C3C 1.13 beta - Page 3

Aggie · 06-01-2004, 13:40

Still I must say that I hate the fact that they bring out all these beta's. Suppose that one plays at 1.12 and another at 1.13. Does the person with 1.13 have an advantage because of the change in corruption calculation?

Can we prevent it (different patch versions) anyway? I don't like the idea that I'm doing my best in 1.12 while not having a chance, because someone else has the newer beta installed!

Skyfish · 06-01-2004, 13:55

Quote:

quote:they have brains for themselves and are surely capable to come up with these ideas

Sorry but I totally disagree. I dont like dissing the guys that made the best strategy game ever but on this issue they got it totally wrong since we found the inner workings of corruption...
That is why Tavis opened this thread at CFC and even made part of their code public !
On this precise issue of FP and corruption they want experienced players to give them their opinion. Sir Pleb offered a code change but they followed anarres' suggestion which is even simpler to implement.
Tavis made it clear that the betas are for testing different solution so that they can have the best possible solution for the patch release in June. Next month they might implement Sir Pleb's change just to see if ppl like it better.

You are totally right Aggie that it does have a negative effect on our games which go on for more than one month... Players will have to agree what they should do about it beforehand

Aggie · 06-01-2004, 14:17

To be fair to SirPleb: he made a poll in which he asked all the CFC-ers to vote for either the old FP or the solution that anarres suggested (keep the 1.12 FP). 75% of the posters wanted the old FP back. I was one the the voters for the old FP, with the argument that the 1.12 idea was to complicated for a large number of civvers (non-fanatic players). I must say that I REALLY like the solution of the newest patch, because the benefit of the FP will be more clear this way.

PS. You took my quote out of it's context. I was not suggesting that they themselves decided that theír mistake was in fact a good solution! I only said that they maybe thought of the increased OCN themselves!

PS PS. I get sick of the higher math in the corruption breakdown thread!

col · 06-01-2004, 14:22

I can understand why 75% of regualr players will vote to keep things the way that they know. It takes time to come to undertand the strategy of the game and to have to tear up the rulebook and start again is not what most people want.

I'm inclined to agree with Anarres. The new solution looks to be a good one. Increasing the OCN with a FP is always going to be worth doing - but the ability to build it in the inner core takes away a lot of the randomness of that early leader. It also takes away much of the need to palace jump to get two cores. That just isnt going to happen.

The concept seems sound to me.

Stapel · 06-01-2004, 14:23

So, what you say Sky, is that Firaxis is experimenting with different solutions? In itself a very good idea, but I would like a proper working version of C3C, and I still don't have it.

Especially the fact that corruption was messed up, after the beta testing of c3c 1.00, makes me a bit suspicious when Firaxis tells about their intentions.

col · 06-01-2004, 14:24

As far as I know, the change to the corruption model happened very late and after the beta program.

Beam · 06-01-2004, 17:01

So with the corruption model in this patch it does not really matter where the FP is build? There should be a very good reason then to have one productive city on a remote location imo. Like if it is a strategic location where units are difficult to transfer to.

Aggie · 06-01-2004, 17:04

What about a city where iron and coal are in the borders Beam?

EDIT: And also why would you build the FP in a non-corrupt city near your core? That city will not benefit greatly from the fact that a FP city is almost non-corrupt. I think that the best thing to do is to rush the FP in a corrupt but promising city whenever possible.

Beam · 06-01-2004, 17:24

The iron and coal one is indeed another very good reasom Aggie. It also very much depends on the availability of a Leader. In that case the FP can be build instantaniously at a remote site, otherwise imo it is more beneficial to have the FP quickly build near the core and have cities benefit from its effect for a longer time, thus compensating the marginal effect for the city where it is build.

Also consider that armies are so powerfull now that you might want to save leaders for that purpose.

Stapel · 06-01-2004, 21:43

What is different with armies??

