The AI should be "smarter" when it's intelligence is set to dumb?

That's kind of the point of "beginner". The AI plays dumb so that people...i.e. beginners.. can get the ropes of the game.

If this strategy was working at higher levels then there'd be a point, but it doesn't.

This is a text book case of a small minority advocating changes in the game that would harm the majority. Many beginners feel the game is too hard as is.

Just to throw my $.02 in, this all seems a bit of a "tempest in a teapot".

Sure, exploiting the AIs by selling them so many pretty baubles that they go deep into debt, and can't compete, may seem like a cheesy tactic...until you realize that this is pretty much what the IMF does to Third World nations out here in real life.

Fact is, "tech-whoring", as it's called, is a legitimate technique on all levels of play. The game allows it, and its use is consistent with the game premise.

I've found the GCCG very useful and informative, and appreciate EBZ taking the time and effort to share it with others. While I am more naturally inclined to gigantic games at high difficulty, the GCCG strategy is a lot of fun. And, it lets me play a game quickly, without a lot of micromanagement, when I don't feel like playing a game where I need to wait 5 mins or so each turn for the comp to move my huge numbers of constructors all over the galaxy.

Without GCCG, I probably would play less. And, I think my overall skill at play has benefited from incorporating GCCG tactics.

I also appreciate the efforts Stardock has put into the game. Overall, I think the level of support here on the forums, and the effort that went into making and publishing an enjoyable game has been excellent. (See MOO3 for a lesson on how to make a broken game.)

It's important to remember that, for all of us players, GC is just about having fun and playtime. Of course, for Frogboy et al., it's real-life food on the table. So, I can understand the devs getting a little worked up when it looks like someone has found an endrun around the intended gameplay.

But, in truth, there's no catastrophe here. The "tech-whoring" is not as effective at higher difficulties. The gameplay slips back into the intended path as the difficulty increases, even while using the GCCG methods.

It seems the brunt of the grousing centers around Metaverse scores. The perception is that a few players will slam a huge number of games at low difficulty to get really high Metaverse scores.

Frankly, I don't see much of that. EBZ probably comes the closest to doing this, as would be expected, since he orginated the methodology. But he's not cheating; he's still abiding by the rules of the game and the Metaverse.

I'm not a programmer (Damn it, Jim, I'm a DOCTOR, not a...oh, never mind.), but at least conceptually the solution seems pretty straightforward.

1) Nerf the Metaverse scores a little bit on the lower difficulties. 2) Raise the flag limits on tech and money in the game a bit for low difficulties (to help prevent anomalous scores).

Announce the alteration in Metaverse scoring, so that players who are motivated by Metaverse scores will be encouraged to move up in difficulty (where the AIs can better handle GCCG tactics and gameplay follows a more normal path).

Do not make the new Metaverse scoring retroactive. (When the NFL went from 14 to 16 games per season, they didn't go back and change all the record books.) Any anomalies will be smoothed out over time as new game results continue to be added. Those who racked up big Metaverse scores on low difficulty will have to adapt or lose position.

Making the attempt to prevent hacking and cheating (by using the flag system) is commendable. The Metaverse isn't worth squat if it is hacked. But these anomalous scores at low difficulties are not due to hacking or cheating. They result from legimate tactics, and should be given full credit as legitmate games--only they should, I think, receive fewer Metaverse total points. Since higher tech and money levels can be reached at lower difficulties using legitimate tactics, the trip levels for the red-flags should be raised at these low difficulties.

Hm, this turned out to be a long post for just 2 cents. But really, I think this whole thing just needs a little tweak, not an overhaul. Now, everyone take a deep breath, and remember that in a few billion years, we're all just a big ball of ice anyway.

Frogboy - Good point

When I checked it, you weren't in the top 20.

You must have just missed seeing it. I made top 5 a few weeks back with this score, top 20 a month or more ago, and haven't submitted since, so I've been slowly sinking and my current rank is the lowest it's been for a good long time.

