It's been a while since I've played Civ3, so I can tell you is its a Scientific Great Leader.
BTS - HOF Rules - Game Options Discussion
- Thread starter Denniz
- Start date
It's been a while since I've played Civ3, so I can tell you is its a Scientific Great Leader.
Sounds reasonable to me. I've read a lot about the random events/quests and some of them certainly need some tweaking. I hope that future allowance should only be a matter of time.
azzaman333
meh
AFAIK, the quests are fairly balanced as is since the harder to complete they are the more benefit they give. However some of the random events may not be.
I just playtested the culture one - it is called Ice Sculpture for a reason: It can only occur in a tundra city and: you have the choice of paying some money for a settled great artist in that city (so hardly in one of you cultural mega cities) or +100 culture (yep NOT percent - just points 
) in that city for free - hardly gamebreaking.I am currently working on a parse of all event results and should be finishing that over the weekend so we can really discuss which are gamebreaking (I doubt there are any).
Yep I really want those random events legal
Blessed of the sea anyone?
Benefit:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=157239&d=1186036893
There must be veeery specific circumstances for someone trying to complete it.
azzaman333
meh
That requires at least 1 city on a 10 different islands on Standard, and 1 city on 16 different islands on Huge, plus you have to remain in the same state religion the whole time.
plus once you put a second city on any of those islands the upkeep for this island will kill you (in order to force you to liberate these colonies) - so this is one of the very balanced quests, you get a huge benefit for an even huger investment
I'm surprised.
Would someone really go for this?
I thought the reward was nowhere near the investment.
Thx for getting this straight, ori. While +100% looked like a great gain for a culture win, a measly 100 points look like, well, not a great gain
That would be a great boon.
Would someone really go for this?
I thought the reward was nowhere near the investment.
Thx for getting this straight, ori. While +100% looked like a great gain for a culture win, a measly 100 points look like, well, not a great gain
That would be a great boon.
I hope I get this across correctly.
If you guys decide to disallow random events or especially remove certain events, then I wish you would set it up so that if a player wants random events, nothing is removed or changed even if it means the game is not submissible. There are alot of good things in the mod and I enjoy using it in all my games, but to me random events are a part of BtS just as much as say espionage. So I would like to see the mod flexible enough so a player can use the mod, but not change anything to the vanilla BtS if so desired.
If you guys decide to disallow random events or especially remove certain events, then I wish you would set it up so that if a player wants random events, nothing is removed or changed even if it means the game is not submissible. There are alot of good things in the mod and I enjoy using it in all my games, but to me random events are a part of BtS just as much as say espionage. So I would like to see the mod flexible enough so a player can use the mod, but not change anything to the vanilla BtS if so desired.
You raise a good point. Disallowing random events doesn't prevent you from using them. You just get the HOF Warning message.
If we decide to disallow only some events, it may be difficult to control using some kind of option. It would be in keeping with our philosophy to make the changes optional where possible. That will have to be reviewed as well.
I will say that the HOF Mod's are primarily create to support players wishing to participate in the HOF. That has to be our first priority.
Dracandross
Warlord
Please try to replace the events you take out with new, less unbalancing ones
After playing 1 complete game my other thought is to reduce the frequency of random events as some of them seem to repeat too often.
I disagree. If you reduce frequency of events you could try to complete game without many events (and therefore all must be good ones). If you have them more you are bound to get bad ones too and effect of one incident is lessened. As in the end every single bit counts for the 1st date.
-Dracandross
That would be a great boon.
As promised, I just posted the complete list of Random Events - but we might just as well discuss the HOF stuff in here
Tsunami anyone? Destroys most buildings in a size 6 or bigger city and kills 5 population points. Leaves City Ruins for smaller cities
Spoiler :
the developers shied away from this at the last minute and disabled it by default 
I think that this option should be allowed. THis option seems pretty unlike the other options that are banned.
