View Full Version : Suggestion on GotM self-restriction


Neuro
May 26, 2011, 05:27 PM
With the large number of people expressing dissatisfaction with the mechanics of Research Agreements and Gold trading, I thought I'd recommend a set of guidelines for those who wish to play the game in a more challenging manner.

This is not intended as a reproach to those who have abused the mechanics; I myself have done it quite often, even in this last GotM. But after reading how many people were signing up for the "No RA" list, I thought of ways to make the mechanics more balanced. I'll be playing all remaining GotMs according to these rules, and I recommend others try them as well.

1) Trading should always prefer per-turn agreements over cash. You can balance the value with up to 30 gold to maximize return, but no more than that. The only exception is when the AI has no more GPT, you can then take cash instead. However, you can never sell your own GPT for his cash, even if the AI is out of GPT entirely.

2) Open Borders only trades for Open Borders. No selling it for cash.

3) No more than one Research Agreement at a time, period. Also, no more than one RA per Tech Era. I realize some people have a deep seated loathing of RAs, but they aren't completely broken.

I might even try to re-do this latest GotM using these rules, to see how it compares to my initial attempt.

Monthar
May 26, 2011, 07:46 PM
3) No more than one Research Agreement at a time, period. Also, no more than one RA per Tech Era. I realize some people have a deep seated loathing of RAs, but they aren't completely broken.

How about this instead? You can sign all the RA's you want, but you must completely research any tech you start, at least while there is an active RA. Then if there's a tech you don't want the RA to give, you had better research it before the RA completes, or at least have it as you currently active research project.

I think this would be a better fit for how I think the devs intended the RA's to work.

tommynt
May 27, 2011, 01:38 PM
U figure that most people dont use RA agreements not cause they are overpowered but just cause they dont figure their power yet?

The problem with RA is that they are too powerful in hands of a good players but complety useless to the bad-semicore player.

For the rest of your ideas u maybe go to HOF, its been screwed by exactly these "rules".

Why d I get 9 gold per turn (neting me only 270 gold in end) instead of 300 for a lux?

Idea 3 is complety broken as u d have to do even more planing ahead and blocking as in current system about how to use the tech

Neuro
May 27, 2011, 03:50 PM
This is a completely voluntary decision. At no point did I suggest these ideas become mandatory for the GotM, nor do I make any judgement against people who do. It's just the way I'm going to play from now on, and I invite others to do so as well.

While we're on the topic, however, yes I believe RAs using tech blocking are overpowered, because they dominate over alternate strategies. In culture, science, and diplo victories, especially at higher levels, RAs are the most efficient method of accelerating tech. They're also WAY too cheap at the higher levels.

The cardinal sin against RAs though is that they *aren't fun*, at least not for me. I find tech blocking and carefully micromanaging my science to be painful.

Tabarnak
May 27, 2011, 04:07 PM
These rules are clear and seem balanced. They are nice because they are flexible.

Getting completely rid of RAs looks like a bit too arsh...this rule reduce power of RAs and are looking more like a regular generation of great scientists. Excellent idea for trading lux for gold that way.

In last GOTM, i found some civs without gpt at all but with some money in bank. From my only gpt per lux rule, it always hurts.

I agree to follow these rules for the next GOTM. What other players think?

Edit : The biggest problem of RAs chaining is you need AIs money. Each games are different, players with equal skills don't see the same evolution and one player can be really advantaged to see peaceful civs and do a bunch of successful RAs while the other player just can't do the same because they are all at war and broken. This is luck based.

Neuro is proposing something which reduce the luck factor, thus making the game more balanced. At one RA at a time, everyone can find a civ to do a RA with.

Peets
May 30, 2011, 03:06 PM
If the developers make it so that the AI sign more RA's with each other it might solve this problem?

Neuro
May 30, 2011, 06:20 PM
If the developers make it so that the AI sign more RA's with each other it might solve this problem?

The problem isn't really RAs, it's tech blocking to force the free tech you want, usually the most expensive one. If Research Agreements randomly picked an open tech and then applied any research done in that tech to the overflow, they'd be a lot more balanced.