Anyway, no big deal.

Then again It was late. I may have missed you. But the point I was making was I have fewer games in than most.

I was able to get an anomalous score on a small Painful last week with beta 3 without a mod. I wasn't following EBZ's strategy, but I decided to trade tech for money instead of tech for tech like I used to do. In some ways this made perfect sense. I was able to do 100% spending and was flying through the tech tree. On Painful my trades were smaller something like less than 100bc for 10 turns, but I did this in the same turn to all majors and minors. Once those 10 turns were up, I'd trade another set. There were times I remember getting close to 800bc a turn by doing this. I don't consider this "cheese" since the AIs were not bankrupt and they were keeping up with tech because of me. When looking at there spending, they did very little research themselves. So I consider this a method of playing instead of exploiting the AI. Maybe in Beginner you can get way too much money from then, but you can do it in Painful also and get anomalous scores.

Edit: I even had negative money in the bank when the game ended, so it sounds like having a large income at the beginning of a small map triggers a flag of cheating.
[Message Edited]

StBlasius

Selling tech for money sounds like good strategy to me when you can get it. I have played painful before and you don't get very much cash for trading tech with majors. I doubt if you racked up tons of money throughout the entire game to feed your tech race and I bet you had to trade with the minors a bit for some cash. To me, this is just surviving on painful. If you got an anomalous for this, you might try resubmitting. Sometimes the internet connection fails and you have to submit twice. This happened once to me. On painful the AI is pretty protected from bankrupting but on beginner, it is easy. Good luck.

Rick

I'll raise my hand and admit ... I submit my loses as well. However there dose seem to be a certian lack of losses in the to 3 (which i looked at) and the few others i randomly glanced at..

So, heres a thought, a bouns for us people who do submit losses?
(This could be the reason of couerse why i'm 1350ish in the metavers list LOL )

~SDC~

Seems like this is an appropriate place to drop this off. It's a regular copy-paste thread! LOL

Kit’s Meditation on GalCiv

(note: just ignore the historical figures I refer to )

Enjoyment is greatly emphasized in playing GalCiv and participating in the Metaverse. We are all unique beings with unique forms of personal gratification. Some enjoy the challenge of overcoming difficult computer opponents. Some enjoy the challenge of increasing their rank in the Metaverse. The point is - the VERY important point is - that these are two forms of enjoyment among many.

I follow a style of play where if I were to “crank”, my enjoyment would be impeded. This is the result of a value system that I impose on myself. I DO NOT apply my own ideals to the playing styles of others. “Crankers”, “milkers”, and “crank-milkers” may frustrate my efforts to break into the top ten, but I hold no grudge against them. I do not blame them for lessening my enjoyment of rising through the ranks.

This is the nexus of the debate - where do we draw the line when a player impedes the joy of another player? Hacking the game’s coding is a clear line. Developing mods that introduce extreme player advantages is nearly a clear line. I contend that “milking”, “cranking”, “tech whoring”, “alpha strikes”, etc. are a vast distance from where the line should be drawn. These tactics reveal flaws in the game’s design, NOT flaws in the people who employ them. I am a pragmatist! Hear me roar! Idealists will never achieve their utopia.

My approach to GalCiv is to maximize my enjoyment. I’m so selfish that Adam Smith would be proud. BUT I realize that the health of our community is an essential part of my enjoyment. This is where Kit starts going Rousseau on y’all. In an attempt to maintain or increase the health of our community I do several things. I toss crazy little stories into the threads of other empires. I write long monologues to console friends. I spend time and energy on an online comic strip. I know that others benefit from my efforts, but I do these things for ME. Here is where I find the Zen in GalCiving. Here is where individual satisfaction serves the community, and the health of the community enriches the individual. We should all find that unique Zen for us in GalCiving.



(edit: i swear if i spell hear as "h e r e" one more time... )
[Message Edited]

~Theoden applauds~

Thanks, Kit!

