A look at Rationalism

pineappledan · Dec 19, 2022

The latest patch changed how needs reductions work, and this caused a major shakeup with Rationalism. Here is the new tree:

Spoiler :

Spoiler relevant section of patch notes :

the biggest different with the old and new Rationalisms is that a total of 15% needs reduction modifiers have been replaced with -2 flat needs reduction for all sources. This is a fair bit stronger. Since the flat reductions are discrete amounts, they were split between the opener and finisher. This has a few effects on the tree:

The opener is much stronger now. Rationalism was notable for being quite frontloaded before, and now it is even more so.
The opener and finisher are now the strongest happiness reductions in the game. Other happiness reductions give -2 to 1 source; this gives -1 to 5 sources. 2.5x power. And this is on an opener with no prerequisites.
The scaler is very small, with only 2% per level. That’s equivalent to 1 additional for every 50 the empire already generates. Compare to artistry’s scaler which gives 1 flat per city in addition to 2 GAPs

The tree has 4 sources of +% :c5science:

Science modifiers: The opener, scaler, Enlightenment, and Scientific revolution. The tree is a bit samey with many different sources of the same bonus, and they are all on the 1st tier picks.

Here are some ideas for how to update the tree and make the tree a little more streamlined. Changes from current policies are underlined, and untouched policies aren't listed again for brevity:

Spoiler :

pineappledan · Dec 19, 2022

Overall, the changes are:
+5% :c5science:

during golden ages (15% from the opener and scaler vs the old 10% on enlightenment)
removal of the 3% :c5science:

for each GW
addition of :c5goldenage:

GAPs for researching techs.

This gives Rationalism a stronger and more self-contained GAP focused, with both a source of more GAs and a larger reward for them. This makes the tree less dependent on the Artistry tree for the GAP generation, but does carry forward Artistry's GA focus more overtly. In exchange, Rationalism loses its 1 bonus for GWs. Instead, I would suggest the GW yield modifier move to Industry.

The Artistry medieval policy tree has two main focuses: Golden Ages and Great Works. With Broadway as its finishing wonder and its trade route and stronger specialist bonuses, I think it is more fitting that Industry carry forward Artistry's GW and CV focus in some capacity. This leaves Rationalism free to double down on a GA focus without both of Artistry's old emphases present in some capacity in the Rationalism tree.
To that end, I would propose this change to the Industry tree:

Spoiler :

Rekk · Dec 20, 2022

There is no reason to make Industry the Culture Victory tree.

pineappledan · Dec 20, 2022

To some degree it already is, since it has the most overt CV bonus of the 3 medieval trees, with Broadway. I'm not proposing any additional tourism generation, but it already has a small GW focus with Broadway as its finisher.

Are you saying that you think it's good that Rationalism has golden age bonuses and GW bonuses together, the same as Artistry?

glaivemaster · Dec 20, 2022

I appreciate wanting to keep the Great Works bonus, but does Industry need more power? It feels plenty good enough to me already

nekokon · Dec 20, 2022

I don't see any outrage about any of the policy tree yet, not sure why we keep having those "let's fully change this tree because it's not how I like it, and because the other tree was changed (also due to my suggestion) so this tree should follow suit".
Previous changes were made and passed on the assumption it would work as a stand-alone rework, thus it will keep the general balance when ppl try to mix and match different trees. I don't like how this second wave is trying to ride on previous change to one tree (artistry) to set a build path to other trees (to be different - or to synergize) which is the opposite design.
You're just making a lot of changes for no reason aside from to suit how you want it to be (which would be good if you do have a solid specific design in mind, but not good if you just keep making changes based on what you had already changed like this)

KlHannibal2 · Dec 20, 2022

nekokon said:
I don't see any outrage about any of the policy tree yet, not sure why we keep having those "let's fully change this tree because it's not how I like it, and because the other tree was changed (also due to my suggestion) so this tree should follow suit".
Previous changes were made and passed on the assumption it would work as a stand-alone rework, thus it will keep the general balance when ppl try to mix and match different trees. I don't like how this second wave is trying to ride on previous change to one tree (artistry) to set a build path to other trees (to be different - or to synergize) which is the opposite design.
You're just making a lot of changes for no reason aside from to suit how you want it to be (which would be good if you do have a solid specific design in mind, but not good if you just keep making changes based on what you had already changed like this)

Yeah, I would give the current version a bit more time to be tested and see how people think about rationalism. Being an industrial age policy tree, you have to play almost a full game to experience the changes.

pineappledan · Dec 20, 2022

nekokon said:
Previous changes were made and passed on the assumption it would work as a stand-alone rework, thus it will keep the general balance when ppl try to mix and match different trees

The tree was already changed in this patch. I posted the relevant section of the patch notes. These changes were made unilaterally to switch the tree over to flat happiness reductions, and they should be discussed.

nekokon said:
I don't like how this second wave is trying to ride on previous change to one tree (artistry) to set a build path to other trees (to be different - or to synergize) which is the opposite design.

