SirPleb: I am curious if you think the final fix for the rank bug will effectively appear to make the FP have a lesser effect. I have a feeling it will to me since i was unknowingly (and ineffectively) exploiting it.
How effective should Forbidden Palace be in Conquests?
- Thread starter SirPleb
- Start date
TedJackson
Cunning old Celt
I've voted for the old Civ3/PTW style FP. Not because it's necessarily better but because I think it more important that the codebase gets back onto it's original track.
Once the Corruption and Ranking functions are demonstrably working as (originally) intended then perhaps the introduction of alternative FP "modes" could be attempted. Making provision for selecting the mode within the editor or at the game setup screen.
This proposal would allow the developers to concentrate on the major issue and afford them the opportunity to better understand and (hopefully) suggest alternative modes that would make sense in the game.
In an ideal world I'd like to see the whole corruption model redesigned, Perhaps with corruption calculated from the outside in, giving a true 95% corruption at the borders and steadily decreasing as you reach the core. This scheme would then allow courthouses & other corruption reducing mechanisms to function as one intuitively feels they should.
Ted
Once the Corruption and Ranking functions are demonstrably working as (originally) intended then perhaps the introduction of alternative FP "modes" could be attempted. Making provision for selecting the mode within the editor or at the game setup screen.
This proposal would allow the developers to concentrate on the major issue and afford them the opportunity to better understand and (hopefully) suggest alternative modes that would make sense in the game.
In an ideal world I'd like to see the whole corruption model redesigned, Perhaps with corruption calculated from the outside in, giving a true 95% corruption at the borders and steadily decreasing as you reach the core. This scheme would then allow courthouses & other corruption reducing mechanisms to function as one intuitively feels they should.
Ted
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
IMHO, there's no way around the possibility to have 2 (or even more, in Mods/ Scenarios) cores. Any other map type except Pangea would be rather pointless otherwise. I'm currently playing 1.12 on such a map, and it's fine, but the Middle Ages conquest for example is a p.i.t.a. now 
And there are historical examples for empires with several Palace-Structures, like the late Roman Empire.
I do however agree the AI needs to be improved in placing the FP (maybe it should consider something like valueing a really good city location high enough to be worth an FP?), and of course the old distance corruption bugs need to be fixed.
Sounds exactly like what Tavis announced, if I understood him correctly.
And there are historical examples for empires with several Palace-Structures, like the late Roman Empire.
I do however agree the AI needs to be improved in placing the FP (maybe it should consider something like valueing a really good city location high enough to be worth an FP?), and of course the old distance corruption bugs need to be fixed.
Sounds exactly like what Tavis announced, if I understood him correctly.
I suspect the AI doesn't normally choose which city to build the FP. It most likely is built as the result of a lost wonder race. However, on occasion, i've seen the AI trying to build it in a distant city.
SirPleb
Shaken, not stirred.
Good point watorrey!
Summary
I think that most players will experience a slight increase in total corruption when the bugs are fixed, and some players (those who use Palace jumps and/or RCP) will experience a significant increase in total corruption.
Details
I think it will be the same for me as for you - the FP will appear to have less effect for me in most games when it is fixed.
I think this will be true from the next patch onward. As I understand it the next patch will have the original CivIII/PTW behaviour restored, but without RCP and without the Palace rank exploit. Subsequent patches will probably not increase the FP's effectiveness. Firaxis might decrease the FP's effect if a majority of players seem to want that change, but that seems unlikely given the results of this poll at this date (71 say "as strong as CivIII/PTW", 24 say "change to be less strong")
The reason I'll see a reduction in the FP's effect anyway is as you said - I think that before I was aware of it, it worked to my advantage more often than not. That's because:
1) Given a choice I usually preferred to move my Palace to a new region instead of rushing an FP there, either by jumping the Palace or by rushing it with a leader. If I was jumping the Palace there was no choice - the new region would have Palace, original would have FP. If I was rushing the Palace, I might rush FP instead. But in many cases I'd build FP in the original core and rush Palace, because that way I could "re-center" the original core. (Vs. retaining the original Palace location which is usually constrained by the start position and is often not central in the first core.)
