Firaxis: Corruption Breakdown

[Yumbo]

I agree with this in theory, except that it doesn't go quite far enough.

I would add that any prebuild should be eliminated, though.

If you start with a factory, and switch to a wonder, your shields should start at 0 (an exploit is an exploit, after all).

I would even go a step further and say you should ALWAYS start at 0 when switching to a wonder, even when coming from another wonder you lost out on. EXCEPT that this would be a huge benefit to the human player, as the AI can't judge wonder-building risks as well as the human plaer and simply tries to build every wonder they are capable of building, no matter how futile the attempt.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Since there were penalties for swiching in CivII, one'd like to think they had some fairly good reasons to remove them in CivIII, but I've not, that I can recall, heard a justification. Does anyone happen to know?

 

[a space oddity]

This is almost going back to Civ2, where you could only switch builds at the cost of half the shields collected.

edit: cross-posted, I always wondered why they changed that.

 

[Yumbo]

There were penalties in SMAC as well. In fact, in SMAC, you incur a penalty any time you switch production from one unit/improvement to another.

I think it was simply a playability issue. But I've never run across any official justification.

 

[Marlor]

Originally posted by Yumbo
If you start with a factory, and switch to a wonder, your shields should start at 0 (an exploit is an exploit, after all).

Perhaps a variation on Civ2's concept of losing a percentage of your shields when you switch production types could be a solution.

EDIT: It looks like a few others had the same idea.

 

[Marlor]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy

Sorry if I made it sound like that, that was not my intention. But if a person is unchallenged by the AI, then they have played the game enough to understand the game in order to get to that point (or they are playing at too low of a level, but most of them are already playing at deity+). So, obviously they DO play the game, which nihil8r was implying they don't.

I definately did misinterpret what you and nihil8r said, simply because I agree with nihil8r's opinion about the FP so I was willing to cut him more slack. That was selective reading on my part, and I apologise.

I'm very sorry.

I think the second part of my post about the two types of player better reflects my opinion than my silly remarks about "elite" players. I'm usually very cool-headed, so that remark is a measure of my frustration at the way us "casual" players seem to be ignored in favour of the "mathematical" players (although it is probably just a case of it seeming this way, rather than this being the reality).

Basically, all I was trying to get across was that many of us play with a totally different style to the experts on this forum, and the proposed changes to the FP drastically affect this way of playing.

I think both styles of play should be considered if the functionality of the FP was to be changed, because I think both styles are perfectly valid.

Anyway, it's 2004 here now, so Happy New Year everyone. I'm going to leave the forums for a few hours and relax.

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by anarres
I agree that removing the palace-prebuild would work "wonders".

A simple solution to this (and to remove all pre-build exploits) is:

Don't allow wonders to switch production to other wonders!

It would be so easy to implement - just 'grey out' the other small/great wonders when a small/great wonder is being built! This way would still allow you to use a uni/factory as a pre-build, but no more palace -> wonder switches! The only exception needed to this rule is to change to another wonder if the one in the build queue can no longer be build (so if someone else completes a wonder you can cascade to another one). This would make a huge difference and one that I would welcome.

Anyone else?

Anarres,

I would have no problem with this suggestion, but then there shouldn't be any chance to pre-built anything for a wonder. In other words, in that case any shield for the wonder would have to be spend from the scratch!

If you try to avoid exploits, just do it completely!

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by nihil8r
so is atari going to refund my $30 or am i going to have to start a class action lawsuit with 50,000 virtual co-defendents, one for every copy of Conquests that was published? i'm sure i could find a lawyer willing to take this for a slice of $1.5 million.

If this happened you would pretty much guarantee that a new Civ game would never be made.

BTW, did you read your EULA before you agreed to it? You had 15 days to 'opt out'. Did you?

In case you just said "I Agree" here it is for your perusal.

AGREEMENT
This document is an agreement between you and Atari, Inc. and its affiliated companies (“Company”). The enclosed software game disc(s), cartridge or Game Pak (“Software”) and any accompanying printed materials are licensed to you only on the condition that you accept all of the terms contained in this EULA.
By opening this package and installing or otherwise using the Software you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA you may not install or use the Software and within 15 days of purchase you must call the Tech Support telephone number listed in the manual accompanying the Software (the “Manual”). Select the Automated Phone System’s Main Menu option for Consumer Services and follow the prompts.
You will be given a Return Merchandise Authorization number (RMA #) by the technician. You then have 15 days from the date of this contact to return the Software in its protective covering, the Manual and the original sales invoice to the address supplied to you.
If this is a PC product, when you install the Software you will be asked to review and either accept or not accept the terms of the EULA by clicking the “I Accept” button. By clicking the “I Accept” button you acknowledge that you have read the EULA, understand it and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions.

.
.
.

