Should the next AU course come before or after a patch?

[Vlado]

So to avoid having to worry about the gpt bug as well, OCC total war!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt


So you guys DO regard this as a superior sort of competition? I thought the idea was that AU courses were a nice, friendly, informal sort of thing. The site's reputation is not at stake, nor is there money to be lost. Perhaps none of us should play Epic Games at ALL until the patch.

There is plenty to be learned in an AU game even pre-patch. I honestly do not understand the reticence here. Perhaps we could even just try a scenario where corruption is not going to be as much an issue - try to achieve a different set of objectives perhaps.... The corruption bug is a little bit of a bugger but hardly what I would call devastating. I wouldn't be too surprised if it was not regarded as a bug by Breakaway and stayed!

* MrWhereItsAt does not want to wait months for the first patch before getting a chance to start with AU

Let me explain the reticence :

Would you recommend others to learn how to drive in a car with dodgy brakes? Or learn to shoot with a damaged rifle? I hope not.

Nor, I hope would you send your kids to a university with faulty textbooks, broken infrastructure and a system of penalising correct work.

This is the reason why there should by no C3C AU yet. Nothing I said had anything to do with "a superior sort of competition". The quality I refer to is the quality of the learning experience which is exactly as you say : "nice, friendly, informal sort of thing". There's nothing nice or friendly about these bugs which penalise correct play.

There's no reason why those who want to share C3C games on this forum can't do so - and I believe some are already doing so. My point is that it doesn't have to be an official AU course.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Well I think I begin to see you reasons, if I do not share them myself. There is nothing riding on this - no money, no reputation, nothing that gives the similes you have used any impact on me. From my POV, waiting because of some undesirable effects is like saying that I must send my computer for repair as soon as one or two errors creep up - everything must be fixed for it to be worth my while to use it at all. I disagree with this view, as apart from perhaps some minor annoyances there is plenty that can be enjoyed, and unless the game is rendered unplayable (I challenge anyone to seriously say this about C3C as it currently is), then there is a lot that can be looked at.

What if the patch comes out and these things are not fixed, by simple omissions, by the accidental inclusion of another related bug, or from the fact that Breakaway WANTS the game more as it is now? Do we wait for another patch? And how many of the bugs must be fixed before the AU game is worth making? The gpt is the most important, but IMO the corruption changes are neither game-wrecking nor unbalancing nor unbearable.

My point is that we are waiting for what we hope will be the perfect state of affairs for C3C - a pie in the sky ideal. Looking back at Civ3 and PtW, the first patch wasn't perfect, and there were always things that "should" be changed for the next one. Were AU games ruined by the fact that GAs could not be started by the UU of England or Korea - surely a bug and extremely unbalancing where those civs were in the game. If we went back to the old model of MGLs rushing GWs then I am sure some would regard THAT as rendering the game too unbalanced.

I just want to make sure that everyone has reached a decision about how long they are willing to wait, and we cannot assume any patch will make C3C the perfect game it seems to need to be. As for me, I certainly will wait for the patch (I have no choice), but if it arrives and is less than desired, I will once again lead the clamour for playing with what we have rather than waiting for a hopeful fix that may or may not come. I would rather AU keep interest up than die the slow death of being put off for too long.

[DrSpike]

If there is a demand for a comparison game then someone just start one!

Many aren't going to want to put the time and effort into the game that they would an AU game with a patched C3C, but that doesn't stop you playing a filler comparison game whilst we wait (patiently of course ) for the patch.

[Cort Haus]

MWIA,

1. I'd have thought there is a world of difference between a design decision to require the Koreans (who are not in every game) to build wonders for their GA, and the fact that corruption and the FP are fundamentally broken in every game of C3C, affecting every civ and every city.

2. We are not talking about minor annoyances, we are talking about major faults.

3. No-one is expecting perfection, just playability.

4. No-one is stopping anyone enjoying the game as it is - we just want to save people from having their time wasted, and new players being misled, or at worst, being taught how to get round major bugs which will hopefully be fixed soon.

5. The AU will not wither and die. Newcomers will learn more if more experienced players like yourself have had the time to suss out certain aspects of the game not affected by the bugs, and then pass it on to others in the course. It may even add interest when we get "The Return of the AU..."

6. I applaud you for defending your point-of-view , even if we disagree. The votes, however, speak for themselves.

[ducki]

MWIA -
To take Cort Haus' points a bit further, I quote from the top of the AU History 101 thread.

"Apolyton University is a school of strategy, where students sharpen their Civ3 skills and share their experiences in a series of thematic games. When playing an Apolyton University game, gaining and sharing knowledge is more important than getting a high score, or even winning the game. Participants are encouraged to share their strategy after the game, and even to try several attempts.

