Thoughts about C+C 3 (yes, already :p)

[da_Vinci]

I think one goal is to prevent two tech leaders from pairing up to run away from all others in tech ... so if they use all of their vouchers to exchange techs with each other (esp if on different continents), then the trading is unbalancing rather than balancing.  How is this avoided without some era-based scheme?

dV

[oyzar]

An alternative instead of using eras is that you can't trade any tech that is the furthest a long a branch you've researched. If a tech leads to something and you haven't researched it you can't trade the tech. For example you need to have researched writing to trade away pottery. You need to have research math/aestics/alpha to trade away writing, you need to research printing press/optics/guilds/engineering to trade away machinery(and you need nationalism/paper to trade away CS). Alternativly a light version of thise could be applied(not being able to trade away col until you research constitution is a bit strict) where you have to research at least one tech that a tech leads to before you can trade it away. The light version might lead to easy abuse though, however the heavy version again requires putting quite some effort into optimization(ofc the fact that you can trade away a tech doesn't mean you have anything to trade for)...

[da_Vinci]

An alternative instead of using eras is that you can't trade any tech that is the furthest a long a branch you've researched. If a tech leads to something and you haven't researched it you can't trade the tech. For example you need to have researched writing to trade away pottery. You need to have research math/aestics/alpha to trade away writing, you need to research printing press/optics/guilds/engineering to trade away machinery(and you need nationalism/paper to trade away CS). Alternativly a light version of thise could be applied(not being able to trade away col until you research constitution is a bit strict) where you have to research at least one tech that a tech leads to before you can trade it away. The light version might lead to easy abuse though, however the heavy version again requires putting quite some effort into optimization(ofc the fact that you can trade away a tech doesn't mean you have anything to trade for)...

It will slow the leaders, but will also slow those who are behind ... which may not give the balancing effect desired (assuming that is the goal).  I am thinking that what we want is those behind can trade the most advanced techs that they know with each other (that are common knowledge to everyone else), but the leaders can't trade their advanced techs (that no one else knows) with each other.

Now whether there is a simple way to accomplish that goal is another question ...

dV

[Viktor Ahriman]

I dont know how we could make this easier.  Is there any way to police it anyways?  If someone wants to trade a tech wether its advaced or not, who will know??  As far as I can tell, all you see is the points increase.  And if you can tell, who is going to watch everybody?  I dont think Capsavian has all day to be a technology policeman.  Why not just say that you can trade techs with another nation, but the nation that recieves them cannot trade to someone else.  Yes, you wont be able to stop two nations to become superpowers, but thats when the rest of the world needs to step in and say that if two nations are running away, then maybe their should be a global coalition to stop the two nations??  That would be easier and more real life like.  Look at the current situation in Iran.  They are getting help from Russia, and Iran doesnt have the technology on its own to leap to nuclear technology.  So what would be the differance if a nation has just developed the wheel and gets the technolgy of say something more advanced.  This is just my opionion.  Just do it like we did in Chaos I.  Our mistake in that game is we let the big powers run away from us and did nothing about it.  Then when it came time, it was too late and we were in the space age already.

[Elkad]

Maybe a combination of "No Brokering" and a massively increased (custom mod) discount for "other civs know this tech"?

Ideally, I'd rather you couldn't tech-trade at all, but instead could "donate" beakers to someone elses research if you knew the tech, with a cap of half the beakers donated (whether from one person or several, the receiver would need to research at least half the tech).  But that would be a pretty tricky mod, even without having to teach the AI to use it.

[Viktor Ahriman]

For how much problems we are having with this mod, I dont think making another more complicating is a good idea 

[Capsavian Hopewell]

I agree with your idea, Elkad--that is how I've felt tech trading should be.  Would be nice to see in a mod, assuming it could be wrapped in with the 40-player mod.

Viktor, I am also nervous about adding complexity into mods, given the issues we have with the present game.  I think these issues stem mostly from the sheer volume of players, however, and not the mod itself.

[da_Vinci]

And if you can tell, who is going to watch everybody? 

Well, that would be oyzar ...    So Capsavian would only have to police oyzar ...   

Now, being serious ...
 

Look at the current situation in Iran.

Well I think that what we want to avoid is USA and USSR teaming up, if there is a way to do that.

What if we say that tech leaders (however defined) cannot receive techs, but can give techs?  And non-leaders can trade techs?  Is that easier to enforce than a rule allowing trading of some techs but not others?

dV

[Viktor Ahriman]

I understand that, but I guess I dont see how it can be policed?  If you are just going by somebodys word, is that good enough?  And Capsavian and I both know that there are loop holes that can be taken advantage of, so many of us may not know until its too late.  So if nations that are behind can trade at will and tech leaders cant, how can you tell if the tech leaders score increases several times?  All he would have to do is not tell us what is going on and make up a story of things going on.  Without actually having a game mod that prohibits what we dont want and enable what we want, I dont see how we can actually make it true and fair.  Tech brokering is something I do like, but the only problem is like you said Davinci, we dont want huge superpowers.  But look at Oyzar now, he is very advanced and we havnt even hit the year 0 yet.  And he is doing all by himself with no tech trading at all.  Either way, it does happen.  So if two nations are becoming powerful under the tech brokering, then the world as I said needs to step in and say enough.  If the world is unwilling to do anything, then they risk falling further behind.

[oyzar]

It is entierly possible to track any and all actions a person takes through the use of demographics and score(not to mention when someone get alphabet that person can track what anyone have researched... I don't keeping track of it will be a problem, working out a ruleset that does what we want to will be a problem however...

