Firaxis: Corruption Breakdown

JesseSmith · December 30, 2003, 11:09

This is the "official" announcement on Corruption:

FIRST: Save Games CAN be continued but it will take a turn or so for the corruption to recalculate.

WHY WAS CORRUPTION CHANGED?????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

The formula that calculated Corruption (calculateCorruptionandWaste()), which includes the Forbidden Palace (FP) adjustments, was changed in C3C for several reasons:

1) It was necessary to expand the "Reduce Corruption" Small Wonder flag to allow MULTIPLE instances with this flag. The original formula was designed for just 1 Small Wonder with this ability (THIS design limitation was the #1 cause for adjustments to the algorithm)

2) Addition of Specialists that could adjust Corruption.

It should be noted that no values have changed and that every part of the calculation algorithms are IDENTICAL to Civ3/PTW (NOTE: I'm Diffing the code with 1.27 PTW's source ) EXCEPT those areas where MULTIPLE FP's have to be accounted for and the Ranking System.

The bug with the Forbidden Palace only being useful when local to your palace is caused by this line of code:

vectorDist(pRealCapital->getX(), pRealCapital->getY(), pLoopCity->getX(), pLoopCity->getY())

This is determining cityrank based on JUST the location of your "RealCapital". With the multiple FP setup this line of code should be:

vectorDist(pClosestCapital->getX(), pClosestCapital->getY(), pLoopCity->getX(), pLoopCity->getY())

With this issue fixed (as well as some other bugs ie: SPHQ always giving the bonus) the corruption system will work as redesigned. I realize that the system acts different from Civ3 & PTW, but please give it a chance before making your final decision. This system will benefit the game on all sides, from Diff Balancing to AI. Your feedback (yes the vocal people are the ones who get heard most... you have to be more vocal if you want to be heard!!) will ultimately decide how it functions in the Release Patch.

I do want to get some clarification on the additional variables from Mike B. Once I have it I'll post the information and explanation on how the additional variables are affecting the ranking system. I will also make an effort to include detailed information in the pre-patch release posting.

EDIT: I will also include MODders information and set it up for easy switching between versions.

Thanks,

Jesse

Arrian · December 30, 2003, 11:22

Thanks, Jesse.

I'm not sure I understand, so here goes:

The FP isn't working quite right in the beta patch, because the corruption system is miscalculating city ranking around the FP. As I understand it, if you fix this, it will result in a FP that works pretty much the way it did in PTW (full-power second "core" of cities around it).

Am I getting it?

-Arrian

ducki · December 30, 2003, 11:34

That's what I read.
City rank is currently not taking into account the nearest capitol, but only the "real" capitol.

At least, that's how I read it.
Which also sounds like - in addition to a fix giving you two cores - Communists should be able to get 3 cores, but only while in Communism. That could be a handy boost, no?

And yes, thank you Jesse for taking the time to clarify this.

Edit: Looking at those functions, I'm not seeing anything that would _seem_ to do the funky math that kills RCP... is that somewhere else, or was the "RCP bug/fix" just a side effect of this bug?

UnityScoutChopper · December 30, 2003, 12:28

Ducki,

it sounds like the function just delivers a "distance number" that is converted into a "rank number" by a function further on in the code. The RCP fix was probably a fix to that rank-assigning function further on -- not to the function call, but to the code within the function. The old rank-assigning function probably sorted cities by vectorDist and for simplicity's sake gave all tied cities the lowest rank in the tied group. I bet the programmer who made it that way said, "heck, it would delay this stage of the programming to implement a different tie-breaking system, and besides... nobody would ever be obsessed and have enough free time to reverse-engineer and exploit this... right?!?" :-)

I kinda can't blame him/her.

Regarding 3 cores in Communism -- I thought Communism had FLAT corruption and thus no cores?!? There may be "invisible" cores, however -- with those cores' beneficial effect being expressed as lower corruption after "flattening." In any case, the FPs each raise the OCN, helping fight corruption if you have a high city count (i.e. potentially putting you back under the OCN when you were over, which is a Very Good Thing). But I have a hunch the "invisible cores" are the real providers of FPs' benefits under communism... I really should check Alexman's thread before stating this, but I'm too lazy.