It's true that you don't get much money from majors on Painful but it adds up. Ex: I could trade 5 techs to each major for 60-80 bc for 10 turns for a total of more than 300 bc total per turn. Then after those 10 turns I sold the new techs I discovered for more money. I could easily keep a constant 400 bc coming in. I never bankrupt the AI, but I'm sucking money from them and I'm building all the TG/wonders and leading the tech race. But it doesn't matter since I'm trading, everyone likes me, and I've got the most influence. Doing this and I get an anomalous score, and I tried submitting again with no luck

It's been said that the game checks the balance at different points and if it is "too high" it sets the anomalous flag - which seems to happen more easily in 1.09 than 1.05.

I also wonder if reloading and resubmitting in 1.05 clears the flag but doesn't in 1.09 - I've never managed to resubmit a 1.09 game that was scored as anomalous.

Alex


~SDC~

As a newby.
If I was getting 3K for a Normal game and others were getting 30K for Crippling or whatever. I would quit the Metaverse. There would be no point in it for me.

I don't have the time, or inclination to play at the higer difficulty levels.

Just my point of view and I suspect that of many people.

Rainbird, I support that point of view even though I'm at higher difficulty... Of course I come from the perspective that newbies should be encouraged. Others do not. Bottom line: participation requires a reasonable assumption of competing.

Wouldn't you feel an urge to work to improve in order to play at the higher levels? That's how I would feel in such a situation.

Anyway, if the only point of playing is to have a hope of reaching the top, then won't most newbies feel discouraged at the thought of having to beat EBZ's eventual several hundreds of beginner games? The fact that the top will be unreachable for most players is going to be a problem under any scoring system, unless we have periodic resets (which I would not be averse to).

Anyway, if the only point of playing is to have a hope of reaching the top,

Actually Reasonable assumption competing does not imply necessarily reaching the top.


Anyway, if the only point of playing is to have a hope of reaching the top, then won't most newbies feel discouraged at the thought of having to beat EBZ's eventual several hundreds of beginner games?

No. Simply because if one can see several paths to reaching the top rather than one, there is a much better hope to finding one. If at the top is maso maso maso, and beginner scores 3k and maso 30, that' s a very much more imposing thing because not only must you get games in, you have to move up considerably in difficulty before you make much if any progress.

I am trying to stay out of this, because I think EBZ strategy is brillant from a game theory perspective and I appreciate his willingnes to share, but I also respect Brad and Stardock for delivering more with Gal Civ than I ever expected.

Stardock listens to us... in many cases they give us what we want. In some cases they don't, and we act like it's the end of the world. In this case, EBZ is being punished... but this is not unprecented. Staffa and Ray were punished similarly for doing things that were within the rules at the time, but Stardock decided to nerf or change.

We've been through scoring changes based on version, galaxy size, population, and difficulty. In every case, there have been winners and losers. (Look at some pre-1.05 scores, the change there was much more significant. I greatly admire those of you who continues when your old scores were basically rendered meaningless.)

Let's try and follow Ray and Staffa's example. Ray lost a 30k game and Staffa was acussed of cheating. Both were able to successful adapt to Gal Civ changes...

EBZ and fellow crankers should not be punished retroactively. The GCCG should go down as one of the great accomplishments that threated to unbalance the metaverse (like the pop exploit) that Stardock felt it had to counter.... and we should try to move on.

I apologize to anyone I've offended, but please, let's not let this or any other call we don't like ruin our caimpaign. This is the best game I've ever played because I have enjoyed COMPETING in the Metaverse as part of an empire. It is a competition and it has a judge, and we're all attached to our profiles like they were characters in an RPG. That's a good part of the fun... and the bad part when we argue over mechanics.

It would be nice if the metaverse didn't count scores of zero in the player's overall score, but regardless.. I think we should try to move on... and give Brad / Cari some credit. Instead of bashing them for not being professional, I think we should thank them for being as invested in this game as they are... and for adding so many of the things we have requested.

