The YIN-VEL Fund: Join the FUN!

[Aeson]

Originally posted by yin26
This is the point, though, right? You don't know.

Whether or not I'm right, or know what I'm talking about, is irrellevent. I offered my opinion. The point of the test would still be the same whether I am right or wrong. Though it's almost a sure bet that any system of self-imposed restrictions composed without experience with the game will necessarily lead to inefficient gameplay.

The point of my post is that using a relative evaluation of these two pre-scripted gameplay styles as suggested, won't give any clue as to whether ICS is a valid strategy or not, or at what efficiency level it resides. That is because you'd be measuring it against another unknown.

Say the Supercity comes out as slightly better than ICS in such a test. Does that mean ICS is dead? No. It just means that the Supercity ruleset was slightly more efficient gameplay than the ICS one. The Supercity ruleset could be absolute trash in comparison to whatever happens to be optimal, just slightly less trash than ICS. Or the Supercity could be the penultimate playstyle, and ICS is right up there as one of the most powerful as well.

[yin26]

Originally posted by Aeson

Whether or not I'm right, or know what I'm talking about, is irrellevent. I offered my opinion.

Ummm, gee. Was that in doubt or something?

The point is not if one style eeks out the other. The point is that if mindless expansion or mindless adherence to focussing on few cities CLEARLY results in a favorable outcome, then there's something to consider. You just misunderstand the point of the exercise, but, like you said, not knowing what you are talking about is perfectly fine here at Poly.

I should also note that if both forced styles result in similar game positions, then it would be pretty astounding. In other words, Civ 4 would truly offer the gamer some serious choices in which paths to take in the game. I suspect, too, that the most effective path will be one that combines these two approaches intelligently given the map, your opponents, etc. If that's the case, then Civ 4 will be an instant classic.

So on that point we agree: There should be a third "forced" style that combines REX/ICS and Supercity approaches, but this approach will be greatly informed by the extreme approaches first proposed by Korn.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by yin26
Ummm, gee. Was that in doubt or something?

You seemed to be confused on it.

"This is the point, though, right? You don't know." - yin

Whether I know or not is not the point of this exersize.

The point is not if one style eeks out the other.

Which was exactly what I was saying.

The comparison of the styles that korn suggests fails to address the point as it only gives a standing relative to an arbitrary and limited playstyle.

The point is that if mindless expansion or mindless adherence to focussing on few cities CLEARLY results in a favorable outcome, then there's something to consider.

Read korn's proposal again.

"Once you pick a map you have to play both games on it before moving to the next map. You will play at least one map with ICS rules first, and one map with Supercity rules first, then decided the final map with a coin toss. Then we compare all of the games and see what we think is best." - korn

He suggests that the determination would be made based on whether ICS performs better than Supercity, as those are the only two options given to compare between.

You just misunderstand the point of the exercise, but, like you said, not knowing what you are talking about is perfectly fine here at Poly.

"If ICS isn't still the dominant strategy in Civ 4, then I'll eat (at least part) of the cardboard box! And if combat isn't as dull as ever, I'll eat more parts!" - yin

That is the point of this exersize. To determine if those two conditions are true or false. (Though in regards to korn's suggestion, we are focusing only on the ICS part.)

"This is the point, though, right? You don't know." - yin

I may or may not already know. That is not the point of the exersize though. You are the one who is confused about what the point is.

I should also note that if both forced styles result in similar game positions, then it would be pretty astounding.

I didn't say the game positions would be similar. I said my bet was these playstyles would result in inefficient gameplay. Inefficient gameplay can lead to a wide variety of game positions. The similarity is those game positions will not be optimal, not that they will be congruent.

So on that point we agree: There should be a third "forced" style that combines REX/ICS and Supercity approaches, but this approach will be greatly informed by the extreme approaches first proposed by Korn.

Forced? No, we do not agree on that. That is the very antithesis of what I am saying. Designing rules for forced playstyles, without previous experience with the game to base those rulesets off of even, will almost surely result in playstyles which are nowhere near optimal.

To determine whether ICS is dominant or not, it needs to be compared against all other playstyles. Especially the most optimal ones we can come up with. That is not feasible to do perfectly. The judges can realistically only play so many games and this soon after release strategies will not be highly refined. But by forcing 2 (or any set number of) limited playstyles onto the judges the range of playstyles that can be represented is drasticallly limited. This artificial limitation conflicts with the purpose at hand, and so should be discarded to allow for the fullest range of comparison possible.

The ICS playstyle has to be limited to what ICS has been defined as, so as to show how that specific playstyle performs. The playstyles that it is compared with should not be limited. (Other than the givens... no cheating, no modifying game rules, no reloading.) That will best show the standing of ICS.

[yin26]

Nah, you're making too much of nothing. Either the mindless city sleaze approach will be clearly superior to whatever else or not. It reminds me of Bush saying: "We need more evidence on Global Warming before we reduce pollution."

