AU Mod: Difficulty Levels

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

Why must you stick with "comes across as" and simply listen to my words regarding this issue? Here they are: "These are the goals I, Dominae, think Apolyton University and its mod ought to be promoting, and if you don't share these goals, let your voice be heard but accept the panel's the final decision."

But look at how you try to define the goals. When I look at how you define the goals you think Apolyton University ought to be pursuing, I see in those goals the message, "These are the goals players ought to be pursuing, and if you don't share these goals, what you want doesn't matter."

My view of the purpose of Apolyton University is much broader. In my view, the goals of AU are to learn and to have fun. Thus, any way players want to approach Civ is compatible with the goals of Apolyton University as long as they're having fun and hopefully learning something along the way. So if we can make the game more fun for some players without harming others in the process, why not do it?

What I hope is that when this issue is officially placed up for a vote, panelists will vote based on a concept of Apolyton University's goals that is oriented toward freedom for players to play in whatever way they enjoy most and not in a way that tries to impose particular panelists' views of what goals players should set for themselves onto the entire community.

[pvzh]

Maybe, we should have a vote? Disscussion is on a n-th lap already.

[nbarclay]

Since we aren't on the verge of releasing a new version of the Mod, I've been holding off on a vote in order to allow more time for experimentation - if nothing else, for me to play a little more with Mythic Hero and post about the results.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
But look at how you try to define the goals.

I am not trying to define anything; the goals existed before I even came to AU.

When I look at how you define the goals you think Apolyton University ought to be pursuing, I see in those goals the message, "These are the goals players ought to be pursuing, and if you don't share these goals, what you want doesn't matter."

Is it my fault that you are reading into my words for hidden messages that do not exist? What AU players want is very much an important thing to me. However, I'm more interested in what AU players as a group want, rather than one specific player. Is this wrong? Sure, you are being singled out in this instance because I happen to dislike your proposal (for whatever reason), but this does not imply the message that it's "my way or else". If anyone is guilty of this attitude, it's you, because you are unwilling to let the panel make a decision.

My view of the purpose of Apolyton University is much broader.

Fine, this is your view. Is it better than mine? You see, it's irrelevant what our actual views are when you are criticizing me for close-mindedness in having my own view, because you are just as close-minded.

What is wrong with an AU that promotes a little learning here and there, instead of just letting players learn only if they reall want to (which is, for most of us, too much like work!). I consider this the main attraction of AU (although the comparison games are, admittedly, pretty fun), because while anyone can have fun with Civ3 on their own (we hope), it's more like work to try to learn stuff without a community to back you up.

In my view, the goals of AU are to learn and to have fun.
Thus, any way players want to approach Civ is compatible with the goals of Apolyton University as long as they're having fun and hopefully learning something along the way.

You see, this is the fundamental difference between our views: you do not see the learning aspect as an integral part of the system. This is not surprising to me, because you have very little learning left to do yourself (with respect to game mechanics) and therefore are just playing to have fun. I, on the other hand, take it for granted that if players have fun playing Civ3, and therefore what AU offers is a "value-added" component that helps them improve in various ways. They may or may not improve, but at least AU promotes it (and, thinking back on many players who have come and gone in the past couple of years, AU has been quite successful in this respect). This is not to say that we should only do stuff at the expense of fun (like only play really hard courses, like no tech-trading), as my little debate with Sir Ralph made apparent.

GOTM is about two things: competitiveness and having fun. But GOTM is not likely to give up the competitive aspect (ranking of players, etc.) just because some players are just interested in having fun (by using cheats, reloading, etc. - note that none of these things "harm" other players). That's because GOTM is offering a competitive system where players can either participate and have fun, or not participate if they think the competitiveness is not for them. I see AU as analogous to this.

Putting it all together, this is why I do not think that changes that are made "just" to increase the fun aspect of AU are within the spirit of the AU mod. Otherwise (as we have discussed above), we would have to open our doors to a whole bunch of "fun" things/mods that would complicate the system incredibly. Yes, this surely sounds tyrannical of me if you cast it as "me against your fun". A better way to cast it, therefore, is that we have different views concerning what AU is all about. Again, why is my interpretation worse than yours? And again, we have a way of resolving these disputes, the panel, so why not just leave it up to them?

I would prefer you challenge my view on an independent basis instead of opposing it in the context of a mod change you particularly want to see happen.

What I hope is that when this issue is officially placed up for a vote, panelists will vote based on a concept of Apolyton University's goals that is oriented toward freedom for players to play in whatever way they enjoy most and not in a way that tries to impose particular panelists' views of what goals players should set for themselves onto the entire community.

Are you trying to impose your personal view of what AU is all about on the rest of the panel!? I think we can agree at this point that this is a big no-no.

[Tassadar500]

We've had enough debating (or arguing if you see it that way) on this subject, and I doubt anymore information or evidence will come out benefitting either side. So, we should either have another poll, or have the AU Panel just vote on it already.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
So, we should either have another poll, or have the AU Panel just vote on it already.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

Again, why is my interpretation worse than yours?

Because yours undermines individual choices for no good reason, or at least no good reason that you’ve been able to explain. If Apolyton University were a real-world university teaching people to be doctors or lawyers or some such, I could see a good reason for it to make sure its students learn to do their jobs well even if doing so requires it to limit students’ choices. But Civ 3 is just a game, something people pursue for fun. So learning more about it is beneficial only to the extent that it helps people have more fun. And it is individual players, not the mod panel or the community as a whole, that are in the best position to know what balance of fun and learning fits them best.

Yes, learning is an integral part of why Apolyton University exists. But in my view, the focus should be on providing opportunities for people to learn, not on deliberately trying to manipulate people’s choices in an effort to push them to learn more even if they end up having less fun as a result. When interfering with the fun of a minority is an unavoidable side effect of a decision the AU community makes in order to provide a better combination of learning and fun for the majority, that is fine because the alternative of compromising learning and fun for the majority in order to cater to a minority would be even worse. But I contend that getting so caught up in the learning aspect that we undermine some players’ fun even when there is no need to do so is completely out of place when what is at stake is just a game, a recreational activity.

Putting it all together, this is why I do not think that changes that are made "just" to increase the fun aspect of AU are within the spirit of the AU mod. Otherwise (as we have discussed above), we would have to open our doors to a whole bunch of "fun" things/mods that would complicate the system incredibly.

But the Mythic Hero concept is not just a matter of fun. In explaining the philosophy of the AU Mod, alexman wrote, "Stronger opponents encourage the player to rely more on sound strategy, and less on one-dimensional approaches that work against weaker opponents." For myself, and for anyone else who would use Mythic Hero if it is available but who would otherwise play AU games on Emperor, Mythic Hero provides stronger opponents than we would face otherwise. Further, if any change we’ve made in the AU Mod for the purpose of helping the AIs comes even close to making as big a difference in AI competitiveness as having a player play on Mythic Hero instead of Emperor would, I can’t think of what that change might be.

Yes, you can argue from a theoretical perspective that having players move all the way up to Demigod would help the AIs even more. But for me, and for any other players who would play on Emperor rather than Demigod if Mythic Hero is not available, that argument is purely theoretical, with not even the slightest glimmer of practical relevance to the actual situation involved.

Further, what we are dealing with here is a game set-up issue, not an issue of rules of play. Indeed, unless I’ve missed something, the choice of difficulty level is the only set-up parameter that individual players are able to choose in AU games where inserting an intermediate choice in between stock choices would even be possible. So I don’t see the Mythic Hero concept opening the kind of Pandora’s box that you seem to fear.