Amazing!

[eyrei]

I just noticed that for the first time in probably months, there is not a thread title on the first page of this forum related to corruption and its adverse effects on someone's fun.

Have people finally figured out that one can deal with it effectively, and that, it in fact adds fun to the game?

Or, is everybody silently fuming, waiting for some arrogant SOB like myself to post this thread, so that they can flame me?

Or, like Killer , have you reverted to 1.16 so that you can play without a capital and have no corruption?

PS. Killer, we will still accept you into the forces of light if you will only see it.

 

[Shaitan]

I like corruption. I think it adds a very important aspect to the game. I must admit that I did put a couple of corruption tweaks in my mod though. Nothing extrordinary. Barracks reduce corruption to give an early game boost to expansionists. Max city size increased by 20% to encourage large kingdoms. Great Wonders reduce corruption to represent the unifying effect of these great constructions.

This is only in the Brit Isles mod and were done to specifically encourage the mod to play the way I wanted. When i play the regular game it's straight from Firaxis' bic file.

 

[Fanny Brice]

I'm still unhappy with corruption...


I haven't made my own mod, but I'm thinking about it.

I'm mulling something with the affect of a mini-forbidden palace that would be useful in territory conquered on other continants. I can't think of what to call it though... something like "Field HQ"

It would be nice if these far flung cities didn't have a 99% corruption rate. Even 60% would be palatable.

Other than that, I wouldn't tweak the game too much.

Nice to see that the old "spearman vs. tank" debate is stronger than ever, though. :flamedevi

 

[royfurr]

Hey, Fanny Brice, why not try something like


* Provincial Capital
* Viceroys Palace
* House of the Rising Sun (hehe- not really appropriate!)
* Overseas Command
* Elliot Ness Retirement Home


Your rignt that its hard to come up with a name, mostly because it has to have some sort of "overseas" connatation I think.

Anyway good luck!

 

[BillChin]

Again, my opinion is that corruption is a game balance contrivance. I would like to see changes made and have suggested them in other places.

I believe one reason patch 1.17f is doing so poorly (50% approval rating) in my fun poll is that nothing was done about corruption frustration.

My ideas include: a shield specialist that is immune to corruption, limit of three per city. This requires code in a lot of places, plus updated art, so I'll not hold my breath on this one. Still, I believe it would make the game more fun without upsetting game balance. More fun, little change in balance, means a good change.

Another idea is minimum effectiveness levels for courthouses and police stations. A couple of if-then-else statements are about all that is needed for this change. What I have in mind is a minimum of 2 shields with a courthouse and 3 shields with a police station for big cities.

Virtually every player has at one time or another sat through 80 turns to build a courthouse only to see the shield output remain at 1 shield in a big city. Every one of them hates this. This is not fun, it is frustrating and it is pointless frustration. They can leave gold corruption the same so the player can get a sense of the real percentage, not the minimums.

No player is going to conquer the world with 2 and 3 shield output cities, but it gives a player some sense of control. Again, more fun, little change in balance means a good change.

Here's the code:
If shield_output > 4 and (courthouse in city) then
shields_after_corruption := max (shields_after_corruption,2)

If shield_output > 9 and (police_station in city) then
shields_after_corruption := max (shields_after_corruption,3)
else
If shield_output > 4 and (police_station in city) then
shields_after_corruption := max (shields_after_corruption,2)

If shield_output > 9 and (police_station in city) and (courthouse in city) then
shields_after_corruption := max (shields_after_corruption,4)

 

[God]

ALthough i don't really like corruption, overall its a good thing. Mainly because it discourages me from just playing conquest games.

 

[FenrysWulf]

I can't believe people are actually speaking positively about corruption here! What's the fun of having cities that take 80 turns to build a library, and can never get faster, no matter what you do? It doesn't stop you from building huge empires, it is just annoying. When you build a courthouse or a police station, it should actually do something to reduce corruption.

 

[Hellpig]

I am not too happy about the big C but I want to play by the standard rules, that's just it - otherwise I kind of see it as cheating (more or less). But I really think they should have allowed some more C-reducing building (like temples could have slight affect on C) and so on. It shouldn't be impossible to make a huge nation...
Another thing; have you ever noticed sometimes when you finish a courthouse in a distant city - that courthouse doesn't do one point C-reduction. That is really bad! Why then should I build it at all!

 

[Modern Hoplite]

I'm actually a pretty big fan of corruption because it requires that you plan out which wonders go where and how to develop your kingdom early on when you're stuck in an inefficient government.

First post by the way, just wanted to say I'm a big fan of the forums.

 

[Mr Spice]

I think the consept of corruption is good but a bit harsh. I have increased the optimal number of cities somewhat to bring corruption down to a level that better suits my style of playing.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by FenrysWulf
I can't believe people are actually speaking positively about corruption here! What's the fun of having cities that take 80 turns to build a library, and can never get faster, no matter what you do?

I don't think I have ever waited 80 turns for any building. What happened to rush-buying?

 

[royfurr]

Originally posted by Hellpig
.....
Another thing; have you ever noticed sometimes when you finish a courthouse in a distant city - that courthouse doesn't do one point C-reduction. That is really bad! Why then should I build it at all!

The answer, Hellpig, is that ... I don't bother to build them. The return is not worth the investment. I would image most other people don't, either.