I apologize for being long winded and for anyone I offended, but I hope we can put this is a bigger prespective. Gal Civ gave and continues to give me more than I ever expected, and I think a lot of us find this to be true. We should try to move on when things occassionally don't go our way.

Sincerely,
Cypher

So what does it mean? I had assumed due to the context of this whole discussion, that it has something to do with acheiving high scores, which are the route to the top. How are you defining it, and how is the distinction significant?



Well, it makes life easier for some, harder for others. Any top spot taken by a GCCGer takes away a spot for someone playing a different style, and vice versa. You encourage some, discourage others. Remember how pissed Staffa was about the system back when Sergey was churning out Crippling games? That led to some people boycotting the Metaverse as well--Sergey for one (now gone for good, sadly), and Ray for a while, and a couple others too. Obviously I remember them because they were big names in the community, but there were no doubt others who just never bothered to begin participating. I myself almost didn't begin.
[Message Edited]

First, we have to clearly seperate the two issues we're discussing here:

1) Removing anomalous scores (however they're caused) by hand.
2) Using the GCCG strategy.

I've seen the CEO quote thrown around a fair bit, but look at the context it's in:



For dealing with point 1, that's a fair call. If someone gets a zero score and they genuinely don't know why, the devs have a responsibility to help them out. But if the devs say "be warned, action X can cause anomalous scores, and we won't fix them", and people keep emailing saying "well, I did action X, and I got another zero", they don't have to jump around fixing it.

The critical question is, what is "action X"? Is it cheating, or not? If it's a cheat, then whoever uses it can go to hell. But the devs have said the GCCG isn't a cheat - cheesy, but not a cheat. So in the short term, saying "don't use it" is acceptable (the odd anomalous score is a simple way to reduce the payoffs of cranking), but they have to think about a longer term solution. It sends conflicting signals to say "it's legal, but sometimes it generates anomalous scores".

Solution? If it's not a cheat, then change the anomalous trigger so it doesn't get set off. If its use should be discouraged, then reduce the score it gets.


Perhaps instead of having the anomalous trigger be
"if cash > 1,000,000 bcs then die"

some of the historical data in the savegame could be used. If someone's been doing a thousand trades in a row with moron AIs, then it's legal. If a survey ship runs across a crate containing a million bcs of "pirate treasure", then flag it for using an illegal mod. If the cash value's been increased by a million and there's no record of how it happened, someone's been playing silly buggers with a hex-editor.


A new scoring formula is probably going to come from this - but retrospective? If it's a minor issue that will only trash a few days' worth of games, it's not that important, but people have been using this strategy for more than a few days now, you can't add a deadweight of 100 poor games to someone just like that.

Imagine changing the rules of cricket - actually, let's use baseball, you've probably never heard of cricket . The league is sick of losing baseballs, or something like that, so they change the rules - every time someone hits the ball over the fence, they're out. I don't care if that's a good or bad rule change, the fact is that it's been made. Players grumble, but they change their batting styles to avoid hitting home runs. Now, the league looks at the records of the last World Series - I've seen how much stuff gets put into a baseball score-card. Everytime someone's got a home-run, re-score it as a strike-out. Then, find out who "really" won the series, knock on the doors of the old champions, and demand they hand over their championship rings.

And then, just to top it all off, because the old champions won 5 championships in a row by hitting home runs, you tell them they'll have to win 5 more using the new rules before they'll be recognized as champions again, because of the "deadweight effect".

What's wrong with this picture?

[to the devs: I appreciate your work, and I'm sure everyone else here does as well. If we thought your game sucked, we wouldn't be here, and the forum would be a ghost-town ]

TheQuack: Thank you for bringin the context back into that quote.

As I said elsewhere, it's almost as if some people are simply looking for a way to be offended.

