CS Slingshot - Is it overpowered?

[jdotmi]

Yeah, that game really did sorta stack the deck in favor of using it, but even if you hadn't you still would have blow through the opponents in research just because of how much commerce the capital could pump out. That's a pretty beautiful starting location, on top of being Financial!

[Blake]

Sulla I think that with such a good start and the mysticism pop that the start was just plain rigged regardless of strategy used.

That you pulled off a very risky (850BC is mad late for Oracle on emperor) CS Slingshot certainly made it stronger, after all a high risk (high yield) strat is always better than a lower risk strat, if it pays off.

I admit I don't really like the existance of high-risk high-yield pure gambles for competitive comparison one-chance-only games, since all things being equal the winner will be someone who gambled and won - losses can after all be just not be reported. I think that good competitive game design does largely eliminate pure gambles because it can reduce gameplay to a sad state of affairs involving sucidial play (if this doesn't work, I'm dead, but if I don't do it, I can't get the high score).

The CS Slingshot could be classified as such, altough sometimes something like founding an early religion also qualifies, especially in a game like Epic 4.

I'm not however so sure that the CS Slingshot does generally qualify. The CS Slingshot provides maximum yield with a good start, and it's also easiest to do with a good start. In other words, if a start is extremely suitable for the CS Slingshot then it's *not* actually a gamble and everyone should do it because it's the One Right Strategy, for that start, and this is not in retrospect only, if the CS Slingshot is the right strategy, it's obviously the right strategy. In much the same way it may be that researching Agriculture is the One Right Strategy if you have river corn - you can do other things, but you're pretty much just being deliberately obtuse and denying yourself the benefit of doing the strategicially right thing.

So in a strategy game, there are going to be One Right Strategies for given circumstances, otherwise it'd be a game where dumb luck or micro determines the outcome. Player skill comes down to determining what the right strategy is and then implementing it.

I'm really leaning towards CS Slingshot being fine, as long as everyone understands that some starts just demand a CS Slingshot. I think it's up to the game sponser to make sure the start doesn't demand any one strategy to too great a degree.

If Oracle Slingshots really are a gameplay problem, then I think the solution would be to simply have the beakers granted capped. I would think that around 75%-100% of the beaker value of a non-scientist Great Person. This would not in any way make the oracle less attractive to build (since it's still tremendous value for money) but would put a damper on the deeper and more risky slingshots, such as picking up Civil Service, Nationalism, Education etc. Thus if it is desirable to use severely broken game settings (such as for Epic 6) then at least some sanity can be preserved.

Oh speaking of pure gambles (where player skill has little impact on whether it works or not), I really have to complain about Popped Another One. Popping a gold in the early BC's can easily increase research by 50%, an Aluminum in modern could turn what was intended to be a challenging spacerace into a cakewalk. A copper/iron pop could defeat the special challenge of a scenario. And the worst part of this is, pops are a gamble which everyone must make if they wish to work mines, and the success has nothing to do with player skill, beyond the ability to work mines. If a player gets a pop which damages the event, they can't do anything about it short of windmilling the tile and pretending it isn't there (and this is very undesirablre in BC's where a mine can be very important and windmills unavailable).

If the idea of a "fairness" RB mod was to be at least entertained, then eliminating pops (or maybe restricting to resources you already have) would definitely be a good feature (I'd also eliminate tech pops from huts since they can be a bit broken (I mean, sheesh, Iron Working pops?) and short of not popping you can't do much to keep them out of your game).

[uberfish]

Well, in response to Sulla's article I would like to raise a few points:

1) That's easily in the top 1% of all capital sites, and with absolutely perfect conditions for financial with the Hammer resource generating 2 cpt too! Hardly a typical game. Are we really going to see that sort of starting position in a tournament setting without some harsh counterbalancing conditions that place any deep slingshot firmly out reach anyway (like Epic 4's raging barbs deity?)

2) Oracle-CS is the strongest economic opening from such a good position, I don't disagree with that. But who is to say that investing the Oracle hammers in an early rush instead would not end up winning the game more quickly for tempo reasons? Last I checked, early aggression looks to be extending its winning streak further with epic 7 too, and that's an island map.