LIMITED WARRANTY AND DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES
You are aware and agree that use of the Software and the media on which is recorded is at your sole risk. The Software and media are supplied “AS IS.” Unless otherwise provided by applicable law, the Company warrants to the original purchaser of this product that the Software storage medium will be free from defects in materials and workmanship under normal use for ninety (90) days from the date of purchase. The warranty is void if the defect has arisen through accident, abuse, neglect or misapplication. If the Software fails to conform to this warranty, you may at your sole and exclusive remedy, obtain a replacement free of charge if you return the defective Software. Follow the Product Return Procedures described in the Manual. The Company does not warrant that the Software or its operations or functions will meet your requirements, or that the use of the Software will be without interruption or error.
TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTY SET FORTH ABOVE, THE COMPANY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING AND WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTY SET FORTH ABOVE, THE COMPANY DOES NOT WARRANT, GUARANTEE OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE IN TERMS OF ITS CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, CURRENTNESS OR OTHERWISE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF OR LIMITATIONS ON IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

IN NO EVENT WILL THE COMPANY OR ITS EMPLOYEES OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY, FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, LOSS OF PRIVACY, FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY AND NEGLIGENCE) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF THE COMPANY OR AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPANY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
IN NO EVENT WILL THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY FOR DAMAGES WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE EXCEED THE AMOUNTS ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE.
CHOICE OF LAW AND VENUE

This EULA is governed by the laws of the United States of America and the State of New York, exclusive of its conflicts of law provisions. The exclusive venue for litigation regarding or arising from this EULA is New York County, New York and you agree to submit to the Jurisdiction of the courts of New York County, New York for any such litigation.

The bolding is mine. It says that you agree that the software may have bugs or might not make you happy.

The other interesting thing is that you agreed that any legal actions would be done in a court friendly to Atari.

 

[Bamspeedy]

As for pre-builds, I heard a suggestion made by someone else (Sirian?) that I think would be the best solution, and it may have been implemented in another game, IIRC.

The suggestion was that the shields you spend towards a project can ONLY be used for that project, and there is no penalties. You build 25 shields towards a library and then you decide to build a temple instead. When you start the temple, you start at 0 shields, but anytime you want to go back to the library you start at the 25 shields you had. So you could change your mind as often as you want, yet you can't use prebuilds for other projects and you aren't penalized. This makes sense, because if a city wants to build a library, but stops construction of it mid-way through, the production/materials are not wasted (the foundation will still be there), and some materials you couldn't transfer anyways (like from library to bomber).

 

[Yumbo]

I like the suggestion a lot, but my guess is we aren't ever going to see anything like that in a patch...

 

[Yeti]

This is not a suggestion / request for the current beta patch, which I realize is on a tight schedule must remain on focus (fixing real bugs).

But on the subject of construction switching, I actually like a combination of the mentioned ideas.

- You start building a Library.

- You select to switch to a Courthouse.

- The game asks you whether you want to start a fresh structure, or convert the current project. If you start a fresh structure, then you can switch back to a Library later and the initially invested shields are still there. If you convert the current project then that means you're going to use the existing cleared land, foundation, gathered supplies, etc... to speed up the new project, so shields carry over at some ratio (the suggested 50% sounds fine).

This way shields invested in a wonder wouldn't be totally lost (you can't go back and finish the wonder later if someone else beat you to it), but you could decide to stop production of a structure to build a military unit (for ecample) at any time and then continu the project later, and it would also help address the wonder cascade / pre-build issues.

Concern 1: The AI is (as always) likely to be less adroit with the management of this new ability than players.

Concern 2: There could be some exploits in there with having buildings almost finished so you can go back to them at any time. What kind of FP / Palace / Wonder tricks would people think of when they could have palaces one shield from completion in 3 different cities at the same time? And then any one of those could be called up and used to start halfway into a wonder at any point.

This may open too many cans of worms. Much of that could be solved though by excluding wonders and palaces from the list of structures you can do this with.

 

[warpstorm]

I liked the system from SMAC (IIRC) where you lost half of your shields if the switch was of a different 'type' than what you were building. (A palace would be a different type than a Great Wonder, but a library would be the same type as a courthouse).

It's not totally realistic, but it worked okay.

The types would logically (at least to me) be normal buildings (Improvements), Small Wonders, Great Wonders, and units. If you wanted to, you could subdivide units further (say, into Land Sea, and Air), but I don't think it's needed.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Originally posted by anarres
I agree that removing the palace-prebuild would work "wonders".

A simple solution to this (and to remove all pre-build exploits) is:

Don't allow wonders to switch production to other wonders!

Well, I think that this would hurn AI more then help a problem.
It would waste much more shiled on wonders which will never be finished.

Why don't just disallow switching from Palace to Wonders (and Wonders to Palace) only?

 

[Colonel Kraken]

I don't see why people can't accept the notion that building any type of structure in Civ 3 can be considered generic construction project that just happens to have a name.

I get past the "unrealism" of switching simply by thinking of it is as if I had been building the other structure all along. Think about it: if there are 5 races building the same wonder, one of 'em gets it, the rest switch, on and on and on . . . and all get some kind of wonder or building, simply realize that those races had been building that specific building all along.

Remember, Civ is very abstract. I'm surprised that a lot of you who continually point this out (*cough* Warpstorm *cough* --now I'm ready for a sound thrashing ), seem to think this is the one area that needs to be particularly realistic.

Just my thoughts. Carry on.