If you’re trying to suggest Artistry’s didn’t focus on great works and golden ages before the changes, then you’re mistaken. These emphases and the industrial trees’ relationship to Artistry isn’t new.

nekokon said:
You're just making a lot of changes for no reason aside from to suit how you want it to be (which would be good if you do have a solid specific design in mind, but not good if you just keep making changes based on what you had already changed like this)

I made clear proposals and gave my reasoning, and these are much smaller changes than what stalker was discussing with authority.

Mainly this is about resuscitating the scaler and moving some power back from the opener.

glaivemaster said:
does Industry need more power?

The small proposal for industry is most likely a nerf.

pineappledan · Dec 20, 2022

KlHannibal2 said:
Yeah, I would give the current version a bit more time to be tested and see how people think about rationalism. Being an industrial age policy tree, you have to play almost a full game to experience the changes.

It will have been a month on this Wednesday. All the other changes made in 3.0 are coming up for ratification in congress, but since the changes to rationalism were made unilaterally by @Recursive I don’t think they will go into congress. Its time to discuss these changes, same as all the other ones that were made. At least the other changes had the benefit of some discussion before the fact.

Rekk · Dec 20, 2022

pineappledan said:
but since the changes to rationalism were made unilaterally by @Recursive I don’t think they will go into congress

All balance changes made for 3.0 and later must be ratified, even those that don't go through Congress. The only way it wouldn't need to be ratified is if it isn't considered a balance change.

glaivemaster · Dec 20, 2022

pineappledan said:
The small proposal for industry is most likely a nerf.

Not when I made that post it wasn't, it was strictly additive to the current ability. Now that you've edited it that's different

pineappledan · Dec 20, 2022

Rekk said:
All balance changes made for 3.0 and later must be ratified, even those that don't go through Congress. The only way it wouldn't need to be ratified is if it isn't considered a balance change.

You are right, it’s posted in the ratification technically.

It’s lumped with every other happiness change though and I think the rationalism changes in particular should be discussed on their own. It’s changed the tree more dramatically than equivalent swaps for % modifiers in other trees, since they were spread across the opener/scaler/finisher. Lumping a discussion of rationalism’s changes in with a wider discussion of removing all the modifiers doesn’t do it Justice, and would likely derail that conversation.

nekokon · Dec 20, 2022

pineappledan said:
The tree was already changed in this patch. I posted the relevant section of the patch notes. These changes were made unilaterally to switch the tree over to flat happiness reductions, and they should be discussed.

If you’re trying to suggest Artistry’s didn’t focus on great works and golden ages before the changes, then you’re mistaken. These emphases and the industrial trees’ relationship to Artistry isn’t new.

I made clear proposals and gave my reasoning, and these are much smaller changes than what stalker was discussing with authority.

Mainly this is about resuscitating the scaler and moving some power back from the opener.

The small proposal for industry is most likely a nerf.

I'm not comparing what you're doing with what Stalker was doing, I was comparing what you're doing with what you did, thus my conclusion was that you don't have a solid specific design in mind and just keep making changes based on current state which includes changes you suggested previously.
Artistry WAS focusing on gpp, and last congress it was changed to focus more on bonus to GW and GA. Now you want to rationalize "because industry should sync more with Artistry (which it wasn't that much before, only happened after the change you suggested) thus Rationalism should double down on GA".

It's not the actual reasoning I'm talking about (yes, I can see some appears in changing Rationalism due to the happiness changes), but the fact that you're suggesting a bunch of changes for multiple trees (which is overkill for the small issue of "making Rationalism balanced with the new happiness change") based on some very recent changes, which we don't even have enough player data to go off (unlike the long time issue with old artistry and tradition).
This is just gonna make a constant loop of changing with no final goal in mind until you're bored of making more changes (or until you've suggested all separated parts of your overall design, in which case I would prefer to see all of them discussed together than having bits by bits going like this - something similar to how Recursive put all of his fixes for all related issue together in 1 thread so ppl can discuss everything while keeping correct perspectives - then that 1 thread can be split into multiple parts/proposals if needed)

pineappledan · Dec 20, 2022

nekokon said:
Now you want to rationalize "because industry should sync more with Artistry (which it wasn't that much before, only happened after the change you suggested) thus Rationalism should double down on GA".