JesseSmith,

You almost have my gratitude... if it's not a state secret: how SHOULD the system work when redesigned? I'm glad to hear that FP's apparently ARE still meant to lower cityrank in their surroundings -- but it's obvious you HAVE done SOMETHING that you think may be controversial -- out with it! We'll find out soon enough anyway!

USC

JesseSmith · December 30, 2003, 12:54

The whole reason we added the Secret Police HQ was to give Communism the added benefit of having a 3rd Corruption Reducing building so that it could be this massive empire. The fact that its broken is appalling!!! One of the disadvantages of being human - mistake prone, if only I had that drone! =)

I will go into more detail on the final workings of the RCP once I'm sure I have the details correct. The gist of it is that the distribution will be based on distance from "capital" instead of by how you place your initial expansion cities

alexman · December 30, 2003, 13:25

First of all, a big thumbs up to Jesse and Firaxis for this communication!

Quote:

Originally posted by JesseSmith
This system will benefit the game on all sides, from Diff Balancing to AI. Your feedback (yes the vocal people are the ones who get heard most... you have to be more vocal if you want to be heard!!) will ultimately decide how it functions in the Release Patch.

How can a whole new second core help the AI? It can't, unless the AI knows how to rush a FP far away from its palace. The current 1.12 implementation gives a boost to the AI in the late game, where it most needs it. Builder or warmongerer, the late game becomes more exciting. Chalk me up as a vocal person for the v1.12 FP implementation!

I think jshelr put it well in another thread:

Quote:

Originally posted by jshelr
Congrats to the folks at Firaxis, IMO.

My impression about the new FP is very favorable, in fact, extremely favorable. I think the FP change interacts with other changes to produce a new and better game, a more balanced game that makes simple warmongering much harder.

Size no longer necessarily is the best path to tech superiority and there may be a very important improvement in the tradeoff between going for an SS win and going for a domination win. (I mean that going for domination, you may find yourself screwed on the tech front and actually lose a game or two.) This is a tremendous improvement that makes the later stages of the game much more fun.

On the domination path, only your core cities will really be significant unit producers and war weariness will shove you off democracy unless you fully use your bag of war tricks to reduce the impact of WW. (Get the AI to attack, no AI units in your territory after every turn, none of your units in AI territory after every turn, etc.) It's worth emphasizing that you can no longer simply go to republic and pay little attention to WW while you slug it out without much lost efficiency versus a democracy government. You have to use democracy to both cut corruption, without the FP to bail you out easily, and also to cut the cost of maintaining units in a big industrial era army.

Theseus · December 30, 2003, 13:54

Thanks for the heads up, Jesse!

vmxa1 · December 30, 2003, 14:10

Now that is what I like to see. Someone giving us the facts as best they can. I don't care how it works, just so I know it does, so I can plan accordingly. I mean I don't care iif there is a better way or it is broken, IF I can at least understand it.

It sounds like it is going in the right direction. Thanks for the update.

kring · December 30, 2003, 14:21

Thank you Jesse.

Catt · December 30, 2003, 15:06

Many thanks for the updates!

Catt

RobC · December 30, 2003, 15:20

Thanks Jesse!

Kuciwalker · December 30, 2003, 15:44

Firaxis has to be the most responsive company EVER

Alex · December 30, 2003, 17:15

Thanks, Jesse.

This thread and the other ("Firaxis: Beta Patch info") should be topped. Mods?

Fried-Psitalon · December 30, 2003, 17:35

Definitely agree with the toppage - looks like the ultra-responsive folks from Galactic Civilizations have competition from Firaxis in the "response and feedback" department now.

Very good things for the future of the Civ series.

Master Marcus · December 30, 2003, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Definitely agree with the toppage - looks like the ultra-responsive folks from Galactic Civilizations have competition from Firaxis in the "response and feedback" department now.

Yeah, it seems the way Brad Wardell & his team are working the updates for their game GalCiv has influenced Firaxis in a positive way ( monthly updates, wow... ). I just hope for the day when corruption is going to be fixed for good, it stays that way and, well...anyway there'll always be some whining from the minority about it. The devs can listen to them if they want, but they choose the engine they want. I don't mind if the FP is less powerful than a regular Palace, not being a full second core, just make it useful that's all. Once the SPHQ is fixed, as well as Civilopedia entries related to corruption buildings and all, then everything's perfect for me ( anyway the experience is already more than satisfying like 97 % of civers out there having never complained ).