2) Usually my first core was more densely settled than my second core. So more often than not, my Palace region (due to moving it) ended up being less densely settled than my FP region.
3) In most cases where the Palace region was less densely settled than the FP region, the player would inadvertently benefit from the Palace rank bug. That's because denser settlement in the FP region implies that on average, an FP city will get a lower rank when incorrectly compared with the Palace region's rank list than if compared with the FP region's rank list.
Some players may experience the opposite effect, i.e. overall the FP having a bit more effect with the fix. If a player generally rushes FP (seldom building FP in the original core and then jumping or rushing Palace elsewhere with a leader), and the player generally settles less densely in the second region (sometimes a good idea I think because dense builds pay off most in the early game), then that player will get the opposite result, generally finding FP a bit more productive when the bug is fixed.
Note that one side-effect of fixing the bug is that jumping the Palace becomes a bit less powerful. As things used to work, a Palace jump would usually result in a significant short-term boost in productivity. Qitai's discovery of the Palace rank bug was actually due to this. In his original post about the bug, one of the reasons he mentioned for doing his analysis was "why did I often observe corruption reduction in my old core when I just made a palace jump?"
On a related subject, I'd like to point out that eliminating the advantages of RCP will also slightly increase corruption for most players. Most games to date have probably gained a little bit from RCP, just by having two or more cities at the same distance from Palace/FP. The impact on such games shouldn't be large - they'll just have a little more total corruption now than they had before. But games where the player deliberately used RCP will now have substantially greater corruption than they had before.
Grille
panel insect
Agree with you both watorrey and SirPleb - I guess that corrected rank assignment (including RCP fix) would decrease the FP effect.
The question is: should every city have a unique rank, i.e. every city's distance to FP and P is measured and the number of cities being closer to FP and P is considered (plus tie breaker to avoid RCP), meaning there would only be one 'set' of ranks?
or:
two seperated rank lists for FP and P (possibly with a fixed 50/50 ratio of total OCN support for both lists)?
The former method seems more complex by nature, but you would not be penalized that much when placing the FP w/o any thought. The latter would give a penalty if you would place FP (or P) in a lone, isolated city - OTOH building FP close to P would work still *relative* well (->AI) and having two seperated cores would also be an option.
The question is: should every city have a unique rank, i.e. every city's distance to FP and P is measured and the number of cities being closer to FP and P is considered (plus tie breaker to avoid RCP), meaning there would only be one 'set' of ranks?
or:
two seperated rank lists for FP and P (possibly with a fixed 50/50 ratio of total OCN support for both lists)?
The former method seems more complex by nature, but you would not be penalized that much when placing the FP w/o any thought. The latter would give a penalty if you would place FP (or P) in a lone, isolated city - OTOH building FP close to P would work still *relative* well (->AI) and having two seperated cores would also be an option.
Excellent summary SirPleb!
I never use palace jumping or the remote palace exploit. I do however use a compact initial city build with usually 4 or 5 cities in a first ring taking advantage of RCP.
So I'll lose the benefits of RCP, but benefit from the fact that my FP region is less dense than my palace region.
I never use palace jumping or the remote palace exploit. I do however use a compact initial city build with usually 4 or 5 cities in a first ring taking advantage of RCP.
So I'll lose the benefits of RCP, but benefit from the fact that my FP region is less dense than my palace region.
Crazy Jerome
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Messages
- 210
I'd like to see some corruption changes as well, but not the FP. I think it should go back to PTW style--both because I see this as better in it's own right and because I don't see it as an appropriate/safe change for a patch. That said, I wouldn't mind changes to FP effectiveness or calculations during a major update or expansion--if these turned out to simplify the programming model, make the AI use it better, and/or merely subjectively lead to more fun.
