population of city = #food resources?

[DRoseDARs]

OT?

[JohnM2433]

The Off-Topic forum.

I'm good with numbers, as well as knowing a lot of abstract mathematical concepts, so if you have any questions, maybe I could help.

Thanks for giving us that formula, Provost!

Personally, I think the way population growth is set up in the game is silly. In reality, the amount of people required to do a job (work a tile) tends to decrease as time goes on, due to improving technology, while at the same time population grows exponentiallly until it starts to run into negative-feedback effects. At the very least, a citizen should always cost the same amount of food to produce -- larger cities grow faster, not slower, in absolute terms. Maybe this can be modified in the Editor, which I haven't really looked at much.

[teturkhan]

that is great!

this formula totally belongs in the custom forum...
Harrison, thats awesome!

thanks man.

[teturkhan]

Mistake posting - read next post.

its late

[teturkhan]

You believe this guy?

I was so impressed with Harrison's forumla I thought I would share with with people over at Civfanatics forum.

So I pasted his entire post over there at Civfantics, and you would not believe the heat I got from this one guy - check it out.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=29988

[DRoseDARs]

I posted in defense of you over on Civfanatics' Forum.

[Maquiladora]

To be fair, i think the guy at CFC is asking for a link to this thread. Not simply a quote plucked from here. Although it doesnt sound like he even looked at the formula...

[teturkhan]

asking is one thing...

lot better ways to ask for the link than they way he did... and as you said, I don't think he even bothered to look at the formula - too busy discrediting everyone.

[Provost Harrison]

I feel flattered

All royalties payable to R. Harrison

[cracker]

Teturkhan,

unfortunately you have a recurring problem of throwing out information that you scrape up from other threads as if it were the gospel truth.

It loses its context with original discussion.

Posting a link back to this thread and then quoting the excerpt that was really valuable is what you should have done in the first place.

Sometimes it is so hard to figure out what you are actually trying to accomplish, it just gets frustrating when you begin to add up all the scattershooting posts.

Whining and posting deliberately disparaging comments about other users in separate message threads would be cause for banning if you continue to drift in that direction.

You did acknowledge that you got the information from others. That wasn't the issue. The issue was just extracting the part of the conversation that you felt was gospel without leading people to the information source so they could review the context and determine the validity of the concepts for themselves.

The only reason for questioning Harrison's formula as the gospel was that it included no reference to the food factors which have been demonstrated. No question that Harrison's formula was a good approximation.

When you discuss someone in a way that you think is behind their back, remember that all information is public. The quality of the content of your past postings does far more to record your profile than any number of posts whining about the way someone else may be trying to figure out what great social issue you may be trying to uncover in the next round or musings.

If you had mentioned that you duplicated the posting over on POLY and then were getting these feedback items there would have been no reason to question the source because we could have put it in perspective.

[teturkhan]

RESPONSE TO CRACKER

Teturkhan,

unfortunately you have a recurring problem of throwing out information that you scrape up from other threads as if it were the gospel truth.
************
I never claim that all information I post is the gospel truth, I merely throw it out there to promote discussion, in the hopes that it leads to something positive.


It loses its context with original discussion.
Posting a link back to this thread and then quoting the excerpt that was really valuable is what you should have done in the first place.
************
If the threads was significantly different in content I would have done that, however most of the information on both is pretty much the same. Think about it, why would I bother starting a new thread on both forums? It would be much easier to just give the link – but people asked for it the other way, saying they prefer one forum over the other so I complied.


Sometimes it is so hard to figure out what you are actually trying to accomplish, it just gets frustrating when you begin to add up all the scattershooting posts.
***********
The "Scattershooting" posts you accuse me of, is merely my attempts to juggle information back and forth. I think it’s important that as many people are exposed to the topic matter, more heads are better than a few.


Whining and posting deliberately disparaging comments about other users in separate message threads would be cause for banning if you continue to drift in that direction.
***********
I really don’t like the way you come across Cracker. The more you keep talking, the more miserable of a person you seem to me. Every time you post it becomes very obvious that you think you know the game far better than the rest of us. You are incredibly cynical and overly critical, and seem to be bent on discouraging people from putting forth ideas, concepts, maps etc. Just because you don't deem those things important doesn't give you the right to discredit others. You should change your alias to “Red Tape” because you got miles of it. Now regarding this talk about my posts justifying CAUSE FOR BANNING? Why? Cause I gave people an opportunity to read both threads? See what you wrote??? Man you crack me up Cracker, instead of realizing your way too aggressive in your posts and easing it up, you come in here and threaten to BAN ME, cause I linked this thread to the other! Truth of the matter is you’re a Forum Bully, and I’m exposing you as such, you don’t like it cause then people might get together and ban you


You did acknowledge that you got the information from others. That wasn't the issue. The issue was just extracting the part of the conversation that you felt was gospel without leading people to the information source so they could review the context and determine the validity of the concepts for themselves.
***********
As I said both posts were pretty much the same in content.


