Lennon
Automated Worker
I agree to the extent that corruption could be handled better, but I don't necessarily think it should go completely.
A simple solution to "one sided games" : "Common Knowledge"
- Thread starter Borg
- Start date
SJ Frank
Spamalot Co-court
The purpose of corruption is to prevent the "Snow Ball Effect". For example, if at 1000 BC, civ A has 10% extra land than the other civs, that extra 10% land makes it easier for civ A to take even more land. So by 0 AD, civ A has 20% more land, by 500 AD, 30%, and so on.
But there is more. At 1000 BC, when civ 3 has only 10% more land. The ratio of strengh between civ A and other civs is 11/10. However, at 0 AD, that ratio increase to 6/5. Because when 2 civs compete, the ratio of their strengh determines the final outcome, as civ A becomes strong, it becomes progressively easier for it to conquer more, and becoming even stronger.
This is now a snow ball effect. Where a tiny little advantage for one civ grows bigger and becomes massive at the end. The rate of growth is exponential. It means that the out comes at the end is determine by very small things at the very start, and that's NOT good.
Corruption acts as a damper is the snowball effect. With corruption, where civ A has 10% more land, it is actually only 8% stronger. Later, when civ A becomes bigger, corruption has a greater effect. A civ that has 40% more land is probably only 20% stronger. With corruption, it becomes more difficult for a strong civ to "roll the snow ball", so the small civs, such as the human civ on higher difficulties, can still have a chance.
As it is already mentioned, corruption is one of the ways to "make the game more fun" by curbing the leaders. I think that it does a pretty good job of it. You don't want to curb the leaders too much, because then there is no more fun in world domination
. It is interesting to note that the change in FP in C3C, which is basically a change in the corruption mode, made it harder to curb a leading AI.
The original idea of this thread is to "help the little guys" a bit. It is mentioned in this thread as well that it is already done in civ3, by making the techs cheaper to research when they are known by other civs. I think more can definitely be done. As long as the way to catch up is 1) involving the use of strategy 2) difficult to do so that it is not an exploit, I think it will add to the game.
But there is more. At 1000 BC, when civ 3 has only 10% more land. The ratio of strengh between civ A and other civs is 11/10. However, at 0 AD, that ratio increase to 6/5. Because when 2 civs compete, the ratio of their strengh determines the final outcome, as civ A becomes strong, it becomes progressively easier for it to conquer more, and becoming even stronger.
This is now a snow ball effect. Where a tiny little advantage for one civ grows bigger and becomes massive at the end. The rate of growth is exponential. It means that the out comes at the end is determine by very small things at the very start, and that's NOT good.
Corruption acts as a damper is the snowball effect. With corruption, where civ A has 10% more land, it is actually only 8% stronger. Later, when civ A becomes bigger, corruption has a greater effect. A civ that has 40% more land is probably only 20% stronger. With corruption, it becomes more difficult for a strong civ to "roll the snow ball", so the small civs, such as the human civ on higher difficulties, can still have a chance.
As it is already mentioned, corruption is one of the ways to "make the game more fun" by curbing the leaders. I think that it does a pretty good job of it. You don't want to curb the leaders too much, because then there is no more fun in world domination
. It is interesting to note that the change in FP in C3C, which is basically a change in the corruption mode, made it harder to curb a leading AI.The original idea of this thread is to "help the little guys" a bit. It is mentioned in this thread as well that it is already done in civ3, by making the techs cheaper to research when they are known by other civs. I think more can definitely be done. As long as the way to catch up is 1) involving the use of strategy 2) difficult to do so that it is not an exploit, I think it will add to the game.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Corruption fails in the sense that it limits warmongers.
There is really no deterrant to attacking someone. Like I've said, corruption just means that which you capture produces less... it doesn't actually deter you from trying to capture in the first place. That is where corruption fails. Warmongers still warmonger without limits because there's no reason not to. Corruption is NOT a reason not to expand endlessly, be it through conquest or simply through Settlers. In order to put an effective system into place that balances the builder with the warmonger, something MUST be done to deter players from expanding, rather than simply enforcing the law of diminishing returns.
There is really no deterrant to attacking someone. Like I've said, corruption just means that which you capture produces less... it doesn't actually deter you from trying to capture in the first place. That is where corruption fails. Warmongers still warmonger without limits because there's no reason not to. Corruption is NOT a reason not to expand endlessly, be it through conquest or simply through Settlers. In order to put an effective system into place that balances the builder with the warmonger, something MUST be done to deter players from expanding, rather than simply enforcing the law of diminishing returns.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Actually, SJ, I tend to agree with Trip on this one. The intention was good, but the implementation was bad. If you truly want to keep things more even for a longer part of the game (thus slowing the snowball effect) then you can do so with the following:
1) Limit the ranges of early settler expansion by making 'unexplored' terrain more hazardous to non-exploration units-and by making certain harsh terrains more difficult to cross.
