V1.15 BETA Release - Page 2

SirOsis · January 13, 2004, 18:11

Oh and how are the barbs in this version?

Kuciwalker · January 13, 2004, 18:59

I'm just sticking with 1.12 - I don't want to keep having to figure out a new corruption system.

BigFree · January 13, 2004, 19:08

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Just to clarify, Courthouses still cut distance corruption in half, and increase the OCN by 25%.

New in this patch is the fact that a city without a courthouse has a maximum corruption 90%, but with a courthouse it has a maximum corruption of 80%.

Police station effects are cumulative with courthouses, so a city with both will have just 1/4 the distance corruption and 50% higher OCN, and maximum 70% corruption.

Jesse and Soren: as I mentioned elsewhere, the FP does not increase the OCN by 37.5% as you said it would. In 1.15 it's about half that much (around 20%).

Thanks for the explanaiton. I'm gald that they have put in min/max for such buildings. It makes building them actually worth it in some instances.

What the maximum that the OCN can be increased by with all improvements built, not including Police Stations, as intended by the coders?

Nor Me · January 13, 2004, 22:01

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Jesse and Soren: as I mentioned elsewhere, the FP does not increase the OCN by 37.5% as you said it would. In 1.15 it's about half that much (around 20%).

Interesting. I've just done a test and come up with an answer of 36%.

Incidentally, in communism the same number was 120%.

MrWhereItsAt · January 14, 2004, 02:17

So alexman, Nor Me:

does the corruption calculation still posted in alexman's 'Everything you needed to know..' thread still apply for the latest patches, just with these new Courthouse effects and limits to max corruption?

Quote:

RIIIGHT, I see that CLEARLY.

Hey, I said it might not be so clear....

'Sides, what would you have done without me fiddling through all the maths like that? alexman would probably not have been convinced things were confused enough to make it all so simple for us. I was useful.

pauli · January 14, 2004, 02:37

Quote:

Originally posted by SirOsis

Recommended but not required? Why do we need the earlier versions? Doesn't the 1.15 stand alone?

I have 1.12 installed and do I need to install 1.13 before 1.15?

i expect they simply haven't taken the time to test all possible combinations - this is just a beta patch, after all.

as for corruption: don't get me wrong, i love the increased responsiveness from firaxis, but i would dearly like them to put one designer in charge of the forbidden palace, and pick one desired behavior, and preferably have a civilopedia entry that matches observable behavior.

i think they're trying to, but it seems more than slightly schizophrenic.

vmxa1 · January 14, 2004, 03:23

That is what they did according to Jesse. Soren said this is the way it will be and that was the end of it and will be in the Feb patch.

Jesse also expalined why they need all the patch from 1.12 to 1.15, but I forgot the reason. Check the threads he created for 1.13 or 1.15.

DrSpike · January 14, 2004, 06:50

Quote:

Originally posted by pauli

i expect they simply haven't taken the time to test all possible combinations - this is just a beta patch, after all.

as for corruption: don't get me wrong, i love the increased responsiveness from firaxis, but i would dearly like them to put one designer in charge of the forbidden palace, and pick one desired behavior, and preferably have a civilopedia entry that matches observable behavior.

i think they're trying to, but it seems more than slightly schizophrenic.

I can picture Soren with a flower, picking the petals off one by one. "New city ranks" *pause* "No new city ranks" *pause* "New city ranks" *pause* "No new city ranks"

With that the flower is finished, and we have our new FP!

DrSpike · January 14, 2004, 06:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Nor Me

Interesting. I've just done a test and come up with an answer of 36%.

Incidentally, in communism the same number was 120%.

So it was 10% in 1.13 and either 20% or 36% in 1.15?

alexman · January 14, 2004, 09:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Nor Me

Interesting. I've just done a test and come up with an answer of 36%.

Incidentally, in communism the same number was 120%.

Thanks Nor Me. You are quite right.

I was using a different OCN than I thought I was.

Good job Firaxis! So the FP in non-communal governments increases the OCN by 3/8, as claimed by Soren.

Harovan · January 14, 2004, 09:35

+3/8 OCN and no impact on range corruption? Is that still worth 200 shields?

alexman · January 14, 2004, 09:36

Yes, it affects distance corruption as before. It just doesn't give a new set of city ranks.

It's well worth it. Just don't put a million cities between your Palace and your FP.

Slax · January 14, 2004, 09:52

Alexman: This is the latest (1.15) version you are talking about?

alexman · January 14, 2004, 10:04

Yes.

David Murray · January 14, 2004, 10:30

Mathematicians begone!

*holds up a garlic cross*

Slax · January 14, 2004, 13:21

I am surprised that v1.13 is recommended as a prerequisite for v1.15 since they seem to apply to the exact same problem (with v1.15 having additional fixes).

Jesse, can you confirm that v1.13 is needed? Thats a painful download if it is simply overridden by v1.15.

vmxa1 · January 14, 2004, 13:38

That is what he said, you need 1.12 and 1.13 for 1.15.

Slax · January 14, 2004, 14:00

Actually, he said it was 'recommended', not 'needed'. I assume as a 'catch-all' recommendation - so I am asking if it is needed (which may have been discovered over the past day or so). You are saying it is 'needed'.

Thanks.

conmcb25 · January 14, 2004, 14:20

This maybe old news but here it is:

From an "insider source".

