Allow "No Barbarians"?

[Alphons Rodulfo]

Some remarks that might narrow the gap between the opposing forces seen in this thread:

1. Like in all polls, the phrasing of the question will influence the results. I wonder if the results would have been very different if the question in the poll had been “Do we want to allow people to play a HoF game without barbarians if they want to?”.

2. I also do not believe that a democratic process leads to the best decisions. In fact, I know the democratic process causes a lot of bad decisions to be made. I tend to prefer a decision made by a few objective and well informed people (that explains the absence of the enlightened despotism social policy: it would be way too powerful ).

3. Even if basing a decision based on the poll results only is questionable, the poll did incite a thorough discussion. So this thread is not without its merits!

4. We can see that HoF games are played by people with different views. Whether a player sees the HoF as a chess world championship tournament, or a casual and fun way of playing a silly game (or something in between), I think all players are helped with having a pool of fellow players that is as large as possible. Top rank players should realise that newbies can turn out to be fierce competition after a while. So for any decision on changing HoF game rules the question “Will this drive away players from the HoF?” should be asked. Based on the responses in this thread, it seems that some players will be offended by having to play with barbarians on always. On the other hand, I don't think that barbarian lovers will be offended or driven away from the HoF if some other people like to turn them off.

5. It is hard to think of a specific HoF challenge in which turning barbarians off will be helpful.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The backwards thing is, it is the people arguing in favor of a CASUAL approach to HoF that are the ones who are advocating that OPTIONS BE TAKEN AWAY .

Why are "casual" players seeking to control/restrict the gameplay of others? Isn't that uncharacteristic of being casual?

By far the most frustrating thing about this entire thread is the combination of its flawed premise and the continued insistence of its advocates to avoid any objective basis for an argument like the plague. I let it get me worked up earlier when it shouldn't have, but the fact remains that we've gone 5 pages into a thread about a given setting without the side advocating change giving a SINGLE objective reason for the change. Not even one numbers based analysis. Ironically, the only person that tried (and did well) is on the side of allowing the options.

And yet somehow, the majority of the voters on this thread still want to ban a setting for HoF, despite that doing so 1) goes against the spirit of HoF based on its FAQ description of what HoF is about 2) has been suggested to do the opposite of what the thread claims 3) actually overlaps with many gauntlet settings 4) limits options long before the metagame consequences of those options is known and 5) breaks HoF traditions.

When you're doing that, you better have a good reason. I'm still looking for the reason banning barbs from general HoF is even topic-worthy, let alone a legit thing to implement; its appearance is very arbitrary right now.

Part of the reason I reacted so strongly to this thread is that 1) it's suggesting something that represents an AWFUL mentality for HoF if adopted 2) it's started by a prominent figure within HoF and 3) literally everyone, even now, refuses to come up with an analytical/numbers based argument that actually supports the OP suggestion...and yet it got a majority vote. That's some bizzaro stuff right there.

 

[Neuro]

If an option is so skewed as to require it's use in order to be competitive, it no longer becomes an option.

The question should be "How much of an impact do Barbarians actually have?" There are definite positives to having barbs show up occasionally; they can make allying with CSs much easier, they can be a source of gold and sometimes workers, and they are a good source of experience for troops before going to war with a neighbor. On the other hand, turning them off completely frees you from keeping a home force to stop your lands from being pillaged, and allows you to send non-combat units on long trips without fear of being captured/destroyed.

I suggest that for the next Gauntlet, you allow the option of turning off barbs. I'm guessing you'll pick Science for the win condition, so we'd get a good showing on barbs vs no barbs.

 

[Denniz]

Enough. Please. This poll is not a democratic vote on the option. As I stated before, it was about gathering feedback and sparking discussion. The discussion is beginning to get a little too heated. We need to agree to disagree and move on. (You guys have more time and there are more of you than me. I can't keep up. )

I think I understand the viewpoints expressed against making "No Barbarians" an illegal option. I have no proofs to offer in favor. I just have my gut feel that I have offered from the beginning.

