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

Dominae · November 21, 2003, 00:38

Well, Civ3 - Conquests is finally out, and now that most of us have tinkered with it a bit, it's about time for the first C3C AU course. In a thread found here, it was decided that the topic of the next course would be "The Power of Seafaring", and that we would be playing the awesome Byzantines. The scenario is now ready, but there's a slight problem.

Many players have noticed some pretty major problems with C3C (see these threads: C3C Corruption: Whoa!!!, Conquests Bug Thread, A list of EASY fixes for the next C3C patch). In particular, Corruption and the FP are acting really weirdly, and there's a bug that grants double Gold from gpt deals. These things affect gameplay significantly, and will surely be addressed in the next patch.

As evidenced by this thread, there is some reticence in starting an AU course while the game is in such a "broken" state. On one hand, the game is still playable and fun, so an AU course should still be worth the effort despite the bugs. On the other, the learning aspect of AU will be severely undermined by the whacky gameplay. Another thing to consider is that we do not know how long it will be before the first patch is released.

Thanks for voting for either option 1 or 2.

Dominae

Theseus · November 21, 2003, 00:43

Banana?

I voted yes... we can do a limited concept game to explore some of the new facets of C3C without running into the major flaws.

I reiterate: We need a discussion of the course schedule considering current conditions and likely future patches.

Dominae · November 21, 2003, 00:50

The Great Banana is currently in hiding (at least, in this poll).

Theseus, are you suggesting we not do The Power of Seafaring AU, in liew of a "limited concept" course? What do you have in mind for one of those?

If only Firaxis/Breakaway gave us a list of patch release dates in advance!

Dominae

Catt · November 21, 2003, 01:12

Well I voted "after" (surpirse!). But I don't think the game is in a sorry state -- I just think it is in a very different and very short-lived state. I am playing C3C now and enjoying myself -- but it strikes me as a game quite different from PTW in important ways, and ways that prevent me from forming conclusions about the how the corrected C3C could be played, and how it compares to PTW.

Catt

nbarclay · November 21, 2003, 01:21

My preference would be to have an "unofficial" AU game, maybe called "Experiments in Conquests," so we can play around and compare notes on the game as it is now. The Netherlands might be a perfect civ for that since they have both new civ traits (Agricultural and Seafaring). One possible added twist would be a rule that the human player is not allowed to make GPT deals, since a combination of a tech lead and the GPT bug can give the human player a preposterous advantage.

I don't want to have a "mainline" AU game under the current rules because something like "The Power of Seafaring" would just have to be repeated once the rules get fixed if we want a feel for how strategies work in the "real" game. In terms of how bugs affect gameplay (as opposed to stability or the existence of exploits), Conquests seems a lot buggier than the original Civ 3 was when it first shipped.

I'm not voting for the moment since my vote isn't precisely either yes or no.

Nathan

MrWhereItsAt · November 21, 2003, 01:31

Following on from nbarclay, what about a Preparatory, or between terms AU course? For me it would be ideal to call it Apolyton University Summer School - a basic introductory course to induct new people before the proper start of University and, here, it IS summer.

If it's ready, let's start it. We will still get a lot out of it, and it's not as if a single pre-patch game is going to cause any harm, is it?

Rhothaerill · November 21, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
If it's ready, let's start it. We will still get a lot out of it, and it's not as if a single pre-patch game is going to cause any harm, is it?

Exactly. Game on!

vmxa1 · November 21, 2003, 04:19

Well if you choose to wait, how long woudl it be, weeks, months?
Anyway why wait, have fun now, deal with patches if and when they come.

DrSpike · November 21, 2003, 07:29

After. Expending effort now is pointless. Plus, people will have chance to get used to the game more.

Dominae · November 21, 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
My preference would be to have an "unofficial" AU game, maybe called "Experiments in Conquests," so we can play around and compare notes on the game as it is now. The Netherlands might be a perfect civ for that since they have both new civ traits (Agricultural and Seafaring).

The reason we chose not to play the Dutch is that that civ has both new traits, and therefore it's more difficult to focus on one of them for the uninitiated. If you guys are worried about the potential scholastic value of playing with a confused game, playing with both new traits will surely confuse the experiment even more.

I thought the whole point of AU was as an experiement anyway (like experiments in physics or chemistry courses). Why is everyone afraid of an "official" course? This is not a competition!

If the worry is about posterity, we can always go back, update the scenario rules for C3C v1.01 after the patch is released, and put that as the "official" course in the AU History thread.

Other than the annoyance of playing with a slightly buggy game, we lose very little by starting this before the patch, IMO (I lose nothing, because I'll not even be playing!).

Dominae

DrSpike · November 21, 2003, 13:00

But many people, myself included, wont play through any game you set up now. If you wait you'll get more response to your efforts I think. But of course, comparison games are always good...........if you think you have demand go for it.

lockstep · November 21, 2003, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay
Conquests seems a lot buggier than the original Civ 3 was when it first shipped.

Ah, the original v1.07 ... you could get tons of gold in diplomacy, the Great Lighthouse permitted save ocean travel, and air superiority was working for the AI, but not for the human player.