Most importantly this option will significantly slow the game down not speed it up. To me this allows for a more enjoyable pace of game without the sheer mind numbing boringness of Marathon speed. I highly doubt that there will be any quick wins using this option. Even with a pretorian\quech rush this option won't have any real effect since those games are pretty much won or lost befor eany tech trading. What this will do is increase the value of most of the niche UU's like cho ko nu's and landsknecht that always seem to have such a limited usefulness because they obsolete as soon as they are built.
The second reason this should be allowed is because it is an excellent compromise on a system that I feel is pretty broken. The AI's trade with each other at such a discount that even with Darius you can't be expected to keep pace without an empire twice the size of the next person. How many times have you had to trade alphabet for iron working? How many times has the AI been willing to trade you alphabet for iron working? In my last game the AI actually came to me with this trade.
Thirdly By knowing that trading the tech it won't get spread around the world in a turn the diplomacy is much more reasonable. How many times has your best friend come by and said "Please give me Printing Press that you just researched"? Most of the time I would have no problem sharing with my best buddy or would even like to give it to my buddy for strategic reasons and then when I do it and go to trade Printing Press I find the whole world has it and I have just lost 20 turns or more on the rest of the world instead fo gaining 20 turns. (On a side note there should be an option to tag techs as proprietary so they can not be demanded. Perhaps one tech is proprietary at a time or you can only use it on X techs per game. Given that the AI can prevent you from requesting a tech it is only fair that you be able to portect a tech as well)
Finally, because tech trading is so limited each trade must be more thoughtfuly planned out. For example do you trade currency for calendar or do you take the time to research calendar so you can trade that. In my opinion because you can not trade a tech that you traded for you have to think harder about trading to get the tech now or waiting and trading that tech later. There is now a distinct advantage to researching a tech yourself which appeals to my basic DIY nature and makes the game more interesting.
On a separate topic I think random events are neutral as far as the HOF games go and are really not unbalancing. Keep in mind that in some form Random Events have always been a part of the game since you can discover a resource by mining a tile and working it. While this was minor too it never hurts to "discover" gold in your first mine in an otherwise awesome starting city. I know for a fact that can be more unbalancing than a free golden age or a free GP. If you are going to ban random events then goodie huts should go to in case someone happens upon Astronomy on a random island which is just as game changing.
Most importantly this option will significantly slow the game down not speed it up. To me this allows for a more enjoyable pace of game without the sheer mind numbing boringness of Marathon speed. I highly doubt that there will be any quick wins using this option. Even with a pretorian\quech rush this option won't have any real effect since those games are pretty much won or lost befor eany tech trading. What this will do is increase the value of most of the niche UU's like cho ko nu's and landsknecht that always seem to have such a limited usefulness because they obsolete as soon as they are built.
The second reason this should be allowed is because it is an excellent compromise on a system that I feel is pretty broken. The AI's trade with each other at such a discount that even with Darius you can't be expected to keep pace without an empire twice the size of the next person. How many times have you had to trade alphabet for iron working? How many times has the AI been willing to trade you alphabet for iron working? In my last game the AI actually came to me with this trade.
Thirdly By knowing that trading the tech it won't get spread around the world in a turn the diplomacy is much more reasonable. How many times has your best friend come by and said "Please give me Printing Press that you just researched"? Most of the time I would have no problem sharing with my best buddy or would even like to give it to my buddy for strategic reasons and then when I do it and go to trade Printing Press I find the whole world has it and I have just lost 20 turns or more on the rest of the world instead fo gaining 20 turns. (On a side note there should be an option to tag techs as proprietary so they can not be demanded. Perhaps one tech is proprietary at a time or you can only use it on X techs per game. Given that the AI can prevent you from requesting a tech it is only fair that you be able to portect a tech as well)
Finally, because tech trading is so limited each trade must be more thoughtfuly planned out. For example do you trade currency for calendar or do you take the time to research calendar so you can trade that. In my opinion because you can not trade a tech that you traded for you have to think harder about trading to get the tech now or waiting and trading that tech later. There is now a distinct advantage to researching a tech yourself which appeals to my basic DIY nature and makes the game more interesting.
