[Vote] (2-40) Amphitheater Split

[rkkn]

amended proposal, because apparently I have to list every aspect of a building or policy or else people will construe that as me removing those parts of them, rather than leaving them as no change.

no one can read your mind through the internet. For most of the other things you are listing them as changes, saying things like "Increase X", "Remove X", etc. And sometimes even throw in "X unchanged". But then here you just list out the effects as if this is the new effect. So of course it can be taken that way.

Anyway, 5 buildings to 3 is still a significant nerf, though less outlandish.

 

[AndreyK]

I still don't like a big nerf to FoM. Only 3 buildings and coming much later still cuts in half at least.

 

[pineappledan]

I actually forgot that Faith of the Masses allows you to buy Stadiums (but none of the other buildings in that line, like Arena or Zoo). Now that I have written it down, however, that's probably a fair nerf. The Stadium is way, way stronger than it used to be, and has much larger on-construction bonuses than it did when FotM was initially designed. It probably shouldn't be instant-purchaseable.

In my other proposal for a Museum split, I proposed to move the archaeologist unlock onto Museum, which would make instant-buying them more valuable, because you can deploy archeologists faster.

 

[AndreyK]

I think it's not stadiums, but big hit is amphitheaters for FoM.

 

[pineappledan]

amphitheaters is more of a swap with this new scriptorium. Opera House and Stadiums are the buildings that are dropped in FoM. Amphitheaters unlock so early that it's virtually impossible to reform before you have already built amphitheaters.

Divine Teaching/Jesuit Education unlocks 3 buildings, and its first unlock is universities in medieval, not libraries in classical.

 

[rkkn]

Amphitheaters unlock so early that it's virtually impossible to reform before you have already built amphitheaters.

Not if you are still expanding. The main benefit is ability to buy these buildings in newer weaker cities.
Additionally, it still gives the bonus culture even if it's already built, so that bonus is getting lost.

Divine Teaching/Jesuit Education unlocks 3 buildings, and its first unlock is universities in medieval, not libraries in classical.

it's also got a different secondary boost, so it's not a 1:1 comparison
I agree that the symmetry is nice, though, so FotM could get some other compensatory change that still preserves that

 

[pineappledan]

it's also got a different secondary boost, so it's not a 1:1 comparison
I agree that the symmetry is nice, though, so FotM could get some other compensatory change that still preserves that

I have an entire mod dedicated to rebalancing and redistributing bonuses on reformation beliefs. In it, I moved the +2 to world wonders onto FotM.

Maybe I'll propose implementing some of those rebalances at a later time, but for now I consider larger changes to reformations out of scope.

it's also got a different secondary boost, so it's not a 1:1 comparison

Yeah, DT's secondary bonus is worse. And it's a weaker yield.

 

[CrazyG]

He claimed I am proposing to remove the happiness bonus. I wasn't proposing that; I just didn't mention something I wasn't proposing to change.

I think he had an honest misunderstanding. Either way, it should apply to the amphitheater and opera house. If this scriptorium is added, faith of the masses should still apply to the amphitheater (civil service is so much later than Drama and Poetry, and the scriptorium you've proposed is a science buliding, not a culture one).

If the scriptorium is added, adding it to divine teachings would make a lot of sense. The only science building between university and public schools is the observatory, which is probably not included since its locked behind rationalism.

Here's what I think the key question is, why is tourism victory so easy? We are in agreement its too easy, but not as to why its so.

I don't believe its because faith of the masses is OP, or because amphitheaters/museums are too strong, thus I see no need to change these buildings or this belief. Further, you are affecting the balance of a lot of other things while balancing these (like moving the workshop, that's a big change).

If you want to make the case that CVs happen too fast for those reasons, I will hear you out, perhaps I'm missing something. However, you haven't made that case, or addressed the arguments that its caused by something else.

 

[CppMaster]

With this change…you would still build all the buildings, it’s not making buildings so niche that would only build them in certain circumstances.

Eventually yeah, but not so early. You'd have more decision making in building priority, which I don't see as a bad thing.

 

[Stalker0]

Amphitheaters unlock so early that it's virtually impossible to reform before you have already built amphitheaters.

That is a playstyle bias. If you go a strong southern tech tree play early on, you can absolutely reform before amphitheatres.

 

[Stalker0]

Eventually yeah, but not so early. You'd have more decision making in building priority, which I don't see as a bad thing.

Again though, that is not the problem in medieval. I already have TONS of decisions on building priority, as there are so many things to build. Its only renaissance where you start clearing the queue (and that's late renessiance, early renaissance I'm still working on that queue). I don't see this as adding some great new decision into my strategy, this is just adding another block on the wall of decisions I already make each and every game.