On topic: after.

ducki · November 21, 2003, 13:13

I voted "Before", but I would also prefer it not be an official course - more of a prep/elective type thing. I'm fond of revisiting an old course similar to when PtW came out, but I'm probably the only one.

TheArsenal · November 21, 2003, 13:15

After.

If these were bugs of a different, lesser sort I may have said “go ahead”. But I can’t see putting in the time commitment until its fixed.

Catt · November 21, 2003, 14:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae

I thought the whole point of AU was as an experiement anyway (like experiments in physics or chemistry courses). Why is everyone afraid of an "official" course? This is not a competition!

It's not a competition, but its an opportunity to learn and teach and have fun. Experiments in physics or chemistry entail exploring against an immutable series of laws / rules -- whatever learnings arise, so long as properly understood, are applicable to additional experiements and inform against past learnings that might then be seen in a new light. The rules of Civ 3 change in ways from version to version by design of the developer, but this particular version was not by design. AU has provided a lot of fun in experimenting against both "basic game functions" and against certain of these changes from version to version that come about by design of the developers. But we're talking about experimenting against a backdrop of design changes unintended and soon to disappear forever (hopefully!).

It's not being "afraid" of an official course, it's a question of benefit / harm by promoting a game under the AU umbrella. Presumably there is something different between an AU game and an ordinary comparison game posted for others to play and compare. If so what is it? Would playing under the AU umbrella have the potential to do harm and the potential to do good? I won't rehash why I think the risk of harm is present (nor will I repeat the solid, IMHO, arguments others have made), even if I might be persuaded that the risk of harm, or the level of harm likely, is somewhat low.

Quote:

Other than the annoyance of playing with a slightly buggy game, we lose very little by starting this before the patch, IMO (I lose nothing, because I'll not even be playing!).

But what do we gain? Is there something tangible to be gained by playing under the AU umbrella versus posting a start with a seafaring civ and inviting others to play and compare? If so, how does it offset any potential loss by playing under the AU?

Despite my repeated postings on this subject, I really don't feel worked up about this -- AU is voluntary and those who don't want to play simply won't -- I am just still struggling to understand, because I haven't a reason why yet, we should be launching an AU game now, in these circumstances -- all I've heard, in one form or another, is that it would be fun to compare games.

Catt

ducki · November 21, 2003, 14:37

Catt -
I think you've won me over, but I don't think I can change my vote.

So how about someone setting up Not-AU 101 - The Power of Whatever as a comparison game? The AU regulars that want to participate will notice it and be able to find it, those that don't will skip, and we haven't confused maintaining AU momentum by playing a comparison game with playing an actual AU course using a non-buggy ruleset?

Either way, I can't wait till my copy arrives.

Dominae · November 21, 2003, 14:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
Experiments in physics or chemistry entail exploring against an immutable series of laws / rules -- whatever learnings arise, so long as properly understood, are applicable to additional experiements and inform against past learnings that might then be seen in a new light. The rules of Civ 3 change in ways from version to version by design of the developer, but this particular version was not by design.

Gosh it would be cool to do science experiments if the laws of physics we're constantly being revised!

Quote:

Despite my repeated postings on this subject, I really don't feel worked up about this -- AU is voluntary and those who don't want to play simply won't -- I am just still struggling to understand, because I haven't a reason why yet, we should be launching an AU game now, in these circumstances -- all I've heard, in one form or another, is that it would be fun to compare games.

1. Conquests just came out, and many people are excited about Civ3.
2. By extension (and through good publicity), many people are excited about AU.
3. The game is still fun it if you let it be.

Like you, I do not feel worked up about this. It's just that I have this scenario taking up space on my hard drive, and I want to upload it ASAP.

Dominae

Arrian · November 21, 2003, 14:44

I have no preference. If people want to put together an AU game, go for it, even if the game is buggy. I may play, I may not. Depends on my mood, and the concept of the course. If we have to do it over again once the game is patched, OH DARN.

I mean, really, how "official" is AU anyway?

-Arrian

Catt · November 21, 2003, 14:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae

Gosh it would be cool to do science experiments if the laws of physics we're constantly being revised!

Are they? When did the laws last change? I just thought our understanding of them was changing as the results of new and interesting experiements were shared, and contradicted prior interpretations of the laws.

(or is my tone-deafness missing a sarcastic or ironic intent in your comment?)

Quote:

2. By extension (and through good publicity), many people are excited about AU.

That's a good example of a potential benefit.

Catt

Dominae · November 21, 2003, 14:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
Are they? When did the laws last change? I just thought our understanding of them was changing as the results of new and interesting experiements were shared, and contradicted prior interpretations of the laws.

(or is my tone-deafness missing a sarcastic or ironic intent in your comment?)

Yes, but it's my fault. I was trying (and failing) to be funny. "Would it not be fun to do science experiments if a Supreme Being were always changing the laws of nature?" Substitue 'Supreme Being' with Firaxis and 'laws of nature' with 'Civ3 rules' (and 'do science experiments' with 'play Civ3'), and you've got joke by analogy. Hahaha.

Sigh.