On a separate topic I think random events are neutral as far as the HOF games go and are really not unbalancing. Keep in mind that in some form Random Events have always been a part of the game since you can discover a resource by mining a tile and working it. While this was minor too it never hurts to "discover" gold in your first mine in an otherwise awesome starting city. I know for a fact that can be more unbalancing than a free golden age or a free GP. If you are going to ban random events then goodie huts should go to in case someone happens upon Astronomy on a random island which is just as game changing.
ATopic22
Clan SPADE Captain
i agree that this option should be players opinion but i dont know how it slows a game down
In the whole economy (all civs) of a game at any given time there is X gold available for research. Each civ accumulates research at a specific rate each turn and through that they get techs. When tech trading occurs beakers are essentially created out of thin air. If I have alphabet worth 800 beakers and you have math worth 700 beakers and we trade we both now have 1500 beakers whereas before together we only had 1500 beakers. By reducing trading the pace of the game slows because you have to personnally research more techs because you can not trade them. THat is why tech brokering was so powerful. If tech brokering is allowed I can usually research alphabet for 800 beakers and expect to get AH, IW, mysticism, polytheism, meditation and any number of early techs for the bargain basement price of only 800 beakers. granted this helps my opps as well but overall vs any one person I am ahead. WHen I trade Alphabet I usually go from last or close to it to 3rd in a few turns. With no tech brokering this doesn't happen.
I agree on banning unrestricted leaders. Otherwise everyone will be Darius of the Holy Roman Empire. On a large map this is truly gamebreaking with in the current inflation model.
I havent seen any gamebreaking random events. Quests most always are not worth pursuing in a HOF game (If I want culture I am not going to waste shields mass building chariots). An extra hammer from my forge in my capital can be helpful, with the effect being greater at slower game speeds, and might shave 1-2 turns off that last spaceship part in the end. The biggest effect of random events may be in games where very early military victories are desired, such as domination or conquest. Getting cover on all my melee at the right time can quite possible shorten your game.
I havent seen any gamebreaking random events. Quests most always are not worth pursuing in a HOF game (If I want culture I am not going to waste shields mass building chariots). An extra hammer from my forge in my capital can be helpful, with the effect being greater at slower game speeds, and might shave 1-2 turns off that last spaceship part in the end. The biggest effect of random events may be in games where very early military victories are desired, such as domination or conquest. Getting cover on all my melee at the right time can quite possible shorten your game.
RickWJ66
Chieftain
I agree with macrobot and the others who have advocated in favor of allowing the tech brokering option. Macrobot provides some very good arguments as to why the option provides for a better game-playing experience. By comparison, I have yet to see a clear explanation of why it is being disallowed.
I do not think the option is really "game changing" as it cuts either way -- if you have it on, the AI can't tech broker, but neither can you. It does slow down the game a bit, because it slows down the rate at which the AI and the player can progress down the technology tree (so those going for the fastest finish may want to keep the option off). But I see no strong reason for disallowing the option, if a player wants to use it.
By comparison, I totally understand why the "no tech trading" option is not allowed, as it strongly impacts the nature of the game. But the "no tech brokering" option is not nearly as drastic. I see it as providing more of a "flavor" difference in game play. I don't think it should be mandated, but I think each player should have the option. (But I have no option to mandating it, since I prefer to have it on, personally.) Is something like this worthy of some sort of poll to see what others prefer?
Anyway, that's my vote! (And thanks for all the hard work the HOF staffers do in trying to figure these things out in the first place!)
I do not think the option is really "game changing" as it cuts either way -- if you have it on, the AI can't tech broker, but neither can you. It does slow down the game a bit, because it slows down the rate at which the AI and the player can progress down the technology tree (so those going for the fastest finish may want to keep the option off). But I see no strong reason for disallowing the option, if a player wants to use it.
