DCL evolution and proposition

Nigel_Tufnel2 said:

I also think adding a few medals or special quests add a layer of complexity and variety. Such as religious goals/quests, no worker stealing, no coups, settle a NW, eliminate a certain civ (you can have hints in the description that are vague but make sense once you play a while), no Rationalism, etc.

Click to expand...

I'm down with this stuff if it's optional, and maybe the person who scored the most medals on one map could set the quests for the next? Or the map submitter? Anything to get other people involved besides the host. Acken, this is not to disrespect you, you're doing a great job overall, but I'm sure you would welcome the extra hands?

I don't recall Random Personalities being tried in the DCL or ICL...

Click to expand...

DCL #20 had random personalities. I put it in there thinking it would make things a little trickier, to compensate for the 2x NW Spain start, but most people thought it made the AI even crapper.

nmp0098 said:

Smart AI Mod: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=521955

Buffed AI Mod (uses per era modifier to dynamically adjust difficulty, and includes Smart AI Mod and some other changes): http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=504220

Click to expand...

Not tried the buffed one but the Smart AI mod doesn't achieve any of the things it claims. It claims for example that the AI does not randomly embark units during war, but on the game I tried it on Oda sent ALL his units into the ocean on one turn.

nmp0098 said:

I don't have Firetuner, but adjusting the AI flavoring just requires making a backup folder of the files and an ASCII editor. The hard part is knowing what to change, and what those changes actually do. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone knows what to do, but I do have some file comparison tools if someone had a copy of the Fall Patch AI files or could tell me where to find them. I'm fairly certain that all of the xml files are read when the map is rolled, tweaked slightly by a randomizer, then embedded in the save file like the raging barbs option.

Edit: I realized that I might be more familiar than most with this architecture. All of the game mechanics are hard-coded in the .dll's, but all the parameters that those mechanics use are pulled out into separate files and stored in xml format. There are files for more than just leader flavoring. These parameters influence build order in cities, military planning, etc. and are very powerful without digging into the source code. They don't effect game mechanics at all, just AI decision making.

Click to expand...

I can do the things you talk about. But like you said the hard part is to know what is relevant. Some are self explanatory but many aren't.

In before people start assuming I was highly critical about the DCL #27 in general, I wasn't - I was disappointed that it didn't meet my expectations based on the OP. I'm all for experimenting the settings to get better results.
Something like in the old series Old Peter grouping the AI to help'em out which turned out to be a minor disaster against the predictions of most players.

To add something new as well - how about deleting the starting warrior and going with just commando settler? I've no idea how much it'd change the game but it surely doesn't help the player in any way.

I get your meaning but it restricts gameplay as you don't have anything to do for 5-6 turns while you make your scout. Ruin finding with a starting unit is kind of a feature of the series.

consentient said:

Not tried the buffed one but the Smart AI mod doesn't achieve any of the things it claims. It claims for example that the AI does not randomly embark units during war, but on the game I tried it on Oda sent ALL his units into the ocean on one turn.

Click to expand...

Acken said:

I can do the things you talk about. But like you said the hard part is to know what is relevant. Some are self explanatory but many aren't.

Click to expand...

I'll see what I can find on the advanced files. I just posted a thread in the modding section. Just looking at the personality part, I might try to select my opponents for a game and use Shaka as a template for every AI. If Maria, Sejong, and Pedro open Honor and march on me before turn 80, I'll know something changed.

I'd say it just delays the start instead of restricting it but that's mostly semantics.

What it would do though, I hope, is making the worker stealing from AIs harder or at least slower and in all probability limits early cash a bit which both will give AI some extra time to settle in. I'm not expecting any significant changes but I'm getting desperate to think of something easy to help the AI. Luckily this would be easy to implement without everyone having to suffer the consequences.

nmp0098 said:

I don't have Firetuner, but adjusting the AI flavoring just requires making a backup folder of the files and an ASCII editor. The hard part is knowing what to change, and what those changes actually do. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone knows what to do, but I do have some file comparison tools if someone had a copy of the Fall Patch AI files or could tell me where to find them. I'm fairly certain that all of the xml files are read when the map is rolled, tweaked slightly by a randomizer, then embedded in the save file like the raging barbs option.

Edit: I realized that I might be more familiar than most with this architecture. All of the game mechanics are hard-coded in the .dll's, but all the parameters that those mechanics use are pulled out into separate files and stored in xml format. There are files for more than just leader flavoring. These parameters influence build order in cities, military planning, etc. and are very powerful without digging into the source code. They don't effect game mechanics at all, just AI decision making.

Click to expand...

So I've tested that and sadly the save do not save database values (what the xml changes). Tested with handicaps and yield changes. Maybe flavors are... hard to say but I don't see a reason to assume so.

A shame as I had some great ideas using that trick.