I respect that a few of you feel strongly apposed to the proposed rule. Just about every rule has/will have people that question it. It is not possible to please everyone 100% of the time.

In the end, the decision on the the various rules for the HOF are the responsibility of the HOF Staff. We will do the best we can to choose wisely.

______________________________

Making a HOF Mod is still out of our grasp but thanks to Gyathaar we know how to read parts of the save file. The current plan is to start a Beta Civ5 HOF, without a mod, in the near future. So any rules that we decide upon that we may come to regret can be changed once we have a mod that allows a permenant HOF.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That said, this isn't a bad idea Denniz; are you open to doing a thread like this (perhaps with a more neutral premise) for other settings? It feels like in the past some of the legal/illegal options in say civ IV would have been different if more viewpoints/analysis were available on them. That may or may not be true, but we'd have a concrete reasoning for what's allowed/not allowed in general HoF.

This is also why I really like the gauntlet concept: it needs no justification for settings, just a "who competes best under these arbitrary settings", where people do in fact have to adapt to do well.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I recently verified that all seven Civ V Beta Gauntlet's have the "No Barbarian" setting as prohibited setting. How can one evaluate whether the "No Barbarian" setting should be allowed without ever allowing it in any of the Beta Gauntlets? The Beta Gauntlet are the proper venue for testing settings and determining whether the game has any exploits and what needs to be done to avoid them.

Are there any plans to permit the "No Barbarian" setting in future Beta Gauntlets, so at least some objective data can be gathered for or against this option?

What really bothers me is I've asked this question at least twice before in this thread among others. Thus far, I've heard no answer.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[iggymnrr]

Seems like there are other issues that will come up down the road. Things like an option to play without natural wonders would impact Spain, etc. Too many things are in flux right now. The latest exploit I've stumbled on is the CS perma war where gifting CS many mech infantries completely eliminated a 12 city AI without ever declaring war. Personally, UAs based in RNG should be removed from the game.

 

[iggymnrr]

That said, this isn't a bad idea Denniz; are you open to doing a thread like this (perhaps with a more neutral premise) for other settings? It feels like in the past some of the legal/illegal options in say civ IV would have been different if more viewpoints/analysis were available on them. That may or may not be true, but we'd have a concrete reasoning for what's allowed/not allowed in general HoF.

This is also why I really like the gauntlet concept: it needs no justification for settings, just a "who competes best under these arbitrary settings", where people do in fact have to adapt to do well.

This me well. The HoF is about exploring the limits while gauntlets are playing with limits.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I agree with TheMeInTeam and iggymnrr that we need to explore every Civ V setting and not just the Barbarian setting.

I hope that we can agree that a setting should only be banned when it permits an exploit that the player can use to unfair advantage to win the game significantly faster.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

On Sulla's Civ5 Page, he writes a well reasoned critique titled:

"What Went Wrong with Civ5?"

After reading it, I must agree 100%, especially with Luddite's mini-critique that Sulla quoted in yellow text near the end of the article.

Does Civ V even have a Future?

It leaves us with grim possibility that Civ V doesn't have a future beyond a few more stop gap patches, because the design itself is doomed to failure by the single-minded idea that restricting units to one per tile would fix previous Civ incarnations' issues with "Stacks of Doom". According to Sulla's article, not only did this result in a military subsystem that fails to challenge the player, it forced contrived restrictions on almost every other subsystem (low tile yields, low production, low research, low wealth) of the game. In conjunction with Global Happiness that permits Infinite City Spread where Cities are limited to Population 4, this pretty much leaves any attempt by the HoF to fix exploits by banning certain settings doomed to failure. Given the poor design and implementation of Civ V, I can't see any way to make a future Civ HoF a credible venue where players can compete with each other on anything close to a fair basis. In addition, the AI's Artificial Intelligence is so woefully inadequate that the latest patch penalized the player's sound strategies/tactics against the AI, because the extremely weak AI could never be fixed to adequately prepare or respond to them.