2) Have genuine minor nations-especially in the early game- that can act as buffers to early expansion, whilst giving a way for players to expand their nation later on, via diplomacy and force rather than through settler diaorreah!
3) Make larger nations more susceptible to internal strife, on average, than smaller nations.
4) Have maintainance costs and culture flows for cities-and connective infrastructure-that places greater emphasis on 'Quality' of cities over quantity of cities.
5) Have a system of city and nation specialisations that make it much more difficult for both individual cities, and individual civs, to become 'jacks of all trades'!!
6) Reform the resource appearance and disappearance model such that one single source of a resource can not support the needs of an especially large empire, whilst at the same time allowing smaller nations to obtain monopolies on certain types of resources!
7) Better model the impact of war on the civilian economy and research!
8) Operational ranges for units, as I stated above, would make it very much harder for units to plunge deep into the heart of enemy territory-instead forcing players to attack and consolidate outer cities before moving onto into the heartlands.
9) Make it easier to get Cultural and Economic techs via bonuses obtained by trading with nations that already possess the tech. Industrial and Military techs would probably still work the way they do in Civ3!
10) Rework corruption so that it is more based on issues like city age, overcrowding, infrastructure, government type and poverty/want and culture. Also, make it more % based such that it is more likely to hurt older, more established cities than it does newer, 'vibrant' cities. This will limit expansion as it will force players to focus more energy on keeping what they have running well, than constantly sending out more settlers to settle more territory!
These, of course, are just a few ideas I have for reducing snowballing that don't neccessarily box players in, but rewards good strategy over a simple build settler-found city-build settler-found city approach!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
1) Limit the ranges of early settler expansion by making 'unexplored' terrain more hazardous to non-exploration units-and by making certain harsh terrains more difficult to cross.
2) Have genuine minor nations-especially in the early game- that can act as buffers to early expansion, whilst giving a way for players to expand their nation later on, via diplomacy and force rather than through settler diaorreah!
3) Make larger nations more susceptible to internal strife, on average, than smaller nations.
4) Have maintainance costs and culture flows for cities-and connective infrastructure-that places greater emphasis on 'Quality' of cities over quantity of cities.
5) Have a system of city and nation specialisations that make it much more difficult for both individual cities, and individual civs, to become 'jacks of all trades'!!
6) Reform the resource appearance and disappearance model such that one single source of a resource can not support the needs of an especially large empire, whilst at the same time allowing smaller nations to obtain monopolies on certain types of resources!
7) Better model the impact of war on the civilian economy and research!
8) Operational ranges for units, as I stated above, would make it very much harder for units to plunge deep into the heart of enemy territory-instead forcing players to attack and consolidate outer cities before moving onto into the heartlands.
9) Make it easier to get Cultural and Economic techs via bonuses obtained by trading with nations that already possess the tech. Industrial and Military techs would probably still work the way they do in Civ3!
10) Rework corruption so that it is more based on issues like city age, overcrowding, infrastructure, government type and poverty/want and culture. Also, make it more % based such that it is more likely to hurt older, more established cities than it does newer, 'vibrant' cities. This will limit expansion as it will force players to focus more energy on keeping what they have running well, than constantly sending out more settlers to settle more territory!
These, of course, are just a few ideas I have for reducing snowballing that don't neccessarily box players in, but rewards good strategy over a simple build settler-found city-build settler-found city approach!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
SJ Frank
Spamalot Co-court
I do like a lot of the ideas that Aussie_Lurker has listed, as well as many of the other idea in this thread and this forum, but there is that one underlying theme that I can't agree with -- that a rabid expansion style is bad, that wining the game by attacking someone is bad. I think that the basic theme behind the civ style of gaming is expansion. The more you expand, the stronger you become. That's true of (nearly) all turn-based strategy games. Take this theme away, then you've got just an empire management game, which is not nearly as rich as what civ is right now.
I'm a builder. I win most of the times playing a builder style on DG level. Never the less, I can understand why people prefer the warmonger style. It is exciting, it is easier to learn, it produces better scores, and it's natural to the players coming from a RTS gaming perspective (ever seen a "builder" star craft player
). I'd dare say that the builder style is not more prevalent because it requires more micro-management, and more attention to details, that most players are not up to.
From my experience, I have found that I can't win on Diety without being more aggressive, so I have since played mostly DG level games. So I can say that the builder style is good for a competitive game at the DG level... which is not bad, really, nothing there that need to be changed. If I want a edge-of-the-seat game, then I goto Diety, otherwise I can play a more empire management style at a still competitive level.
If I want to encourage the builder style of playing, I'd start by making micro-management easier for the average player. Many of the helper utilities found on this site should become standard features. Food and Shields produced on the turn that the box is filled should carry over, etc. Making it easier for the player to build, rather than making it harder for the player to fight. What do you think?
