An intellectual's review

[Krill]

nm...Kuci beat me to it.

[snoopy369]

One good example of this would be what impact adjusting the benifits of the catapult has made on player choice. The three models - Vanilla 1.0, late Vanilla/Warlords, and BtS - have very different catapult effects, and thus very different choices made by the population of Civ players (mp and sp, but probably mostly mp).

Taking those three models and comparing the actual benefits of catapults to the amount of emphasis they actually receive (number built and used), you can gain some insights as to how people react to a shifting target in the economy, say for example a tax incentive that shifts from one model to another.

If the average MP player in ladder 5v5 team games built 8.3 catapults per game in Vanilla 1.0 early, 25.8 catapults per game in late Vanilla 1.0, 18.3 catapults per game after the first Vanilla patch that reduced Cat effectiveness, 15.2 catapults per game after Warlords (say, late vanilla), 13.1 catapults per game in BtS just post release, and 7.1 catapults per game in BtS yesterday, you might draw interesting conclusions from the apparent delay in reaction to the changed incentive, from how far the swing went, and how long it took to normalize to the actual value. These conclusions would have interesting applications to the tax incentive question because you could draw conclusions on how long it might take before you knew how effective the new incentive truly was as compared to the old one, and how much reduced revenue you might see instantly as opposed to a year or two out.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You're weird. I think your point of view is so odd (and so far removed from the OP) that I'm not going to try to argue it further. Maybe it's valid, maybe not... meh.

I mean, by your reasoning Zelda is also a macroeconomic simulator.

Most anything could have conclusions drawn from it certainly (and in macro and micro classes you often will do just that), but Civ is useful because it has so many categories that can be looked at, and so many things that can be valued as essential economies.

[Kuciwalker]

Suit yourself. My arguments against the review stand.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
My arguments against the review stand.

"Arguments"?

Argument. n. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood.

I saw a bunch of single-sentence, unsupported, bald statements.

Wodan

[ZEE]

i think yall scared him away...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by wodan11

"Arguments"?

Argument. n. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood.

I saw a bunch of single-sentence, unsupported, bald statements.

Wodan

Counterexample: every post of mine after Post #106 (the first one I found as I scrolled up that only contained a single-sentence, unsupported, bald statement).

What do I win?

[Adam Weishaupt]

As far as I can tell, the only difference between Kuciwalker and Wiglaf is that the former sometimes tries to explain his hostility. Both come out swinging from the start, then seem to feel victimized for not being held in high esteem for their blatant trolling. Perhaps this best sums up why he's still not able to get his head in the proverbial game . . .

If you are studying just what choices the human makes when presented with this problem, you're studying micro, not macro.

In the shifting sands that pass for reasoning with him, he has now established a requirement that a macroeconomic simulator must interact with a large group of people rather than an individual. Should an election simulator require votes from an entire electorate, or might we see some of that phenomenon simulated in the simulator? I know it sounds absurd, but that really is the level of integrity and logic constituting the other side of this discussion.

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[DirtyMartini]

Maybe this "Adam Weishaupt" is actually Kuciwalker and/or Wiglaf in disguise.

It's just the sort of charade the Illuminati would perpetrate to further their shadowy goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt

[ZEE]

i think i have an idea what is going on, but i will bite my tongue. this kind of trick has been pulled before, and WITH the help of the admins.

if i am wrong i apologize, but i think i am LMAO at this if i am right...

meantime...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
Maybe this "Adam Weishaupt" is actually Kuciwalker and/or Wiglaf in disguise.

I'm offended at the implication that I could come up with this sort of idiocy.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by snoopy369
One good example of this would be what impact adjusting the benifits of the catapult has made on player choice. The three models - Vanilla 1.0, late Vanilla/Warlords, and BtS - have very different catapult effects, and thus very different choices made by the population of Civ players (mp and sp, but probably mostly mp).

Taking those three models and comparing the actual benefits of catapults to the amount of emphasis they actually receive (number built and used), you can gain some insights as to how people react to a shifting target in the economy, say for example a tax incentive that shifts from one model to another.

If the average MP player in ladder 5v5 team games built 8.3 catapults per game in Vanilla 1.0 early, 25.8 catapults per game in late Vanilla 1.0, 18.3 catapults per game after the first Vanilla patch that reduced Cat effectiveness, 15.2 catapults per game after Warlords (say, late vanilla), 13.1 catapults per game in BtS just post release, and 7.1 catapults per game in BtS yesterday, you might draw interesting conclusions from the apparent delay in reaction to the changed incentive, from how far the swing went, and how long it took to normalize to the actual value. These conclusions would have interesting applications to the tax incentive question because you could draw conclusions on how long it might take before you knew how effective the new incentive truly was as compared to the old one, and how much reduced revenue you might see instantly as opposed to a year or two out.

Funniest thing on apolyton in the last few months.

By this logic everything ever is a macroeconomic simulator.

[Kuciwalker]

As far as I can tell, the only difference between Kuciwalker and Wiglaf is that the former sometimes tries to explain his hostility. Both come out swinging from the start, then seem to feel victimized for not being held in high esteem for their blatant trolling.

In the shifting sands that pass for reasoning with him, he has now established a requirement that a macroeconomic simulator must interact with a large group of people rather than an individual.

I have not. Yay, more strawmen.

I really have to conclude that you can't read, Adam. Every single post of yours has mischaracterized my point.

To put it in excruciating detail for you:

Snoopy is considering the simulation to be the interaction of the player with the game, i.e., how the player responds to choices presented. These choices involve scarcity, making this an economic simulation. Because it is a very small system (involving only one actor, in fact), this is a microeconomic simulation.

You and I aren't using Snoopy's definition. You and I are considering the simuluation to be the behavior of the Civ the player controls, in response to player input and the game world. If that were a valid economic simulation, it would be a macroeconomic one.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I'm offended at the implication that I could come up with this sort of idiocy.

Not to stick my neck out any further, but I'm not sure there's anything anyone could post that wouldn't offend you.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think Wiglaf's posts have ever offended me; even when horribly wrong they're too amusing to be offensive.

Also, I'm not offended by intelligent people who try to debate me without consistently mischaracterizing my argument (e.g. snoopy).