Civ3.
I'll agree that there are a lot of things in Civ that detailed mathematical analysis can be applied to. But in general, from what I've seen, such analysis provides only an extremely small marginal advantage. The only real exception I can think of offhand is with certain types of micromanagement issues, and even there, the projections are fairly short-term.

In contrast, the tourist attraction bonus has a lag of a thousand years between cause and effect, and of a lot more than a thousand years before the tourism bonus becomes more valuable than having the upkeep cost reduced. Worse, because the lag between cost and benefit is so great, the issue of opportunity cost becomes a much more complex consideration. The combination of time lag and opportunity cost issues makes developing good heuristics without working the math a lot harder, and dramatically increases the risk that casual players who don't work the math will end up misreading the picture. It opens up a whole can of worms, and I don't view the can as having enough benefits inside to be worth opening.

As for making colosseums cross people's minds, yes, the tourist attraction bonus would make early colosseums more interesting. But after a certain point in the game, replacing the current maintenance cost reduction with a tourist attraction bonus would make colosseums worse than they are in the current version of the Mod, not better. I see no good logical or historical reason why colosseums should be worth building only if they are built sufficiently early in history. Nor do I view the gameplay benefits of such a paradigm as outweighing the disadvantages.

Quote:
Incidentally, Colosseums would retain a short-term benefit of granting two Happy Faces. So the nearsighted among us could expect something useful right away.
If it's worth building colosseums just for the happy faces, we don't need the tourist attraction bonus to make them worthwhile. If, on the other hand, the tourist attraction bonus is needed to make them worthwhile, we're back to the need for complex mathematical calculations to get an accurate picture of how the benefits are likely to compare with the cost. You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
It may well be that building a bunch of Colosseums really early is unbalancing and therefore too much of a departure from stock; my gut tells me no, especially considering that the AI builds them already. All I am arguing here is that this is an interesting change that should not be thrown out the window just because it forces players to think a bit more (because, you know, that's sort of the point of the AU mod).
There is a difference between forcing players to think and forcing them to get out a calculator.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 16:51   #77
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
The combination of time lag and opportunity cost issues makes developing good heuristics without working the math a lot harder, and dramatically increases the risk that casual players who don't work the math will end up misreading the picture. It opens up a whole can of worms, and I don't view the can as having enough benefits inside to be worth opening.
Do you seriously think there will be some kind of "secret formula" that will put serious players at that much of an advantage with respect to building Colosseums? Think about it. The Tourism bonus just gives you more Gold "later on". End of story for 95% of Civ3 players.

For those other 5% (like alexman!), the calculations have already been done, and so we basically know what the effect will be: it will make the Modern era look a bit (a lot?) different. But even casual players could tell you this!

The only way a casual player could "misread" Colosseums is by not using them in a knee-jerk way as he/she has been accustomed to do in stock. But such players can easily go down the same path with, say, the AI's tweaked tech preferences.

Are you just against the Colosseum change because it forces you to think more, or are you against it for balance/conservatism reasons?

Quote:
As for making colosseums cross people's minds, yes, the tourist attraction bonus would make early colosseums more interesting. But after a certain point in the game, replacing the current maintenance cost reduction with a tourist attraction bonus would make colosseums worse than they are in the current version of the Mod, not better.
I'm confused: is the proposal to increase the Colosseum's maintenance, as a counter-weight to the Tourism bonus?

Quote:
If it's worth building colosseums just for the happy faces, we don't need the tourist attraction bonus to make them worthwhile. If, on the other hand, the tourist attraction bonus is needed to make them worthwhile, we're back to the need for complex mathematical calculations to get an accurate picture of how the benefits are likely to compare with the cost. You can't have it both ways.
Apparently you are not open to improvements that have a short-term as well as a long-term benefits.
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...