When EBZ emails Cari or myself and we jump into the guts of the metaverse management console to fix ihs score, it takes time for us to do it.

And both of us have done it for him on numerous occasions and he's been told what causes it so he could stop.

But instead, he basically took us for granted or at least certainly made us feel like we're basically put on this earth to serve his every whim.

Now, maybe I'm jaded but if I had emailed Lord British about the problems with my Ultima On-line character and he presonally took care of it himself for me, I'd be pretty darn pleased about it. And after a few times of this happening he emailed me or better yet chatted with me on IRC privately telling me what was causing this and how to avoid it I would be thrilled. I would certainly not get upset if I ignored his advice and continued to do things that messed up my UO character. And I would certainly not expect Lord British to continually come and edit my acocunt or the lead developer to do so.

The GalCiv team is small. But Stardock is a lot bigger than just GalCiv. GalCiv is a labor of love for us as you can probably surmise. But even we have limited time available to us to dedicate to individual devleopers. Our time has to be focused on what helps the most people.

BTW, the reason the changing the rules argument isn't compelling (to us anyway) is that the anomolous checking has been in for a long time. You can go back to 1.03 or earlier probably and the same thing would happen.

It isn't us asking to change the rules, it's the people getting anomolous scores that are, in essence, asking for the rules to be changed for their advantage.

After all, it's not us complaining about the scores. It's the people getting anomolous scores who are. And the anti-cheat checks have been in a long time. They exist as part of the Metaverse rules.

In addition, scores on the metaverse have been adjusted over 16 times retroactively already. Score adjusting has always been and will likely always be part of the metaverse.

The rules of the metaverse are pretty straight forward on concept but complex in execution: Bigger galaxies and tougher players score higher than smaller galaxies and easier players. Opponent difficulty is the biggest factor in determining score. And the goal is for 1 game at high difficulty to be worth several times as many games won at a much lower difficulty level.

The metaverse system is designed to create that. When it fails, it falls on us to adjust it to try to reach its guiding principle that we bleieve makes it more fun for the most people.

So who's Lord British? btw that guy that topped you in your last UT-Online game while you were chopping wood and stole all your money wasn't me!? LOL

Even if the name was Cotal . . . it wasn't me, honestly!

Cotal....

Lord Brittish is the Writter of the Ultima's.. he and friends wrote the first ultima game and sold it themselves in plasticbags at local shops... somehow a copy of it made its way to the eventual publishers sierra.. he was flown there and employed on the spot

This is the abridged version.. (very summerized)

So why does it break 1.09 and not in 1.05???? Obviously something in the tweaking of 1.09 has affected the flags to some extent - whatever it may be. Perhaps a "knock-on" effect from the quicker tech tree has meant that an "early in the game" check is much more marginal than before. I think all that is being suggested is that this is taken into account before the final release of the add-on pack. Surely this sort of comment is part of the point of a beta test???

FWIW I've been developing software for somewhat over 25 years; I've been an "indie", I've run companies - so I do appreciate the comments being made about time etc. I've been a beta tester for many years too for little companies (like Borland and Microsoft!). However, to be really successful, repeat business is absolutely vital!!! (My longest standing customer and I have a relationship going back fifteen years or so!). Additionally, when you are in a commodity market, your enthusiasts are one of your biggest and best value sales arms - they spread the word at no cost to yourself - so it's worth not alienating them (ar least not too much!).

I picked up the original GalCiv for OS/2 way back "on spec" - it was one of the finest games of the genre then - and still is today - and have actually pushed a number of my colleagues who like this type of game towards it - and the multiverse is a great extension of the idea. Other people have commented about the innate competetiveness of human beings, so I won't take that idea further - but the very nature of the multiverse is going to bring out the best and the worst in people.



Actually, Richard is another amazing character (like yourself ) who actually did take a serious interest in all of "his" games (I go back to early in the original Ultima series!). I've had emails and letters from him, and some of the suggestions I made were implemented.

Alex


~SDC~