By comparison, I totally understand why the "no tech trading" option is not allowed, as it strongly impacts the nature of the game. But the "no tech brokering" option is not nearly as drastic. I see it as providing more of a "flavor" difference in game play. I don't think it should be mandated, but I think each player should have the option. (But I have no option to mandating it, since I prefer to have it on, personally.) Is something like this worthy of some sort of poll to see what others prefer?
Anyway, that's my vote! (And thanks for all the hard work the HOF staffers do in trying to figure these things out in the first place!)
I think the game options can be divided into a Game Variants and Misc. Controls.
Game Variants are just that, variations to standard play. They are fun or popular alternative rules. Generally it could be said that they change the basic game in some significant way or grant the player some advantage/disadvantage. Misc. Controls are either control some aspect of the game unrelated to play or merely allow for changes that don't affect play in any significant way. We would currently categorizing them as follows:
Major Variants:
Minor Variants:
Misc. Controls:
For Hall of Fame purposes, we try to keep to the standard game as much as possible. We sometimes allowed the option of picking a disadvantage or something that is fairly benign. I think the arguement could be made that a few of the minor variants probably should be major. Barbs being the obvious example. Unforetunately, precedent for no barbs was set a long time ago. I am not sure we got "No Vassals" right.
When we look at the new BTS options, we have to look at whether they will confer advantages to the player or otherwise alter the basic game significantly.
Random events seem to be mostly harmless. My inclination would be to take out any unbalancing events and make "No Random Events" be "must be unchecked". What would be a good argument for Player Option?
Tech brokering seems on the surface to confer an advantage to the player by slowing the AI on higher difficulties. So I would think that it would be like barbs. I.e. Everyone would have to check "No tech brokering" in order to be competative. (I will admit that it might be argued that it could make the lower levels a little more difficult but those don't carry the prestige that the higher difficuties do.)
Hopefully, this frames the debate a little better.
Game Variants are just that, variations to standard play. They are fun or popular alternative rules. Generally it could be said that they change the basic game in some significant way or grant the player some advantage/disadvantage. Misc. Controls are either control some aspect of the game unrelated to play or merely allow for changes that don't affect play in any significant way. We would currently categorizing them as follows:
Major Variants:
Code:
[COLOR="Red"]Advanced Start must be unchecked[/COLOR]
No City Flipping From Culture must be unchecked
[COLOR="red"]Unrestricted Leaders must be unchecked[/COLOR]
No Technology Trading must be unchecked
[COLOR="red"]No Technology Brokering must be unchecked[/COLOR]
Always Peace must be unchecked
Permanent War or Peace must be unchecked
Code:
No City Razing Player's option
City Flipping after Conquest Player's option
No Barbarians Player's option
Raging Barbarians Player's option
Aggressive AI Player's option
Random Personalities Player's option
Permanent Alliances Player's option
Always War Player's option
One City Challenge Player's option
Require complete kills Player's option
No Vassal States Player's option
No Tribal Villages Player's option
[COLOR="red"]No Random Events Player's option[/COLOR]
Code:
[COLOR="red"]Choose Religions Player's option[/COLOR]
New Random Seed on Reload must be unchecked
Locked Modified Assets must be checkedFor Hall of Fame purposes, we try to keep to the standard game as much as possible. We sometimes allowed the option of picking a disadvantage or something that is fairly benign. I think the arguement could be made that a few of the minor variants probably should be major. Barbs being the obvious example. Unforetunately, precedent for no barbs was set a long time ago. I am not sure we got "No Vassals" right.
When we look at the new BTS options, we have to look at whether they will confer advantages to the player or otherwise alter the basic game significantly.
Random events seem to be mostly harmless. My inclination would be to take out any unbalancing events and make "No Random Events" be "must be unchecked". What would be a good argument for Player Option?
Tech brokering seems on the surface to confer an advantage to the player by slowing the AI on higher difficulties. So I would think that it would be like barbs. I.e. Everyone would have to check "No tech brokering" in order to be competative. (I will admit that it might be argued that it could make the lower levels a little more difficult but those don't carry the prestige that the higher difficuties do.)
Hopefully, this frames the debate a little better.