@ Me being advanced, sure but this was advanced start. Other people who are know what they are doing are also doing well for themselves. Of course the biggest problem is varying skill, some people are doing a lot worse than the top people. I just researched lib, rolo, drib and levgree have each assimilated quite a bit of land for themselves. Not all are doing as well as we are though. I don't think i have any sort of commanding lead in this game, score is far from everything(just a few centuries back levgree was as much higher than me as i am higher than him now for example, this might easily change again as he develops his newly conquered land).

If people are truthful about their skill difficulty differentiation could go a long way towards fixing differences between skill(sure the better players will probably still have more land and probably use it better, but that doesn't mean that someone at a lower difficulty can't get same or more worth out of lower amount of land/usage). Obviously this requires everyone to want the same thing which is a somewhat competetive environment, abusing this system if you want to would be rather easy. There is also still the problem with randomness in starting positions and obviously subbing/replacing people will be a problem with this system, but i think it might be better than the alternative which is that some people get left very far behind(like in this game).

@ the whole world doing something. In this era it is very hard for anyone to do anything about anyone but their closest neighbours, and even then a good player can do a lot against weaker players (like we see with levgree against his neighbours). If everyone have some strong neighbours it will be much harder for everyone to do anything since they always have to "watch their back". This would be solved by having more good players, or maybe just everyone getting better(which might be easier said than done :p).

@ leaders not being able to trade, that sounds like a good idea, however if it is score based i am definatly looking forward to some mutal midgame whipping sprees to be able to trade techs :p.

The issue is definatly from the mod, but if it is from the fact that the mod allow more than 18 players or wether it is from some other changes solver did(hacks are not always for the better with the kind of code civ4 have...). Is hard to say...

[Levgre]

"Either way, it does happen.  So if two nations are becoming powerful under the tech brokering, then the world as I said needs to step in and say enough.  If the world is unwilling to do anything, then they risk falling further behind."

I dont mind that as much as how incredibly fast tech trading increases research rate.  Eras last a fraction of the time they otherwise would.

I still like the ideas of vouchers.  I don't have a concern about keeping track of techs(you can keep track of 95% of incidents, and can ask for further verification for the other 5% if needed, like a screenshot), and people being honest.   Right now the voucher system I prefer the most is:



1. Single "currency" (only one type of voucher)


2. Periodic distribution (people get more vouchers every certain number of turns, so they aren't all used in the early eras, which would usually be ideal)


3.Differential costs for earlier and later techs....

either by beakers, or designating costs for eras.  I like voucher cost depending on era more...

But both could work, you'd need a more complex distribution pattern for beakers(tech cost increases exponentially, so you'd need to give more beakers later, and less earlier) and have to deal with larger numbers(and also plan somewhat meticulously, so you don't get leftover with 90 beakers and only techs to trade worth 100), but it would remove keeping track of eras. 

Differential cost also encourages more balanced tech trading, instead of hoarding vouchers for later eras.





"I just researched lib, rolo, drib and levgree have each assimilated quite a bit of land for themselves. Not all are doing as well as we are though. I don't think i have any sort of commanding lead in this game, score is far from everything(just a few centuries back levgree was as much higher than me as i am higher than him now for example, this might easily change again as he develops his newly conquered land)."

Also, considering even with my conquered land you have a significant amount more and not so much useless land like my tundra(which you could tell from your maps), I think it's quite impossible for me to catch up from that :p  Don't know if that was a little attempt at propaganda or not .

[oyzar]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151629 here is a map script that might be more balanced, however i am not sure if it support larger than huge maps...

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Thanks for the lead, Oyzar.  However, this map appears to have the objective of balancing resources, which--correct me if I am wrong--is not really what we are seeking.

I think what we are seeking in a map script is:

1) allows more than 18 players (28 or more)
2) increases the total map size/land mass to allow for greater settlement area

Balanced maps are on the other hand somewhat "boring" to my thinking, and unrealistic.  After all, there's less incentive to trade or expand, if everyone has the resources they need in their starting location.

[oyzar]

It doesn't balance the map, it balances the starting positions so noone start in ice / thundra, but i guess i shouldn't speak too much about it without trying it much first... Having 1/6th of the game getting screwed over from turn 1 is not very fun...

[Elkad]

Basically it gives you an easy tweak for all the standard maps.  You can take out or reduce tundra, desert, etc, without digging into code.  It also allows bigger changes, like balanced resources, but everything is optional.  If you want to eliminate uranium, just click the box.  If you want it to be super-common, you can do that too.  Or whatever.

Its included in the latest version of BUGMod (which also has a 50civ version available).  BUG adds a lot of non-rule-changing enhancements, like city planning overlay screens, automatic figuring of overflow amounts for whips, time remaining on whip anger, etc.  All stuff you can do by hand, but it makes the micro-management a LOT easier for the weaker players.

50civ BUG plus the unofficial patch (0.21 I think) would be my preferred Mod.  And it has a bunch of tweakable map scripts, including the full_of_resources one.

[Viktor Ahriman]

I agree with Cap, we just want bigger map land area to grow.  Keep the resources realistic.  Trading is very important in the game and we will want to continue that.

[oyzar]

I don't think the resources would be different.... Just the bad starting positions more berable...

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Elkad -- what you describe sounds like a dream come true! 

We are many, many months away from CC3, but when we get to that, the described mod sounds like an ideal one for our purposes.

[oyzar]

Elkad -- what you describe sounds like a dream come true! 

We are many, many months away from CC3, but when we get to that, the described mod sounds like an ideal one for our purposes.

You can use bug just fine within C&C2. I know at least rolo is doing so at least...