For single-player games we have developed the AU mod, whose main purpose is to challenge the player with a need for deeper strategy. To accomplish that goal, the mod tries to improve the AI and present the player with more strategic decisions, while changing as little as possible." -- alexman

Many of us feel that the GPT and Corruption issues are such big bugs that anything learned, any strategies developed, and any proposed changes to the AI behavior for the mod would be a "waste" of time.
As Dr.Spike said, if there's a desire for a comparison game, there's nothing stopping us from starting one, but to try to learn more about deep strategy, empire management, trading, etc. with what many of us feel is a broken system is counterproductive to the goals of Apolyton University.

I'm also all for a comparison game, but I don't think it should fall under AU.

[Dominae]

Funny that you should quote that, ducki, because to me it looks like an argument against your case:

"Apolyton University is a school of strategy, where students sharpen their Civ3 skills and share their experiences in a series of thematic games. When playing an Apolyton University game, gaining and sharing knowledge is more important than getting a high score, or even winning the game. Participants are encouraged to share their strategy after the game, and even to try several attempts."

The bit about the AU mod is a secondary goal to AU, IMO. The idea is to learn strategy by comparing games and having fun, not the other way around (if that's possible). If all you wanted to do is learn strategy, there are better (less time-consuming) ways of doing it than AU.

Many people (myself included, I admit!) prefer playing the game to a victory, then posting an AAR of how glorious their game was. Clearly the gpt and Corruption bugs work against this, because people feel these will get in the way of a sleek victory. So although I can understand the reticence to play with these bugs, I think it has less to do with the goals of AU and more with an aversion to the game in its current state (which, to most, is confusing and annoying to play).


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
Many people (myself included, I admit!) prefer playing the game to a victory, then posting an AAR of how glorious their game was. Clearly the gpt and Corruption bugs work against this, because people feel these will get in the way of a sleek victory. So although I can understand the reticence to play with these bugs, I think it has less to do with the goals of AU and more with an aversion to the game in its current state (which, to most, is confusing and annoying to play).

Dom - I'm sure that you didn't mean this to be disrespectful or a denigration of others' motives, but that's how it came across to me upon reading your post.

I haven't seen one person indicate that waiting made sense because their chances for victory, or for glorious victory, or for a sleek victory, are impeded by the present state of the game. In fact, I've seen several posters, including myself, put forward a number of reasons why the idea of an AU game now seems counterproductive to the goals of AU. I've seen two posters who intially voted "play now" change their minds after either being persuaded by argument or becoming more familiar with the presently buggy game. Many more votes have also been cast against starting AU without additional comment. Your view that an opinion to wait for a patch equates to an aversion to the game, and how successful one might be with it, has absolutely no objective basis -- it seems to rest on nothing more than your diasgreement with stated reasons for an opposing view, and, since those views are deemed not credible, a search for the "real" reason to oppose an AU game under these circumstances.

I won't rehash many of the opinions already expressed, but it seems to me that those in favor of starting an AU game now owe at least a reasoned explanation for their view (and you already gave one Dom )-- and I would argue that such an explanation should be specific to AU and not just to any comparison game (since it's been pointed out many times that anyone can post a comparison game for play). I'd also argue that, in the face of reasonable and civil explanations of why a poster voted "after," even if one doesn't agree with the explanations, it is not simply enough to argue for playing with a "what could it hurt" argument or an "it would be fun" argument.

Catt

[Dominae]

Yes, I'm sorry if I sounded like I was putting people down.

What I meant to say is that, despite AU's goals, people like to win when they play. The current bugs in C3C are serious impediments to this (especially Corruption). Edit: As you say, I'm probably way off base.


Dominae

[vmxa1]

Actually MWIA AU does have a reputation to consider. It is trying to create one, if it does not have one now. Remember I voted to go ahead, but I have no problem either way.
As far as winning, I doubt that anyone here would be happy to lose consistantly, but they are not going without sleep over being out played in an AU game (well maybe some are).
We have have a few games that defeated nearly everyone at their normal level.

So to me the issue is not about the problems with the C3Ct, but rather is there anything to be taught at this point.
If a game can be designed that would be interesting and someone could play it so as to illustrate some good form/style then it is worth doing.

[Dominae]

Just in defense of my above post (two posts up, actually): how many who voted 'no' to this game would be opposed to doing an "unofficial" but Agricultural AU course? My guess is not the majority. Somehow the buggy C3C we have now is okay when playing Agr. Arguably, a Seafaring scenario suffers more from the bugs than an Agricultural one, but IMO that's just because Agr. is better overall. This is very telling, I think.