The things I'd like to see are probably more in the way of Civ4 improvements. They'd need to be designed into the product from the get go. Overall, I don't care for the "all or nothing" nature of the way the capitol and FP manage corruption. (The capitol is pretty much "all", since you have it all the time. The distance from capitol helps. But still, a PTW FP makes a huge difference. I guess I just don't like having it as a small wonder.) Possibilities:
1. Allow multiple FPs. either through multiple wonders or just change it to an improvement. Limit the effectiveness. If a wonder, lower the cost a lot. If an improvement, continue to limit the number of FPs that can be built by number of cities. Maybe just calculate rank from palace, but let the FP's override the corruption calculation for them and the nearby cities. For example, an FP could cap at, say, 30% corruption and the six closest cities within 10 spaces could cap at 60% corruption--assuming this is lower than palace rank. Courthouses and police stations would be buildable and meaningful in such cities. This is, in effect, a kind of regional capitol.)
2. Put in a courthouse-like building that caps the corruption at 90% rather than reducing it a set percentage. Alternately, change the code for courthouse to reduce the percentage or cap at 90%--whichever is best for that town. Better yet, make this a flag in the editor and allow modders to set the percentages (reduction and cap) for different buildings.
3. Split courthouse into 2-4 buildings that cost less but each reduce corruption. I've had a lot of fun with mods that change nothing but this. For example, I'll add a courthouse clone in early and late medieval. All reduce corruption. These cost 20/40/60 shields, with 0/1/1 maintenance, starting with courthouse. The effect is that you can actually build the courthouse in a one shield city--and the multiple courthouses do not cost much more to build and maintain than the original in a city on the edge of hopeless corruption. (The AI handles this very well, BTW. A 20 shield, no maintenance courthouse is a no brainer for everyone but still a strategic issue as far as timing. The AI will sometimes opt for the temple, library, or units first, but will eventually build the courthouses.)
4. Make roads more flexible. I'd really enjoy having two types of roads (highways), with the second having a much bigger effect on reducing corruption in connected cities but taking workers much longer to make. (Actually, I'd like for roads to be improvable each age, but even two types would be an asset.)
I don't think it's the corruption itself that bothers people, regardless of where it is set. What bothers people is not being able to affect it in certain situations where they expect that they should be able to--the courthouse in the hopelessly corrupt city being a prime example.
The things I'd like to see are probably more in the way of Civ4 improvements. They'd need to be designed into the product from the get go. Overall, I don't care for the "all or nothing" nature of the way the capitol and FP manage corruption. (The capitol is pretty much "all", since you have it all the time. The distance from capitol helps. But still, a PTW FP makes a huge difference. I guess I just don't like having it as a small wonder.) Possibilities:
1. Allow multiple FPs. either through multiple wonders or just change it to an improvement. Limit the effectiveness. If a wonder, lower the cost a lot. If an improvement, continue to limit the number of FPs that can be built by number of cities. Maybe just calculate rank from palace, but let the FP's override the corruption calculation for them and the nearby cities. For example, an FP could cap at, say, 30% corruption and the six closest cities within 10 spaces could cap at 60% corruption--assuming this is lower than palace rank. Courthouses and police stations would be buildable and meaningful in such cities. This is, in effect, a kind of regional capitol.)
2. Put in a courthouse-like building that caps the corruption at 90% rather than reducing it a set percentage. Alternately, change the code for courthouse to reduce the percentage or cap at 90%--whichever is best for that town. Better yet, make this a flag in the editor and allow modders to set the percentages (reduction and cap) for different buildings.
3. Split courthouse into 2-4 buildings that cost less but each reduce corruption. I've had a lot of fun with mods that change nothing but this. For example, I'll add a courthouse clone in early and late medieval. All reduce corruption. These cost 20/40/60 shields, with 0/1/1 maintenance, starting with courthouse. The effect is that you can actually build the courthouse in a one shield city--and the multiple courthouses do not cost much more to build and maintain than the original in a city on the edge of hopeless corruption. (The AI handles this very well, BTW. A 20 shield, no maintenance courthouse is a no brainer for everyone but still a strategic issue as far as timing. The AI will sometimes opt for the temple, library, or units first, but will eventually build the courthouses.)
