[Vote] (1-25) Change The Distribution For CS Quests Asking For A Number Of Buildings In The Empire

[Delvemor]

I think this is a straight up difficulty reducer for the sake of it. Statecraft/any CS play is very easy and extremely powerful already. Picking hotel as an example is extremely bad, as 90% of the time CS will ask for a building you need like markets, walls, etc. If you don't want a building, just finish one of them in any of your cities and you won't get the quest. This change will lead to unearned wonders for the player. You should be supposed to take an effort/additional cost for quest that gives not only production but also CS influence.

I'm fighting the lost battle here, but this proposal is just bad in my opinion.

It's not that big of a deal, you will still get "what you want" 25% of the time instead of 50% of the time. I did acknowledge that those quests can be very easy to complete sometimes, and if it's beneath you that's all right. If you see timing those quests to get a boost for a wonder as an exploit simply ignore them. Your own experience of the game will not be affected.

 

[josh4]

Your own experience of the game will not be affected.

Difficulty will be affected and that's all I care about.

 

[Delvemor]

Difficulty will be affected and that's all I care about.

Are you saying you care about other people experience too? You can choose to play on Deity AND ignore the building quests, while someone else might be playing on prince and time those quests for wonders. Why do you care about what other players do in their own games?

 

[josh4]

Yeah, we can also remove any AI bonuses/discount and I may ignore that I am winning on deity, because someone else is playing prince and he wants an easier game. If proposal are to be just making difficulty easier, that's a wrong direction and I can express that opinion.

 

[Delvemor]

If proposal are to be just making difficulty easier, that's a wrong direction and I can express that opinion.

I understand your point, but do you get mine? Nothing prevents you from ignoring CS entirely, not going Statecraft, and even not building any wonder at all if you want to. It's a single player experience and you can self-impose things to yourself to make the game more difficult. I do it all the time in XCOM 2. For example I would never use a mimic beacon because I think it's silly, but at the same time I don't care if somebody else relies on it for their own campaign.

 

[Stalker0]

I understand your point, but do you get mine? Nothing prevents you from ignoring CS entirely, not going Statecraft, and even not building any wonder at all if you want to. It's a single player experience and you can self-impose things to yourself to make the game more difficult. I do it all the time in XCOM 2. For example I would never use a mimic beacon because I think it's silly, but at the same time I don't care if somebody else relies on it for their own campaign.

That's not really a valid argument. Some CS quests are very difficult to ignore, so the point is fair. Now I don't agree with that point, but I understand the platform its based off of.

 

[josh4]

I understand your point, but do you get mine? Nothing prevents you from ignoring CS entirely, not going Statecraft, and even not building any wonder at all if you want to. It's a single player experience and you can self-impose things to yourself to make the game more difficult. I do it all the time in XCOM 2. For example I would never use a mimic beacon because I think it's silly, but at the same time I don't care if somebody else relies on it for their own campaign.

?? Are you seriously suggesting something like ignore a certain playstyle? That means you don't understand my point. It means you don't care about balance and difficulty. You care only about easier access to CS quest reward at lower cost to you. It upsets balance, for some games very much as you might get half of a wonder much easier which could be impossible now. It is not me trying to enforce die hard difficult rules on others. It is you trying to make an already beneficial mechanic easier.

 

[Delvemor]

You're the one claiming Statecraft/CS play is already too easy and powerful. It's up to you to decide for yourself how far you're willing to benefit from it, just like Stalker0 decided to have a no SOI challenge. You can also decide to include Austria an an AI whenever you're willing to go for a diplomatic victory. The proposal is not a major change, not comparable at all to what made the new Great Engineer so good now.

 

[Amask]

If your rebuttal to something being too good is "don't use it" then honestly you have no business participating in any balance discussions.

Moderator Action: Please be less aggressive in your tone. All players are welcome to participate in discussions. - Recursive

 

[Delvemor]

If your rebuttal to something being too good is "don't use it" then honestly you have no business participating in any balance discussions.

That's not exactly what I said. Is it even the case that Statecraft or CS quests are too strong to begin with? It remains to be seen. Anyone convinced that it does make the game too easy can choose to abstain from using that mechanic or at least limit it because they want a bigger challenge. I don't see anything wrong there. Many people disable ancient ruins, the events system, espionage, vassalage and raging barbarians while playing Authority.

 

[CppMaster]

That's not exactly what I said. Is it even the case that Statecraft or CS quests are too strong to begin with? It remains to be seen. Anyone convinced that it does make the game too easy can choose to abstain from using that mechanic or at least limit it because they want a bigger challenge. I don't see anything wrong there. Many people disable ancient ruins, the events system, espionage, vassalage and raging barbarians while playing Authority.

Yeah, but you may even not know that sth is OP. It's always better to have more balanced game than not.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.