Quote:

Straight from the horses mouth :

This is how corruption works now. (1.15 beta)

There are two kinds of corruption, distance-based and empire-based.

Distance-based is determined by the distance from the city to the nearest seat of government (Palace, FP, SPH). The farther the distance, the higher the corruption.

Empire-based is determined by the "city rank," which is calculated by assigning a number to each city in progression from the capital outward. The higher the city rank, the higher the corruption. Further, if the city rank is higher than the "optimal city number" (OCN) - which is map-dependent - the rate at which empire-based corruption goes up increases.

These two forms of corruption are additive. Thus, if a city has total corruption, it might be from high distance-based corruption, high empire-based corruption, or medium amounts of both.

Building a Forbidden Palace (or SPH) does two things. First, it provides a new center for cities to measure their distance-based corruption. Second, it increases the OCN by 3/8 (was 1/4 in 1.13).

This method is how corruption was originally intended to work. 1.12 and 1.13 use this model (the main difference between the two being the FP increase in OCN). Civ3 and PtW did not quite follow this model because there was a bug involving how city rank was calculated.

This "new" model allows for two cores, with the second being weaker than the first. One interesting aspect of this system is that it doesn't matter how far the two cores are apart from each other as distance-corruption is calculated from the FP and city rank is an absolute number (9th city, 10th city, etc.). I mention this only to show that building one's FP on a new continent can be very worthwhile.

alexman · January 14, 2004, 14:30

Yes, and in this case, the 'horse' is Soren Johnson.

UnOrthOdOx · January 14, 2004, 14:44

Im so confused.

Let me get this straight:

previous to 1.12, the FP would create a second full core.

NOW, it is making a second core, but one that is only 3/8 the size of the original? Therefore, the hourglass shape is still the way to go, but with a much smaller 'ring' around the FP, correct?

Also, RCP? Is equal distance spacing still something to avoid like the plague here?

alexman · January 14, 2004, 14:56

RCP gives no benefit, but no penalty either.

Sarxis · January 14, 2004, 15:49

Thanx for the quote conmcb25, that is good stuff to know.

DrSpike · January 14, 2004, 16:04

I don't want to harp on about this but I am having trouble buying the story about how the FP was never intended to affect rank corruption.........it really isn't that plausible.

1) Vanilla 1.07 corruption with FP only affecting distance corruption.

2) If the FP accidentally created new city ranks, that would be a Big Mistake.

3) It didn't even create the city ranks correctly. The only explanation for the palace rank bug that I can see is imperfect implementation of an FP that was meant to give new city ranks. Otherwise you have to believe a very convoluted series of errors indeed.

Since I prefer not to believe that, please just admit you think it might work better this way, which is an entirely reasonable proposition, and drop the whole "yeah this is the way we meant it all along, even though we have been aware that we screwed up for almost 2 years now"

conmcb25 · January 14, 2004, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
Yes, and in this case, the 'horse' is Soren Johnson.

Bingo!

That why Axelamn is "DA KING"!

vmxa1 · January 15, 2004, 03:38

Just an FYI, but using Alcohol120 and applied the patch and now it won't run. Looks like a hit to SafeDisc. It will run if I put the CD in, that is no fun.

Risa · January 15, 2004, 05:07

Ahem.
A new version of Alcohol120 or Daemon Tools will work.

MrWhereItsAt · January 15, 2004, 05:24

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Im so confused.

I THINK I understand everything except for one part - the city rank bit.

It seems like, although distance corruption may be calculated from the FP or Palace (whichever is closer), rank is still based on the number of cities closer to the Palace than the city you are looking at.

If this is correct, then if you have a core of a few cities around a Palace and build a NEW core around the FP some distance away, this should result in a pretty decent second core. This second core will be just as good ANY distance away from the Palace, as long as the number of cities around each core is the same.

BUT, if you have a situation like this and start to fill in around your Palace, this will start to increase the RANK corruption (Soren called it 'Empire-based corruption' above) of your second core, leading to a point where that corruption becomes the dominant form and starts making your second core crap.

So in effect for each OCN there is now a rough indication of how good your FP core will be based on how many cities are in your Palace core, assuming all the cities in your FP core are further from the Palace than every city in the Palace core. This is because adding cities in your Palace core will increase the rank of the more distant FP cities, and thus increase the rank/Empire-based corruption.

Yes?

DrSpike · January 15, 2004, 06:30

Yes that's all correct. In PTW and before the FP gave new city ranks, and hence acted on both distance and rank corruption. However it was bugged so that all cities closer to the FP than the closest city to the palace was to the palace all had rank 1, even if they were different distances away.

That's why I don't buy the 'we meant it this way all along' line. That would make the version we have played with for 2 years the victim of 2 independent huge mistakes - that just seems unlikely to me. Call me naive if you will.

They are also touting the fact that now the FP should be able to create another (now weaker) core anywhere (even a long way away) as somehow novel; this also perplexes me. It was always that way, just usually an option not exercised by the player. I doubt it will be now either.

MrWhereItsAt · January 15, 2004, 06:49

But DrS - what about archipelago games, or games where you start on one landmass and have the option of conquering or settling another one some distance away? This is going to be a massive boost to the attractiveness of Archipelago or multi-continent games. I like this (as long as I have understood it correctly), and think it is a rather nice natural way of coding the effect of the FP.