Thread Tools
Old January 18, 2005, 12:07   #151
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
acb

pvzh on the panel

__________________
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 January 18, 2005, 13:58   #152
lockstep
Apolyton University
King
 
lockstep's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,529
ACB
__________________
"As far as general advice on mod-making: Go slow as far as adding new things to the game until you have the basic game all smoothed out ... Make sure the things you change are really imbalances and not just something that doesn't fit with your particular style of play." - WesW
lockstep is offline  
Old January 19, 2005, 03:10   #153
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
To the extent that the difference between one choice and another is too small to make a meaningful difference, the change would add complexity to the game without adding genuine strategic depth, and therefore would violate the philosophy of the AU Mod.
I thought this would at worst fall into the last paragraph's mention of 'cosmetic change' even if the added commerce doesn't help the AI.
__________________
Enjoy Slurm - it's highly addictive!
Rommel2D is offline  
Old January 19, 2005, 08:00   #154
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 thought this would at worst fall into the last paragraph's mention of 'cosmetic change' even if the added commerce doesn't help the AI.
The full description of that part is, "cosmetic changes that add flavor but do not affect game-play." For you, the tourism bonus might fit into that category pretty well. But consider the drastic changes punkbass2000 was contemplating to his early-game strategy. I seriously doubt that I would alter my strategy as drastically (and certainly not on a regular basis), but neither can I conclude in advance that the impact on how I play would be negligible. So however much the change might appear almost purely cosmetic in terms of how it would probably affect your game-play, I think the impact across the community as a whole would have been a lot more than just cosmetic.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 19, 2005, 09:30   #155
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
Not that it matters, but my vote is CBA.

I think the panel has missed an opportunity to take advantage of an elegant, minimum-change solution to the early Colosseum problem, and instead stuck with a change that affects strategy in the entire game.
alexman is offline  
Old January 19, 2005, 10:21   #156
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
I guess we'll just have to continue to disagree regarding how "elegant" and "minimum" the proposed change was, and regarding whether players' rarely building early colosseums constitutes a genuine problem. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where people who look at a situation in different ways can follow reasoning that is perfectly logical yet reach opposite conclusions. That's the hardest kind of situation to reach a genuine consensus regarding.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 19, 2005, 11:55   #157
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
What about making the Palace a Tourist Attraction, or has that been implemented already?
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old January 19, 2005, 12:20   #158
JimiD
BtS Tri-LeagueApolyton University
Warlord
 
Local Time: 13:32
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 102
Hmmm...

Palace jump dilemas..... (nice car)

this I do like.
JimiD is offline  
Old January 19, 2005, 12:24   #159
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
Let's continue this discussion out of the Colosseum thread.
The Palace as a tourist attraction was pvzh's original idea.
alexman is offline  
Old January 19, 2005, 12:30   #160
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
How about if we move the discussion of the palace idea back to the a neat bug thread where this whole thing started?
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 19, 2005, 13:13   #161
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
Quote:
Originally posted by alexman
Not that it matters, but my vote is CBA.

I think the panel has missed an opportunity to take advantage of an elegant, minimum-change solution to the early Colosseum problem, and instead stuck with a change that affects strategy in the entire game.
Sorry, alex, that I haven't participated more in this debate. While I think the suggested change interesting, I have thus far thought that the changes we have already made to the Colosseum are mostly sufficient... I now regularly build them before Cathedrals, and sometimes even before Temples.
__________________
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 January 20, 2005, 00:44   #162
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
The full description of that part is...
You continue to argue both ends of the dispute and fail to distinguish between the two when attempting to make a point.
__________________
Enjoy Slurm - it's highly addictive!
Rommel2D is offline  
Old January 20, 2005, 04:43   #163
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

You continue to argue both ends of the dispute and fail to distinguish between the two when attempting to make a point.
I don't think that's what I'm doing. Suppose it were clear to everyone that the tourist attraction bonus would essentially never make it worth changing the priority that players give to building colosseums. Under those conditions, it could be argued that the tourist attraction bonus would add flavor to the colosseums players were going to build anyhow without significantly affecting gameplay. If players would build more colosseums, they would do so only for reasons of flavor, not for reasons of strategic advantage. That, in my view, could qualify as a cosmetic change that adds flavor without affecting gameplay (assuming the bonus would never be large enough to have a meaningful impact).

But the actual situation wiith the proposed change was that even if players could never have gotten more than a very small advantage from building more and earlier colosseums, at least some players would have made significant changes in how they play in pursuit of whatever advantages were available. That made the impact of the proposed change a whole lot more than just something cosmetic that wouldn't affect gameplay.
nbarclay is offline  
Old January 21, 2005, 22:33   #164
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
What I fail to see even hinted at in the philosophy is that challenging the human player is a valid reason to disregard a proposed change. This would not be a random, destabilizing change- the game mechanics themselves are definite and clear-cut. The AI will not become confused and lose it's way trying to figure out the situation. If your fears have any basis, some players would make mistakes and the AI would benefit. The player would be presented with a new challenge and hopefully learn something about the game as a whole based on this new perspective. If you want to argue the letter of what was written in alexman's original post, I have no answer. However, it seemed to me this situation was precisely what the AU was supposed to be about...
__________________
Enjoy Slurm - it's highly addictive!
Rommel2D is offline  
Old January 22, 2005, 10:40   #165
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
Basically, the question comes down to how the benefits of the proposed change in terms of improving strategic choices compare with the cost in terms of moving the feel of the game away from stock. Since people's views regarding both of those issues involve major subjective elements, perfectly reasonable people can understand each other's positions perfectly yet still never be able to reach an agreement. Once we reach that point - and I think we pretty much have here - the best that we can do is (as one of my teachers used to put it) agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Last edited by nbarclay; January 22, 2005 at 14:29.
nbarclay 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