Now instead of tweaking the editor for corruption calculations, I prefer to see modders making new scenarios.

Antrine · December 30, 2003, 19:21

Yes!! and double YES

As a modder, I would like to see some attention (read resourses) given to the following areas.

1) Reloading saved games back into the editor as is for sake of further refinement, switching sides etc. This is very important!!

2) Adjustments to BARBARIAN behavior. (from another thread)
However, within what appears to be current coded framework I would like to see these changes...

A) Barbarians raise cities! It can be a stepped process like two pop point per hit, plus one improvement and take gold until the city is reduced to rubble. Make it hurt three different ways, otherwise what real threat are barbarians?

B) Have barbarians gain in battle experience so that they can become a roving 'elite' terror!

C) Same with ships, excepting that they should also repair at sea or close up next to a camp on a coast tile, since porting them does not appear viable.

D) The 'raging' setting needs an 'editor' control. To wit; setting of the frequency of raging horses (advanced barbs) and the 'number' of same. Also whether it be every 2nd or 3rd camp, certainly not always all of them everywhere at once. And not 20-40 only, this number needs be 'setable'.

BARBARIANS are critical for the culture of game play.
Let this be a priority.

3) Map generation needs 60% ocean slid down to 20% or 30% as well. Doing every big huge map by hand because there is just to much ocean is time consuming pain.

4) Access to AI routines, for to improve use of units current and modded.

Best Regards
Antrine

Provost Harrison · December 30, 2003, 19:41

That lower proportion of ocean one is not a bad idea at all...very handy...

Cerbykins · December 30, 2003, 23:33

The mere promise that communism will allow the biggest empire is good enough for me. I await the day it does

Sarxis · December 31, 2003, 01:27

I don't pretend to understand any of the techno-babble, but it sounds good to me.

I'm not adverse to the way the FP is working now; just wouldn't mind if it worked a tad better.

JesseSmith · January 1, 2004, 16:36

I've been digging into the code to try to provide a solid answer. I was incorrect regarding the block of code I posted, changing it to pClosestCity doesn't affect anything (well, it lowers corruption around the FP city by 1.

The Forbidden Palace does not provide a new cityranking Corruption ring so IT and the surrounding cities still receive significant corruption affects (though not even close to what they are without it) .

A corruption option will allow casual and fanatic fans to customize this most vital mechanic and is the solution I'm moving towards right now. A 50% reduction of shields on production switches would help but I get pretty mad when I am beaten to a Wonder!! It would be very necessary to expand on Espionage to allow cheaper and easier intelligence on what your opponents were doing during the early game!

I want to be clear that I'm not trying to change this game system but to create a positive solution for everyone that fits within our designers vision. I consider how it functions right now as acceptable (painful yes, but not broken!!). We'll continue to discuss this until a final decision has to be made for the next update (Monday for any chance to post by the 10th).

I'm going to focus my efforts on other issues that "are" bugs for now.

Thank you for you support!

Jesse

For the coders, here's the expanded section on what was posted earlier - we'll see how things go before dropping code bombs

// city ranking

if (type == CORRUPTION_COMMUNAL)
{
cityRank = leaders[getWho()].getCities() / 2;
}
else
{
cityRank = 0;
for (cLoop = 0; cLoop <= g_cities.getLastIndex(); cLoop++)
{
pLoopCity = g_cities.getAt(cLoop);
if (pLoopCity == NULL) continue;

if (pLoopCity->getWho() != getWho()) continue;
if (pLoopCity == this) continue;

iTempDist = vectorDist(pRealCapital->getX(), pRealCapital->getY(), pLoopCity->getX(), pLoopCity->getY());
if ((iTempDist < iRealCapitalDist) || ((iTempDist == iRealCapitalDist) && ((pLoopCity->getDateFounded() < getDateFounded()) || ((pLoopCity->getDateFounded() == getDateFounded()) && (pLoopCity->getID() < getID())))))
{
cityRank++;
}
}
}

if (cityRank < optimalNumberOfCities)
{
cityCorruption = ((shieldsOrTradeArrows * cityRank) + 1) / 2;
}
else
{
cityCorruption = ((shieldsOrTradeArrows * ((cityRank * 2) - optimalNumberOfCities)) + 1) / 2;
}

Antrine · January 1, 2004, 17:39

Hi Jesse, Happy New Year!! and thanks for the update!

