[Vote] (5-13) Ancient Ruin Change Proposals

[CppMaster]

the proposed rewards are all equally unimpressive.

They could be all equally impressive, though, instead of some impressive and some unimpressive.

 

[Hawawaa]

Ah didn't realize ai could only pick goodies with recon only, so it should be the same with human player.

 

[Rekk]

Aye, a game of tic tac toe, perfectly balanced.

Who here seriously claims they won or lost a game cuz they did or didn't get a particular ruin bonus in turn 5?

This change is a little silly. Can it be implemented in such a way that we can modmod back to vanilla rewards (ie not hard-coded at dll level)? As pointed out, proposal here is a shift to boringness and mundanity for the sake of math.

Yes, this is just an SQL change.

 

[Tekamthi]

They could be all equally impressive, though, instead of some impressive and some unimpressive.

yes; I suppose this becomes somewhat subjective, perhaps most here feel that a few generic beakers is impressive -- in any case the current roster of rewards is a much-muted form of what these rewards have typically been in prior civ iterations. Given that we've removed the barbs that used to appear from huts in past titles, perhaps the argument could be made that they average out similarly now, i am not sure, but they strike me as much more of a routine collection/reward as they evolve in VP.

There was a time in my civ career where I recall having to consider whether to bring in backup units before claiming a goody hut, or risk going for a lucky roll immediately on arrival -- while the RNG involved is unideal, there was something exciting about this.

 

[N.Core]

What I dislike about some of these changes in this proposal is that we're changing some unique stuff to "yet another yield reward" which is boring. Thankfully it can be reverted.

 

[Tekamthi]

What I dislike about some of these changes in this proposal is that we're changing some unique stuff to "yet another yield reward" which is boring. Thankfully it can be reverted.

This is a concise way to put it.

With status-quo rewards I still enjoy manually playing the first few turns with my recon, trying to guess where the next goody hut is hidden based on the map geography, hoping for one of the bigger payouts (ie the non-yield rewards) and/or adjusting my early strategy to adapt to any advantages that emerge. With relatively flattened yield-only rewards I will probably just auto-recon my pathfinder from turn 0.

I wonder, since their eyes will be on it anyway, if sponsor could pull out the existing rewards sql/xml while they're implementing this change? not sure how its deployed but if its all in one block, just paste here or in main forum and I will make a modmod from it. Thanks for considering!

 

[pineappledan]

The fly in the ointment is treasure hunter.

If you want recon units to get MORE than other units for ruins then ruins need to give numerical rewards. And that’s what proposal 18 does

If you want recon units to be the ONLY ones to get ruins then treasure hunter can be removed and non-numerical rewards can stay. That’s what proposal 18a does.

It sounds to me like users are conflating the two proposals and confusing themselves, concocting a fictional worst-of-both-worlds proposal in their minds than getting mad about it. I would encourage people to take a breathe and re-read each proposal. Both proposals take opposite approaches to fix the problem with treasure hunter; the community is being given the choice to keep non-numerical bonuses or keep treasure hunter.

Either change is preferable to the current situation.

 

[Tekamthi]

If you want recon units to get MORE than other units for ruins then ruins need to give numerical rewards. And that’s what proposal 18 does

If you want recon units to be the ONLY ones to get ruins then treasure hunter can be removed removed and non-numerical rewards can stay. That’s what proposal 18a does.

As I read them, both seem to do away with non-numerical rewards, unless I'm not understanding what you mean here. I would vote for a change to recon-only goody huts with status quo rewards, but both options here also incl. shift to yield-based rewards

 

[pineappledan]

18a keeps the +1 pop ruin and the free tiles ruins. It only removes free tech and replaces it with for separate reasons that he cites which have nothing to do with it being a numerical bonus.

 

[CppMaster]

How about if every unit could pick ruins, but treasure hunters would just get a 2 rewards? Like for example 2 random techs instead of 1. Or 1 random tech and +1 Pop.

 

[Anarcomu]

How about if every unit could pick ruins, but treasure hunters would just get a 2 rewards? Like for example 2 random techs instead of 1. Or 1 random tech and +1 Pop.

Interesting idea, I would personally prefer two random different rewards.

 

[CppMaster]

Interesting idea, I would personally prefer two random different rewards.

#metoo

 

[rkkn]

That makes it a nice tradeoff. You get a tech but not necessarily the one you want.

or rather it's always one you don't want

The free tech will always be one that you aren't currently researching. This leads to some weird and dumb gameplay for optimizing it: Every time you're about to grab a ruin, swap to whichever tech you want to not get. Then swap back after you grab it.

 

[Zuizgond]

If we get with option 5-18 or status quo, we might as well give treasure hunter to pathfinders because if you haven't find a ruin that upgrades your PF to scout, all ruins have already been found when you finally learn sailing in a pangea game.

 

[Jozrael]

I wish 18a rebalanced experience as well, in case you don't enable the custom mod option.