The only reason for questioning Harrison's formula as the gospel was that it included no reference to the food factors which have been demonstrated. No question that Harrison's formula was a good approximation.
**********
LOL LOL LOL, this is what I call a classic case of "damage control" (I have a better phrase for it, but under the threat of banning I will keep quiet). Everyone can see both threads, you were not missing critical information, you simply jumped the gun and once again came down hard on an idea/concept that someone else put forth, before really considering it with an open mind.

When you discuss someone in a way that you think is behind their back, remember that all information is public. The quality of the content of your past postings does far more to record your profile than any number of posts whining about the way someone else may be trying to figure out what great social issue you may be trying to uncover in the next round or musings.
**********
I am blinded by Red Tape!!! Arggg!!! I don’t talk behind your back Cracker, as a matter of fact I lay it out right where you post. I merely provided the link to the others in this thread, so Harrison and others here could have a chance to defend their formulas – stats against your zealous and premature dismissal.


If you had mentioned that you duplicated the posting over on POLY and then were getting these feedback items there would have been no reason to question the source because we could have put it in perspective
*********
Once again, the info is pretty much the same in both threads, you talk as if you read something in this thread that was considerably different than the other, but this is not the case. I think you lack people skills, and you would be wise to change your approach when you try to convey your thoughts and opinions to others. Pointing something out in a constructive manner is one thing but assuming you know what is better for everyone, and that your opinion is the only right one is something different.

You are the guy after all who claims to know what 99.9% of people want, think etc. That statement in itself is indicative of your personality.

[vondrack]

Cracker, I can't really see your point...

Was it that difficult to ask for a link, if you were so interested in learning how the formula was created?

Also, I have noticed that it is rather rare that people post crosslinks between Poly and CivFanatics (even though it would be very logical to do so pretty often). I think there is a good reason behind... these two sites are sort of competiton, even if not fierce. Advertising one using the other is perhaps not 100% kosher.

Reading through this thread, you would also find out that the formula P.H. posted was apparently not a result of the discussion (or am I just slow in noticing things?). It was thrown here "as a gospel", as the data collected in the earlier part of the thread were very scarce and far from detailed. Provost actually knew the formula and as it did not interfere with the example data collected, we accepted it as a matter of fact.

So, I guess, you might wish to say "OK, I was little too fast to pull the gun out..." now and forget the whole thing. I can't see why should people be restricted in the way they post information in the forums, irrespective if it is here or at CivFanatics. If the info is incorrect, prove it and submit a correction. Tons of Civ3 related information have been discovered by progressively precising interim findings.

P.S.: BTW, Provost, where did the formula come from?

[cracker]

Vondrack,

I know the formula depends on at least three variables(pop points, food stored, and era or age of the city or some other factor) just based on the competetent posts of some of the high end competitive players in the CFC GOTM spoiler threads for game 5, 6, 7 and 8.

I also have tested to see if the population number that seems to be produced for Eye Candy effect has any effect on score, gameplay, or victory conditions. The eyecandy pop numbers seem to be a decoration function because conditions such as the 2/3rds of the world's population value that is used in domination victory seems to be drawn directly from the pop points number and not the calculated people population.

Again, the reason for focusing on the verbatim reposting of information is just that it perpetuates inaccurate prior postings without helping to find the real source. Issues such as "where did this come from" or "how did you get this answer" or was this answer from V1.07 or V1.29 are usually addressed in the thread.

I was wondering where Harrison's formula came from as well but was first focusing on where Teturk was dredging up this information.

Teturkhan's excerpting method just took these answers as the gospel and went schewing merrily along.

An endpoint of this discussion is really headed toward how to get a city population of 7 million people on a small rocky island like New York City or Tokyo. Since food does not transport in CIV3 there is a built in barrier to accomplishing what Teturkhan has really indicated that he wants to do in the big picture. A model that represents population centers as more than just a single city center may be more appropriate for how the game works even though this will give a permanent eyetwitch to the real world map perfectionists.

[JohnM2433]

Re: RESPONSE TO CRACKER

Originally posted by teturkhan
You are the guy after all who claims to know what 99.9% of people want, think etc. That statement in itself is indicative of your personality.

Wow. Has he really claimed this? If so, could you say where?

Even if he is very smart, that figure seems a little high. Indeed, I think formulating an exact answer to the city population problem would be far easier than obtaining such an in-depth understanding of human psychology, and he hasn't even done that yet. Then again, it's a lot less important, so maybe he just hasn't had the time for it...

[teturkhan]

here it is:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...ight=teturkhan