Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MP C4DG Chat Poll 3: GP Gifting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • binTravkin
    replied
    And as for posting a link I would be in breach of a quite important agreement if I did so...so don't expect a link from me.
    PMing a link on the site we're talking about would also be?
    I would like to see that discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Krill
    replied
    [q=BinTravkin]And if something is marked 'personal opinion' I myself automatically assume it is not a judgement of sorts, just something along the lines 'my 2 cents'.

    What appals me you immediately drop in and start bashing this personal opinion, showing little respect to the fact it's only personal and serves for informational purposes only.

    I already regret the decision to post it here.[/q]

    Opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. Where did you say that it should be a final decision? No where, but then again, I never claimed that you said such a thing...

    ...I simply pointed out that it would be wise to not consider it as such.

    No, where did I insult Soren? I have simply stated facts, which being honest are hard to refute.


    So I wonder, why he's agitating about it so much here, and not in beta forum..


    The reason FP is "Agitating" about it here is because an MP game is a matter of hours. I spend more than that playing a single turn in the C3C ISDG, and so it is a hell of a lot more important that we get the rules right here, due to the amount of time spent on this game. And as FP said, it ain't in most Ladder MP games, because of AW. And this is one of the reasons why AW is used...

    And as for posting a link I would be in breach of a quite important agreement if I did so...so don't expect a link from me.

    Leave a comment:


  • binTravkin
    replied
    Well, I never implied that he was
    the best final judge, (..) the best final arbitrater
    And if something is marked 'personal opinion' I myself automatically assume it is not a judgement of sorts, just something along the lines 'my 2 cents'.

    What appals me you immediately drop in and start bashing this personal opinion, showing little respect to the fact it's only personal and serves for informational purposes only.

    I already regret the decision to post it here.

    Hey, BT, you do understand that FP here was a paid consultant by Firaxis, paid in fact to lead the multiplayer testing
    I fully understand this.

    I browse the beta forum quite often, but I haven't yet seen a thread (forgive If I've missed it, though, then I'd like to have a link) where FP personally points out (or at least backs up person doing it) this thing to Soren and/or others.
    So I wonder, why he's agitating about it so much here, and not in beta forum..

    I also understand FP has learned the MP strategy without GP trading much better than most of us, and it seems to me that he is attacking the GP trading at least partially because he does not want the common and most successful strategies to be changed, altering (most probably lessening) the advantage he and his team might have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Krill
    replied
    [q=BinTravkin]It is of course easy to deny a person who is not around, yet has participated in the game development tad more than any of us, has a better view on things in overall than we do..[/q]

    Hey, BT, you do understand that FP here was a paid consultant by Firaxis, paid in fact to lead the multiplayer testing? And that they are a lot of Beta testers taking part in this game?

    Yes, Soren has had a lot of impact on the developement of CIV, seeing how he is the Lead Designer. But you underestimate the amount of input that the testers had on the game.


    If you are really so unsure about his competency, why don't you go on and invite him to post a comment or two here?


    Is Soren an incompetant designer? God no, he is one of the best that there is. The AI is very good at playing this game, compared to many AI in other games. But balancing the game is a different beast entirely, and nobody is brilliant at everything. What I said was that issues of game balance were tested by the testers, and that it was the testers that helped solve them.

    Soren is not incompetant, but he is not god. There are many things that Soren takes advice on from other people, and to think otherwise is naive.


    I was only polite enough to not steal his valuable time by sending a very short message requiring very short answer.


    Did I say that asking Soren was a bad idea? What I said was that was not the best final judge, not the best final arbitrater. Listen, but do not treat his words as gospel on issues of game balance.

    Leave a comment:


  • binTravkin
    replied
    Do I really need to quote myself?
    I've asked for Soren's personal opinion on the matter
    It is of course easy to deny a person who is not around, yet has participated in the game development tad more than any of us, has a better view on things in overall than we do..

    If you are really so unsure about his competency, why don't you go on and invite him to post a comment or two here?
    I was only polite enough to not steal his valuable time by sending a very short message requiring very short answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Krill
    replied
    I think it would also be wise to point out that Soren is not the best final judge. An awful lot has gone into CIV because Beta testers have shown that Soren was wrong, and Soren has altered the game to rebalance it because he has been shown to be wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metaliturtle
    replied
    maybe if Soren were to read this discussion...

    Leave a comment:


  • binTravkin
    replied
    To me, it seems like the possible trading of GPs would be best used in a game where Permenant Alliances are active. On the other hand, in a game, where you don't have Permenent Alliances, not trading the GPs would be the better thing, gameplay wise.
    My thoughts here are exactly opposite to yours.

    In a game where permaalliances are on, trading GPs would often really result in those 2 team blocks Fried is talking about.
    If perma alliances are off, the deals would likely look like when two alleged criminals meet to trade something between them - lotsa guards with guns around, for any case, the exchange place chosen so that there's no quick escape, etc etc.
    It would also mean that it wouldn't necessarily be always the same team with whom you trade your GA, and this would be a great encouragement for diplomacy as well as a factor to consider once you come to the point, where you are starting to sort your trade partners so that you don't benefit the leader, alas, you start thikning of global balance.

    IMHO, the game designers should have made GP trading to be allowed ONLY in a game that has Permenant Alliances on (and only between the alliance members).
    Again I am in completely opposite thougts - GP trading should be allowed always, BUT in perma alliance case.