4. Make roads more flexible. I'd really enjoy having two types of roads (highways), with the second having a much bigger effect on reducing corruption in connected cities but taking workers much longer to make. (Actually, I'd like for roads to be improvable each age, but even two types would be an asset.)
I don't think it's the corruption itself that bothers people, regardless of where it is set. What bothers people is not being able to affect it in certain situations where they expect that they should be able to--the courthouse in the hopelessly corrupt city being a prime example.
TedJackson
Cunning old Celt
This was the main thrust of my earlier post - calculate corruption from the borders first with a true corruption rate of 95%. Then Courthouses etc. would have the effect that you would expect to see, not the nothing happens because this border town is (internally) 250% corrupt.
Ted
It appears that a city's corruption is calculated, then adjusted for courthouse, PS, WLTKD, etc..., and then capped at 95%.
So changing the order - capping at 95% first, and then adjusting for city specifics - would achieve the effect you guys are looking for.
So changing the order - capping at 95% first, and then adjusting for city specifics - would achieve the effect you guys are looking for.
TedJackson
Cunning old Celt
Almost
The difficulty is that with the current model corruption is calculated from the centre and increases as towns are further from the core. So we currently have 0% corruption at the core tending toward infinity at the borders as empire size increases - further exacerbated by the artificial OCN limit.
To properly address the issue corruption would need to be calculated from the borders (at 95% corruption say) gradually decreasing toward the core (0% corruption).
Of course until this is implemented nobody would have any real idea on how this would impact the game. I would hope that it would benefit human and AI player alike but I can't guarantee that it will do so. Perhaps better minds will spot the flaw(s) in my proposal
Ted
TedJackson - What you are suggesting is much different from what I was thinking of, and what I think others were suggesting.
What I was thinking was that Courthouses and Police Stations would always hope at least a bit - that your city would be less than 95% corrupt if you built them. This would mean that outside your core(s) of productive cities, you'd have a large number of cities with 75-85 percent corruption (that in the game currently have 95%).
What you're suggesting means that only the furthest cities out would hit 95% corruption. The entire rest of an empire would have at least semi-productive cities. On an empire wide basis, especially for larger empires, this would mean a significant decrease in total corruption.
What I was thinking was that Courthouses and Police Stations would always hope at least a bit - that your city would be less than 95% corrupt if you built them. This would mean that outside your core(s) of productive cities, you'd have a large number of cities with 75-85 percent corruption (that in the game currently have 95%).
What you're suggesting means that only the furthest cities out would hit 95% corruption. The entire rest of an empire would have at least semi-productive cities. On an empire wide basis, especially for larger empires, this would mean a significant decrease in total corruption.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
I agree with both, Yeti's explanation of what TedJacksons proposal would cause as well as with Yeti's idea of first limiting the corruption in a given city to 95%, BEFORE any corruption-modifying effect (by whatever) would be taken into account.
This way, regardless of where your given city is located, it would suffer 95% per cent loss due to corruption at the max, and any rushed courthouse, policestation, whatever would have a considerable (and for that, worth it's shields) effect.
Personally, I would even think that 95% is way too much, but for a first step, I would feel fine with that proposal, anyway.
I would even like the idea that corruption-fighting installations could become more effective every 50 turns, thus simulating the effect of giving people a feeling of living in a society which is very much accustomed to the law being to be obeyed.
This way, regardless of where your given city is located, it would suffer 95% per cent loss due to corruption at the max, and any rushed courthouse, policestation, whatever would have a considerable (and for that, worth it's shields) effect.
Personally, I would even think that 95% is way too much, but for a first step, I would feel fine with that proposal, anyway.
I would even like the idea that corruption-fighting installations could become more effective every 50 turns, thus simulating the effect of giving people a feeling of living in a society which is very much accustomed to the law being to be obeyed.
