[Vote] (2-41) Proposal: Amphitheater Split

[rkkn]

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

kill both of them

though I'd actually prefer something more the opposite. Have maybe 30% or so more buildings, but half of ALL buildings are as niche as the caravansary, with the expectation that even at the end of the game you have a bunch of early era buildings that you just never built since they don't fit your strategy for that run.
that's a big reworking though

 

[Stalker0]

It is perfectly scientific to experiment. this is what ratification is for.

With respect, your experimenting with your user base, with no guidepost or direction. This is literally just putting a finger in the air, and trying something out, and if we are wrong the users slog through a bad version of the game.

Now I can respect that when we have to, but when we literally have a magic genie that can print us out a solid understanding of where tourism is coming from based on actual gameplay, why on earth would we use such crude methods?

 

[CppMaster]

A somewhat scientific method would be to run 2 games with the same seed on deterministic AI only game, 1st game with balance tweaks A, 2nd game with balance tweaks B and compare results. Then repeat it with different seed to make more samples.

 

[CrazyG]

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.

Building this mod is a team effort. If you really mean it when you say that you don't know, then accept the feedback from others. There are already a lot of proposals that will hurt CV. This and the opera house thing won't fix CV, they won't move towards fixing to a meaningful extent. If the symmertry with great musicians is important (I don't see why it is), we can consider changing them instead of writers and artists.

Moving the themeing bonus from amphitheaters to a new building civil service will not, in any meaningful capacity, change cultural victories. Moving the great writer bonus won't impact much either. There's no balance reason to nerf amphitheaters this way. We need to consider balance between top and bottom of the tech tree, between progress/tradition/authority, and you are disrupting them substantially.

I'm not seeing this scriptorium come together as a worthwhile addition. Its something you always build eventually because of the +5% science, but I can't see a situation I would ever rush to build it. Flavor wise, we already have monasteries in fealty as a science source to represent this part of history. This is a science building, if its theme is culture instead, that doesn't change it to a culture building.

 

[pineappledan]

Amended the proposal to remove the Faith of the Masses part. If reformation beliefs need a balance pass we can do them in the context of that.

If you really mean it when you say that you don't know, then accept the feedback from others.

"If you are serious about contributing then you would agree with me"

Alright well I guess we will see if that holds any sway with people when the vote starts. I think we have both said enough.

Now I can respect that when we have to, but when we literally have a magic genie that can print us out a solid understanding of where tourism is coming from based on actual gameplay, why on earth would we use such crude methods?

I'm a little bit curious what metric you think is going to support or refute splitting 1 building into 2?

 

[Stalker0]

I'm a little bit curious what metric you think is going to support or refute splitting 1 building into 2?

Take for example. Maybe the numbers show us that the overarching amount of tourism comes from historical events. Then we could simply nerf the formula for HE to produce less tourism, and call it a day. Wouldn’t have to touch buildings.

Maybe we learn the great works are the mainly culprit, in which case a straight nerf to them would be the answer.

Etc etc

 

[CrazyG]

"If you are serious then you would agree with me."
So what do you want me to do? rescind this proposal? I think I've heard enough. Thanks for the input.

That isn't what I said, but fair enough, I've pushed too hard. I don't want your proposal rescinded, even if its the wrong move, its made for great discussion.

Can I just ask, is there a particular reason you don't want to target historic events? (this isn't meant to be an antagonistic question, I genuinely want to know if I'm missing something). Even if you disagree with 99% of what I have to say about this mod, maybe I'm wrong that often. But amphitheaters don't cause the CV problem, and I really believe that particular opinion should be in the 1%.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't want your proposal rescinded, even if its the wrong move, its made for great discussion.

Hehe well I do i think the fundamental rationale that this is based on is flawed…it is using a viewing of CV tourism that’s incomplete.

I think the better approach is to do some log analysis, find the real problem, and then come up with a plan of attack. And if the numbers show the buildings are in the fact the problem, then i would be in favor of coming back here and cheerleading some building changes, confident that we were on the right path

 

[CrazyG]

Hehe well I do i think the fundamental rationale that this is based on is flawed…it is using a viewing of CV tourism that’s incomplete.

Currently, I'm going to vote against it, but that's different wanting it rescinded. Dan's ideas have sparked a lot of good (if heated) discussion.

I'm up for log analysis but I think player feedback is valid too. I'm going to try and disable historic events locally and see what happens. You mentioned not liking how variable culture is, well I think that historic events (and trade route finishes) certainly have the most variation game to game, no?

 

[pineappledan]

Take for example. Maybe the numbers show us that the overarching amount of tourism comes from historical events. Then we could simply nerf the formula for HE to produce less tourism, and call it a day. Wouldn’t have to touch buildings.

Historic events tourism is a product of economy, economy, and frequency of the triggers.
reducing or postponing any of those 3 reduces HEs, but as Rek pointed out, every point of is is worth 3 for HEs, so reducing and delaying sources will be more impactful. A nerf to 1 is a nerf to the other. There is no contradiction there.

Can I just ask, is there a particular reason you don't want to target historic events? (this isn't meant to be an antagonistic question, I genuinely want to know if I'm missing something). Even if you disagree with 99% of what I have to say about this mod, maybe I'm wrong that often. But amphitheaters don't cause the CV problem, and I really believe that particular opinion should be in the 1%.

Because this isn't a HE nerfing proposal. I never said anything opposing a nerf to HEs, but no one has done anything about a real proposal to that.
My wheelhouse is discrete game components, not underlying mechanics, and I generally avoid proposing things I can't help implement.

I think the better approach is to do some log analysis, find the real problem, and then come up with a plan of attack. And if the numbers show the buildings are in the fact the problem, then i would be in favor of coming back here and cheerleading some building changes, confident that we were on the right path

You will go back and forth turning knobs, and never arrive at something like a building split.
The numbers will never show you buildings are the problem, unless you're specifically looking at logs indicating players/AI are consistently running out of things to build. Even then, a log file won't tell you which buildings to split or remove.

CV is a very passive VC, like SV. Science victory is based on raw , which is useful for all VCs, and so all science buildings except those directly involved in building spaceship parts are universally valuable. Cultural victory is based on an otherwise useless yield, which presents an opportunity to make cultural victory emphasize infrastructure that boosts an economy with minimal non-CV value. CV already does this a bit with niche buildings like hotels and interpretive centers.

 

[Stalker0]

Even then, a log file won't tell you which buildings to split or remove.

Of course it can if I have the right log.

Sake of argument, maybe a log shows me that Arena tourism is 20% of my total overall (hehe it probably won't be, but lets say for the example). And it turns out that is a big amount more than any source. Than that would say, yeah lets either nerf that tourism, or delay it, or something directed specifically at the Arena. Same for zoo or museum or broadcast tower.

I think you are underestimating how granualar I hope to get here. I want to see tourism numbers from each and every source, building by building, HE by HE.

 

[Rekk]

I think you are underestimating how granualar I hope to get here. I want to see tourism numbers from each and every source, building by building, HE by HE.

You're going to have a lot of fun figuring out what is sourcing each HE.

 

[rusbeh]

The scriptorium is a really boring building and just bloats the amount of buildings in the game. The gallery proposal actually seems somewhat interesting and flavourful.

 

[azum4roll]

A percentage yield bonus on an early building is just going to encourage building it later. Let's just give it flat yields.

 

[pineappledan]

I can sponsor this

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by pineappledan.

 

[besset]

Voting nay just because i dont think more buildings are needed in the game. Surely there are other nerfs to tourism that can be made?