[Vote] (2-08) Reduce Mine Yields Proposals

[Recursive]

Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" for every proposal you'd be okay with if it were implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if these proposals weren't implemented. You can vote for any number of 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 2, Proposal 8
Discussion Thread: (2-08) Proposal: Reduce Mine Yields
Proposer: @CrazyG
Sponsor: @balparmak

Proposal Details
The forge currently gives +2 production to mines. I propose it gives just +1 instead.

As is mines on empty hills are very powerful tiles, they can often reach more yields than tiles with resources and make lumber mills obsolete.


VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 8a
Discussion Thread: (2-08a) Counterproposal: Reduce Mine Yields
Proposer: @ma_kuh
Sponsor: @balparmak

Proposal Details
Forge gives +2 to mines on resources.
Forge gives +2 +1 to mines without resources.


VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 8b
Discussion Thread: (2-08b) Counterproposal: Reduce Mine Yields
Proposer: @balparmak
Sponsor: @balparmak

Proposal Details
- Forge gives +2 to mines on resources only.
- Forge gives +1 for every 2 mines worked by the city.

This was also @ma_kuh's idea from the original thread, I like how it parallels the other "+1 yield for 2 improvement" effect of other buildings.

 

[pineappledan]

@balparmak, just checking, but are you confident you can actually code this?

Adding different yield amounts on improvements based on if they have a resource is new code. You're confident you want to go through with adding a new table for this 1 change?

 

[Rekk]

@balparmak, just checking, but are you confident you can actually code this?

Adding different yield amounts on improvements based on if they have a resource is new code. You're confident you want to go through with adding a new table for this 1 change?

Given that balparmak doesn't do dll work, this would likely end up implemented without dll as a big resource bloat, giving +2 +1 to every mine resource (although that would be unrelated to whether or not the resource was improved, I think).

 

[pineappledan]

Don't you mean +1 to each mine resource, and then an additional +1 to mines?

That's what I figure will happen, yeah. I expect @CrazyG's original proposal to more-or-less win by default

 

[Rekk]

Don't you mean +1 to each mine resource, and then an additional +1 to mines?

That's what I figure will happen, yeah. I expect @CrazyG's original proposal to more-or-less win by default

Depends on whether we are talking about 8a or 8b, but sure.

 

[pineappledan]

Depends on whether we are talking about 8a or 8b, but sure.

8b is completely new behaviour. We don’t have anything in the game that works like that. I also imagine it would be a substantial performance hit.

The closest thing to it is abilities that count nearby terrain, but we have nothing that scales off improvements.

The only proposals that aren’t new code are 8 and Nay; 8a and 8b look rather complex and difficult to implement as these things go as well. It hardly seems worth the effort

 

[Rekk]

Ah, or current implementation includes features and trains, not the improvements that 8b requires.

 

[Stalker0]

Ah, or current implementation includes features and trains, not the improvements that 8b requires.

Correct. The simplier way to implement this is to have the forge provide +1 prod to all of the mineable resources. That’s a bit stronger than the proposal, but still not as strong overall as the OG forge.

 

[Rekk]

Correct. The simplier way to implement this is to have the forge provide +1 prod to all of the mineable resources. That’s a bit stronger than the proposal, but still not as strong overall as the OG forge.

Given that balparmak doesn't do dll work, this would likely end up implemented without dll as a big resource bloat, giving +2 +1 to every mine resource (although that would be unrelated to whether or not the resource was improved, I think).

Yep.

 

[azum4roll]

Well, that would give every mine resource a second boost from buildings. All resources (except Banana, which doesn't have a base yield) only have exactly 1 building that boost them (if the oil well proposal passes). This will make exceptions.

 

[pineappledan]

Sponsors writing cheques they can't cash. Not sure what this vote even means now.

I don't think giving +1 to unimproved mine resources is acceptable. In addition to not being what people voted for, listing all resources affected is going to cause text bloat.

 

[Stalker0]

Sponsors writing cheques they can't cash. Not sure what this vote even means now.

I don't think giving +1 to unimproved mine resources is acceptable. In addition to not being what people voted for, listing all resources affected is going to cause text bloat.

The forge's text isn't too bad right now and already includes a clause for iron anyway, so you just need to add int eh other resources. It won't even be close to the largest text tooltip we have.

Ultimately a +1 to unimproved mine resources is "close" to what people voted for, it stays with the spirit of "nerf forge, but not too much". I think its probably reasonable enough to go through ratification and see if people don't like it.

I can respect that its not the letter of the proposal so if its not workable in its current form we drop it, though I'm not in agreement with it in all cases I think that is a reasonable position to take. This comes back to the question of... "how much leniency do we give devs to accomplish the spirit versus the letter of the proposal when there are technical constraints?"

 

[pineappledan]

I was more thinking this poll should be reset, with new poll options:
Mines reduced to +1
Mines reduced to +1 AND +1 to Gold/Silver/Diamonds/copper/salt/Iron/Coal/Aluminum
Nay (mines stay at +2)

 

[Stalker0]

I was more thinking this poll should be reset, with new poll options:
Mines reduced to +1
Mines reduced to +1 AND +1 to Gold/Silver/Diamonds/copper/salt/Iron/Coal/Aluminum
Nay (mines stay at +2)

Also reasonable.

 

[azum4roll]

I was more thinking this poll should be reset, with new poll options:
Mines reduced to +1
Mines reduced to +1 AND +1 to Gold/Silver/Diamonds/copper/salt/Iron/Coal/Aluminum
Nay (mines stay at +2)

Why do you always forget Gems Oh wait you said Diamonds

 

[balparmak]

Sponsors writing cheques they can't cash. Not sure what this vote even means now.

I don't think giving +1 [IMG alt=""]https://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/civ5/production.png[/IMG] to unimproved mine resources is acceptable. In addition to not being what people voted for, listing all resources affected is going to cause text bloat.

Given that balparmak doesn't do dll work, this would likely end up implemented without dll as a big resource bloat, giving +2 +1 to every mine resource (although that would be unrelated to whether or not the resource was improved, I think).

I've done plenty, the proposal is as it reads.