[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#12638) Remove reputation from the game

["Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=12638 >

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > But this is rarely possible, and we can see many
> > examples of games that have been ruined by not managing to deal with this
> > increase in scale of chore tasks, or how otherwise good games have
> > suffered from them.
>
> I absolutely agree that the amount of chore tasks shouldn't ruin a game, and
> that this is a problem in online games. But I don't think that removing
> these tasks is a solution. I think these tasks are the job of client-based
> agents.

I totally disagree. To have started down this road in the first place
(CMA) was a big mistake. Agents are a band-aid to kludge around rules that
are not well-designed.

(The following mostly cut-and-pasted from my semi-blog rant
http://www.freeciv.org/index.php/Per_on_rules)

Once the game starts to be managed by a second-order AI aid, you get two
key problems.

The first problem is that a human is still more likely to produce better
results through continuing micromanagement than an AI is. This will lead
some players to avoid the AI feature, but the resulting frustration with
the overwhelming micromanagement will still be felt and produce negative
attitudes to the game. Also in turn-based games, those who insist on
micromanagement when the game designer thought players would use AI
features will slow down the game for everyone else. Freeciv here is a case
in point - turns proceed in the speed of the slowest player, and people
who micromanage their cities are slow indeed.

The second problem is that, provided the AI feature is client-side in a
client-server game, those who have the better AI scripts or AI code will
gain a substantial advantage. This is particularly the case in multiplayer
games that use a timeout to end turns. The unofficial 'warclient' gives
players mass control over units and is a substantial aid in timeout games.
While some may find this (writing their own AI-aid code) a challenge on
its own, it is inherently unfair and detracts focus from the core game
concept.

> > In Freeciv the best example of this is perhaps placing citizens. When you
> > get a large number ofcities, this chore tasks becomes just impossible if
> > you play with someone else. Hence CMA - but CMA is fundamentally a kludge
> > around a broken rule; if the rules were well designed in the first place,
> > CMA would not have to exist.
>
> Maybe, but what 'well-designed' rules do you suggest? The odds and evens of
> terrain are the basis of the game. Making good use of terrain (ressources,
> defense and attack, infrastructure) wins a game. Placing workers seems an
> oddity to you, but placing workers gives me broad choice on my
> development.

Placing citizens is just a means to an end, which is resources. Here Moo2
has a better model, where you do not have terrain, only citizens,
buildings that give resource bonuses and resources. You can place citizens
from the planets (in Freeciv:cities) dialog, which scales very well,
unlike the Civ1/2/Freeciv model. Jason has suggested that the early game's
terrain-based citizens become obsoleted with later techs by Moo2-like
citizens that are essentially just specialists that produce resources. I
think this is a good idea, but needs testing (and code).

> I have not tested this much, but if breaking treaties has no consequence any
> more, I fear only unexperienced players will fulfill them. Isn't reputation
> a measure to hinder misuse of diplomacy?

Not much. Also we can easily substitute reputation loss by AI attitude
loss for the same acts, as Jason suggested. That AIs won't talk to me is
the only thing I consider as an extra consequence when breaking treaties,
and it can easily be done without reputation.

> I don't say that it is good like it is now (its a rather new feature).

Reputation isn't a new feature, it has been there as long as I can
remember. If you have ideas on how reputation can be made into a core part
of the game, not just the extra, mostly meaningless fluff as it is now
(IMHO), then feel free to post them.

> OTOH making unjust wars in democracy impossible isn't quite realistic.

Oh, don't we all know that too well :-(

Well, I am not a big fan of realism in any case. (The real world sucks.)
The senate/parliament overthrowing the government or resigning when the
government goes to illegal and unjust wars is how a republic/democracy
_should_ be, and that I find sufficient rationale. After all, there are
real world examples of this happening (Russia WWI eg).

  - Per