Legen
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,158
Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented.
You can vote for both options, which is equivalent to saying "I'm fine either way", but adds to the required quorum of 10 votes in favor.
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 3, Proposal 12
Important detail: Righteousness's CS bonus vs wounded units only applies when attacking, despite its tooltip description suggesting that it can also apply when defending.
Proposal:
The reason to change Respect is due to its behavior not matching the unit type (melee+gun, mounted+armor) it is on, which is the theme expected of it. This is an old complaint, players wanted a Respect mounted unit to fight better vs other mounted melee, not vs infantry. It is particularly glaring with the addition of naval melee as eligible units for the virtues, as Respect is only applicable to them when attacking embarked units. Back then, the devs had responded that adjusting Respect around unit types would require new code, so it is reasonable to look for an alternative effect instead.
Righteousness's main issue is that it is, in practice, a better version of Courage ("15%
CS when attacking"). It should be a conditional, but stronger, version of Courage; for the times you don't satisfy its condition, you're compensated with an extra +5% CS on the times you do. However, the wounded condition is very easy to satisfy, only needing 1 previous damage from an ally. A single ranged ally can do it so consistently that, with some minimal planning, your Righteousness unit is practically never attacking a full health unit. As such, this proposal gives it a stricter condition, lowering its overall power closer to Courage's.
The choice of both having mirror conditions (enemy above vs below 50% health) follows how half of the virtues are currently designed (honor vs loyalty, courage vs self control), a theme missing from these two's current effects. It should also help keeping them at comparable power levels, but with varied niches nonetheless. Respect's +20% CS follows Righteousness's concept as a conditional, but stronger, version of Courage's; without that extra +5% CS, both virtues end being strictly worse versions of Courage's unconditional effect. Especially so when considering that Courage's effect works when attacking cities, who don't count as units for these two's effects.
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented.
You can vote for both options, which is equivalent to saying "I'm fine either way", but adds to the required quorum of 10 votes in favor.
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 3, Proposal 12
Spoiler Dojo virtues :
Important detail: Righteousness's CS bonus vs wounded units only applies when attacking, despite its tooltip description suggesting that it can also apply when defending.
Proposal:
- Respect changed to "+20% Combat Strength when attacking units above 50% health."
- Righteousness changed to "+20% Combat Strength when attacking units at or below 50% health."
The reason to change Respect is due to its behavior not matching the unit type (melee+gun, mounted+armor) it is on, which is the theme expected of it. This is an old complaint, players wanted a Respect mounted unit to fight better vs other mounted melee, not vs infantry. It is particularly glaring with the addition of naval melee as eligible units for the virtues, as Respect is only applicable to them when attacking embarked units. Back then, the devs had responded that adjusting Respect around unit types would require new code, so it is reasonable to look for an alternative effect instead.
Righteousness's main issue is that it is, in practice, a better version of Courage ("15%
CS when attacking"). It should be a conditional, but stronger, version of Courage; for the times you don't satisfy its condition, you're compensated with an extra +5% CS on the times you do. However, the wounded condition is very easy to satisfy, only needing 1 previous damage from an ally. A single ranged ally can do it so consistently that, with some minimal planning, your Righteousness unit is practically never attacking a full health unit. As such, this proposal gives it a stricter condition, lowering its overall power closer to Courage's.The choice of both having mirror conditions (enemy above vs below 50% health) follows how half of the virtues are currently designed (honor vs loyalty, courage vs self control), a theme missing from these two's current effects. It should also help keeping them at comparable power levels, but with varied niches nonetheless. Respect's +20%
CS follows Righteousness's concept as a conditional, but stronger, version of Courage's; without that extra +5% CS, both virtues end being strictly worse versions of Courage's unconditional effect. Especially so when considering that Courage's effect works when attacking cities, who don't count as units for these two's effects.
Last edited by a moderator:
