Rebalancing Proposal

[Seek]

Okay, I understand where you were coming from wrt Tradition and Honor policies in your earlier statement now - thanks for clarifying.

The "New" column looks good - any thoughts on cultural border expansion?

TY for raising tech and culture costs!

 

[Thalassicus]

Basically I'm agreeing with you about policies. I've increased Tradition food and Honor happiness in the past, and okay with doing more in the future. I proposed something like it for Freedom and Autocracy in the universal policies thread.

Border expansion was overlooked in the v131.1 yield scaling, and should fit better now in v131.7. I'd be okay with increasing it further if you feel it's needed. As you pointed out earlier, I (indirectly) reduced the power of scientists and artists, so that might be enough to reduce border expansion too. Tradition and Liberty openers were also slightly nerfed.

 

[Jaybe]

The concept of wanting to be able to win the game when it still has 1/3 of its turns available is a bunch of bleep! It should be a challenge to win at 1/6, with SOME potential for a game to be won on points alone.

As a large-continents+/epic (and quite rarely by conquest) player, I find the game being won by someone around turn 500-550 to be meh.

Not sure what you mean here: you don't like it when people try to win as fast as possible, or that you think the average game should last more turns? The former is natural for many players and unlikely to change, and of course I agree with the latter.

While I DON'T like it when people try to win as fast as possible, I DO recognize it as their choice for whatever fulfillment they get from the game.

 

[Thalassicus]

After all... game speed and difficulty allow everyone to pick their preferred game-length and challenge. I've put work into balancing the average range of speeds and difficulties.

 

[Txurce]

Border expansion was overlooked in the v131.1 yield scaling, and should fit better now in v131.7. I'd be okay with increasing it further if you feel it's needed.

Apart from whether it's too much early in the game, how much separation does it leave between America's UA and everyone else? Enough to make it meaningful? Or so little that everyone has effectively acquired a partial bonus UA?

 

[Thalassicus]

I don't understand your question. Could you explain further?

 

[Txurce]

A first tile being available for 10g more-or-less mirrors what America can buy thanks to its UA. I have found myself buying a lot of the same tiles I would as America, but usually not be able to afford as any other civ. This not only effectively turns the other civs into quasi-Americas (with regard to tile acquisition) but also greatly reduces America's advantage. (I assume they now pay even less, but the basic costs are so low that I'm guessing it wouldn't seem as meaningful.)

 

[Txurce]

Originally Posted by Jaybe: Since Thal doesn't agree with the concept of negative benefits from opportunities/disasters, I would like the utilization of opps to be necessary by reducing sci/prod/cult (or increasing costs), to compensate.

Agreed.

I think this, when implemented, will be a fantastic change and have fewer reservations about it than Txurce.

Despite Thal's explanations I also still see Opportunities as net advantages, but think there are enough changes being made that they need to be re-evaluated as part of the entire package once Thal adds the AI gold-spending binge. To be clear, while I am apprehensive about the effects of this change, it is conceptually exactly the sort of change I like. Given that it offers an ideal - the AI no longer hoards - any possible needed balancing should be fairly easy by lowering AI bonuses... making it even more of a win-win, right?

 

[Thalassicus]

Ahh I understand now. It was confusing because you quoted a line about cultural border expansion, then asked about gold tile purchasing. I wasn't sure what you were talking about!

The American trait allows us to purchase twice as many tiles at the same cost. The recent changes make costs increase more as our gold income increases. These are fundamentally different. These table shows it visually:

_______________

 

[Txurce]

To put it another way, the American trait allows us to purchase twice as many tiles at the same cost. The recent changes make costs increase more as our gold income increases. It's two different concepts.

I get all that, but still conclude that if America can buy twice as much of something essentially free, the UA isn't worth what it once was. For it to stand out - and, simultaneously, for the game not to become pointlessly easier - early game tile acquisition for all other civs should be high enough to make me hesitate as much as I used to prior to v130. (That they scale up means little to me, because as I mentioned earlier, my tile purchases decrease as the game advances.)

 

[Thalassicus]

"Essentially free" is a little vague. What numbers would you like to see? The table above show the base costs. The actual cost depends on terrain, displayed below.


After 2 purchases:



After 5 purchases:


If we buy that isle tile in the sea, Washington saves 105 compared to other leaders. It's a good tile, border expansion would not reach it soon, and I feel 105 is very powerful this early in the game.

 

[Txurce]

"Essentially free" is a little vague. What numbers would you like to see? The table above show the base costs. The actual cost depends on terrain, displayed below.

If we buy that isle tile in the sea, Washington saves 105 compared to other leaders. It's a good tile, border expansion would not reach it soon, and I feel 105 is very powerful this early in the game.

Since I didn't play with v130, I missed the reason why you made any change in the first place. As I've mentioned, making it more expensive later doesn't have much of an effect, but making cheaper early does.

Assuming there was a good reason for the change, then - out of context - I would like to see approximately the pre-v130 purchase costs early in the game, and have them scale up as you see fit.

In context, the overall reduction in gold may be enough to make the difference between what Washington and others can do - 105g in your example - significant enough to keep Washington's UA as appealing as it's been.

My concern really boils down to how frequently I've been taking advantage of the cheap early prices. It make sit really easy to settle a multiple luxury-spanning site near the AI border, then buy up what I need before the AI can expand or buy his way into it.

 

[EmperorFool]

I have to agree with Txurce here. In Vanilla I would rarely buy tiles--either to get a strategic/luxury resource or cut off territory. And even then I would debate it long and hard and sometimes leave it in the hopes that I would expand to the tile before the AI. All of this because the initial costs were not cheap.

Now with the change, I buy tiles in every game to get trivial advantages because it's so damn cheap as to be free. It's not actually free, but it's essentially free. And the American discount on something that is essentially free is essentially worthless.

I would like to see the initial costs be higher. If that means scaling back the increases over time so the cost doesn't get ridiculous, fine. I was quite happy with the Vanilla purchase costs. Was there a problem with them?

 

[Thalassicus]

I missed the reason why you made any change in the first place.

Was there a problem with them?

Ah! I didn't realize you missed that. The explanation was in post #39, probably missed because the thread quickly rolled around to a new page:

I'm applying your suggestions to make gold costs match income more closely, like we did with research agreements and domestic trade. How about the column labeled "New"?

In Vanilla I would rarely buy tiles

I was quite happy with the Vanilla purchase costs. Was there a problem with them?

Other choices are clearly better when spending gold in vanilla, as you pointed out. The change shifted this to the right on the main project goal. Like the original state of ironclads, or the pyramids, something we rarely use is wasted potential.



The original change was made here:

v108.2 Beta - September 16, 2011
Cities

• Reduced tile purchase costs by 20%.

 

[Txurce]

Sorry, Thal, but I don't get it.

Regardless of that, what do you think about our underlying point?

 

[EmperorFool]

It's like Ironclads - something we rarely use is wasted potential. I find underused parts of the game and figure out ways to make it more central to gameplay.

I disagree that using it only sparingly makes it wasted. In fact, that I rarely used it made it very valuable when I needed to. So much so that I was willing to pay 200 for a single tile. Ironclads are wasted because you get access to Destroyers so quickly.

This is the problem I see with everything being so powerful. It removes much of the intelligence from the decisions. There's no wrong decision. It feels as if I can make all buy/build decisions randomly and still win. Sure, it lets me breeze through games faster, but they aren't as fun because I feel like there's no chance to lose short of an early AI war that you didn't prepare for.

 

[Thalassicus]

What you're describing is the right end of the graph I agree with you, which is why the middle of the graph is the goal.

 

[Txurce]

Thal, I read your revised answer above about wasted potential. I agree completely with EmperorFool that tile-buying seemed priced just right, meaning I really thought about it and did it only when it made sense. It was neither so cheap I did it on auto-pilot, nor something I ignored as never being worthwhile. I could only wish that the rest of the game could be balanced that well!

Edit: again, the current version is so radically cheap that I have altered my basic settling strategy because of it. If that's not a chihuahua tail wagging a mastiff, I don't know what is.

 

[Thalassicus]

Let's try discussing this from a different angle.

I typically buy ~20 tiles in an average game. How many tiles did you usually get before the recent changes?

What we find entertaining affects which parts of the game we emphasize. I'm a perfectionist and like getting ideal city sites. I use tile purchasing to round out rough edges of bad map luck. For example, the city site in the screenshot would be perfect if the isle randomly spawned just one tile closer to the sheep. That bit of bad luck annoys me, so I just buy the plot and move on. This makes the game a lot more fun for me. In previous versions I'd open the turner and fix things manually. Either approach makes the game less frustrating. Whenever I have to use the tuner to make the game less annoying, I find ways to do so through the underlying code, so the game itself is more enjoyable.

I do the same thing when AIs make dumb city placement or development decisions. It doesn't matter if it helps or hurts me, I just get annoyed by small bits of bad luck with a big impact on the game.
Do you see how this applies to my thoughts about strategic resources (territorial placement), opportunities (bad luck), icebreaking triremes (unlucky ice tile), and so on?

In short, I like fun and challenging games without bits of uncontrollable bad luck poking me like thorns in the side.

 

[Txurce]

That's a pretty funny example. Yes, I guess you are a... perfectionist! It would never cross my mind to call the atoll's location bad luck. To me, it's just where it is. (The river isn't good luck, either.) But I do start seeing the connection to some of your other decisions!

I would never dream of buying the atoll, and would just wait to acquire it culturally. Pre-v130 I bought 0-6 tiles per game, depending on the circumstances, playing with 4-8 city civs.

Adding all that up, it seems to me that you've lowered the price of tiles so you can buy them cheaply because you're a perfectionist who buys more tiles than most. I can see why that's more fun for you. For me it removes decision-making: I'm buying any tile I halfway want early on, because the downside is negligible. As I said, I'm even settling in those all-too-frequent luxuries-on-either-end spots, even if they're on the AI's border, because I can buy them all instantly and pretty much not even feel it. It has not only changed the basic way I settle, but gives me yet another unmatchable advantage over the AI.

Note that, as far as I know, no one on these threads has ever said that tiles were too expensive, or that tiles were unfairly placed outside the proper radius (i.e., bad luck).