Last edited by Dominae; January 7, 2005 at 17:19.
Dominae is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 17:02   #78
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I'm confused: is the proposal to increase the Colosseum's maintenance, as a counter-weight to the Tourism bonus?
Currently, the AU mod has reduced the maintenance of Colosseums to 1gpt. We would restore it to 2gpt (as in stock) if we were to adopt the tourism proposal.
alexman is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 17:24   #79
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman

Currently, the AU mod has reduced the maintenance of Colosseums to 1gpt. We would restore it to 2gpt (as in stock) if we were to adopt the tourism proposal.
So, in the current proposal, Colosseums would be strictly superior to their stock version counterparts.

I guess the real question here is: do we make Colosseums more powerful immediately (reduced maintenance, cost; increased happiness effects) and risk a potential early-game balance issue, or do we make Colosseums more powerful as they age and risk a balance issue in the Modern era. In terms of conservatism, the Tourism idea seems to me to be less drastic.
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 19:06   #80
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae

Do you seriously think there will be some kind of "secret formula" that will put serious players at that much of an advantage with respect to building Colosseums? Think about it. The Tourism bonus just gives you more Gold "later on". End of story for 95% of Civ3 players.
That "end of story" is exactly the problem. I would rather players not even consider building colosseums than have them make bad guesses and, as a result, build colosseums when they would be better off building something else instead. The heuristic of, "The Tourism bonus just gives you more Gold 'later on,'" is so vague that I don't consider it likely to produce reliably good choices.

Our current approach of reducing the colosseum's maintenance cost from two to one is simple and straightforward. Replacing it with something that is a lot more complex, but that actually makes a lot of colosseums less worth building than the current version of the Mod does (becuase they would come too late for the tourist attraction bonus to compensate for the maintenance cost), is not something I view as making the game better.

Quote:
The only way a casual player could "misread" Colosseums is by not using them in a knee-jerk way as he/she has been accustomed to do in stock.
Not true. Players could also fairly easily misread the situation in a way that causes them to build too many colosseums at the expense of other things that would do them more good.

Quote:
Are you just against the Colosseum change because it forces you to think more, or are you against it for balance/conservatism reasons?
It's not either/or.

1) I wish you would stop characterizing my opposition as being to making players think more. If what the change required were thinking more about strategy, I would view it as a good thing. But when the thinkng required looks more like homework from a Math class, and the heuristics look to me like mostly guesswork, I don't. So one of my objections is that the change requires a type of thinking that I think hurts the game more than it helps.

2) From a perspective of conservatism, I view our current approach of reducing the colosseum's maintenance cost as much more conservative than giving the colosseum a tourist attraction bonus. The dynamics of the current approach are a lot more simple and straightforward, and a lot more in keeping with what players are used to needing to think about in Civ 3. It doesn't introduce a whole new element for players to have to try to figure out. And if we feel a need to go farther, we could even consider eliminating the maintenance cost entirely (although that, in conjunction with giving militaristic civs half-price colosseums, might tilt the balance too much in favor of the Militaristic trait at the expense of the Religious trait).

3) While I recognize that realism is not a stated goal of the AU Mod, I view the idea of creating the kind of huge difference between the value of early and later colosseums that a tourist attraction bonus would as absurd from a perspective of realism. How many cities today have colosseums that are such major tourist attractions due to their age that they account for a significant part of a city's income? I can only think of one that even comes close: Rome. And Rome's colosseum is more akin to a great wonder than to a city improvement in that regard. And while I don't think the AU Mod should make changes just to improve realism, I do think damage to realism can legitimately be regarded as a reason to view a proposed change negatively.

Quote:
Apparently you are not open to improvements that have a short-term as well as a long-term benefits.
My objections have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the colosseum's short-term benefits. They have to do entirely and exclusively with the tourist attraction aspect, which is purely a long-term consideration.

The fact that the colosseum also produces a short-term benefit reduces the amount of long-term benefit that a colosseum has to produce in order to be worth building. But unless the short-term benefit is so great as to make the colosseum worth building for the short-term benefit alone, or at least so close to it that very little long-term benefit would be needed to make up the difference, we're back to the problem of the complexity of calculating how the value of the long-term benefit compares with the cost. The fact that the colosseum also provides a short-term benefit doesn't really change the basic nature of the issue.