About the only thing worthwhile is perhaps a temple to spread you bounderies, and a Library is good ... although you don't really get any increased science beakers for it, you do get 3 culture pts. per turn for a cost of one maintenance. Beyond that, buidling anything else leads to having to sustain the maintenance cost of whatever is built by other cities output. It seems futile to build marketplaces or universities etc. I set these cities on build wealth to get an income gold, and turn all the citizens I can into (corruption-proof) specilists, typically taxmen but occasionally a scientist.

BillChin's shield producing specialist, (corruption proofed) is a pretty good idea, but as he notes it'll require a fair amount of code and some art, so its $$$ cost to Firaxis/Infogames for no return profit ... we've already pd. for the game and this litte item will hardly sell a significant number of new games, so likely forget it. Too bad.

The minimum raised to 2 and 3 for having the courthouse and police station might fly in a future patch though; BUT I think it should NOT be linked to city size. And Police stations could have the prequesitie be moved up to something like The Republic instead of the so much later Communism (always thought that was a little strange, having communism being required made the police station sound more like Tortue House, ya know). Perhaps rename Police station to Tribune Post.

Ha! There is an idea, make a new specialist, that reduces WASTE (or perhaps corruption, heck, both!), by say 1 (or, editable, and up to a limit of 3 units) per specialist. Call em Tribunes or The Untouchables. Oh, forgot, that'll cost $$$ to implement- code, art etc. And Infogames has already been pd. ...

Oh well.

Yes, voted that I had modded the game to reduce the bite of corrupiton. I always hated ICS, seemed such an exploit, but man there should be a better way to prevent it then this. This way is so frustrating and is, welll, no fun. A killjoy. Its like having the Puritans plan your party. No offense to any Puritans who may be out there ....

 

[royfurr]

Regarding building in a corruption plauged city,
Obvioulsy a Barracks can also be good, as also Harbor, and for me very rarely, an Airport

At least in SOME of them, anyway. Temple and Library in most all IMO.

 

[Marzipan]

You know it occurred to me a few days ago that the way corruption is most at cities farthest from the capital really sort of models transportation costs. It costs more to ship raw and finished goods in and out of the outlying locations. Perhaps "corruption" would be an easier pill to swallow if it was called (or you thought of it as) "transportation costs, corruption, and waste".

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by FenrysWulf
I can't believe people are actually speaking positively about corruption here! What's the fun of having cities that take 80 turns to build a library, and can never get faster, no matter what you do?

Corruption is a great game feature. It's fun because it is challenging. On Monarchy or Emperor level, even my frontier cities usually have fairly good cultural development.

 

[BillChin]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Corruption is a great game feature. It's fun because it is challenging. On Monarchy or Emperor level, even my frontier cities usually have fairly good cultural development.

Fun and challenging for about 35% according to the current poll standings. For the other 65%, frustrating and stupid might be better adjectives.

Riddle me this (anyone): What is the point of frustrating 65% of the customers? Is it that so some idealogue on the development team can be happy?

Again the point of a game is fun, not to make score some debating points like some of the development team and some fans often seem bent on in other threads. If there were more alternatives in the standard game (no mods), I think the frustration would be less, and the fun factor would go up.

If you never waited 80 turns for a courthouse, that makes one person. You might round up a few dozen others in the thousands of registered fans. You deal with corruption by using gold, but not every play style generates a big gold surplus. Forcing players to do so makes the game less fun.

Almost all players have built a courthouse the regular way (no rush, no purchase, no disband, no forest cut) in a distant city at some point in some game. These players wait 80 turns or about 15% of the entire game to complete the project. Almost all of these players have at some point experienced no effect in some cities after completing the courthouse. I'd bet most players use a word other than "challenging" or "great" at that point.

You play the game a certain way. Other players have different play styles. The more options open to the player, the more fun it is. I can not make that any clearer. Funneling all players into a narrow band of choices is not fun. When considering possible alternatives, play balance is important, because a game that is too easy is no fun. However, pure frustration is a poor choice, and that is what some development decisions point to.

Again, if anyone at Firaxis is reading along, please look for things that make the game more fun, without making the game too easy. It is a fine balance, but fun needs to go ahead of all the petty micro issues that seem to dominate the discussions.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Hellpig
I am not too happy about the big C but I want to play by the standard rules, that's just it - otherwise I kind of see it as cheating (more or less). But I really think they should have allowed some more C-reducing building (like temples could have slight affect on C) and so on. It shouldn't be impossible to make a huge nation...
Another thing; have you ever noticed sometimes when you finish a courthouse in a distant city - that courthouse doesn't do one point C-reduction. That is really bad! Why then should I build it at all!

Why indeed. Corruption stinks.

And for the umpteenth time, it is NOT "cheating" to Editor the absurd values that came with the standard game. That includes everything from combat values to the absurdly high costs of Espionage to resources.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave
And for the umpteenth time, it is NOT "cheating" to Editor the absurd values that came with the standard game.

Absolutely, Zouave. For many players, editing is half the fun!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by royfurr
Regarding building in a corruption plauged city,
Obvioulsy a Barracks can also be good, as also Harbor, and for me very rarely, an Airport

At least in SOME of them, anyway. Temple and Library in most all IMO.

Airport is essential for luxuries and military support on distant islands and continents.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by BillChin
Fun and challenging for about 35% according to the current poll standings. For the other 65%, frustrating and stupid might be better adjectives.

Riddle me this (anyone): What is the point of frustrating 65% of the customers? Is it that so some idealogue on the development team can be happy?

The number you are quoting is not a scientific survey, though it is an interesting result. I don't make the game. If I like it, I play it.

I think players would have a better time with culture and corruption if they played on a standard map and at a reasonable level. If that doesn't work, that's why they included an editor.