I'm a builder. I win most of the times playing a builder style on DG level. Never the less, I can understand why people prefer the warmonger style. It is exciting, it is easier to learn, it produces better scores, and it's natural to the players coming from a RTS gaming perspective (ever seen a "builder" star craft player
). I'd dare say that the builder style is not more prevalent because it requires more micro-management, and more attention to details, that most players are not up to. From my experience, I have found that I can't win on Diety without being more aggressive, so I have since played mostly DG level games. So I can say that the builder style is good for a competitive game at the DG level... which is not bad, really, nothing there that need to be changed. If I want a edge-of-the-seat game, then I goto Diety, otherwise I can play a more empire management style at a still competitive level.
If I want to encourage the builder style of playing, I'd start by making micro-management easier for the average player. Many of the helper utilities found on this site should become standard features. Food and Shields produced on the turn that the box is filled should carry over, etc. Making it easier for the player to build, rather than making it harder for the player to fight. What do you think?
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
The point, though, is that none of my ideas stop expansionists and warmongers DEAD in their tracks. Its just that they have to think a little bit more about what they want to achieve in the LONG TERM! If a player wants to expand rapidly, then he should invest heavily in explorers and or scouts. If he wants to wage constant warfare, then he should be prepared to be held in low esteem internationally AND face massive recriminations at home. The player can manage these problems-to some degree-but they may prevent final victory! The fact is that, if Civ does NOT contain a reasonable balance between warmongering and building, then it is JUST another wargame! The real issue for me, though, is NOT whether someone is a builder, an expansionist or a warmonger. It is about any ONE of these methods simply feeding into itself to produce the snowball effect. My beef is that early success should not almost guarantee future success-as it seems to in the current game-and a good game should involve a reasonable combination of all three tactics AND good relations with at least SOME of your neighbours! Hope that makes sense?
SJ Frank
Spamalot Co-court
Aussie_Lurker said:
Agreed. And I think that the current game model provides a good enough balance. Just because the majority of the players prefer one style over another does not mean that the game isn't balanced. It speaks more for "what kind of gratification that the average gamer want out of a game" than what the game designer intends the game to be.
Aussie_Lurker said:
But you can't take it away completely either. There need to be some reward for early success, and that reward, really the only possible reward, is future success. How much future success do you think can be taken away before players begin crying, unfair, I did everything right and still something happened to screw me over!
Aussie_Lurker said:
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. As a game designer, you can design the game rule that encourage people to play to all three tactics, but, there is still no gurantee that the players will play the game the way that you (the designer) intended them to. You can encourage them all you want by designing rules, but if you try to force them to play one particular way too much, then you risk losing them all together.
Since game company are in the business to make money, the bottom line is real goal behind them make these games for us. Now, producing a good game is a very important ingredient in making a profit, but so is "getting as many people to buy the game as possible". To that end, I think that games need to be designed such that players of different styles can each find gratification while playing his style, rather than being forced into a narrow tunnel to success.
I agree with you that a game where a balance strategy of expansion, war, building and diplomacy produces the best results is a good game, for me, because that's how I like to play. But don't make the rules too harsh, so that other people (who don't want to get involved so much into one game, exploring all its depth, as much as you and I) can still have a good time playing it.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I think 'Common Knowledge' would be good as a side-effect of a late Industrial, or even Early Modern area tech----something like Mass Media / Globalization. The leading tech would of course research it as mandatory, or for some benefit, and reap the negative side-effect. To limit its effect, there might be multiple techs having the similar effect, but each generating a cumulative chance of spreading any other tech by 'common knowledge' to other civs.
Turtleneck
Calling London
The keyword is suddenly. I think it'd be better if say, most of the civs know a tech for 20 turns or so and there is SUFFICIENT CULTURE exchange (another idea that I bet will be included), then there can be some sort of chance etc., of this tech being available to your backwards civ. Otherwise this would take away the effects of being on a continent by yourself with little contact. This should always be a bad position to be in (eg. 1492 
).
).Hamshore
Chieftain
How about shared research? You enter a pack with an other civ to share your research ability? But in order to be able to use the combined might, both civ's have to be at the same tech level - so if your behind the AI has to give you all it knowledge in order to tap into your help and the other way round. Would need to be some form of penalty for doing this to stop all of the AI's ganging up into a research club - say 10% harder to get a tech advance for each civ that joins the club?
burleigh
Chieftain
Currently, the tech cost is based on the proportion of civilisations who already know the tech, which could still be costly for tiny civs. If it was based on the proportion of the world population who know the tech (with no lower limit for turns to research) then this could help the smaller civs. Man for man, Belgium's armed forces arern't much less sophisticated of technologically advanced than, say France- it's just that there are less of them.
Just my 2 Euro's worth...
Just my 2 Euro's worth...
I agree with all of this up til the military/infrastructure. Military can be learned by battling an army with supirior tech. (you'd have to do some of the work yourself of course, but you get the concept from them, which sometimes, as with pikemen, are all there is to it.) Also, it would be cool to take a city and learn how their infrastructure works. This makes it so that civs that are ahead don't give away all their tech all at once, but other civs still can get it if they are strong/agressive enough.
Similar threads