--CK

p.s. To add to this concept, I read a suggestion one time that said basically what I said here but the game should then allow for the use of those "excess" shields so you don't have to waste them in converting to a non-wonder (you got beat to it). There were some balance issues that some brought up (which I don't remember), but on the whole it's a very intriguing concept.

p.s.s. Along the same lines, why shouldn't you be able to prebuild? Your society is actively working in the economy on something, you just name it later.

 

[Yumbo]

Along the same lines, why shouldn't you be able to prebuild?

Because prebuilding is an exploit, a cheat. Basically, you are receiving a huge advantage over the AI (and, in MP games, over players who play the game with a modicum of integrity) by using prebuilding.

I would imagine, and I could be wrong, but I would imagine that the reason the Palace as a construction project was put into the game was NOT so that the human player could use it as a means for beating the AI to crucial wonders.

Now, Firaxis has had two years to close this loophole. Since it would be easy to close, and since they have clearly chosen not to do so, they either feel it is unimportant or that it falls within margins of fair play.

Personally, I disagree. In 2+ years, I have never used the palace prebuild. But since it doesn't look like it is going to be patched, and since I primarily play single player, and never pre-build, I guess it ultimately doesn't effect me much anyway.

 

[Bolt]

Would be nice to have an option in the editor that left over shields on built structures could be used on other ones, like in Alpha Centari.

 

[Speaker]

Originally posted by Marlor
In order to beat the Deity level, you really have to play with the second approach to some degree.

Who do you think you are? Have you beaten Deity? If not, how do you know what it takes? Take a look in the Succession Game forum and you'll see TONS of Emperor or Deity games that easily succeed without using exploits or pushing the programming. Or take a look at some game reports from Realms Beyond. You'll find that solid game mechanics and understanding derive from PRACTICE and hours of gameplay. Do you have any doubt that some of the biggest "reverse-engineers" out there, as you put it, like SirPleb and Bamspeedy, could not beat Deity any way they please with their eyes closed? If you do have that doubt, or haven't looked at game reports from numerous Deity wins, perhaps you should not be making such a generalization.

Sure, following the first approach may not be as effective, but it's certainly a lot more fun.

Fun for you perhaps, but maybe not for some other people.

 

[SpikeIt]

Hello. Long time lurker here. I agree with Col that Palace jumping seems like quite an exploit. I have no problem with building a palace legitimately elsewhere, and I don't have a problem building it with a leader as that is a game mechanism. But the ability to magically teleport a palace elsewhere through razing your city seems exploitive and unrealistic (given the realism is very relative in this game).

If your palace is destroyed (by your own means, or by another civ), you should have to rebuild it again by hand or with a leader. I don't think it should magically teleport to the FP city either.

As for corruption, the concept of a temporary palace can be put in place. It would not actually be listed in the city screen. The city nearest to the old palace takes on the role of the temporary palace. Corruption is calculated from this city... but with a penalty - say +5 on the distance factor. Losing your palace now will have a great effect on your empire as the whole empire will take on increased corruption. Once you rebuild the palace, corruption is recalculated from the new palace.

As for corruption calculations concerning the FP, I don't have an opinion either way. I'm unable to play Civ anywhere close to the amount I would like due to real life issues. As long as its consistant, and error free, I'll be happy with it. I thank Firaxis for issuing the 1.12b patch as it has enabled me to start a game again. I don't consider the current FP calculation a bug in the sense I won't play Civ (hey, its different, but it still a benefit and it also still benefits the AI civs). The gpt bug and the pre-beta C3C FP were both game stoppers in my opinion.

Take care and happy New Year!

 

[Buckets]

FWIW, i consider mayself a 'casual player'. I usually play on monarch. i automate workers. I use governors. I am one of those people who only has enough (but then there is never enough ) time to play one epic game a month. And, i like the FP in 1.12.

I think it's a kind of misunderstanding that all this is about closing loopholes or making the ai harder. IMHO it's about proper game balance.

Making the ai harder, or easier, is a moot point. Unless you're playing on cheiftan or sid, we can all go up OR down a level. It doesn't matter. What does matter is creating a game that doesn't have a 'crossover point'. This is where you start out at a disadvantage and attempt to survive to a point where you are at par with the ai, and can beat it easily. This happnes usually around the early industrial age. Alot of things contribute to this problem, not the least of which is the most powerful building in the game, with the ability to double your wealth and production, the FP.

But, that is irrelevant because fun always trumps strategy. And if most people have less fun, then the change is bad. I guess. I really don't see how it's more fun with the old FP, but hey, i'm entitled to an opinion, no?

Having the AI behave more intelligently throughout the game, rather than act like advanced barbarians for me to beat on in the modern age, is my idea of fun.

 

[superslug]

In regards to the prebuilding issue, I really don't like the idea of changing the game to disallow this. Prebuilding is the only way peaceful players can get wonders/improvements a lot of the time on higher levels. The only choice it would leave in quite a few cases is more warmongering, and there's already plenty of that.

Also, if you were to ban it, it opens up another can of worms. What would you do about cascading shields when someone beats you to the Wonder?

EDIT: SpikeIt, WELCOME TO CFC!