Game Options Discussion

Ok, here's my revised proposal because of popularity of options.

Two categories of option: Added Contents and Changed Game Play.
Added Contents
Those options can be folded into the game after balance tweaks or axing as needed. Then use Modules for added contents until the major modpack team love it enough to tweak and fold it in.

Changed Game Play
Please do guarantee continued technical support for every single of these options staying in.
Leave as much as optional unless where bundling is reasonable.
Please do check each option that they emphatically do not impair AI versus the human players.
My point here is the needed feeling of security in knowledge that these work and are fair to AI.

These are my new suggestions.

darkedone02 said:

If you think this mod got too many options, I recommend you peak over at Caveman2Cosmos and take a look at theirs.



why is it that it sound like you don't give a crap about people in general? There is a reason why options exist, and that is because the user has more power to customize the game at any moment. For example, i always turn storms off because the turns speed is decreased a lot so I turn them off for better performance, plus I don't see a purpose with storms and see them get in the way... Unless somebody knows how to make storm appears on desert and do natural terraforming, then I don't mind it but I do mind the lag.

I turn the nukes off because and advance nuke off as well because advance nukes because I don't know npc blowing up my capital with 20 or more wonders built for it.

I turn on both no city limits and no fixed borders, I don't understand the main concept and it causes issues with me when I feel like conquering and colonizing lands for resources, and if I'm limited to a certain city, that just defeats the whole point of trying to conquer the world and make sure every square is colored with my empires color.

Click to expand...

+1 on the highlighted red

@Afforess,
No City Limits on Civics is Not a Cheat out of a Civic. Never has been. It was designed for those that prefer the Expansionist way of play like darkedone02 and myself. It came from many many hard debates with the C2C team, that like you wanted to curb both Player (at first) and then AI expansionist types. ( But yet Leaders Traits were enhanced with many having the Expansionist trait, a real contradiction there. )

Then City Limits by Map size AS an Option was introduced into C2C. For those that prefer your way of play, minimal early cities and limited empires in late game.

But as time went on, in C2C and somewhat here, it began to be evident that City Limits by Civics was redundant and unnecessarily restrictive,to have Civics place arbitrary number of cities attached to civics. You can only have 3 cities while on Chiefdom or 9 on Monarchy, etc. The whole premise to reduce player and AI expansion by using a set number of cities allowed per a Civic choice was found to be suboptimal game play and outright exclusionary for different play styles. But perhaps you share the same opinion like os79's, if players don't like it tough, goodbye. Perhaps?

Impo, all instances of trying to limit both Player and AI by forcing them to have a limited # of cities is counterproductive to any mod and should be completely removed.

As for FB, I've debated with you over them in the past.

My 2 cents and 4+ years of dealing with some of these Options to keep the game/mod(s) from being exclusionary to some.

JosEPh

JosEPh_II said:

+1 on the highlighted red

@Afforess,
No City Limits on Civics is Not a Cheat out of a Civic. Never has been. It was designed for those that prefer the Expansionist way of play like darkedone02 and myself. It came from many many hard debates with the C2C team, that like you wanted to curb both Player (at first) and then AI expansionist types. ( But yet Leaders Traits were enhanced with many having the Expansionist trait, a real contradiction there. )

Then City Limits by Map size AS an Option was introduced into C2C. For those that prefer your way of play, minimal early cities and limited empires in late game.

But as time went on, in C2C and somewhat here, it began to be evident that City Limits by Civics was redundant and unnecessarily restrictive,to have Civics place arbitrary number of cities attached to civics. You can only have 3 cities while on Chiefdom or 9 on Monarchy, etc. The whole premise to reduce player and AI expansion by using a set number of cities allowed per a Civic choice was found to be suboptimal game play and outright exclusionary for different play styles. But perhaps you share the same opinion like os79's, if players don't like it tough, goodbye. Perhaps?

Click to expand...

I don't get your opinion here at all. Chiefdom is the only civic with a city limit, and the tech to replace it comes very quickly. I have never advocated using it elsewhere. Your complaints don't make any sense.

JosEPh_II said:

As for FB, I've debated with you over them in the past.

Click to expand...

And I agreed the option should remain.

JosEPh_II said:

My 2 cents and 4+ years of dealing with some of these Options to keep the game/mod(s) from being exclusionary to some.

JosEPh

Click to expand...

It seems like you are intentionally making an issue out of minor things.

Afforess said:

I don't get your opinion here at all. Chiefdom is the only civic with a city limit, and the tech to replace it comes very quickly. I have never advocated using it elsewhere. Your complaints don't make any sense.

Click to expand...

Perhaps because you were not here when they were on other Gov't Civic choices. Nor were you with me in C2C when this was being developed. Iirc 45* only took part of it.

Afforess said:

<snip>


It seems like you are intentionally making an issue out of minor things.

Click to expand...

If you fail to see what I'm saying I can't help that. I tried to make it clear and concise. Obviously I failed to do so for you. And I would not have answered at all if I felt they were minor. Difference of opinions and perspective then?

JosEPh

@ os79, MY way or the highway, eh?

@ Afforess, Why would it be so difficult to place the "less popular" options into the Bug so that everyone can play the game that they enjoy. After all that is why they were introduced in the first place.

@JosEPh, Thanks man, for keeping an eye out for "us fringe players". As for me I like to vary the features of each new game to keep it fresh and have a different experience.

oldnooob said:

@ os79, MY way or the highway, eh?

Click to expand...

Eh, that was a mistaken impression I made. I'm with Afforess in culling "cheat" options and tweaking options for easier accessibility. That's it.

However, do remember that while I might have strong opinions, ultimately the design of the modpack is up to the devs.

JosEPh_II said:

Perhaps because you were not here when they were on other Gov't Civic choices. Nor were you with me in C2C when this was being developed. Iirc 45* only took part of it.

Click to expand...

This isn't C2C. There are no plans to expand city limits to other civics. I can see no logical reason to keep No City Limits for the sake of cheating past the limit on the very first civic. In fact, I agree with your concerns about city limits being a poor mechanic. I would like to keep it on only the first government civic to encourage players to switch out of the defaults. I do not think city limits should be anywhere else other than starting civics. This is why I am confused, because at a basic level we fundamentally agree on the topic, yet you are arguing against me.

oldnooob said:

@ Afforess, Why would it be so difficult to place the "less popular" options into the Bug so that everyone can play the game that they enjoy. After all that is why they were introduced in the first place.

Click to expand...

I feel like you haven't read my posts. See this one:

Afforess said:

I think the goal here should be creating a minimal set of options and default settings so that new players enjoy the game the most. Reduction for reduction's sake is absurd.

Some options shouldn't exist (they are basically cheating), some might be best merged to cut down on confusion, and others are fine as they are.

Click to expand...

Nowhere have I "endorsed" the removal of all these options.

Afforess said:

This isn't C2C. There are no plans to expand city limits to other civics. I can see no logical reason to keep No City Limits for the sake of cheating past the limit on the very first civic. In fact, I agree with your concerns about city limits being a poor mechanic. I would like to keep it on only the first government civic to encourage players to switch out of the defaults. I do not think city limits should be anywhere else other than starting civics. This is why I am confused, because at a basic level we fundamentally agree on the topic, yet you are arguing against me.



<snip>

Click to expand...

All I can say is that was not the impression I got from the posts from you over this. If we agree in principle then we have a common ground to work with.

I can live with it if only on the 1st Civic, but personally I would rather it was not even used on it. I think other means are available to get both AI and Player off the 1st Civic asap per game play. And wholeheartedly agree that the Option No City Limits by Civics can be removed as long as City Limits by any means does not resurface in the mod.

JosEPh

Personally I never use the No City limits option but I say we keep it for people who first play the mod.

There is one game option that i wished for is a option to disable all sucidial perks... i dislike it when my units get the kamakazi perk, i hate it that no matter what your units with this perk dies, defense or offense...

darkedone02 said:

There is one game option that i wished for is a option to disable all sucidial perks... i dislike it when my units get the kamakazi perk, i hate it that no matter what your units with this perk dies, defense or offense...

Click to expand...

You do know that you have to give the unit that promotion right? Unit's don't just get it standard.

Lord Bigfoot said:

You do know that you have to give the unit that promotion right? Unit's don't just get it standard.

Click to expand...

If you have Automated promotions or the advanced combat BUG options that promote your units based on how well they do in combat, the game might pick those suicidal promotions whether you want them or not.

Rezca said:

If you have Automated promotions or the advanced combat BUG options that promote your units based on how well they do in combat, the game might pick those suicidal promotions whether you want them or not.

Click to expand...

Ok first off who actually uses those options? Second off if that's the case then there needs to be something that prevents that from happening.

Lord Bigfoot said:

Ok first off who actually uses those options? Second off if that's the case then there needs to be something that prevents that from happening.

Click to expand...

I've seen several people say that they use the automated promotions, and I always play with Battlefield Promotions on. Basically promotes units based on how well they do in combat, so if a Melee unit managed to beat several archers in a city siege, he might get promoted to Cover I after the battle.

Unfortunately, sometimes they get promoted to Fanatic at times as well

Rezca said:

I've seen several people say that they use the automated promotions, and I always play with Battlefield Promotions on. Basically promotes units based on how well they do in combat, so if a Melee unit managed to beat several archers in a city siege, he might get promoted to Cover I after the battle.

Unfortunately, sometimes they get promoted to Fanatic at times as well

Click to expand...

There needs to be a list of promotions that can only be chosen manually so that doesn't happen then.

I like all the promotions except the sucidal ones... fanatics ok-ish but i rather not have kamakazi... that's why I request an option to turn off sucidal promotions so that I never get kamakazi or other suicidal promotions.

Could the game options perhaps be set up so that all options that aren't broken / AI doesn't understand are still player changeable, but will default to whatever settings the mod developers think is best? Options the AI doesn't understand or that are considered "cheat" would be removed, but all others would remain, perhaps moved for clarity? Ie I can still change whatever I want, but it will default to the "recommended" settings until I switch it.

Anyway IMO a feature AI doesn't understand should not be completely removed. It should just be used with caution. There's at least one case where it could be useful: multiplayer. Just because AI doesnt' know how to use it, it doesn't mean it would be fun using it in multiplayer. Since MP is something that we want to work at its best at some point, I wouldn't completely remove something just because AI isn't good at using it.

45°38'N-13°47'E;13356893 said:

Anyway IMO a feature AI doesn't understand should not be completely removed. It should just be used with caution. There's at least one case where it could be useful: multiplayer. Just because AI doesnt' know how to use it, it doesn't mean it would be fun using it in multiplayer. Since MP is something that we want to work at its best at some point, I wouldn't completely remove something just because AI isn't good at using it.

Click to expand...

If you go that path, I'll definitely appreciate a honest list of options that AI doesn't play with well. So I'm more secure playing a single player in knowledge I'm being fair to AI. I like Noble for that reason. At least until I finally become an insane strategist .

I don't know. Does anyone play with Storms on? Storms were Zappara's pet project, but I don't know how many still use them.

Click to expand...

True that! It is an interesting idea, but does not play well in practice. I hate that it is set to "on" by default. I sometimes forget to turn it off.