Last edited by nbarclay; January 7, 2005 at 19:13.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 19:23   #81
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae

I guess the real question here is: do we make Colosseums more powerful immediately (reduced maintenance, cost; increased happiness effects) and risk a potential early-game balance issue, or do we make Colosseums more powerful as they age and risk a balance issue in the Modern era. In terms of conservatism, the Tourism idea seems to me to be less drastic.
I would definitely view increasing the number of happy faces from colosseums as not conservative. But how does reducing the maintenance cost threaten to create an early-game balance problem? We've been playing with the reduced maintenance cost from the very beginning of the C3C version of the AU Mod if I recall correctly, and with a slight reduction in the cost of building colosseums on top of that (something we just voted to eliminate in favor of half-price colosseums for Militaristic civs), and I haven't noticed even a hint of a balance problem.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 19:32   #82
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
3) While I recognize that realism is not a stated goal of the AU Mod, I view the idea of creating the kind of huge difference between the value of early and later colosseums that a tourist attraction bonus would as absurd from a perspective of realism. How many cities today have colosseums that are such major tourist attractions due to their age that they account for a significant part of a city's income? I can only think of one that even comes close: Rome. And Rome's colosseum is more akin to a great wonder than to a city improvement in that regard. And while I don't think the AU Mod should make changes just to improve realism, I do think damage to realism can legitimately be regarded as a reason to view a proposed change negatively.
I rationalized Modern-era Colosseums in Civ3 as analogous to the sports industry in the real world; a real cash cow, you could say. The Tourist Attraction bonus would just be a reflection of the historical emphasis a society put on such leisurely pursuits.

But, as we all know, you can rationalize the realism of any proposed change, for better or worse (depending on whether you like the change or not).
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...

Last edited by Dominae; January 7, 2005 at 19:39.
Dominae is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 19:58   #83
alexman
PtWDG Gathering StormCivilization IV CreatorsInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityIron CiversCivilization IV: MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMApolyCon 06 Participants
Firaxis Games Software Engineer
 
alexman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1998
Posts: 5,360
Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
There is a difference between forcing players to think and forcing them to get out a calculator.
Sorry, but I agree with Dominae. You don't need a calculator to decide whether to build a Colosseum with a tourism bonus, just as you don't need a calculator right now to decide on things like whether to build a Courthouse before a Factory, even though the correct answer is not obvious.

Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
But after a certain point in the game, replacing the current maintenance cost reduction with a tourist attraction bonus would make colosseums worse than they are in the current version of the Mod, not better.
But not worse than stock. In that respect, the tourism bonus is a more conservative change to the late-game. The late-game question for Colosseums in the current version of the mod is whether to build them before Cathedrals. In stock and in the proposed tourism idea, the late-game question is whether to build them or not.

In the ancient age, even with the current AU mod change, you usually don't even consider building Colosseums when they become available. That's the no-brainer that needs to be addressed.

So in stock Civ3, Colosseums have a balance problem in the early game: they are rarely worth building early. Later on, you build them after Cathedrals if you need the happy faces. That's not a no-brainer. Therefore, the proposed tourism idea addresses the Colosseum early-game no-brainer strategy without affecting the late-game strategy. Ideal solution, if you ask me.

Last edited by alexman; January 7, 2005 at 20:13.
alexman is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 21:27   #84
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally posted by Dominae

I rationalized Modern-era Colosseums in Civ3 as analogous to the sports industry in the real world; a real cash cow, you could say. The Tourist Attraction bonus would just be a reflection of the historical emphasis a society put on such leisurely pursuits.
If that rationalization had any merit at all, Italy's revenue from sports ought to completely dwarf that of the United States. The reality, though, is that revenue from sports has far more to do with the current overall size of a society's economy than with how interested the society was in athletics fifteen hundred years before.

Further, while considerable amounts of money are involved in athletics and other forms of entertainment, the effect from an investment perspective is one of redistributing wealth, not one of creating new wealth that can be invested. The only investment value that athletics have to society as a whole is through whatever indirect benefits increased happiness/contentment bring. In Civ, those impacts are reflected in being able to support more laborers without riots and in the effects of WLT?D.

