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

["Christian Knoke" <chrisk@xxxxxxxxx>]

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

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:44:33AM -0800, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> 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.

Well, I hope so.

> 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.

When the game proceeds, it tends to get more and more complicated, in *all*
aspects: develop, infrastructure, worker's placement, unit move, defense,
attack. This is all micromanagement if you call it like this. This *all*
makes the game slow, not only worker's placement.

This is pure realism. The real world is complicated.

The CMA solved the problem.

The agents need an interface which lets the choice upon the user, give the
user control that she can decide which agents to use, for what, and when,
and raise exceptions. Bad thing with CMA is I have to use it for all cities
all the time (it gives too much problems if I don't).

> 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.

The warclient is a good point: we don't have the choice. Agents are already
possible. 

When we deliver Freeciv with a base set of scripts, people won't suffer form
the time consuming micromanagement, and still can do things by hand if they
want. Better scripts come up and will be shared.

You suggest simplifying of base game concepts. How can you remove
micromanagement without putting the game on its head? Maybe you can - but
its not at all easy, but can easily spoil the game.

> > > 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).

Can be used to give extra resources to big cities. Are there more detailed
ideas on that around?

Christian

-- 
Christian Knoke            * * *            http://cknoke.de
* * * * * * * * *  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.