    I think Fried has made it clear he does fit it into his strategy, since it is of such clear benefit.
    I must have missed that post.

    I'm convinced that GP trading will become a must-do if allowed. The only question that remains to me is whether we want this occuring in our game. Must-do is not necessarily a horrible thing; with trading allowed, not cooperating on research will become foolhardy, as will not trading resources for each other. It seems to me that the main objection is that it this particular must-do is viewed as an aberration because it was not intended to be so good, or perhaps because it does not seem so realistic a type of trading as the others.
    Regarding to realism - historically, there had been almost no nations who have had GP of all sorts.

    Take Greeks, first nation historically to have a lot of distinct GP - most of those (and most reknowned) GP where science and culture ones, with some and engineer (Im not sure they created any exceptional merchant, except maybe Pericles could fit in cathegory as great administrator, great prophet, in it's cIV meaning, as a property of religion, is also hard to find in Greece, maybe The Oracle, but that exists ingame as a wonder already).
    Simply speaking, almost each and every historical nation, or civ presented in this game, had a dominant sort of GPs, a sort which makes them recognisable.

    One could argue that if all those civilisations would survive through ages, they'd have all sorts of GPs.
    They would have, yes, but still their national mentality and cultural emphasis would create a slightly better chance for that or other type of GP to appear, thus becoming the dominant type.

    Also, no nation or civilisation was completely dependant on it's own GP - very many scientific discoveries, cultural works, engineering methods, prophecies and economic developments spread over the borders of civilisation.
    Most even were a foundation of creations of later GPs.

    As ages went on, some GPs were also more or less voluntarily changing civs/nations where they belong - there were a lot of German scientists who left Germany in the wake of Nazism, to name one, Einstein.
    Some not so significant Greek artists, engineers and scholars were also sold in serfdom when Romans conquered the area (in game it would effectively look like Romans capturing Greeks GPs, though)..

    I also asked for Soren's personal opinion on the matter and this is the answer:
    Greetings Soren!


    I have a personal question about cIV mechanics:

    Is the trading of GP (Great People) been intended by the development team as possible and acceptable practice?


    I hope Im not disturbing You much,
    binTravkin
    you mean between Civs in mp? I guess I don't see anything wrong with it per se... As long as both sides benefit, it's like any other type of trading...
    But, yes, lets get on with the polling.

    Leave a comment:


  • E_T
    replied
    From what I can see of the different arguments, there are various good points for both sides.

    To me, it seems like the possible trading of GPs would be best used in a game where Permenant Alliances are active. On the other hand, in a game, where you don't have Permenent Alliances, not trading the GPs would be the better thing, gameplay wise. Although the diplomacy, in a non-Permenent alliances game, might be spiced up with the trading of the GPs, it would seem to become unbalancing (and very likely cause more problems than it's worth).

    IMHO, the game designers should have made GP trading to be allowed ONLY in a game that has Permenant Alliances on (and only between the alliance members).

    As this game is being played with Permenent Alliances off, then you shouldn't be allowed to trade them.

    My $0.02 worth....

    E_T

    Leave a comment:


  • BigFree
    replied
    Sarantium has an active poll on this matter. Each other team should do the same and report the results here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kataphraktoi
    replied
    No one is going to be convinced of the other side, so lets make a poll and vote. Otherwise this could go on forever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fried-Psitalon
    replied
    It also means that if your continent has two players on it, you are forced to make peace, or be certain that you will be badly technologically hampered. Not just the usual "no trading partner = slower tech rate" hampered, a lovely combination of "No trading partner and no easy and certain GAs" hampered.

    This sort of thing makes warmongering in the pre-widespread contact era into folly, and that sharply lowers the number of gameplay options. Perhaps this last should've been said sooner; I figured it was assumed. Anything which makes early warmongering even MORE unpalatable is a bad thing for overall play, IMO. This is coming from one of the few MP players who generally spends more time building than warmongering.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kloreep
    replied
    I think Fried has made it clear he does fit it into his strategy, since it is of such clear benefit.

    I'm convinced that GP trading will become a must-do if allowed. The only question that remains to me is whether we want this occuring in our game. Must-do is not necessarily a horrible thing; with trading allowed, not cooperating on research will become foolhardy, as will not trading resources for each other. It seems to me that the main objection is that it this particular must-do is viewed as an aberration because it was not intended to be so good, or perhaps because it does not seem so realistic a type of trading as the others.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kataphraktoi
    replied
    The fact is, that Firaxis hasn't closed all the loopholes it should or could have. It remains to us to fix those issues. Civ4 is certainly vastly better on this level than 3, but by no means is it perfect.
    You mean those elements of play that dont fit into your Civ4 Strategy(tm)

    Leave a comment:


  • Fried-Psitalon
    replied
    Yes, actually, I've run into this on a repeated basis. This is one of several reasons that many MP games are locked teams (where GP exchange is frequently done by smart teammates) or "Always War," where this problem is simply removed.

    In active-Epic MP, this is viewed right alongside Unit Suicide Training as ridiculously cheesy and abusive of a loophole in the system. Unit Trading was put in to allow military gifting and support, not to get around the reasonable restrictions on the GA system. If the intent for GAs was for them to be easy, you could use any combination of leaders or quantity to trigger a GA. In fact, briefly, this was the case, but it was changed to require multiple types very quickly - because it was judged that GAs should require significant effort to gain, not simply trading Great People back and forth like trading cards until you have the set you need.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X