I would download and use a set of xml files to make the game harder if others followed suit. This would make every DCL harder independent of the map for players that wanted more of a challenge. If the map itself was very hard I would just use the base game or post up a loss. I really enjoy the rare games where victory is in doubt in the second half of the game.

The leaders might be different because of the +/- 2 they get and random personalities.

@nmp0098

Let me ask you something? Is victory ever in doubt if you go conquest?

Grendeldef said:

I'd say it just delays the start instead of restricting it but that's mostly semantics.

Click to expand...

That's the problem. All these modifications only achieve delaying starts and putting you behind the AI and do not address the core issue, which is AI behavior and decision making. Unfortunately, that is something that can only be changed by programming, so I simply doubt we would get anywhere with these modifications.

The fun of the game is usually the challenge of the opposition, which I why I spend the majority of the time playing PvP games. It's a shame Civ multiplayer is so garbage, though the game does not lend itself to amazing multiplayer experience due to required time commitment.

I think they could easily make the game better and more interesting by re-programming the AI. A lot of current popular games patch weekly, monthly, quarterly to avoid stale content. The small changes to Piety and Tradition were nice, but imagine if they actually experimented with the game more. Unfortunately, this is very unlikely to happen, since they made the game and sold it. The games I play are free-to-play models, but there is purchasable cosmetic content which seems to make money even if only 5-10% of people actually buy it, and Civ just doesn't have that.

I would be more inclined to play in these if there was a target victory condition that players could approach in a more competitive way. This would be entirely optional, of course -- anyone uninterested in this could go along using the DCLs however they have in the past.

In terms of "competitive", what I mean is trying to set the fastest victory time, as in HoF/GotM type games. One thing to understand about this is that the "competition" isn't necessarily about winning, but more about setting a universal, agreed upon goal. If everyone is playing for the same objective, then you can have more meaningful strategy discussions. It also can generate interesting information. Everyone loves discussing power levels of Civs, Tier Lists, and the like. This would be a way to get empirical data about this stuff. For example, how good of a science Civ is Siam? How relevant are Siam's Elephants to science victory on Deity? We could find this stuff out, as a community.

This would fill a slightly different niche than the current HoF and GotM. There would be a set map to play with, so it eliminates the re-rolling aspect of HoF, for those who dislike that. And, unlike GotM and HoF, players would be free to re-roll and replay the map as they pleased, in order to further explore strategy.

I would also argue that this ups the difficulty of the game. I fail on Deity way more than I did before I started getting into HoF. One consequence of racing for low times is that you play greedy, in all sorts of ways. For example, building extra units for non-Domination victories may improve your average victory speed while also hurting your potential victory speed. Playing for fast victories causes you to cut corners and try to get by with the minimum, increasing the chance of failure and maybe restoring some of that sense of difficulty you've been missing.

@Manpanzee

I like the part about empirically exploring stuff as a community. Definitely interests me.

But as for competing for finish times, eventually this becomes more and more map-dependent the more turns you want to shave off, for each person. On a random start, of course Player skill > Dirt > Civ, but the more you try to shave off a couple of turns, the more important Dirt becomes. If IronFighterXXX could do sub-T200 CV on any given dirt, that would make him completely amazing and we'd all be learning so much about how to have better times, as well as finding out about the merits of different civs. But that victory was on an unbelievable map.

Also, personally, I don't see many of the players here really wanting the same thing as you (a HoF game with a set map).

@ the DCL community/Acken

What I recommend to Acken is that he adds a poll to the thread and puts 4 or 5 options from the several excellent suggestions that have been made here, to find out which is the most popular, making sure of course that each person can only vote for one option. This way we could find out what proportion of DCL players would like the DCL to evolve into:-

1. A HoF-type game with set maps
2. An experimental series with tweaks/mods to make Deity harder
3. Target VC/medals/achievements
4. etc.
5. etc.

That would be my recommendation. If this is to be done, then it would settle things once and for all. The very best players, looking for Options #1 and #2 for an increased challenge would either win their debate or agree to stop pushing for it. The trick is that not everyone finds it easy to express opinions for some reason. When I was host and tried to settle this issue, the debate merely raged on. Perhaps I was not a good chairperson? Who knows. But I would really like to see the path of evolution decided, if for no other reason than if the DCL evolves into something I don't like, then I can contemplate another series. We've all been playing the one series while politely arguing over how the series should evolve. We can't all have our way AND continue to play the same series, I would argue. Perhaps now would be the time to split the game into several series, or for the players that want a HoF-style game to just accept that they already have HoF, and the DCL was intended for casual play, and that I was successful in bringing in newer players who wouldn't really appreciate the game getting too much more competitive or becoming Deity+? I am just posing questions out loud. I don't know, or overly care, what the answers are. But I would like to see this resolved

The series won't evolve into Deity+ or something. Since DCL20 there have been normal medium and easy maps (some graciously provided by you). And this'll continue as long as I'm host.