Quote:
But, as we all know, you can rationalize the realism of any proposed change, for better or worse (depending on whether you like the change or not).
It is possible to rationalize anything if you want to get absurd enough. But some rationalizations are a lot more reasonable than others.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 7, 2005, 22:10   #85
Rommel2D
staff
Civilization III PBEMIron Civers
Moderator
 
Rommel2D's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dfb climate North America
Posts: 4,009
Granted I'm not a consistant contributor to the AU mod and that it is not particularly concerned with historical accuracy, but I have to say that I really like this proposal.

How many thousand-year-old colosseums are there? I know of only one. It generates income based on tourism. If Yankee Stadium or Lambeau Field are around in the 2900's, I'll bet they make alot more revenue from people that come to see the structures themselves than any event that takes place in them.

Contemporary Colosseums are the product of afluent societies in search of status- venues to bring athletic, musical, or occasionally religous entertainment to large number of people when more efficient means of information dissemination are widespread. They are not practical or efficient when compared to other comperable methods of meeting this end.

I never liked the original AU effort to make Collosseums just another improvement to bring happiness in line with those of temples and cathedrals. I felt stock rules were appropriate to historical perspective. But the tourism flag is a clear improvement on stock rules from all aspects of Civ to me.
__________________
Enjoy Slurm - it's highly addictive!
Rommel2D is offline  
Old January 8, 2005, 01:40   #86
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman

Sorry, but I agree with Dominae. You don't need a calculator to decide whether to build a Colosseum with a tourism bonus, just as you don't need a calculator right now to decide on things like whether to build a Courthouse before a Factory, even though the correct answer is not obvious.
I don't view the situations as analogous. The effects of courthouses and factories are easy to see just by comparing cities before and after the improvement is built. The reason why players can make reasonable (if not always optimal) choices regarding which to build first without in-depth calculations is that they have a good understanding of the effects of each.

But I see no way to quantify the impact of a tourism bonus without vastly more complex analysis. Yes, players can see, "I get more gold in the late game when I have these early colosseums." But translating that recognition into the kind of understanding of how costs and benefits compare needed to make fully informed choices is another matter entirely.

Quote:
But not worse than stock. In that respect, the tourism bonus is a more conservative change to the late-game. The late-game question for Colosseums in the current version of the mod is whether to build them before Cathedrals. In stock and in the proposed tourism idea, the late-game question is whether to build them or not.
As I recall, in our original C3C discussion of the colosseum, you came down very strongly in favor of making the colosseum-or-cathedral question more interesting.

Quote:
In the ancient age, even with the current AU mod change, you usually don't even consider building Colosseums when they become available. That's the no-brainer that needs to be addressed.
The argujment you use here reflects a major difference in our philosophies. In my view, the only time when an issue "needs" to be fixed is if it causes actual damage to people's ability to have fun with the game. Game balance issues that hurt AIs' ability to compete can create a "need" for changes. Rules that result in genuinely perverse situations, such as a UU that's worse than the standard unit it replaces, can produce a "need" for changes. But as long as a game feature isn't actually hurting anything, there is no genuine need to do anything.

I'll grant that under the standard rules, building colosseums is not as interesting as would be ideal. But I see no way in which the default rules for the colosseum actually hurt anythiing. Therefore, I see no genuine need to change the colosseum from the stock rules at all. Arguments of the form, "Let's do this because the standard rules are broken and we need to do something," carry no weight with me in this kind of situation.

To me, the quesiton is entirely one of whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages enough to justify the amount of deviation from the stock rules. And my view is that it is not.

Quote:
So in stock Civ3, Colosseums have a balance problem in the early game: they are rarely worth building early. Later on, you build them after Cathedrals if you need the happy faces. That's not a no-brainer. Therefore, the proposed tourism idea addresses the Colosseum early-game no-brainer strategy without affecting the late-game strategy. Ideal solution, if you ask me.
I have yet to hear a good reason why colosseums should be valuable if they are built early but not particularly valuable if they are built a bit later.* It looks to me like you're trying to force-fit the capabilities of the building to fit a strategic situation you want to create instead of allowing strategy to flow naturally from the capabilities of the building. In my view, that is not a good thing when the new capabilities don't make sense on their own merits.