Can we avoid All of Civ V Exploits via Banned Settings and other means:

So yes, we could examine all Civ V settings for exploits as I suggested in my previous post, but perhaps that is a waste of time. Unfortunately, we may have to conclude that Civ V is so unbalanced and full of exploits that we are ultimately doomed to failure. Even if we can some how plug up the exploits by banning settings and by other means, the game has so little challenge, even at the highest difficulty levels that it will be too boring to play. On the other hand, since the challenge of winning a Civ V game is so low, there should be no trouble filling the HoF tables with games, but due to the "boredom factor", the better players who want a challenging game will go back to Civ IV: BtS or move on to something else. Thus, the Civ V HoF will not really consist of the best games, even though tables might be kept full by players who are willing to put up with the tedium to have their handle listed with the #1 game. Frankly, I can't see much appeal to having a Civ V HoF #1 game, since the game is so poorly designed and impacted by random events and undetected exploits, it wouldn't even be a reflection of the skill of the player that owns the top spot.

Please Read Sulla's "What Went Wrong with Civ5?":

I strongly recommend that every player and especially every HoF staff member carefully read Sulla's article that I've linked to above. After that we will at least have a better understanding of the magnitude the task of making Civ V exploit-proof enough to be a reasonable candidate for a HoF. You can proceed with the HoF, but will significant players still be around to play Civ V for HoF competition?

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Bartonar]

barbarians are a great part of civ. i say make More Barbarians needed on some things as well.

 

[ShadeSigma]

I think there should be a "More Barbarians" option. But also it should be an option to not have them in a game because it's not so bad not to have them. I prefer to play with them though because it gives my units experience which is great during Ancient periods.

 

[Phoenix_Reaper]

As much as I want to agree they should be illegal I just have a deep found hatred for them. Always bothering me at the worst times.

 

[Evil Spock]

No barbarians makes a civ evan on prince pretty powerful for the first 150-200 turns, but on deity it's pretty game breaking for ai with very wide flavours not to mention gaining gold is far easier not having to protect trade routes. Barbarians aren't a really a hinderance on high level gameplay they keep wide civs in check by taking a couple of workers and settlers

 

[Cromagnus]

I actually think the game is easier WITH barbarians because of CS quests, and because it limits AI growth. So I say, fine, go ahead, let people choose "No Barbarians" if they want. It'll only make Deity harder.

 

[chuckh89]

I think the main "Advantage" would be maintenance cost (Especially on lower levels)

If you are in control, and have the AI Civs well "In Check", there really isn't threat to your vital tiles getting pillaged, and therefore you could just leave your city unoccupied, and be more inclined to just delete lesser units. Therefore, you will have more money, or have the ability to dedicate units to something else,..Like Pillaging, etc.

It probably "Nerfs" Tradition because you are more likely to leave a city unoccupied, and therefore your not getting any advantage from a "Free Garrison"

Players would also be more inclined to spend all their money, which may be a advantage to get a building, etc. a few turn earlier. Point being, that if there is a Barbarian threat to a unoccupied city,...Then you may keep a "Kitty" to buy a quick unit, to deal with the Barbarian on the next turn.

Game Changers
Disadvantage
One less option for Reformation Beliefs. "Heathen Conversion", and if you are hoping for JE, or Sacred Sites, it is more likely to be gone because you now have fewer choices.

Advantage
Nerfs Germany's UA (No 67% Chance that they join)

Disadvantage
Benefit to having Landsknechts is ability to move on the same turn as purchase (Threat-Barbarian Horseman). This would Nerf their ability, and makes "Commerce" slightly less inviting.

Advantage
I usually get plundered at least once or twice a game when a camp appears before I have time to react. If your playing peaceful, there is a good chance you can keep your original trade routes for the entire game. So Civs like Venice, Arabia, etc. benefit

OBVIOUSLY
Honor nerfed because NO culture from Barbs.
CSs quests nerfed

I am fine with the option, and would Vote...Yes
(But, I am currently content with the rules )

For Current Gauntlets, and Future Gauntlets everyone will be on equal footing, but the major question is....Will "Current Medalists" scores be effected by the change...??

-Probably not