[Vote] (1-09) Proposal: Remove malus from healing promotion

Approval Vote for Proposal #9 (instructions below)


  • Total voters
    103
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
4,585
Location
Antarctica
Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented. You can vote for both options.

All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.

VP Congress: Session 1, Proposal 9

Proposer: @Zanteogo
Sponsor(s): @Recursive
Previous Discussion Thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...l-remove-malus-from-healing-promotion.679095/

Proposal Details
There has been a proposal to make a medic unit as well as a proposal to add a special healing promo for melee units.

However, the underline issue is that for a melee unit, taking healing promotions not only means they don't have other promos that make them better at both attacking and defending, they also become weaker while defending. For a melee unit this just pointless as their main role is as a wall to protect units that have range or mobility.

To summarize, this counterproposal is to remove the malus on all healing promotions.

Note, others have discussed perhaps removing the malus on some of the other promotions as well, though I agree, I think we should stick to one promo at a time per proposal for now.
 
If it were to pass, would it be possible to implement as a toggle option in communityoptions?

I personally think there should be a pro and con for each of the promotion trees, even to the point of completely locking out access to another line (Defense vs. Offense orientation as an example)
 
Looking at who voted yes or no, I see some names (at least one) who voted for both... How come?
 
I voted for both propositions because I am neutral so I do not want to influence the outcome.
 
Could have stay abstain to gauge people's interest. If nobody really cares if it's pass or not then it shouldn't be passed since the base is still ok-ish, and the proposal just adds extra work for potentially extra problem with no actual improvement.
 
I voted for both propositions because I am neutral so I do not want to influence the outcome.
Don't vote?
If there 3+ options I get that you can vote for 2 or less, but I don't get the point for voting on a either type of option...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4CV
Voting "don't care" is still an important vote. It means either outcome is acceptable, and serves to achieve the minimum number of votes.
If an option receives at least 10 votes in favor and more votes than any other option, it will be selected. If "no changes" got the most votes, nothing happens. If an option for changes got the most votes, it will be added to the next release of Vox Populi once the coding work for it is complete. Ties will be broken by Recursive.
(emphasis mine)

We're having good turn out so that minimum isn't a factor right now, but not voting is not the same as voting neutral.
 
No no I mean I hope you vote for all proposals you want to see implemented and against the ones you don't want to see! I think one should not be able to vote for the only 2 options avail that's all! Please vote and help the community!
 
Voting "don't care" is still an important vote. It means either outcome is acceptable, and serves to achieve the minimum number of votes.
We're having good turn out so that minimum isn't a factor right now, but not voting is not the same as voting neutral.
I'm of another opinion. If you don't care/don't have any interest, it's better to not vote to avoid creating extra work and potential problem later.
Voting for both would mean there's interest in the subject, but neither the change nor the original are acceptable, and we need to talk more about a better solution rather than just approve the slightly higher votes option.
We should have used a 2/3 approval rule instead of 50%
 
I'm of another opinion. If you don't care/don't have any interest, it's better to not vote to avoid creating extra work and potential problem later.
Voting for both would mean there's interest in the subject, but neither the change nor the original are acceptable, and we need to talk more about a better solution rather than just approve the slightly higher votes option.
We should have used a 2/3 approval rule instead of 50%
For me neutral is "Both are acceptable" (so I am ok for both) and not "Both are bad". Perhaps we need some clarifications ?
 
However, the underline issue is that for a melee unit, taking healing promotions not only means they don't have other promos that make them better at both attacking and defending, they also become weaker while defending. For a melee unit this just pointless as their main role is as a wall to protect units that have range or mobility.
Maybe medic is bad for melee units, but honestly it's pretty good for ranged units.

You only talk about melee units, so I want to clarify, this would affect all units right? Including ranged units?
 
Might ask @Recursive , but based on the rule we need a minimum amounts of votes to make sure there're enough ppl who are interested in the proposal, it's more logical that if you're not interested in either option, don't vote (better to leave as is to save effort). The multi votes was added solely for more than 3 choices poll, not for these yes/no poll.
 
My philosophy on this change is that I'd rather normalize to no penalty on Medic, then rebalance the healing amount during ratification. I trust others' experience and the sample numbers enough to think that Medic is probably not weak right now, even strong, but it definitely has a perception that it is weak. Removing that perception, then balancing the numbers accordingly is a good process and direction.
 
medic is one of the most essential promotions in the game right now on higher difficulties. It needs no buff.
 
Do you use it on melee units though? Maybe next VP Congress session this can be changed just for melee
I do not, and if I didn't make range units that could be a problem. But....I do make ranged units.

If people want to remove medic from melee units I could respect that. But we don't need to buff an already good promotion just to make it useful on more than two lines (recon/ranged).
 
Medic is currently good enough it doesn't need a buff onto its own. I only brought up the issue with medic in the first place because it doesn't sync well with other unit lines (like delaying uber promotions on ranged, or reduce tanking strength of melee) despite being on all unit lines, thus I suggested a new civilian line for it.
Now though, skirmisher can serve quite well as fast/flanking support/medic and I'm already ok with it as is and maybe remove medic from other lines except recon so newbie won't step on them accidently and find the mis-synergy.
 
Big hard No for me.

The math is clear, even on melee it’s not that much of a malus and faster unit healing is a powerful bonus. This promo does not need a buff.
 
For some reason I want to try so many permutations for this change specifically...
  1. Revert Medic I to only heal surrounding, like in vanilla (instead of self too).
  2. Remove the malus but reduce healing to 3 per turn.
  3. Leave the malus as a control.
  4. Make "promos with -15% while defending" an entire suite of themed non-frontline/supply line options, stuff like mini-generals (+5% leadership), medics, ability to build forts and roads (a la Legionnaire).
 
If I recall correctly, the reason why Medic got the CS penalty was due to its interaction with March, which also had no penalty at the time. March + Medic II was the optimal combo for a time, and both promotions got penalties to limit it.

I think it was overkill, though. Instead of having melee units affording to take only one of them, you end with melee units avoiding both of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom