AU Mod: Difficulty Levels

[Theseus]

No surprises, at least in my viewpoint... and exactly to your point: The balance between AI advantages and AI starting units, from level to level, is slightly off-kilter.

As an interesting sidenote, Nathan, any comments on differences in CP (esp. distance) and also the relevance of bonus/strategic terrain? I find the AI to be quite weak at CP in regards to sea/ocean bonuses, for instance, and I wonder if the *number* of Settlers available during REX might be related.

BTW, for anyone who hasn't done so, these kinds of 'tests' are quite interesting to watch. Nathan, you might like to post one or more of the saves for people to experience directly.

[nbarclay]

I haven't tried to analyze the saves beyond counting cities and settlers in the F3 screen. I also didn't do much watching; I was mostly focused on getting to the end so I could collect my data. The attached zip file contains the three saves in case anyone's interested.

[nbarclay]

And speaking of in case anyone's interested, here's a version of AU Mod 1.07 with Mythic Hero inserted. (I used the approach of creating a new level and moving Demigod through Sid up a notch for this version of the Mod.)

[Dominae]

Nathan, maybe you should also play a game on Mythic. I'm guessing that you will trounce it just as convincingly as you do on Emperor (and I mean how easy it will be for you, not how quickly you win or some other statistic). But of course you will claim that its scholastic value is just great, because you find it fun.

On that note, I say let's let the poll do the talking.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, the reason why I view your position as tyrannical is that your only basis for opposing the additional difficulty level seems to be that you want players to do things the way you think is best instead of the way they prefer. That, in my book, constitutes tyranny.

Your use of the word 'tyranny' makes me think that you are simply afraid that you will not get your way. Remember, you are on the AU mod panel, while I am not; what tyrannical power do I hold? Does the mere defense of my point of view constitute tyranny?!

Tyranically(?), I want players to become better at Civ3. I do not think Mythic will help them in this regard. I also want them to have fun. You just want to have fun. The fact that you are not getting this leads me to tire of this discussion.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae


Your use of the word 'tyranny' makes me think that you are simply afraid that you will not get your way. Remember, you are on the AU mod panel, while I am not; what tyrannical power do I hold? Does the mere defense of my point of view constitute tyranny?!

Certainly, you have no direct power to exercise tyranny, but you do have a certain amount of influence around here. The reason why I argue that your attitude seems tyrannical to me is so people who do have direct power to decide will think twice about whether they should vote to support your position even if they personally, for their own games, agree with your preferences.

As of the time I write this, the poll has five votes in favor of Mythic Hero and four against. If the ayes get their way, the nays will not be harmed in any meaningful way (at least aside from the possible impact on MP game set-up as long as the same Mod is used for both SP and MP). But if the nays get their way, the ayes will be denied a choice. Unlike most situations the AU Mod panel faces, this is not a situation where we have to force a single choice onto everyone.

Tyranically(?), I want players to become better at Civ3. I do not think Mythic will help them in this regard. I also want them to have fun. You just want to have fun. The fact that you are not getting this leads me to tire of this discussion.

Look at your first two words of explanation: "I want." Your focus is entirely on what you want, and not at all on giving other players what they want. That's why I view your attitude as tyrannical no matter how little power you have to enforce it. In contrast, while I certainly do have selfish interests involved, the orientation of my arguments is toward giving players a choice, not toward expecting anyone else to do what I prefer for them to do. Indeed, I don't really care whether players ever use the new level or not; I just want it to be there for however many do want to use it.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The reason why I argue that your attitude seems tyrannical to me is so people who do have direct power to decide will think twice about whether they should vote to support your position even if they personally, for their own games, agree with your preferences.

So, my arguments are tyrannical because you want the panel vote to go your way?!

Look at your first two words of explanation: "I want." Your focus is entirely on what you want, and not at all on giving other players what they want.

What are you talking about? I fully support the current poll, because I do want AU to be "of and for the people". Just because I personally want to players to learn something when they come here does not mean I do not respect the majority's wishes, nor does it make me a tyrant.

This discussion is bordering on absurdity, just because you do not like my point of view. Just relax, the poll will take care of everything.

That's why I view your attitude as tyrannical no matter how little power you have to enforce it. In contrast, while I certainly do have selfish interests involved, the orientation of my arguments is toward giving players a choice, not toward expecting anyone else to do what I prefer for them to do. Indeed, I don't really care whether players ever use the new level or not; I just want it to be there for however many do want to use it.

Might I point out that, from a certain perspective, the AU mod panel is in the business removing choices from players. Should Jags be 15 Shields or 10? Maybe two mods should be made, one for players who want to play with the 15-Shield version, one for players who like the old version. What makes it all right to debate this point ad nauseum but not difficulty levels? Who cares if the 10 Shield version is unbalanced if players are having fun with it?

alexman''s signature "Do you play Civ3 on autopilot" IMO captures the essence of the AU mod: to challenge players in new and interesting ways (while maintaining the "feel" of Civ3). My argument is that Mythic will do little-to-nothing to challenge players in new and interesting ways. If you cannot get past feelings of oppression and look at this non-tyrannical argument for what it is, then I believe we are at an impasse.

SO, let's get back to that poll.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae


So, my arguments are tyrannical because you want the panel vote to go your way?!

No. Your arguments are tyrannical because you want to see your preference imposed onto others even though you cannot make a case for why my proposal would harm you, or anyone else, in a meaningful way in the process.

In most of the decisions the AU Mod panel has to make, the only way some players can get what they want is to force their will onto others. Your example of the Jaguar warrior is a good one: in practical terms, the cost has to be the same for everyone. Granted, looking at any one change in isolation, we could offer different Mod versions. But with even just ten independent changes - and the AU Mod involves a lot more than that - it would take over a thousand different versions of the Mod to support every possible combination. In practice, we have no real choice to vote on what rules will be in place for everyone who uses the Mod. Even if we did something like offer a separate MP version, each version would force everyone who uses it to play by the same rule (unless they make a custom version for themselves)..

But the Mythic Hero difficulty level idea poses no such threat. It would be a new option, not something that displaces existing difficulty levels, so players who don't want to use it could simply ignore it. There would be no danger of their being stuck playing by rules that they oppose.

In addition, I reject the idea that a democratic vote automatically means that the decision of the majority is not tyrannical. If such a presumption were valid, racial segregation and even slavery would not have been tyrannical as long as a majority supported them. A wise majority will consider not only what it wants from a purely personal perspective but also how its decisions might interfere with the desires of minorities more than is genuinely necessary to protect the majority's own rights and interests. After all, people who are in the majority on one issue or at one time might be in a minority on another issue or at another time, in which case a precedent that the majority is supposed to avoid undercutting the desires of minorities any more than is truly necessary may turn around and benefit them.

[Modo44]

Nathan, you are getting emotional here. Not Dominae, not anyone else.

I don't see the need for Mythic Hero, just as I wouldn't agree to add a level between Monarch and Emperor, or between Regent and Monarch, or whatever. Some transitions should be hard, to make people learn. Making things easy doesn't.

[Tassadar500]

Nathan, this is tyranny:


We are not having Mythic Hero as a level. That's the end of it.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Modo44
Nathan, you are getting emotional here. Not Dominae, not anyone else.

My main emotion is frustration at the nature of the arguments used against Mythic Hero. If Dominae just argued that he thought the extra level was unnecessary and left it at that, it wouldn't bother me nearly so much. But when he tries to superimpose his ideas about what goals players ought to be pursuing onto me and onto other players, that hits a raw nerve. And the fact that Dominae's attitude echoes the attitudes of people I've debated regarding real-world political issues, people who want to impose their will onto others whether they can show a genuine need to do so or not, makes the nerve a bit more raw than it would be otherwise.

I don't see the need for Mythic Hero, just as I wouldn't agree to add a level between Monarch and Emperor, or between Regent and Monarch, or whatever. Some transitions should be hard, to make people learn. Making things easy doesn't.

There is a difference between being less hard and being easy. I've argued based on the editor parameters that the difference between Emperor and Mythic Hero is comparable in magnitude to most of the other differences in difficulty levels, and I haven't seen any real counter-arguments against my assertion. If the other transitions are not easy, I see no basis for claiming that the transition from Emperor to Mythic Hero would be easy.

Granted, for a player who routinely trounces Emperor, a jump to Mythic Hero would presumably be pretty easy and the choice to play on Mythic Hero would be more a matter of taste. But for a player whose margins of victory on Emperor aren't so great, it would be possible to move up to Mythic Hero sooner than the player would be ready to move up to Demigod. That's especially true in public games, where the tendency is for players not to pick a difficulty level where they risk suffering a defeat in public.

For players who want hard games, I see no basis for an argument that making Mythic Hero available would do more harm than good. On the contrary, the ability to move up to Mythic Hero before they feel ready for Demigod would, at a certain stage of players' development, give them the ability to play on a harder level than they would otherwise.

And for those of us who, for reasons of fun, want to be reasonably competitive through the whole game instead of starting in a big hole, I don't see any legitimate reason why you should take an interest in preventing us from having Mythic Hero available. The whole concept of "make people learn," as opposed to merely encouraging people to learn, strikes me as tyrannical - not to mention self-defeating if we respond by sticking to Emperor instead of by moving up to Demigod.

[Modo44]

The analogy is all I need to vote against a new difficulty level. You yourself said, that it would be easy to jump from Emperor to Mythic Hero (sorry, Theseus ). I find such transitions less than encouraging. I had an easy time on Regent, and had almost no problems with Monarch. What did I learn between those two levels? Almost nothing, I'm afraid. Only the big jump up to Emperor made me actively seek ways to improve my game. The fun I get out of learning things returned, and I rediscovered the game. Like I said, taking the challenge out of the transition doesn't help educating anyone. It can even make it boring.

At one transition the AI gets that free Worker, right? So, should we now add a level that gives the AI every bonuses it has on Emperor, except for the extra Worker? I don't think so. It's a big difference, and so is the difference between Emperor, and Demigod. Can paople beat it? People can beat even Sid. Case closed.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
If Dominae just argued that he thought the extra level was unnecessary and left it at that, it wouldn't bother me nearly so much.

This remains the basis for my whole position here (just scroll up and follow the discussion); I believe Mythic is an unncessary transition between Emperor and Demigod within the context of the AU mod. Your sole argument for this new difficulty level is that it is necessary for your own personal enjoyment. We have to versions of "necessary" here, and I wish you would stick to one or the other.

Your feelings of oppression arise from you casting this debate as me spoiling your fun. But, you must understand that, while AU aims to please, it is more than just about what you or any other individual considers fun. Adding options to the AU mod until everyone is having their own version of fun is not something I consider a good idea. You may disagree. Fine. So a poll is started to see what other players want (because AU is a community), and you argue that a democratic vote is not the right way to approach this! So now we should include every option that a minority wants as a matter of course!?

And here's my emotional bit:

Calling my position tyrannical just because it is at odds with yours is one of the worst examples of rhetoric I have seen in a long time. I am sorry that we see AU so differently, but I retain the right to express my opinion no matter what you feel, think or say. The fact that you are not letting this issue end with the poll is particularly frustrating. Thankfully, the poll is going your way, so this will all be over soon.

[nbarclay]

Modo44, what I said was that the jump from Emperor to Mythic Hero would be pretty easy for players who can easily trounce Emperor. In other words, it's an easy transition for people who have long since been ready to move upward but who have not yet done so because they don't find Demigod enjoyable. (Or, in my case, who find Demigod enjoyable only with a huge advantage in starting position - which, coincidentally, produces an effect a lot like Mythic Hero would with a more normal start.) That is a completely different situation from people who always try to play on the hardest level they can handle and are still on their way up, who would find Mythic Hero a serious challenge when they first try to make the transition because they would do so before their margin of advantage on Emperor becomes overwhelming.

The reason why the jump from Regent to Monarch is easy for good players is not that the jump itself is insignificant, but rather that the advantages the AIs get on Monarch are so slight that it doesn't take much of an advantage in human skill to offset them. I only played one game on Regent before moving up to Monarch. Just what I knew from other 4X games (especially Call to Power) plus a little understanding of how Civ 3 was different was enough. Moving up to playing Emperor on a regular basis took longer because it required a larger margin of superior skill compared with the AIs, and developing that margin of superiority took a while.

Similarly, for players who can win pretty consistently on Emperor but who don't dominate it yet, Mythic Hero would offer a serious increase in challenge. The reason why I wouldn't find Mythic Hero especially difficult now is not that the difference between it and Emperor is so small, but rather that I've stayed mostly on Emperor and kept improving for so long after I could have moved up if I found higher levels enjoyable. Had Mythic Hero been available when I was originally ready for it, I'm confident that I would have found the transition about as challenging as I did the transition from Monarch to Emperor.

Which brings me to one last point, a point you still don't seem to get. When going to a difficulty level above Emperor, what changes is not just the difficulty level but the fundamental nature of the game. On Emperor and below, the civs start essentially even. Whether a player falls behind or pulls ahead from that roughly even start depends on the player's level of skill and willingness to micromanage. The same can even be true on Demigod with a big enough advantage in starting position.

But on Demigod with comparable starting positions, the fundamental nature of the game becomes different. Instead of the game being one where the civilizations start roughly equal and a good enough player can compete through the entire game, the game becomes one of the human player starting with a clearly inferior civilization and having to dig out of a hole. Even Dominae admits that.

If players enjoy that different nature of the game, they move on from Emperor to Demigod, and perhaps from there to Deity or even Sid. But for those of us who want to start fairly even instead of having to dig out of a significant hole, the highest we can go and still play the kind of game we enjoy is Emperor, or maybe Demigod with a huge advantage in starting position if we're good enough. No possible amount of skill can change that reality, at least unless there is a whole new level of skill that no one in the entire Civ 3 community has discovered after more than three years of play.

So a Mythic Hero level would provide two advantages. (1) It would allow Emperor-level players to move up to a harder level sooner than if they have to wait until they are ready to tackle Demigod. And (2) it would provide a level that is harder than Emperor but that does not completely break the paradigm of the civs starting roughly even. In the absence of any significant offsetting disadvantages, I view that as an unambiguously good thing.

[nbarclay]

Dominae, when I started this thread, I specifically included the following: "If I'm the only one who feels that way, it's not that big a deal. But if there are others who find Emperor too easy but who find Demigod too hard to be fun, the situation is worth doing something about." My reason for bringing up the idea in the context of the AU Mod has never been just a matter of what I desire personally, but the belief that others could benefit from the new level as well.

Further, while I have expressed why the level has value to me in spite of the fact that it would not push me to my limits in terms of difficulty (and thus why it can have similar value to other highly skilled players whose feelings are similar to mine - Theseus, for example), I do not believe that players in my position would be the only ones who benefit. Players who would like more challenge than Emperor provides, but who have not yet developed their skills to a point where they feel ready to tackle Demigod, could also benefit from having a level in between.

Your persistent efforts to paint the issue as nothing more than me trying to get something I want personally misses that larger picture.

Calling my position tyrannical just because it is at odds with yours

You still don't get it. I agree that calling someone's position tyrannical just because he disagrees with me would be a reprehensible abuse of rhetoric. The tyranny I see in your position has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with me, but rather with your idea that just because you believe that players ought to be pursuing certain goals, we ought to reject any proposal that could help players pursue different goals. If you presented a case that Mythic Hero would harm you (or someone else) in some meaningful way, I could view your position as merely an effort to protect your own interests (or the interests of others). But what I see is you trying - through the power of persuasion - to impose your preferences onto others even though letting them get what they want would not cost you or anyone else anything of consequence. And that, in my book, fits the definition of tyranny even if it is on a small scale.

By the way, it's not inconceivable that there could be a cultural difference involved in our concepts of tyranny. When I view your position as tyrannical, I view it as such not in the sense of a dictator as tyrant, but in the sense of tyranny of the majority. If you aren't as familiar with the concept of tyranny of the majority as I am, you may be reading connotations into what I write that I do not intend.