Was FP Corruption Bug fixed?

[MrWhereItsAt]

I told you so!

I was happy with C3C as it was, and it seems there's just no pleasing some.

My only concern is how this will affect the DyP mod, that has multiple FPs.

[Aggie]

First of all, thank you fireaxis. Is there anyway you could remove the FP changes and give us a Patch basically for the GPT problem.

This, not the FP issue, was the biggest hinderance to enjoying the game. The FP issue was irritating, but wasn't fatal because you still had 2 powerful cores. This from a person who plays on huge maps with many cities.

As of now I am hesistant to play anything over Monarch with the new patch and am hesistant to even install it.

I must ask, why were 2 key changes(combat and FP) contemplated for a patch. With all due respect(and you deserve tons) why make such large scale changes when all was desired by the civ community was some small fixes to GPT,RCP and FP. If the corruption issue required large changes to the FP, then I suspect I speak for most when I say "leave it as orginal in conquest". Luckily you were clear on the combat changes so that was removed, but since the change to the FP was less understood we were unable to give input.

Aggie

[jshelr]

I have had the same experiences with the now-useless FP as described above in a game started with the patch.

Sir R's comments are helpful. How about a discussion of the value of governments other than republic and demo for the successful warmonger? It looks like conquered territory is going to be completely unproductive but maybe communist and/or fascist governments are the way to go?

[E_T]

Originally posted by dexters
I haven't tested if they changed this, but ore v.1.12 officers almost always add at most 1 corrupt shield and 1 corrupt commerce back into non-corruption when used. This is in a moderately corrupt city. In really corrupt cities, they have no effect. We'd almost always be better off using other specialists (taxman, civil engineer), giving either 2 tax or 2 shields in any city you use them. I feel officers need to be tweaked to make them more useful. There should be a diminishing returns algorithm where officers are more powerful on really corrupt cities and gets decreasingly so closer to your capital.

I personally prefer to have a second core, but the argument that this was changed for the AI's sake is a convincing argument. Still, I find corruption to be higher.

I loaded up my PTW game and the differences were starling. In v 1,12 c3c I'm running 20% plus of corruption to total income (not including wall street and foreign trade income) under democracy.

F the GD AI..., I want to have a good game when I play PBEM and/or MP. I would rather play against another Human than the AI. I might use the AI/SP route to work on a possible strategy, but only to use it in an envirorment that I'm playing other Humans. If the AI can't place a decent FP, then too bad. I play against other people who DO know how to place an FP (amonst other things).

I'm currently in 2 C3C PBEM's and am looking to get into a couple of others, but I'm not going to do this beta patch, because they can't get it right.

FIX THIS SH*T!!!!

E_T

[Master Zen]

/me begins the "Bring Back RCP" Club.

Anyone with me?

btw, let's not forget for a moment that this is a BETA patch and the final version might be somewhat improved (I hope).

[Alex]

I'm sure that the developers are closely following the community's reaction to these changes, and the official patch will most certainly reflect this. Remember that they took the combat changes out of the beta patch even before it was released.

[notyoueither]

Sign me disappointed in the new FP. I have had a loathing for corruption since dot (do a search if you don't believe me). Pre 1.12 and with 1.12, corruption is too much.

[alexman]

Whiners!!!
I love corruption!


Anyway, from a very quick test, it seems that the new FP acts as a second palace only for distance corruption, but it does nothing to rank corruption. I have no problem with that. In fact, it gives you something to think about when choosing the location for your FP (the best location is no longer necessarily as far as possible from the palace).

[Shogun Gunner]

Okay, distance corruption only. It seems an expensive build for a moderate improvement.

[Alex]

well, I haven't had a chance to play C3C so far, let alone with the beta patch, but this change really doesn't bother me at all. I rarely play on huge maps and I'm not that obsessive about corruption in my games... it's just something that happens, so I try to fix it using the available tools, and C3C have introduced a few new ones.

what I really want to know is: has the gpt bug been fixed?

[vmxa1]

It seems to be corrected. So far I am not seeing tons of cash in the AI's hands.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by alexman
Whiners!!!
I love corruption!


Anyway, from a very quick test, it seems that the new FP acts as a second palace only for distance corruption, but it does nothing to rank corruption. I have no problem with that. In fact, it gives you something to think about when choosing the location for your FP (the best location is no longer necessarily as far as possible from the palace).

I was waiting for this.

That doesn't sound ridiculous, though I reserve final judgement until I get back to my machine and test it.

The FP was always in need of a slight nerf IMO. If this is not too extreme it could work out.

[Sarxis]

Ok, that sounds about right then. Even if Firaxis does tweak FP up a bit later, I hope its not too much.

[joncnunn]

Edit: I crossposted with the last two.

Reading this thread, it sounds to me an awful lot like in the beta patch, a FP is a glorified Court House / Police Station building for the FP-centric cities.