Peets
May 31, 2011, 12:51 AM
The problem isn't really RAs, it's tech blocking to force the free tech you want, usually the most expensive one. If Research Agreements randomly picked an open tech and then applied any research done in that tech to the overflow, they'd be a lot more balanced.

Then I would suggest (if it is possible) that if you sign a RA, it takes a randomly one except then one you are researching at the moment.
And if that is not possible, raise the bar for when you can block it. The chance that you'll get a RA you are researching gets much higher then though.

WildeComputers
Jun 02, 2011, 01:40 PM
I must not fully understand RAs. I am not opposed to them, but I do not use them. I would rather spend the 250 to 350 on a CS and benefit from its science bonus (Social Policy). Also, I tend to go after something specific with my tech, usually a military upgrade or resource. So an RA always gives me junk, like archery (for example) because it's one of the last ones I'll upgrade. I realize you can focus the RA to get you some very nice tech, but 250 gold for 30-turns just does not sound beneficial to me, maybe I am wrong but I'll vote for the no-RA option in the GotM's.

Tabarnak
Jun 06, 2011, 08:07 PM
For this GOTM i will fully exploit AI and see how this will go. Been a month i've not used RA blocking and played a singleplayer game deeply(last GOTM was pretty fast forward).

I don't know how i will feel after the game...:lol:

Nah...probably the same but i just want to keep the pace of this system and see how much rusted i am. I rapidly checked some games(not spoilers, not fully read posts) to see if people are using RAs and the legalism trick.

RAs seem to be fully exploited this time(science victory is attractive for this approach) but since no one try to play without the legalism trick i decided to do the opposite and compare.

I don't know yet if i go Liberty first or not. It will depend of map and ressources around, also proximity of AIs.

numaru7
Jun 12, 2011, 09:47 AM
i didn't use that legalism trick. First because i don't like to micro stuff except units :) and second because i cant afford it because i like to always wage war so i need unit prod in the beginning

King_Course
Jun 18, 2011, 09:21 AM
With the large number of people expressing dissatisfaction with the mechanics of Research Agreements and Gold trading, I thought I'd recommend a set of guidelines for those who wish to play the game in a more challenging manner.

This is not intended as a reproach to those who have abused the mechanics; I myself have done it quite often, even in this last GotM. But after reading how many people were signing up for the "No RA" list, I thought of ways to make the mechanics more balanced. I'll be playing all remaining GotMs according to these rules, and I recommend others try them as well.

1) Trading should always prefer per-turn agreements over cash. You can balance the value with up to 30 gold to maximize return, but no more than that. The only exception is when the AI has no more GPT, you can then take cash instead. However, you can never sell your own GPT for his cash, even if the AI is out of GPT entirely.

2) Open Borders only trades for Open Borders. No selling it for cash.

3) No more than one Research Agreement at a time, period. Also, no more than one RA per Tech Era. I realize some people have a deep seated loathing of RAs, but they aren't completely broken.

I might even try to re-do this latest GotM using these rules, to see how it compares to my initial attempt.

Personally I don't see why I should restrict myself in order to accept other peoples abuse. Selling open borders does not fall under the category: unexpected use of game mechanics as far as I'm convinced. Of course the developers said; you can sell open borders for cash if you like.

1 and 3, it's like if God should rewrite his plan because the devil doesn't like it. Devil doesn't play a role in Gods plan, and when he finds that out he will go amok.

leif erikson
Jun 18, 2011, 03:23 PM
Personally I don't see why I should restrict myself in order to accept other peoples abuse.
Not sure I follow this? :confused:

These players have decided that they wish to follow a different path because they do not think the game play mechanics are properly balanced. No one says you must follow their lead, you may only if you wish.

Selling open borders does not fall under the category: unexpected use of game mechanics as far as I'm convinced. Of course the developers said; you can sell open borders for cash if you like.
I'm not entirely sure what the developers have said. The patches keep coming and they significantly affect game play. I do not think any of us really know what was intended, only that it is morphing into something else.

1 and 3, it's like if God should rewrite his plan because the devil doesn't like it. Devil doesn't play a role in Gods plan, and when he finds that out he will go amok.
If you consider the developers God, then they are rewriting the plan. Latest patch notes can be found by clicking here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=427513)