Justus II
General Staff
@TedJackson,
Just thinking about this, but by calculating corruption from the "outside in" wouldn't you be automatically rewarding larger empires even more than the current system? For example, take a (hypothetical) example of an empire with 11 cities, stretched out in a line so, after the palace, the first one has 10% corruption, the 2nd 20% etc. out to the last one, which is at 100%, which would currently be capped at 95%.
Currently, an 11th city added at the next distance would have an internal corruption percentage of 110%, but still capped at 95%, but would have no effect on the first 10 cities.
Under your system, if I understand your suggestion, the 10th city would first be calculated at 95%, then the next one in would be calculated proportionally, so 85.5%, then 76%, 67.5% and so on in until the 1st rank city would be 4.5% corrupt, which is already an improvement over current system corruption (10%). More importantly, when the next (11th) city is added, the corruption on all closer cities must be reduced proportionally, so if city 11 is now 95%, city 10 would drop from 95% to around 86.5% (95%-[95/11]), city 9 would drop from 85.5% to around 77%, and so on.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion, and I'm sure some of our Mathematics PhDs (Graduates of CivTech)
around here can give more specific examples, but my point is that by adding cities at the fringes, you are actually decreasing corruption closer to the core, which is the opposite of what Firaxis is trying to achieve with OCN and the whole corruption model. By doubling your number of cities, beyond previous borders, you would in effect be cutting corruption in half closer to the core.
Just thinking about this, but by calculating corruption from the "outside in" wouldn't you be automatically rewarding larger empires even more than the current system? For example, take a (hypothetical) example of an empire with 11 cities, stretched out in a line so, after the palace, the first one has 10% corruption, the 2nd 20% etc. out to the last one, which is at 100%, which would currently be capped at 95%.
Currently, an 11th city added at the next distance would have an internal corruption percentage of 110%, but still capped at 95%, but would have no effect on the first 10 cities.
Under your system, if I understand your suggestion, the 10th city would first be calculated at 95%, then the next one in would be calculated proportionally, so 85.5%, then 76%, 67.5% and so on in until the 1st rank city would be 4.5% corrupt, which is already an improvement over current system corruption (10%). More importantly, when the next (11th) city is added, the corruption on all closer cities must be reduced proportionally, so if city 11 is now 95%, city 10 would drop from 95% to around 86.5% (95%-[95/11]), city 9 would drop from 85.5% to around 77%, and so on.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your suggestion, and I'm sure some of our Mathematics PhDs (Graduates of CivTech)
around here can give more specific examples, but my point is that by adding cities at the fringes, you are actually decreasing corruption closer to the core, which is the opposite of what Firaxis is trying to achieve with OCN and the whole corruption model. By doubling your number of cities, beyond previous borders, you would in effect be cutting corruption in half closer to the core.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Good explanation, Justus II!
Furthermore, this would mean that any founding of a new city somewhere outside would lower the corruption 'older' cities more close to the center of the empire.
In principle, this would be some sort of new, but negative 'rank bug', although now it would be intended.
Furthermore, this would mean that any founding of a new city somewhere outside would lower the corruption 'older' cities more close to the center of the empire.
In principle, this would be some sort of new, but negative 'rank bug', although now it would be intended.
I don't think we can expect any major changes in corruption calculation other than the FP and look at all the trouble they have with that right now.
There is one solution that will make a difference and be simple to implement, i believe. Since the totally corrupt cities already have a cap of 95%, just lower the cap by 5% for each 'lowers corruption' flag (courthouses, policemen, etc).
If the calculated coruption is less than the new cap, great. If not, we at least now have a 90% corrupt city out in that tundra oil city w/ a courthouse instead of 95%.
Small, distant, new cities still won't see the effect until thet get large, but we have the hope of them developing.
There is one solution that will make a difference and be simple to implement, i believe. Since the totally corrupt cities already have a cap of 95%, just lower the cap by 5% for each 'lowers corruption' flag (courthouses, policemen, etc).
If the calculated coruption is less than the new cap, great. If not, we at least now have a 90% corrupt city out in that tundra oil city w/ a courthouse instead of 95%.