 

[CppMaster]

Again though, that is not the problem in medieval. I already have TONS of decisions on building priority, as there are so many things to build. Its only renaissance where you start clearing the queue (and that's late renessiance, early renaissance I'm still working on that queue). I don't see this as adding some great new decision into my strategy, this is just adding another block on the wall of decisions I already make each and every game.

Hmm, same argument could be used for removing some buildings, by merging them. Would you like that?

 

[Stalker0]

Hmm, same argument could be used for removing some buildings, by merging them. Would you like that?

you want to kill the caravansary too? yes please

in seriousness, I am all for considering removals to the game, I think that is very healthy. I do boardgame design as a secondary hobby, so I've read and listened to a lot of great designers. And there is a consistent theme to their approaches....less is more. The old quote: "a designer has achieved perfection, not when they have anything left to have, but when they have nothing left to take away." Maximizing strategy and fun with minimal complexity is the true art. Its easy to just keep adding adding adding, learning when removal actually improves your game is hard part.

 

[pineappledan]

If the scriptorium is added, adding it to divine teachings would make a lot of sense. The only science building between university and public schools is the observatory, which is probably not included since its locked behind rationalism.

It's a GW theming bonus building. It has both and bonuses on it.

I just thought changing FotM was going to be something to reduce the umpteenth amphitheater bonus while also bringing it more into line with the other reformation beliefs, but apparently it's a hill to die on for some, so I'll just remove it for now until a more formal reformation rebalance is submitted to the congress.

Here's what I think the key question is, why is tourism victory so easy? We are in agreement its too easy, but not as to why its so.

I have taken a lot of big swings at slowing down tourism and cultural victory already. I basically turned the end game tourism national wonder into a world wonder and lowered the total number of GW and tile modifiers in the game overall. I removed all of the instant tourism sources. I removed airports from the equation entirely, knocking a big part of CV autocracy out.

I don't know what is going to slow it down at this point, so I'm trying everything. I don't think adding more buildings to medieval or renaissance is wrong, nor do I think having more things to build is wrong in general. I don't think making the GWAM buildings symmetrical by distributing art and writing buildings like music has been split is wrong. I don't think that situational buildings are bad in and of themselves. In fact the only real case of a situational building we have is already a CV one: the Hotel.

Further, you are affecting the balance of a lot of other things while balancing these (like moving the workshop, that's a big change).

moving workshop to machinery is defensible on its own merits, I explained my reasoning elsewhere.

However, you haven't made that case, or addressed the arguments that its caused by something else.

Nor have you adequately explained how this proposal harms anything, for that matter.
You might disagree that either of these split proposals will slow CV down at all. Neither of us have much more that fuzzy ideas on how the gameplay impact will shake out. You have pointed out that lowering GW tourism just to raise it again accomplishes nothing, to which I assert that it at least forces you to build the building to push the yields back up again. You say this amount of tourism is negligible, but you also glide past how tourism per turn affects Historic events, and how these bonuses compound and interlink.

 

[rkkn]

How about adjusting historic events? Reduce the scaling and add a flat component

 

[Stalker0]

I don't know what is going to slow it down at this point, so I'm trying everything

And I think that's the problem. we aren't doing this very scientifically.

With vern's new logging skills, frankly we have the tools we need to dissect these problems. We should be able to log a few games and see EXACTLY where the tourism is coming from, and should be able to isolate and nail down the problem. That is far more efficient than to keep slicing and dicing our buildings and see what "feels right".

 

[pineappledan]

And I think that's the problem. we aren't doing this very scientifically.

It is perfectly scientific to experiment. this is what ratification is for. Even if the gallery doesn’t slow down cv in any way, it still addresses other issues with the renaissance era more generally.

 

[CppMaster]

you want to kill the caravansary too? yes please

in seriousness, I am all for considering removals to the game, I think that is very healthy. I do boardgame design as a secondary hobby, so I've read and listened to a lot of great designers. And there is a consistent theme to their approaches....less is more. The old quote: "a designer has achieved perfection, not when they have anything left to have, but when they have nothing left to take away." Maximizing strategy and fun with minimal complexity is the true art. Its easy to just keep adding adding adding, learning when removal actually improves your game is hard part.

Nah, if it's not OP then it probably doesn't break the game, because if it's too weak then it could be just ignored. Sometimes it may be good to build it. If it's that bad then maybe it should be buffed or cheaper.

Board games are very different, because all elements have to be handled by players which may be a burden. There is no computer for all boring calculations.

 

[pineappledan]

If you want to kill a building so badly, why aim at the caravansary instead of the constabulary?

 

[ma_kuh]

It hasn't been brought up since the last session of congress, but I really thought there was potential in taking some buildings and splitting them into exclusive choices, or "half buildings" that don't contribute to every gameplan, but are "critical" to others. I'm not saying this series of building splits needs to fall into that vein, but it's an idea I'd rather not lose track of, because I think it has great potential in adding more meaningful choices to city building.