3) 850 BC is pretty late, very easy to miss the oracle at this time - Also even if you don't build oracle, if you are peaceful you can and should be highly prioritizing Civil Service and getting it comfortably in the BC's with such a good start just by building a few cottages and an Academy, so the generated turn advantage is less.

I think a better comparison map if anyone wants to do one would be something like epic 7's (although that is unfairly slanted against early settler expansion by virtue of the Duel size.) Good but not brokenly good start, leader with neutral traits.

[uberfish]

I admit I don't really like the existance of high-risk high-yield pure gambles for competitive comparison one-chance-only games, since all things being equal the winner will be someone who gambled and won - losses can after all be just not be reported. I think that good competitive game design does largely eliminate pure gambles because it can reduce gameplay to a sad state of affairs involving sucidial play (if this doesn't work, I'm dead, but if I don't do it, I can't get the high score).

There's always a gambling element related to how little military you can get away with. I consider this one of the skills of the game, and I think taking some calculated risks makes the game more exciting. But I intend to report my losses even as summaries.

Epic 7 was a decent example of this I think.

The iron was in such a terrible site that everyone took the risk of ignoring it, which I believe to have been the correct move because it had an overall positive expectation. Whether Alex declared on the player and landed troops or not was random; but people who did get attacked early were randomly set back.

Oh speaking of pure gambles (where player skill has little impact on whether it works or not), I really have to complain about Popped Another One.

Yeah, this one ruined adventure 5. Hope it doesn't ruin any more.

[mbuna120]

I have largely stayed out of this discussion for two reasons. One, I'm new to the RB and don't have as much exp. with various epics and situations. And two, I am not the best player here for sure , meaning, I have trouble getting the CS slingshot to work on standard size or larger maps anyway. But I really have to disagree that random popping of good stuff from huts or from mined hills should be done away with. I know that for some players who are excellent anyway, this is a bonus that just makes the game easier for them, but some of us NEED those lucky boosts sometimes! I could give a crap less about popping huts if I can't get techs from them. (I scoff at gold! and maps, and healing my units) I know that we are looking to have skill intensive games, and not just luck, but aside from random absurd luck of popping several things (kylearan ) do they really swing the game THAT much? I like to have a little random luck involved, that keeps me guessing. But that's just my humble opinion. We're not winning prizes on this site anyway, so to any that would COMPLAIN about someone else popping a goody, I would just reply... "stop whining".

And that's my 2 cents (2gpt)

[Blake]

I'm complaining about ME popping goodies.
Insane purists are like that :mad:.

[mbuna120]

Lmao, I see... I wasn't picking at you by the way, you aren't the first to mention it, I was just responding to that feeling in general. No hard feelings I hope. But, that really ruins it for you? I mean, why not just be happy at the added boon? Popping an extra resource is really that big of a disappointment?

ok... well then...

*****note to Sirian*****

Please grant this gentleman {Blake} all of his starting positions on Deity as he has issues with overachievement...

Edit: No part of my commentary is intended to be offensive 8)

[mihau]

@Mbuna: there wer events like "waiting for Godot" where all metals were taken away from the map - ALL of it. And U were supposed to win via SS. Some participants popped copper/iron/ALUMINIUM (including me and Blake too if I rememember correctly) and had the game ruined (Some of the pops happand when it was not obvious that metals R aken away.)


Back to the thread:
I take CS Sling as important part of my civ 'fun part'. Don't U love those 2-4 turns before Oracle finishes...? Hesitation before clicking "Next turn" and waiting for announcements in the upper left corner.

Best moments ever

[Sirian]

Sulla I think that with such a good start and the mysticism pop that the start was just plain rigged regardless of strategy used.

Every start in every game is rigged. I don't mean here at RB. I mean every game of Civ4. Every last one.

The first civ placed on the board gets the sweetest economic spot on the map. In every game. The player number is chosen randomly, without favor to human or AI, so in a five player game, the player has 20% chance to get that richest location. Yet even in an eighteen player game, there is a 20% chance to get one of the best 20% of the spots.

If the player doesn't get it, then an AI will. Somebody always gets it.

There are more than enough handicaps stacked against the human player than to be adding the caveat of depriving them of ever being put in a rich start location, too. Not only is that jack-knifing the fairness between human and AI on map location balance -- admittedly, we disregard that for many individual events -- it also backs event sponsors in to a corner. That is totally unacceptable, which is why this topic is hot in the first place.