The thread isn't about making the whole series harder. It's a place to assemble opinions and comments and it's (right now) also about knowing what kind of tweaks people are comfortable with on a moral level. To either make the game more interesting or shifting the difficulty one way or the other.

Suggested VC has always been a possibility, can't really see the harm in it. However I'm personally against different goals since it is the opposite of a suggested VC, it splits players into even more categories.
I'm also strongly against splitting the series. There's already not many people.

I also won't do a poll at this point. If someone has an opinion please state it and explain it, I'll hear it. Even if I participate in the debate and pushes my way, I do listen and some comments and suggestions will make their way in. If someone doesn't like the direction the series take (overall) it's also the place to voice your concern.

As you wish, but I'm really tired by now of people trying to make DCL a HoF style game, when it was explicitly set up for the opposite reasons, and HoF already exists. Not that I don't appreciate the HoF, but it seems clear that most of us here are not into that. Those that are should accept that, I think.

I'm against splitting the series as well, btw. I would like to keep # finishes for each map as high as possible. But I don't think this should or can be achieved by pandering to specific sets of needs. If we look at Aztecs, Babylon and Inca, we can see that people love their turtling SVs. More than 50% of victories have been SVs. For me, that's kinda sad, but I never made a map where SV was inaccessible for most players. I feel that anything like Denmark makes Dom and CV really hard.

Well done on your own win, but you have to admit you're a full class above the rest of us, right?

I agree with Manpanzee, but I would like to break it down more along the lines of ideology.

Autocracy - Dom, Culture, Diplo
Order - Dom, Sci, culture
Freedom - Sci, Culture, Diplo

Or for harder challenge, take to off flavor path. IE Freedom Dom. Everyone tries to take that path then compare because if not, every on will just go Auto Dom (example) if the challenge is dom and Iron Curtain is pretty sweet.

Manpanzee said:

I would be more inclined to play in these if there was a target victory condition that players could approach in a more competitive way. This would be entirely optional, of course -- anyone uninterested in this could go along using the DCLs however they have in the past.

Click to expand...

Before the new DCL series started there was discussion about it, I was for at least suggested VC, but especially one person was strongly against it ( funny he haven't played even one DCL since then )

Manpanzee said:

This would fill a slightly different niche than the current HoF and GotM. There would be a set map to play with, so it eliminates the re-rolling aspect of HoF, for those who dislike that. And, unlike GotM and HoF, players would be free to re-roll and replay the map as they pleased, in order to further explore strategy.

Click to expand...

Sorry I don't understand - you would like get prepared map or not? If not as you probably already noticed vadalaz started interesting deity challenges in HoF rules.

Manpanzee said:

I would also argue that this ups the difficulty of the game. I fail on Deity way more than I did before I started getting into HoF. Playing for fast victories causes you to cut corners and try to get by with the minimum, increasing the chance of failure and maybe restoring some of that sense of difficulty you've been missing.

Click to expand...

Playing for HoF is obviously easier since you roll great start and can choose peacefully civs as opponents - really don't see how can it add difficulty (in worst scenario you just don't beat record)

consentient said:

people love their turtling SVs. More than 50% of victories have been SVs. For me, that's kinda sad, but I never made a map where SV was inaccessible for most players.

Click to expand...

Well, even if you wanted it would be really hard to make map with SV harder than DomV for average player.

consentient said:

If IronFighterXXX could do sub-T200 CV on any given dirt, that would make him completely amazing and we'd all be learning so much about how to have better times, as well as finding out about the merits of different civs. But that victory was on an unbelievable map.

Click to expand...

Yes, this map was great, but to be honest it was only one sub 200t victory with nine CV on this map, with second result 70 turn later

IronfighterXXX said:

Well, even if you wanted it would be really hard to make map with SV harder than DomV for average player.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a good point you make. For most people, it seems, SV is easiest. For me it seems the opposite. All I was saying was that I don't want maps where SV is the 'default'. It kinda already is. Having a great warmonger like Harald nerfed to the point where I can't do anything with him isn't much fun.

Yes, this map was great, but to be honest it was only one sub 200t victory with nine CV on this map, with second result 70 turn later

Click to expand...

I'm not detracting from your win. You are obviously a top player. But I'm nowhere near that yet, and neither are most players on this series. I was only making the point that the DCL ought not to become HoF style, IMO.

@ ALL

Suggested VC is something that seems to have a lot of support, but would we make it even? Or rotate it, or what?

Eh, I have no opinion tbh, all I remember is that the same thing was tried in ACL (for BE) and pretty much everyone went the VC they wanted anyway so if the same were to be applied here, it would be pointless, wouldn't it

just disable science or science+diplo in some DCLs and I think that would make it more interesting. SV is a bit of an old recipe on deity that one can follow with almost no regard for civ or map.