(10a) Counterproposal: Make Warlord Bonus Neutral, Settler Easier, Rework Difficulty Levels and Barbarians

Status
Not open for further replies.

rkkn

Warlord
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
188
Regarding all the comments about Deity being too easy - I honestly don't think removing their unit supply bonus is going to make that much of a difference
I don't either. But I DO think that removing the event-triggered free instant yields will make a big difference.
While I would be quite glad to see them removed, I do think they need a replacement. Using "replacement" very loosely, since the replacement doesn't need to be even in the same category. Just anything to up the difficulty.

that said, "make Deity (and Immortal) harder" can very easily just be a separate proposal
 

Legen

Emperor
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
1,151
AI Periodic Yield Bonuses
The amount of yields gained on difficulties above Warlord is calculated as follows:

Yield Bonus = DifficultyBonusBase * (DifficultyBonusA + (DifficultyBonusB * Era) + (DifficultyBonusC * Era * Era)) / 100 (rounded down)
Era = current game (average) era, counting Ancient and Classical as era #1, Medieval as era #2, etc.

The types of yields granted for each trigger are as follows (no Production bonus anymore, Food yield is divided amongst all of the AI's cities):
  • Enters a new era (3x normal bonus; Food, Gold, Golden Age Points, Science, Culture)
  • Founds its original capital (Gold, Golden Age Points)
  • Founds a new city, other than its capital (Food, Gold, Golden Age Points, Science, Culture)
  • Wins a war (warscore 25+) (Food, Gold, Golden Age Points, Science, Culture)
  • Starts a Golden Age (Food, Gold, Science, Culture)
  • Constructs a World Wonder (Gold, Golden Age Points)
  • Generates a Great Person (Gold, Golden Age Points)
  • Completes an antiquity site dig by building a Landmark or extracting an artifact (Gold)
  • Completes a trade route to another civilization or City-State (Gold)
I suggest removing the :c5goldenage: GAP from the triggers. I think it is part of why AI Brazil has performed so well in the AI tests. That civ completely changes the value of :c5goldenage: GAP as a yield.
 

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
3,880
Location
Antarctica
I suggest removing the :c5goldenage: GAP from the triggers. I think it is part of why AI Brazil has performed so well in the AI tests. That civ completely changes the value of :c5goldenage: GAP as a yield.
Am reluctant to change the difficulty system based on one civ's performance. Better to change that individual civ.

Feel free to make a proposal for next session, though.
 

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
3,880
Location
Antarctica
Proposal Sponsors: Recursive.

(Sponsors have indicated that they are able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well. A proposal without a sponsor will not advance to the Voting Phase.)
 

Legen

Emperor
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
1,151
Am reluctant to change the difficulty system based on one civ's performance. Better to change that individual civ.

Feel free to make a proposal for next session, though.
I have an idea for the next session. For now, I'll wait.
 

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
9,559
My issue with this one is it’s hitting too many pies.

You have a Barb proposal and a bonus neutral proposal and a difficulty readjustment, and a change to unit supply (which will make higher difficulties substantially easier), etc.

There are things I like in this proposal and things I don’t, and so it’s all or nothing nature is probably found to be a no vote from me
 

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
9,559
@azum4roll says that high unit supply is an active detriment to the AI.
I have but a single datapoint, but I tried it out on one emperor game in the recent version, and in that game the AI was a kitten compared to what I’m used to. I steamrolled the ai with barely a whimper.

I don’t see how high supply would be a detriment when the ai already runs out of things to build
 

youngsteve

Prince
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
568
Location
England
My issue with this one is it’s hitting too many pies.

You have a Barb proposal and a bonus neutral proposal and a difficulty readjustment, and a change to unit supply (which will make higher difficulties substantially easier), etc.

There are things I like in this proposal and things I don’t, and so it’s all or nothing nature is probably found to be a no vote from me

That being said we do need a neutral difficulty as suggested here. I will being supporting this proposal as well as your one regarding Chieftain level being neutral, so hopefully at least one will make it.
 

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
3,880
Location
Antarctica
My issue with this one is it’s hitting too many pies.

You have a Barb proposal and a bonus neutral proposal and a difficulty readjustment, and a change to unit supply (which will make higher difficulties substantially easier), etc.

There are things I like in this proposal and things I don’t, and so it’s all or nothing nature is probably found to be a no vote from me
Understandable. My reasoning for combining these is that they're interlinked - Barbarian Bonuses and unit supply and BarbCampGold and difficulty levels are all related to each other.

Furthermore, by reworking the difficulty system in a way that naturally scales up while appealing to each of our various market segments, it will be easier to modify it in the future if it needs adjustment. I'm not removing any code, and values can be adjusted in further proposals.

I an expecting further tweaks after playtesting, actually, and am definitely open to supporting those.

I will also note that improvements have been made to city production AI so more units are built when needed. Removing supply bonuses helps the devs improve AI intelligence if it's underperforming.
 

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
9,559
That being said we do need a neutral difficulty as suggested here. I will being supporting this proposal as well as your one regarding Chieftain level being neutral, so hopefully at least one will make it.
Honestly, I consider that a terrible methodology for voting. This is the classic problem in american politics, the notion of the "rider". Basically someone proposes a law that is generally "good", but then someone slips in a little extra (called a rider) that gives a kickback to some business, or XYZ. People feel compelled to vote yes for the law in order to get the main "good" through, but in doing so bring a lot of baggage along with it.

If you want a neutral difficulty great, I put in a proposal just for that. If you don't like mine, understandable, then enter a different proposal. If you like all of recursive's changes, great, vote for that. But if you are voting for recursive's sweeping changes (and they are some big changes) JUST to sneak in that neutral difficulty bonus....that mentality is going to lead to a lot of bloat in the mod.
 

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
3,880
Location
Antarctica
If you want a neutral difficulty great, I put in a proposal just for that. If you don't like mine, understandable, then enter a different proposal. If you like all of recursive's changes, great, vote for that. But if you are voting for recursive's sweeping changes (and they are some big changes) JUST to sneak in that neutral difficulty bonus....that mentality is going to lead to a lot of bloat in the mod.
Approval voting safeguards against that, in that someone can make a trimmed down counterproposal and people can vote for the things they want without the things they don't want. I even sponsored your proposal for fairness here. :)

And keep in mind the ratification, too.
 

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
9,559
Approval voting safeguards against that, in that someone can make a trimmed down counterproposal and people can vote for the things they want without the things they don't want. I even sponsored your proposal for fairness here. :)

And keep in mind the ratification, too.
Absolutely true....if someone makes that trimmed down proposal. That is what I was getting at, I am encouraging people NOT to agree to large blanket proposals just to get a few items in, if they just want those items, take a little time and make a proposal. That is far better for the game than just agreeing to sweeping changes rather than taking the time to make the proposal you really want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom