[Vote] (6-44) Balance (or Equalize % Chance of) City-State Traits

[adan_eslavo]

at 4%, a city state can only be picked 5 times, so even more complications need to be set for non-standard CS numbers (eg larger map sizes).

Yes, but remember the chances for it again increase if another type is picked up. So after 4 other pickups it would again have 4%.

It's only an idea, but it could be recalculated how it would impact the chances.

 

[pineappledan]

If the spawn rates are equalized by type, but the pool of religious CS is much smaller than, say cultural CS, doesn’t that mean we are going to be seeing the same 8 or so city-states every single game? That just seems like a new problem, and not any better than what you set out to fix.

You could just add more religious and militaristic CS into VP and keep the spawns random by ID. I think that accomplishes the same thing in a better way, because you would still have some variability in what % of types spawn each game

 

[Anarcomu]

This new system adapt to potential new CS mods which add more CS to the game, independently from which type they add (in the event they are not balanced).

 

[Rekk]

If the spawn rates are equalized by type, but the pool of religious CS is much smaller than, say cultural CS, doesn’t that mean we are going to be seeing the same 8 or so city-states every single game? That just seems like a new problem, and not any better than what you set out to fix.

You could just add more religious and militaristic CS into VP and keep the spawns random by ID. I think that accomplishes the same thing in a better way, because you would still have some variability in what % of types spawn each game

Assuming no city states get added, and Recursive's proposal passes, then you will choose 4 out of 8 religious city states every game. That's 70 different combinations.

With my proposal, it's not guaranteed that you will get 4 religious city states every game, so there's more variance.

If we just add 6 new religious city states and 6 new militaristic city states but don't force anything, then the likelihood of a game without all CS types is:

in this case, the increase of an additional 12 city states to the pool does a huge amount for equalizing. It's actually super interesting and I'm surprised that it's so much lower. I would have expected this version to be more similar to my 20% chance version. It makes me think I did the calculation incorrectly for my proposal.

 

[pineappledan]

I don’t look at the combination of the city states, I only consider them by themselves. “Oh, it’s the Vatican again”

16 CS on standard of 5 types, that’s 3.2 city states per type every game. With 8 different religious and military CS, each of those 2 types of CS will have a 40% chance of appearing in every game vs the current 28% chance of seeing them (16/58)

With @hinin’s proposal to add more city-states specifically in a mix that makes all types have equal numbers in their respective pools, I really don’t know what this proposal accomplishes. I guess what it does is establish some guardrails and constrain variability in each game.

I don’t know why I should want that. Both proposals, to varying degrees, are going to make 1 game look more like another w.r.t. The city-states involved. I would much rather equalize the pools and let the variance from game to game remain high.

 

[Rekk]

16 CS on standard of 5 types, that’s 3.2 city states per type every game. With 8 different religious and military CS, each of those 2 types of CS will have a 40% chance of appearing in every game vs the current 28% chance of seeing them (16/58)

Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but yes, the entire point is that we want to see at least one religious CS and at least one military CS per game, so increasing the likelihood of seeing each of those two types is desirable.

 

[pineappledan]

The point is moot since @Hinin ‘s proposal will pass in an hour or so, as of writing. All CS types will have the same number of CS so all types will all be equally likely with no change.

What this proposal does is purely constrain deviation from the mean. I think Hinin’s proposal alone is a better implementation of what these 2 proposals set out to do. It equalizes CS types’ spawning frequency while keeping variation high.

 

[adan_eslavo]

I don’t look at the combination of the city states, I only consider them by themselves. “Oh, it’s the Vatican again”

16 CS on standard of 5 types, that’s 3.2 city states per type every game. With 8 different religious and military CS, each of those 2 types of CS will have a 40% chance of appearing in every game vs the current 28% chance of seeing them (16/58)

With @hinin’s proposal to add more city-states specifically in a mix that makes all types have equal numbers in their respective pools, I really don’t know what this proposal accomplishes. I guess what it does is establish some guardrails and constrain variability in each game.

I don’t know why I should want that. Both proposals, to varying degrees, are going to make 1 game look more like another w.r.t. The city-states involved. I would much rather equalize the pools and let the variance from game to game remain high.

But what's the difference for you if it is Vatican City or something else, if all Religious CSs behave exactly the same way? If you do not play CSL, which adds leader heads that add first layer of differentation, and you do not play UCS which adds separate abilities for each City-State (and I do know that you don't play it, because you said so, it is too complicated), then for you it could be even named Religious 1, Religious 2 and so on and the result would be the exactly the same.

 

[Recursive]

What this proposal does is purely constrain deviation from the mean. I think Hinin’s proposal alone is a better implementation of what these 2 proposals set out to do. It equalizes CS types’ spawning frequency while keeping variation high.

With Hinin's proposal alone, there would be 20 of each City-State. If one Cultural CS is picked, the odds of another Cultural CS being picked drop to 19 (compared to 20 for the other types).

With Rekk's proposal, the odds remain at 20% regardless of how many of that type have been picked.

With my proposal, there is no randomness involved with enough City-States.

 

[adan_eslavo]

Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but yes, the entire point is that we want to see at least one religious CS and at least one military CS per game, so increasing the likelihood of seeing each of those two types is desirable.

It is not only the Religious/Militaristic problem. I was getting games without Maritime or Cultured City-States, and I suppose this problem should be resolved. Having like 6 Religious with none Maritime is a bit weird imo.

 

[pineappledan]

But what's the difference for you if it is Vatican City or something else, if all Religious CSs behave exactly the same way? If you do not play CSL, which adds leader heads that add first layer of differentation, and you do not play UCS which adds separate abilities for each City-State (and I do know that you don't play it, because you said so, it is too complicated), then for you it could be even named Religious 1, Religious 2 and so on and the result would be the exactly the same.

You are saying it is purely an aesthetic problem and so it doesn't matter. I think the aesthetics of having the same CS appear more frequently matters.

Difference of opinion I guess, but I do want to see a variety of city-states in the game, even if that is a purely aesthetic choice.

 

[adan_eslavo]

You are saying it is purely an aesthetic problem and so it doesn't matter. I think the aesthetics of having the same CS appear more frequently matters.

Difference of opinion I guess, but I do want to see a variety of city-states in the game, even if that is a purely aesthetic choice.

Probably yes. I also do care about aesthetics and variety, but in this particular problem I prefer fixing the problem over the aeasthetics. What you are implying is to keep the problem alive because aesthetics will be gone.

 

[pineappledan]

What you are implying is to keep the problem alive because aesthetics will be gone.

What I am saying is that hinin's proposal to add more city-states solves both the aesthetic and frequency problem, and so this proposal doesn't add anything of value.

 

[Rekk]

You are saying it is purely an aesthetic problem and so it doesn't matter. I think the aesthetics of having the same CS appear more frequently matters.

Difference of opinion I guess, but I do want to see a variety of city-states in the game, even if that is a purely aesthetic choice.

This isn't about aesthetics at all, in my opinion. Vatican City isn't going to appear any more frequently than Wittenburg. You're going to see Wittenburg more frequently than now, but you're also going to see Bogota less frequently than now.

For adan_enslavo's case, he wants protection even when the number of total city states isn't increased.