Small, distant, new cities still won't see the effect until thet get large, but we have the hope of them developing.
Crazy Jerome
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Messages
- 210
All the ensuing discussion is why I suggested (though maybe it wasn't understood that I meant a hard cap):
Since one of the main purposes of the corruption was to discourage large empires by making them have diminishing returns, I think anything that makes the core and the first few rings better should be avoided. The objection all along has been the hopelessly corrupt cities are "not fun". While fun is subjective, I say that is is somewhere between "just another powerhouse city" and hopelessly corrupt.
Even a 95% (hard) cap from a courthouse is very effective. You get another 10% from the road/harbor connection, which actually takes effect. Then the police station actually does something in that town. 75% is still a bit high by my lights, but the towns on the edge of the empire will at least be able good enough to justify some modest improvements and pay for a few defenses. WLKD will help, but I forget the exact amount. I'd say that we ought to be able, through all the various corruption reducing methods, to get a currently hopelessly corrupt city down to about 50% to 60% corrupt.
The change would be easy to implement and test. (And yes, as a software developer, I know there are always pitfalls. But this is a very isolated area.) The main objection to touching it in a patch is not that the implementation is done correcty, but rather that the original design didn't recognize this as a possibility. So the unintended consequences of implementing it correctly are not fully understood. (For example, what happens if a AI CIV gets one of the huge empires early? Does this make them a little tougher or a lot? We can make an educated guess but not know for sure.) Still, if put into the editor, it could easily be turned off if the consequence where too high.
I think this kind of change really goes hand in hand with more corruption reducing buildings (and all of them cheaper). 80 shields for the first corruption reducing (or proposed corruption capping) building is just too much. Those kind of changes, however, are easy enough to test in the game as is.
Since one of the main purposes of the corruption was to discourage large empires by making them have diminishing returns, I think anything that makes the core and the first few rings better should be avoided. The objection all along has been the hopelessly corrupt cities are "not fun". While fun is subjective, I say that is is somewhere between "just another powerhouse city" and hopelessly corrupt.
Even a 95% (hard) cap from a courthouse is very effective. You get another 10% from the road/harbor connection, which actually takes effect. Then the police station actually does something in that town. 75% is still a bit high by my lights, but the towns on the edge of the empire will at least be able good enough to justify some modest improvements and pay for a few defenses. WLKD will help, but I forget the exact amount. I'd say that we ought to be able, through all the various corruption reducing methods, to get a currently hopelessly corrupt city down to about 50% to 60% corrupt.
The change would be easy to implement and test. (And yes, as a software developer, I know there are always pitfalls. But this is a very isolated area.) The main objection to touching it in a patch is not that the implementation is done correcty, but rather that the original design didn't recognize this as a possibility. So the unintended consequences of implementing it correctly are not fully understood. (For example, what happens if a AI CIV gets one of the huge empires early? Does this make them a little tougher or a lot? We can make an educated guess but not know for sure.) Still, if put into the editor, it could easily be turned off if the consequence where too high.
I think this kind of change really goes hand in hand with more corruption reducing buildings (and all of them cheaper). 80 shields for the first corruption reducing (or proposed corruption capping) building is just too much. Those kind of changes, however, are easy enough to test in the game as is.
tomart109
Perspicacious
I agree 125%!
tomart109
Perspicacious
Fanny, I "cherry-picked" from your post the things that I agree with! Hope that's ok!
As for those who want more corruption/frustration/AI advantages, because it's "too easy" for the human, let me humbly suggest you just go a step higher in difficulty level. That's what I do when it gets "too easy." (Or you could use the waste/corruption slider for the perverse purpose of increasing your frustration and busywork!)
Whatever floats your boat (or makes it leak!) 
I either forgot or didn't see your post proposing the same thing i did. There could be a problem on huge maps though, when near the domination point. For moderate empires it would be fine but to have several hundred cities all being productive needs to be limited somehow.
Similar threads