There's a couple of things that might be happening:
1. Every city's distance based corruption may now be from the original palace while CN = Math.min(CN from Palace, CN from FP)

2. Every city is taking CN from the original palace, while the distance is coming from closest of Palace and FP.

Perhaps the easyist way to determine which is the case is to make a scenerio where the chosen race to look at starts with 2 cities half way around the world from each other with one starting with the Palace and the other with the FP, and each city has a settler.

[joncnunn]

Myself, I think that the FP wasn't worth building at all (except in very rare circumstances) under Conquests 1.0. It had the effect of halfway redistrupting corruption and that's only adventgous if the area being reduced has a higher raw outfit (including inferstructure but not including corruption/waste) than the previous zone but not so high as for moving the Palace itsself to be economical.

Under this beta rule, the optimum location for the FP is going to be very close where the optimum location was in PTW [spliting your empire evenly between FP & P centric cities evenlly for CN purposes is very nearly the same problem as minimizing the sum total of the lowest of distances of each of your cities to a pair of cities], except it's effects will be a lot less than pre-Conquests.

[Antrine]

I think you simply need to redefine these things folks.

Here is an excerpt from my Mod's Read Me files.
____________
Forbidden Palace
Cost - 35
EFFECTS
Reduces Corruption (kind of, mixes it up)
Increases Chance of Leader Appearance
Requires Heroic Epic
Creates "2" Unhappy in city that builds it
Creates "1" Unhappy all cities
Produces Leader every 6 turns
_________

Now choose your 'location' carefully as you can, but oh those 'Leaders' are sure nice!!!

Sincerely,
Working in a Wizard's Den

[Bonaparte]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Fishman2
Having tried V1.12 with a previous game and with a new game I regret to conclude that the FP / corruption issue is not fixed to my satisfaction.

I totally agree - I played several games with the patch and corruption is still way to high.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Antrine
Produces Leader every 6 turns

[Aggie]

I am still hopeful and pretty sure that this fiasco with the FP will be reversed. Yes a few people don't mind it, but most people who play at higher levels and especially on larger maps won't like the change, and bluntly the change should never have been introduced( particulalrly since it was something at best a very small minority would like).
Aggie

[Kuciwalker]

Antrine - that's just bizarre.

Why can't we just return corruption to how it worked in PtW?

[Antrine]

I have no bones about it either way, in fact now that all the resources have been spent on making it (the FP) this way and that, please now just add a 'FP behavior slidder' in the game editor and I will take of it from there.

Now as far as 'bizarre' goes here is my discourse on that -

Yes, I am experimenting with what may be a new game concept:

Namely;
Large Maps, 360 by 306, very, very resource rich. An Earth set mythically 10,000 years ago replete with additional landmasses and a limited ice age impact. Warm places in the far north. Limit Eight very large empires, with names like Atlantians, Lemurians and Etruceans. A large network of roads already in place around the world. Movement rate jacked up to 5 on roads. Resource and terrain tiles all upped as well. What can keep the game feeling slow I think is ‘lack and limit’ scenarios, I have reversed this completely.

Noting what units the AI favors I beefed them up and extended their movement range. (Warriors and Berserkers) Berserkers are the default Barbarians with everyone set at no advantage over Barbarians.

Most Wonders are now 'Small Wonders' with no obsolesce and available for build based on other build requirements such as five coliseums, six universities etc.

The game is a wild ride! Many buildings and wonders also produce various units every so many turns. This way the AI's have a steady stream of belligerent forces to send my way. I have been hit with stacks of 22 repeatedly. Losing armies, cities and portions of my empire (I eventually retake them though). I also tweaked the tech-tree to accommodate building larger cities earlier on (having access to hospital). As well upped the city category sizes to 9 and 15 respectively. On some turns a city will produce 'four' different units at once.

All replete with a new government, 'Imperialism' that accommodates large force levels, low war weariness etc. I really like my 'barracks' concept;

to wit - BARRACKS, Cost 25
Resistant to Propaganda (establishes institutional conditioning)
Reduces Corruption (by increasing 'power of military over family')
Reduces War Weariness (double dido)
Produces Longbowman every 8 turns

Another unit adaptation is the Knight to Honor Guard and Escort. I changed police station to noble guard (house) available for building with Masonry and Imperial Government, also requires a barracks first be built.

It is somewhat expensive, 20 and sports high culture “5” even reducing corruption, however creates “2” unhappy citizens in any city that builds it. The Noble Guard House produces an Honor Guard (read Knight) every 3 turns.