I'm really leaning towards CS Slingshot being fine, as long as everyone understands that some starts just demand a CS Slingshot.

I'm calling that the last nail in the coffin.

The Realms Beyond community got its start in Diablo 1, where the Sorcerer class character as designed is ridiculously overpowered. Your logic is solid, but if applied to Diablo 1, it would read something like this: "I'm really leaning towards the Sorcerer class being fine, as long as everyone understands that you might as well not bother bringing your little Warriors and Rogues along, since my Sorcerer is going to flatten ninety percent of the monsters on the level in the first ten seconds using Chain Lightning."


There's no longer a question of something being done about CSS, but only a matter of what, where and when, along with what else needs to be adjusted.

I've been persuaded that the Pyramids as finally implented (careful choice of language there) are also a problem.


One thing interesting to note is that none of our Epic Heroes, the players who've been around since the start of this civ community and are still with us, have come forth to champion the CS Slingshot. Not that I don't give equal weight to every voice, looking for the merit of a position rather than who is forwarding it, but if it were really that close of a call, we'd see some disagreement amidst the old school.

I'm not going to rush the solution. Frankly, I'm not sure there -is- a solution to the Pyramids problem. Like the Financial Trait, the reward may be too strong but there is no way to slice off a piece without killing the concept.

I think it's up to the game sponser to make sure the start doesn't demand any one strategy to too great a degree.

In the larger view, it's up to the game designer to avoid introducing any option that will be a no-brainer in too many circumstances; and up to the tournament rules to cover any holes unintentionally left in the design.

I have to tell you that I would have done away with goody huts, with great wonders, with tech trading. Obviously I didn't win those arguments, but I did win some, including some that were won before Civ4 started development. We don't have the Civ3 dice-roll-style great leaders any more, nor do we have a Pyramids that grant free granaries to every city or a Great Library that will give you up to a quarter of the tech tree if leveraged to the max.


Now if I could steer this conversation toward conceiving solutions for reining in the Pyramids without doing away with them, let's go there. Bureaucracy can be fixed by pushing it back out of Oracle range, or by outlawing the shortcuts to it, but the Pyramids can't be pushed back or moved. So what -could- be done about them? Anything?


- Sirian

[T-hawk]

So in a strategy game, there are going to be One Right Strategies for given circumstances, otherwise it'd be a game where dumb luck or micro determines the outcome. Player skill comes down to determining what the right strategy is and then implementing it.

Every situation will have some best choice, just by definition. But the CS slingshot is the best choice far too often. In fact, take the converse of Sulla's report and example. For what kind of situation is a successful Oracle-CS slingshot ever *not* the right move? I don't believe we've seen any in these discussions. Given that the Civ 4 game logic always picks the best locations for the starting capitals, it's virtually impossible for ANY capital site with the 50% boosts to be better than a second city site without those.

The only downside is that failure to win the wonder race (and it's really a research race, not a construction race) will incur some significant opportunity costs. That may sometimes discourage the strategy, especially on high difficulty. But a successful slingshot is more powerful than ANY other strategy, in the vast majority of situations. And for a competitive game, if you either fail or don't try, you're way behind those that tried and succeeded.

I've been persuaded that the Pyramids as finally implented (careful choice of language there) are also a problem.

<chuckles for a moment at a spelling typo right before the words "careful choice of language" >

I'd like to know exactly what you consider to be the problem with the Pyramids. The wonder is expensive enough that the opportunity costs are real and serious (especially without Stone), unlike that of the Oracle. They're strong, but I'm not convinced they're exploitively or unbalancingly so. I think the only real problem is the synergy between early Representation and a free Great Library from the ensuing Great Engineer, and the solution is simply to forbid rushing the GL with that GE. (I can certainly be convinced otherwise.)

If the CS slingshot didn't exist or was ruled out, I think the Pyramids-Great Library plan would be the right choice substantially less often than the CS slingshot is currently.


FWIW, if you're looking for opinions on this matter, I'd support solving the CSS (and Pyramids if necessary) via RB tournament rules, rather than by actual game rules modification. And for the CSS, I think the best option is just to disallow the Oracle or Great Prophet shortcuts to CS.