Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,255
I just find it disturbing the AI doesn't know how to win besides culture; it just happens to build a spaceship due to luck rather than planning. :S
The soapbox aside, I appreciate that in general, there's a problem with developers patching bugs without any concern for the possibility that the bug makes the game better. But I also appreciate there's also a problem with players whining about patches without any concern for the possibility that the bug makes the game worse.What I dislike is blanket and nonsensical removals of some things on the sole basis that experts use it to do well in unexpected ways (without testing it or considering costs whatsoever), while leaving things that are stronger in the game and completely ignoring the basics.
They probably chose gold because it's something you could have done otherwise via building wealth. (neglecting the bug that lets you benefit from wonder bonuses)Just thinking, there are tons of alternatives, I wonder why they chose to go with gold
Ah, the old joke.[*]Failure results in a diplo bonus (Either "We sympathise with your cultural loss " or "Your pathetic attempt to build that wonder has entertained us! ") with one or all civs.
The outcome is actually unbalanced and needs to be nerfed.
Thank you. I did not know that. All I play is buffy.@Htadus
if you would play plain 3.19 game without any mods, you won't get any gold from OF whipping warriors.
Doesn't work with overflow being bugged in 3.19. Used to work.
It's certainly not unbalanced. Most games, failgold is a (slightly earlier, slightly weaker) version of building wealth. 9/52 leaders are IND, and failgold is one of the things keeping IND competitive; take it away, and IND would be a bit on the weak side. Sometimes you'll get marble or stone in a game (1/3 games?); then it is a big boost to your economy. But that's not because failgold is strong; that's because marble and stone are strong. Perhaps too strong - I might have been happier if they gave a 50% boost to production instead of 100% - but given that they're fairly uncommon resources that often take a real sacrifice of getting an early weaker city to secure them, I'm OK with the current balance.
The problem being of course the treatment of wonder-specific production bonuses. Promoting the current implementation of failgold requires defending the principle that
at seemingly random periods of time you can build wealth more effectively.
having advanced civs get a temporary boost in their wealth production efficiency which backwards civs won't get, even if they reach the same tech-level as the advanced civ had when it got the bonus, seems unnecessary.
This only becomes a significant issue if it is (ab?)used to the max by even more micro involving chops and whip overflow. The AI is not smart enough to do this
I appreciate that in general, there's a problem with developers patching bugs without any concern for the possibility that the bug makes the game better.
They probably chose gold because it's something you could have done otherwise via building wealth.
In the latter, aiming for a wonder is a strategic risk, with the potential for great* reward, with the danger of your effort being wasted. Planning goes into making sure that you will succeed for the wonders you want, and identifying when you're unlikely to succeed. The consolation prize for failure is to tweak how painful the penalty for failure is.
In the former, however, building a wonder is a strictly positive* investment. Planning is centered around making sure one is available when desired, and influencing which of the possible outcomes you get.
*: these is situational, of course
The outcome is actually unbalanced and needs to be nerfed.
And Obsolete, the forest-fail-gold economy is basically a hammer economy, that's TWICE AS EFFECTIVE AND IT CAN USE FORESTS FOR COMMERCE. So any strategies that use hammer economies can also use the forest-fail-gold economy.