These Honor Guard also have increased movement of 3 which is 15 spaces on the roads and also can carry (have load capacity) of one other unit. I have been experimenting with this for a while and it is really nice. You can carry a slower moving unit such as a Longbowman or a siege unit right up and through enemy infested regions almost safely. If attacked and destroyed, the loaded unit simply activated and may act according to its own characteristics. At the end of the Honor Guard movement you can manually activate the loaded unit and have it move, attack, unload fortify etc. This really extends the use variables during game play (well at least for the human for I have yet no verification that the AI has caught on to these advantages). I like loading settlers for to ‘really escort them’ to where ever I am sending them.

I am still play testing of course the underlying concepts seem sound and are working. I especially like the coloseums producing Legionary every 3 turns. In addition, the game is always fast and fun. I am on to about version fifteen, the Conquest game editor really allows for something interesting dynamics. I also put most of bombard back to lethal. For it is very important to at least destroy an enemy cities improvements since they are so dangerous with abilities and spitting out units. Each empire starts out with 20 or so cities or settlers so that by turn 5 or 6 each empire is already 20 city or so strong.

Rock and Roll and field 50 units in a blink of eye… and get them to a ‘front’ (there are usually four fronts at any one time) well maybe in ten turns.

For more dynamic balance equations, some improvements and wonders reverse culture and produce unhappy citizens. You just have to juggle priorities accordantly. I have a lot more ideas; it just takes time (play testing them).

Sincerely,
Adroit working out the ‘bizarre’

[Wittlich]

My God Antrine!!! You do have a lot of spare time on your hands to think these things up (not that there's anything wrong with that)!

[dexters]

I have a suggestion for a fix.

Lower corruption accross the board to compensate for the loss of the second core. Currently, corruption is just TOO high.

I'm not peeved so much at the loss of my second core, but that i have really fewer useful cities now than I had before.

This will mean all changes made to fix rcp and the changed made to fix the fix (ie: rankings) can remain, but corruption will simply be lower .

agree?

[jshelr]

I'm on my second game with the patch and, now that I know what to expect, I think I like the change. It surely favors builders vs warmongers and democracy over other governments. If you build the FP with "reasonable" expectations in mind and as part of a corruption reduction plan, it does help materially.

I don't by any means think I really understand how the FP will now enter into strategy in all situations yet, but exploring that looks like it will be fun.

[OPD]

Yes the FP problems are fixed and it now works better than in 1.0

The effect of the FP hasn't changed with the beta patch it is just implemented in a less screwy way. In conquests 1.0 it had little effect on overall rank corruption only really helping distance corruption.

1.12 seems to be doing the same thing except without all the screwy redistribution of ranks which were often causing increases in corruption.

The FP is fixed and works as it was intended to, only reducing distance corruption.


The fact that the FP now has a reduced effect is a different matter, it is certainly not a bug. Whether it is a good change or not is yet to be seen.
On the surface of things I think it may be quite good as I said when conquests first came out. The FP is no longer the huge double your output, be all and end all wonder that it was in PTW and so good FP placement is no longer critical to the game. PBEM's could be won and lost with forbiden palaces, where as now not building it, for whatever reason, will not loose you the game and building it ridiculously early will not make you a superpower.

In general change is not always bad, the FP is in no way worse than in 1.0 it is the same except w/o the screwyness.

[Mattaba]

I think it really sucks, it makes the game more difficult and there are already extra difficulty levels added.
In my current emperor game I possess 30 percent of the world's suface and pop and my palace and FP are both well placed, with PTW in this case I should have easily be able to get a huge tech lead and now I'm struggling.
With PTW I was considering to move up to deity, but I think I'm gonna stuck with emperor for awhile now.
My point: The extra difficulty levels already give the option to the die hards for an even harder game and they shouldn't be making the other things more difficult.

[ducki]

Why can't we just return corruption to how it worked in PtW?

There's a lot of this sentiment, myself included.

The problem, as I see it, is it's awfully late in C3's lifecycle to go "fixing" something of this magnitude. If it really was a bug, why wasn't it patched in one of the many other patches to Vanilla or PtW?

That's really my main gripe. If you let it go this long, so as to become a "feature", it's a bit too late to "fix" it and call it a "bug".

Had it been changed before PtW, I doubt anyone would have had a problem, but how old is C3? Isn't that a bit long to wait for this sort of fix?

[E_T]

It's because of the fact that the AI just can't compete with the Human. But If you only play against humans, should it really be a matter.

If it wasn't for the Plethera of C3DG's that I'm in, I would take a break from this game for a while and let them fix it. But, I really just can't do that now...

E_T

[ducki]

I realize it's because the AI can't compete.
That still doesn't mean that a couple of years after release is a good time to nerf part of the game because the AI isn't using the improvement as well as a human.

Things like the irrigation vs. mining fix that Soren put in the PtW patch - good, even if a couple of years late.

Things like RCP(don't even get me started) and FP fixes this late - bad, especially after it's been reported that C4 is in the works.

[Capt Dizle]

The *******s at Firaxis could at least tell the community how it is now designed to work. Assuming some of them have finally learned to communicate in English.