Maybe I'm way off base again.

Let's get all this unpleasantness behind us.

Who would be interested in playing an Agr. game? I can post an interesting one tonight. The purpose would be to test a different version of the Chasqui Scout: 0/0/1, 20 Shields, All Terrain As Roads, replaces Scout (available from the start). Sound fun?


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by Dominae
Just in defense of my above post (two posts up, actually): how many who voted 'no' to this game would be opposed to doing an "unofficial" but Agricultural AU course? My guess is not the majority. Somehow the buggy C3C we have now is okay when playing Agr. Arguably, a Seafaring scenario suffers more from the bugs than an Agricultural one, but IMO that's just because Agr. is better overall. This is very telling, I think.

It might be telling to some degree if your guess as to how a vote would come out is correct; until then, I'm not too sure that it is telling in any way.

I don't understand what an "unofficial but . . . AU course" is. My opposition would be the same for any AU game under the present bugs when all available information indicates that a patch is being worked on feverishly.

And, to be clear and speaking only for myself, I'll repeat that, despite the buggy version, I still find C3C enjoyable, I am still playing it (up to 5 epic games, now, no conquests). C3C is fun; and comparison games are fun. The fundamental issue for me is whether playing under the AU moniker makes sense. I respectfully repeat my view that it does not.

Sorry to post and dash (won't be around to respond) but Thanksgiving celebrations and travel call.

Catt

[cracky]

Something of a compromise...

Well, I've reread this thread several times and find myself agreeing with both the 'yes' and 'no' arguments, but more frequently with the go ahead'ers. But I think the gpt bug in and of itself offers a great, if off-kilter, AU JC (Junior College ) game. The Power of Inflation. This is just an off-the-cuff idea I came up with this morning, but how about allowing, and even encouraging gpt deals, but adding 25% to the cost of all industrial buildings/units, and 50% to all modern ones (maybe with 25% for all medieval buildings/units, then 50% and 100% for the next ages). As more and more gold comes into circulation, it requires more and more of this devalued currency to build/operate your civ. As for the corruption/FP bug, just make a yes/no decision about it for this pre-patch game. Either one *must* build the FP, or just remove it with the editor (not sure what would be done about the Secret Police one...). Yes, both of these are fairly clumsy work-arounds, but as long as the AI civ's benefit from the gpt deals as well, I think this is a lot simpler than keeping track of how much gold one really shouldn't have, let alone keeping track of the interest incurred (no offense intended at all by this of course).

I don't remember who I'm agreeing with here , but I always considered the AU games comparative rather than competitive. If it can be made clear from the beginning of this Jr. AU that, of course, these particular strategies/tactics will not really be applicable after the coming patch, and the course be given a special, well, warning I guess, in the list of AU's thread, I think we could all go ahead and give it a shot and compare anti-inflation tactics. I'll even have a go at making the map and changes in the editor, but this is probably best left to someone who's actually *used* the editor before... And heck, if this idea gets shot down, again can't recall who I'm agreeing with , and I can figure out how to do this in the editor, I'll just post it as a comparison game.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Catt

...it seems to me that those in favor of starting an AU game now owe at least a reasoned explanation for their view (and you already gave one Dom )-- and I would argue that such an explanation should be specific to AU and not just to any comparison game (since it's been pointed out many times that anyone can post a comparison game for play).

Bugger. I would love to give such an explanation, but I am not sure I really can grasp the ideals of AU without having tried it before. I will rest (a little uneasy, yet not feeling put upon at all) with the knowledge I have lost this debate.

However, from what I DO understand of AU, and from a lot of posts here, it is clear at least some consider AU to be about learning experiences, especially testing areas of the game that may be neglected in the course of normal SP games, and that deserve to be learned. Thus I still believe an AU game pre-patch is valid, as there is a helluva lot to learn in C3C as it is. And I stick to the idea that any patch may not fix all the supposed broken issues. The gpt is obviously a problem, but I don't see the corruption as that much of an issue, nor an obvious breaking point of the game. No-one yet has touched upon my question of what will happen if corruption stays as it is, or is not "fixed" to the level many want it to be, in upcoming patches....

Something to keep in mind.

[DrSpike]

Well its not like its just a difference of opinion on the level of corruption MWIA. The way city ranks are calculated is indisputably incorrect (for more than one reason as well! ) , and as such will be addressed. There is little to no possibility of corruption 'staying as it is'

The gpt issue is another that is clear and will almost certainly be patched.