[Vote] (6-44) Balance (or Equalize % Chance Of) City-State Traits

[pineappledan]

The point is moot since @Hinin ‘s proposal will pass in an hour or so, as of writing. All CS types will have the same number of CS so all types will all be equally likely with no change.

What this proposal does is purely constrain deviation from the mean. I think Hinin’s proposal alone is a better implementation of what these 2 proposals set out to do. It equalizes CS types’ spawning frequency while keeping variation high.

 

[adan_eslavo]

I don’t look at the combination of the city states, I only consider them by themselves. “Oh, it’s the Vatican again”

16 CS on standard of 5 types, that’s 3.2 city states per type every game. With 8 different religious and military CS, each of those 2 types of CS will have a 40% chance of appearing in every game vs the current 28% chance of seeing them (16/58)

With @hinin’s proposal to add more city-states specifically in a mix that makes all types have equal numbers in their respective pools, I really don’t know what this proposal accomplishes. I guess what it does is establish some guardrails and constrain variability in each game.

I don’t know why I should want that. Both proposals, to varying degrees, are going to make 1 game look more like another w.r.t. The city-states involved. I would much rather equalize the pools and let the variance from game to game remain high.

But what's the difference for you if it is Vatican City or something else, if all Religious CSs behave exactly the same way? If you do not play CSL, which adds leader heads that add first layer of differentation, and you do not play UCS which adds separate abilities for each City-State (and I do know that you don't play it, because you said so, it is too complicated), then for you it could be even named Religious 1, Religious 2 and so on and the result would be the exactly the same.

 

[Recursive]

What this proposal does is purely constrain deviation from the mean. I think Hinin’s proposal alone is a better implementation of what these 2 proposals set out to do. It equalizes CS types’ spawning frequency while keeping variation high.

With Hinin's proposal alone, there would be 20 of each City-State. If one Cultural CS is picked, the odds of another Cultural CS being picked drop to 19 (compared to 20 for the other types).

With Rekk's proposal, the odds remain at 20% regardless of how many of that type have been picked.

With my proposal, there is no randomness involved with enough City-States.

 

[adan_eslavo]

Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but yes, the entire point is that we want to see at least one religious CS and at least one military CS per game, so increasing the likelihood of seeing each of those two types is desirable.

It is not only the Religious/Militaristic problem. I was getting games without Maritime or Cultured City-States, and I suppose this problem should be resolved. Having like 6 Religious with none Maritime is a bit weird imo.

 

[pineappledan]

But what's the difference for you if it is Vatican City or something else, if all Religious CSs behave exactly the same way? If you do not play CSL, which adds leader heads that add first layer of differentation, and you do not play UCS which adds separate abilities for each City-State (and I do know that you don't play it, because you said so, it is too complicated), then for you it could be even named Religious 1, Religious 2 and so on and the result would be the exactly the same.

You are saying it is purely an aesthetic problem and so it doesn't matter. I think the aesthetics of having the same CS appear more frequently matters.

Difference of opinion I guess, but I do want to see a variety of city-states in the game, even if that is a purely aesthetic choice.

 

[adan_eslavo]

You are saying it is purely an aesthetic problem and so it doesn't matter. I think the aesthetics of having the same CS appear more frequently matters.

Difference of opinion I guess, but I do want to see a variety of city-states in the game, even if that is a purely aesthetic choice.

Probably yes. I also do care about aesthetics and variety, but in this particular problem I prefer fixing the problem over the aeasthetics. What you are implying is to keep the problem alive because aesthetics will be gone.

 

[pineappledan]

What you are implying is to keep the problem alive because aesthetics will be gone.

What I am saying is that hinin's proposal to add more city-states solves both the aesthetic and frequency problem, and so this proposal doesn't add anything of value.

 

[Rekk]

You are saying it is purely an aesthetic problem and so it doesn't matter. I think the aesthetics of having the same CS appear more frequently matters.

Difference of opinion I guess, but I do want to see a variety of city-states in the game, even if that is a purely aesthetic choice.

This isn't about aesthetics at all, in my opinion. Vatican City isn't going to appear any more frequently than Wittenburg. You're going to see Wittenburg more frequently than now, but you're also going to see Bogota less frequently than now.

For adan_enslavo's case, he wants protection even when the number of total city states isn't increased.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.