Dominae

Arrian · November 21, 2003, 15:02

Sounds to me like we could do an AU game with the agricultural trait with a non-river, non-lake start.

You know, to test the trait out in less than optimal conditions (note: Dom, "less than optimal" doesn't mean "freaking sadistic"

).

-Arrian

nbarclay · November 21, 2003, 15:32

Dominae, the reason I don't want to do the "Poiwer of Seafaring" game now is that I think it would be a nice game to play after the bugs are straightened out. If we play "Power of Seafaring" now and the patch comes out reasonably quickly, either we end up with two very similar games back to back or we delay the "Power of Seafaring" game played in the fixed version. So my thought was to do something else now and save "Power of Seafaring" for after the patch.

My idea behind playing the Netherlands is that we can develop some initial ideas for using both new traits, and then people can use those ideas in the "Power of Seafaring" game (and perhaps later a "Power of Agriculture" game) after the patch comes out. Since the idea behind the game would be more to help get acquainted with C3C than to explore one specific facet of the game in depth, I think that would be a good fit.

The other possibility would be to go ahead with a Seafaring game and, if there's time, a separate Agricultural game before the patch and then do more or less the same types of games again after the patch. But that might be a bit redundant.

Nathan

Dominae · November 21, 2003, 16:26

Some good discussion here. I guess it will be the results of the poll and (ultimately) Nuclear Master to decide whether this is a go.

The map I chose for "The Power of Seafaring" is not sadistic. Here, see for yourself:

MrWhereItsAt · November 21, 2003, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae

Gosh it would be cool to do science experiments if the laws of physics we're constantly being revised!

As a physics PhD student I can tell you this would be my worst nightmare.

And I just voted for before without looking at the results to date - wow! Forced a tie!

Catt · November 21, 2003, 18:33

Okay - last comment, and then I will stop being a wet blanket (except to respond to responses, of course).

Doesn't instituting a house rule against GPT deals potentially affect the seafaring trait more than others (save, perhaps, commercial)? Doesn't it further push the proposed AU game into a one-off result rather than a lesson to be applied elsewhere, not even taking into account thethings we don't know about how te bugs are affecting gameplay, particularly the AI?

Seafaring gets a variety of bonuses, among them +1 gold in city center on coast, +1 ship movement, reduced sinking chances, etc. The +1 gold in the city center adds to the incentive to both: (i) settle on the coast; and (ii) build commerce-strengthening improvements in the coastal cities (time-consuming due to lack of shields). Playing with the Byzantines, who pair seafaring to scientific, offers the opportunity to build early scientific leadership through powerful scientific coastal cities (cheap science improvements). One important way of exploiting a scientific leadership position might be to sell techs for GPT. With a house rule in place to deal with this known bug, one potentially powerful approach to exploiting the civ's inherent advantages (due to traits), whether you like the approach or not, is

. It might or might not be an interesting approach to the specific game at hand, but should it be off the table from the getgo?

Catt

DrSpike · November 21, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
Doesn't instituting a house rule against GPT deals potentially affect the seafaring trait more than others (save, perhaps, commercial)? Doesn't it further push the proposed AU game into a one-off result rather than a lesson to be applied elsewhere, not even taking into account thethings we don't know about how te bugs are affecting gameplay, particularly the AI?

Yes (but not a great deal), yes, and yes.

But comparison games are always fun........its just this will not be as useful as other courses.

jkelly · November 21, 2003, 20:43

Hi,

I've never played an AU game, but I am hoping to start doing so.

I voted for "after" because the 'gpt bug' has had such a profound effect on my enjoyment of the C3C games that I've been playing. I find myself wondering, whenever I get to a point in the game where the seems to be unearthly amounts of cash floating around (and therefore super-fast research and even more aburd alliances), whether it's the bug or not, and whether I should be adjusting my playing strategy. If we're going to be 'studying' some aspect of C3C, I'd prefer to do it when the conditions allow for, um, isolating variables.

If it goes up, though, there's a good chance I'll play regardless of the above.

Do we have any idea at all when a patch might come out? Has there been an official announcement that we should expect one?

DrSpike · November 21, 2003, 20:48

I wouldn't expect it within the next couple of weeks, and it could be much longer. Hopefully they will release a quickish patch addressing the game-killing bugs, then address more complex balance issues later on.

nbarclay · November 21, 2003, 21:44

How about this for the gpt situation: in any given deal, never take more than half (rounded up) of the gpt an AI would be willing/able to pay. When multiple gpt deals overlap, getting half in one deal and then half of what's left in the next should tend to offset the AIs' advantage in getting to keep gold that would otherwise be drained away from them, so the net result would be more gold for both the players and the AIs compared with if the bug didn't exist.

Dominae · November 21, 2003, 22:39

That's the solution that was proposed in the other thread, Nathan. It runs into the problem that, as long as you can offer stuff to the AI, you'll still get double gpt, because after you complete a trade for X/2 gpt, the AI still has X/2 gpt left over for you to play with.

Apart from throwing away Gold, there's no good way of avoiding this bug and still trade for gpt with the AI. And there's the fact that the AIs are benefitting from it behind the scenes.

Dominae