Just a few ideas on the Wonder building competition and Espionage. Personally, I like a more indirect atmosphere so I modded all but a handful of Wonders to Small Wonders that all civs may build. This way the competitive culture is more indirect with the feeling, ‘My empire is more muscled than yours and I can marshal these massive forces to make the point’. Cheaper and earlier espionage is great. However, what about just plain world gossip in the form of newspaper flashes somewhat like in CIV I? Information often (or even mostly) is gathered low-level all around the world to figure out what ‘the other guy is doing’. These newspaper flashes need not be every time or even always accurate but could include such topics as Wonders (small and large), founding of several new cities, landing on a new land (or continent) and even a rumor of a armada now afloat.

Anyways, I love Conquests! Appreciate all the fine work and especially appreciate the EDITOR!

Best regards,
Antrine

WarpStorm · January 1, 2004, 18:20

What does shieldsOrTradeArrows represent?

vee4473 · January 1, 2004, 18:37

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Firaxis has to be the most responsive company EVER

well, second most...

it's good to see that stardock's trend may be spreading!

I would just like it better if some of the explanations about why things were done were simplified for us common folk. I understand some, not all of the techno babble.

good effort though Jesse! keep it going.

"It seems Stardock's cultural strength has made another company yearn for their way of life..."

Harovan · January 1, 2004, 18:44

Jesse:

This piece of code...

Code:

cityRank = 0;
for (cLoop = 0; cLoop <= g_cities.getLastIndex(); cLoop++) {
	pLoopCity = g_cities.getAt(cLoop);
	if (pLoopCity == NULL) continue;
	if (pLoopCity->getWho() != getWho()) continue;
	if (pLoopCity == this) continue;
	iTempDist = vectorDist(pRealCapital->getX(), pRealCapital->getY(), pLoopCity->getX(), pLoopCity->getY());
	if ((iTempDist < iRealCapitalDist) ||
			((iTempDist == iRealCapitalDist) && ((pLoopCity->getDateFounded() < getDateFounded()) ||
			((pLoopCity->getDateFounded() == getDateFounded()) && (pLoopCity->getID() < getID()))))) {
		cityRank++;
	}
}

obviously calculates the rank with only one center, the real capital. My solution would be to execute it n times with different capitals (n being the number of capitals - Palace, FP, SPHQ, may be more in scenarios) and to take the least calculated rank. I would code it, but I don't know i what variables/classes you keep the # of capitals and their coordinates.

Rusty Nail · January 1, 2004, 19:03

I very much prefer a no corruption game as in civ2, and I strongly believe this should be an option. I made my own PTW mod that solved this simply by defining "palace" as a wonder with Forbidden Palace in all cities for all civs. But this no longer works. Is there another work around I may have overseen. If not, I would approeciate an option to turn off corruption completely.

Harovan · January 1, 2004, 19:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Rusty Nail
I very much prefer a no corruption game as in civ2, and I strongly believe this should be an option. I made my own PTW mod that solved this simply by defining "palace" as a wonder with Forbidden Palace in all cities for all civs. But this no longer works. Is there another work around I may have overseen. If not, I would approeciate an option to turn off corruption completely.

If you that much hate corruption, you don't need such a complicated solution. PtW upwards has a corruption slider in the editor. Just set it to 0%.

Hero!

Azeem · January 1, 2004, 20:16

There should be a corruption slider when modifying governments in the editor.

That way, there would be A LOT more diversity in different governments.

Antrine · January 1, 2004, 21:12

The corruption slider is located on the difficulty tab. Pick your favorite difficulty, such as Emperor etc. and place the corruption slider down to 0% as indicated above by Sir Ralph. Then chose Emperor when playing any game. Also note, there are other nice option to tweak on that tab.

Azeem · January 1, 2004, 21:44

I'm referring to the corruption options for modding governments. Rather than simply have categories to refer to levels of corruption for certain governments (such as "Communal" or "Nuisance"), they should replace it with a slider, so when you create a government, you can set its corruption to be somewhere in between what is considered "Rampant" and "Problematic" by simply using a slider to determine its percentage value. This was on the wish-list for the editor for quite some time.

Antrine · January 1, 2004, 21:54

Great idea, Azeem, more options the better generally as I guess some people find using the Game Editor a challenge, however I am confident we can 'herd' them along.