06-01-2004, 14:22	#24
col King Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: South Sandwich Islands. Posts: 1,529	I can understand why 75% of regualr players will vote to keep things the way that they know. It takes time to come to undertand the strategy of the game and to have to tear up the rulebook and start again is not what most people want. I'm inclined to agree with Anarres. The new solution looks to be a good one. Increasing the OCN with a FP is always going to be worth doing - but the ability to build it in the inner core takes away a lot of the randomness of that early leader. It also takes away much of the need to palace jump to get two cores. That just isnt going to happen. The concept seems sound to me. __________________ I can't be arsed.

06-01-2004, 14:23	#25
Stapel Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands. Posts: 3,196	So, what you say Sky, is that Firaxis is experimenting with different solutions? In itself a very good idea, but I would like a proper working version of C3C, and I still don't have it. Especially the fact that corruption was messed up, after the beta testing of c3c 1.00, makes me a bit suspicious when Firaxis tells about their intentions. __________________ Vrooooooooooommmmmm Stapel doesn't like cricket

06-01-2004, 14:24	#26
col King Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: South Sandwich Islands. Posts: 1,529	As far as I know, the change to the corruption model happened very late and after the beta program. __________________ I can't be arsed.

06-01-2004, 17:01	#27
Beam c00l b33r Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Beat 'm up Scotty!. Lives in the Lands that are Nether. Posts: 5,094	So with the corruption model in this patch it does not really matter where the FP is build? There should be a very good reason then to have one productive city on a remote location imo. Like if it is a strategic location where units are difficult to transfer to. __________________ That was a pretty good gamble. -- Scotty, The Galileo Seven, stardate 2821.5, Episode 14 Linux never looked this good!

06-01-2004, 17:24	#29
Beam c00l b33r Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Beat 'm up Scotty!. Lives in the Lands that are Nether. Posts: 5,094	The iron and coal one is indeed another very good reasom Aggie. It also very much depends on the availability of a Leader. In that case the FP can be build instantaniously at a remote site, otherwise imo it is more beneficial to have the FP quickly build near the core and have cities benefit from its effect for a longer time, thus compensating the marginal effect for the city where it is build. Also consider that armies are so powerfull now that you might want to save leaders for that purpose. __________________ That was a pretty good gamble. -- Scotty, The Galileo Seven, stardate 2821.5, Episode 14 Linux never looked this good!

06-01-2004, 13:40	#21
Aggie Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: N/A Posts: 4,490	Still I must say that I hate the fact that they bring out all these beta's. Suppose that one plays at 1.12 and another at 1.13. Does the person with 1.13 have an advantage because of the change in corruption calculation? Can we prevent it (different patch versions) anyway? I don't like the idea that I'm doing my best in 1.12 while not having a chance, because someone else has the newer beta installed!

06-01-2004, 14:17	#23
Aggie Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: N/A Posts: 4,490	To be fair to SirPleb: he made a poll in which he asked all the CFC-ers to vote for either the old FP or the solution that anarres suggested (keep the 1.12 FP). 75% of the posters wanted the old FP back. I was one the the voters for the old FP, with the argument that the 1.12 idea was to complicated for a large number of civvers (non-fanatic players). I must say that I REALLY like the solution of the newest patch, because the benefit of the FP will be more clear this way. PS. You took my quote out of it's context. I was not suggesting that they themselves decided that theír mistake was in fact a good solution! I only said that they maybe thought of the increased OCN themselves! PS PS. I get sick of the higher math in the corruption breakdown thread!

06-01-2004, 17:04	#28
Aggie Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: N/A Posts: 4,490	What about a city where iron and coal are in the borders Beam? EDIT: And also why would you build the FP in a non-corrupt city near your core? That city will not benefit greatly from the fact that a FP city is almost non-corrupt. I think that the best thing to do is to rush the FP in a corrupt but promising city whenever possible.

06-01-2004, 21:43	#30
Stapel Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Netherlands. Posts: 3,196	What is different with armies?? __________________ Vrooooooooooommmmmm Stapel doesn't like cricket