*Using the Colosseum in Rome as a reason doesn't work. The reason why the Colosseum is viewed as such a big deal is that there isn't another one like it anywhere in the world. In contrast, when old structures relatively similar to each other can be found in numerous places (medieval castles, for example), the structures might have some cultural significance but their economic impact is negligible (except maybe at the local level in a relatively small town).

Last edited by nbarclay; January 8, 2005 at 01:45.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 8, 2005, 01:43   #87
nbarclay
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering Storm
Emperor
 
nbarclay's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
Quote:
Originally posted by Rommel2D

I never liked the original AU effort to make Collosseums just another improvement to bring happiness in line with those of temples and cathedrals. I felt stock rules were appropriate to historical perspective. But the tourism flag is a clear improvement on stock rules from all aspects of Civ to me.
What in the AU Mod did you view as making things worse than the stock rules?
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 8, 2005, 05:45   #88
Rommel2D
staff
Civilization III PBEMIron Civers
Moderator
 
Rommel2D's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dfb climate North America
Posts: 4,009
Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
What in the AU Mod did you view as making things worse than the stock rules?
Trying to make collosseums as efficient as temples and cathedrals in a cost-per-happy face calculation. In the real world's strictly practical sense, Cols aren't as efficient as other improvements in affecting citizen attitudes. I just don't see any culture addressing a difficult social discontment by building a colosseum. Having it not be cost efficient reflects this, so reducing maintenance costs ruins this dynamic. It may increase 'playability', but destroys historical relevance IMO.

There are actually other ancient colosseums that we know of, but they are not a part of cities that have remained thriving population centers over the ages, so they are merely archeological curiosities. Similarly the Pyramids of Egypt have remained a constant point of admiration for other cultures of the world, while the pyramids of Central America remain largely an educational destination due to a collapse of the cultures that built them.

The key seems to be a historical continuity that leads to a tourism benefit. Egypt's Pyramids are not the only such structures in the world, yet they are of greater significance because they remained part of a viable culture. There were what amounts to collosseums in Central America and in other Mediterranean cities long ago, but the one in Rome endures because the city itself has endured. Would the Romans have been able to extrapolate from this model had they wished to plan millenia into the future? It's impossible to say, but I think the proposed values represent the historical situation closer than either stock or the former AU versions...
__________________
Enjoy Slurm - it's highly addictive!
Rommel2D is offline  
Old January 8, 2005, 06:14   #89
Moonbars
Apolyton UniversityCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III PBEMC3CDG Desolation RowC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
King
 
Moonbars's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,431
Quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay

I'll grant that under the standard rules, building colosseums is not as interesting as would be ideal. But I see no way in which the default rules for the colosseum actually hurt anythiing. Therefore, I see no genuine need to change the colosseum from the stock rules at all.
The AI is quite dumb when it decides what to build, therefore it seems to build Cols regardless of if it needs one, or if it would be better building something else. If you have an under-powered building, you are hurting the AI.

I find all the historical referencing to be counter-productive to the arguement, we need to focus more on the gameplay effects.
__________________
The Best Multiplayer Game Ever
Moonbars is offline  
Old January 8, 2005, 06:16   #90
Moonbars
Apolyton UniversityCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III PBEMC3CDG Desolation RowC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
King
 
Moonbars's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,431
Quote:
[SIZE=1] I never liked the original AU effort to make Collosseums just another improvement to bring happiness in line with those of temples and cathedrals. I felt stock rules were appropriate to historical perspective. But the tourism flag is a clear improvement on stock rules from all aspects of Civ to me.
Yes, if it is the same as a cathedral and/or temple, we might as well just remove it from the game. This change gives Cols a difference from other happiness buildings that adds interesting choices and options for the player.
__________________
The Best Multiplayer Game Ever
Moonbars is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:32.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team