The fact is that we don't have the time in a test like this to run every conceiveable playing style. These are extreme approaches to playing the game to get at some base results. Nothing more, nothing less.

But if you want it to be "ICS vs. Whatever The Player Can Possibly Do Otherwise to Make a More Efficient Situation" great. We'll just have Korn looking at one specific approach while you try 100's of combinations.

We expect your results before Civ 5 launches. Thank you!

[yin26]

So on that point we agree: There should be a third "forced" style that combines REX/ICS and Supercity approaches, but this approach will be greatly informed by the extreme approaches first proposed by Korn.

You also just missed the irony here. Any idea why "forced" is in quotes?

[Harovan]

Please clean your PM-box, hex.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by yin26
Nah, you're making too much of nothing. Either the mindless city sleaze approach will be clearly superior to whatever else or not.

Not if only the Supercity ruleset is compared to it.

It reminds me of Bush saying: "We need more evidence on Global Warming before we reduce pollution."

I can now see why you fail to understand my points. You are comparing my statements about how a test can best be designed to illuminate an issue to (what I assume is) a paraphrasing of your understanding of Bush's response to if/when we should act to address the issue. They are seperate issues entirely.

A proper analogy would be if the statement was "We should not limit ourselves to comparing one year's environmental statistics to another and basing all our assumptions about Global Warming off of that one test."

The fact is that we don't have the time in a test like this to run every conceiveable playing style.

Which I stated already. But that isn't a reason why playstyles should be further limited than they have to be.

These are extreme approaches to playing the game to get at some base results. Nothing more, nothing less.

That is obvious. The question is about the applicability of those results to the stated intent of the experiment.

But if you want it to be "ICS vs. Whatever The Player Can Possibly Do Otherwise to Make a More Efficient Situation" great. We'll just have Korn looking at one specific approach while you try 100's of combinations.

We only need 1 approach which is clearly superior to the ICS ruleset to show that ICS (as defined in the ruleset) is not a dominant strategy on the given map. While it isn't a given that one will be found, or even exist, the known is that restricting gameplay will decrease the odds of one, if it exists, occuring in this small sample.

Just given that it's a self-limited playstyle defined before any hands-on experience with the game is available to base it off of, it is almost a sure thing that a non-limited playstyle developed while actually playing the game will come up with superior results.

You also just missed the irony here. Any idea why "forced" is in quotes?

While you put forced in quotes, the rest of your statement was about dictating a playstyle.

"There should be a third "forced" style that combines REX/ICS and Supercity approaches, but this approach will be greatly informed by the extreme approaches first proposed by Korn." - yin

By saying the playstyle would combine REX/ICS and Supercity approaches, while in a discussion about the specific ICS and Supercity rulesets proposed by korn, it denotes a limitation on any other potential playstyles that are not some sort of combination of the two rulesets.

[SirOsis]

I think yin is lucky. Box sizes have gotten much smaller. It's only going to be a snack.

[yin26]

By saying the playstyle would combine REX/ICS and Supercity approaches, while in a discussion about the specific ICS and Supercity rulesets proposed by korn, it denotes a limitation on any other potential playstyles that are not some sort of combination of the two rulesets.

LOL! Hey, this is getting silly now: This is meant to mean "Any friggen style you want." Can we move on now, or do you have more opinions?

[Aeson]

This is meant to mean "Any friggen style you want."

That is a much clearer statement. One which is what I was arguing for in the first place. Thank you.

Can we move on now, or do you have more opinions?

Move on when you wish to.

[yin26]

Originally posted by SirOsis
I think yin is lucky. Box sizes have gotten much smaller. It's only going to be a snack.

LOL! And there was talk of the tin box for a while, too...

[Velociryx]

Speaking of boxes, no sign of Civ 4 yet at Castle Hartpence, but the moment it arrives, you can bet I'll be playing!

-=Vel=-

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Speaking of boxes, no sign of Civ 4 yet at Castle Hartpence, but the moment it arrives, you can bet I'll be playing!
-=Vel=-

Funny enough, I've bought mine at a shop 5 km away from my home this evening (well, 28 oct was yesterday, according to my current time ).
I've just discovered Take Two interactive Italia HQ is less than 10 Km away from my house: I bet it mean something about quick delivery of boxes to shops.

Me: "Hello, do you have any news about Civilization 4 date of delivery"
Eb Games shop: "Hi, it's been delivered just about ten minutes ago, still inside the courier package. Do you want one?"
Me: "How nice to see!" (39.90 euro in exchange).


And it installed as smooth as silk without tricks (and I use a Mobile Radeon 9700 SE)!
I only accepted to install DirectX (mine were already 9.0c, but anyway...) and reset PC after install and before running it.

[yin26]

Huzzah! Two of my favorite players getting ready to play soon!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, hey... I'll be getting mine soon too . Though I'm not sure if it can run on my hunk of junk