No, my rationale is that Rationalism already syncs a little too much with Artistry. I gave a similar reason for removing the GPP focus off of Artistry: It was syncing too much with Tradition.
It's almost as if I have "a solid specific design in mind". More accurately, I have an larger goal of making the policy trees act less like direct continuations of each other, so that the choices between trees are more open-ended.

Rationalism has 1 GA bonus and 1 GW bonus right now, those are the two main focuses of the Artistry tree. That was true before the previous version and it is still true, and it will be true whether or not the artistry rework is ratified. The current state of the Rationalism tree is that it has bonuses that are a continuation of both of Artistry's 2 main emphases. Do you think it should do that? Discuss.

meanwhile, Industry has 1 GW-related bonus too, oh and it already has a place for a stacking % :c5science:

bonus. That's funny, we have code for that. What if we moved the 2 GW-related industrial policy bonuses together? Discuss.

nekokon said:
This is just gonna make a constant loop of changing with no final goal in mind until you're bored of making more changes (or until you've suggested all separated parts of your overall design, in which case I would prefer to see all of them discussed together than having bits by bits going like this - something similar to how Recursive put all of his fixes for all related issue together in 1 thread so ppl can discuss everything while keeping correct perspectives - then that 1 thread can be split into multiple parts/proposals if needed)

You take umbrage that I propose to make changes sometimes? Sort of like what has always happened with this community? Note that this isn't a congress proposal (yet), and that I want to get a discussion going about Rationalism more generally.

I used to publish overall design tweaks in my tweaks mod, where people could even try the changes I was proposing. The congress is too dynamic and I am too busy to maintain that mod right now. I'm not even able to keep up-to-date enough for compatibility right now. I might be able to in the future, but the pace of the changes is very fast. I have ideas about more things that I would change; I'm not going to mod them out, and I'm not going to create some massive super-post for all of them together, because many of them are disconnected and aren't conflicting, and creating a large omnibus document creates as many issues as it solves.

Stalker0 · Dec 20, 2022

Let me break down my thoughts:

Its true that Rationalism has the strongest happiness control mechanisms of the industrial policies right now. Is it "too much"? Rationalism clearly has the best ones, the fact that its a reduction to all modifiers is the closest to being "+2 happiness" without actually being "+2 happiness". That said, you could also argue that industry will get you caught up on infrastructure faster which may ultimately be a better happiness control overall. I can say I've never felt that happiness was "automatic" with Rationalism and "impossible" with Industry....the game board and circumstances dictate that more than the policies. Nor have I ever chosen a policy tree specifically for happiness concerns. Honestly, I've been underwhelmed by the flat reductors in general, they actually don't move the needle as much as I expected them to move. So overall while you can't deny that Rationalism got a buff with the happiness changes, I don't really feel its moved the needle where suddenly I am choosing Rationalism in places I didn't before, or that Rationalism lets me "cruise" to victory.
Most of the rationalizations I see here I don't agree with. The tree is very "samey"...eh its the science tree, its focused on science, I don't see that as "boring" in any real way. The numerous sources of science I don't consider repetitive, its just a way to spread out the bonuses a bit more. The unhappiness reductors I don't think have made the tree OP. Another thing on the "boring" aspect, frankly when you have 100 games under your belt, policies all bleed together for the most part anyway. The only interesting decision is which tree I'm going to pick, not the policies within it. If the goal is to truly increase the "interesting decisions" of policies, than the way to do that is through xmas tree synergies.... aka creating incentives for people not to finish a given tree but to pick from multiple trees. Now you have a huge increase in build orders and new and interesting combinations. THAT's how you make things interesting, a few tweaks here and there does not do anything in that regard.
The one change here that I do think is intriguing is the removal of GW science in favor of a larger % modifier. I'm not saying its better, but it at least shakes things up a bit. It creates a bit more wide incentive for rationalism and less tall. Now I think its less than it might appear at first glance, you can only get a +20% bonus and its not like wide has no great works or anything, its just generally less than tall....but when you only need 7 works to max out the benefit, its questionable how much of an edge tall actually has here. Still its the one change I consider worth discussing. What I see no desire though is to just "move this to industry", that feels like power creep. If a mechanic needs to be removed, fine remove it. And if something comes along where that mechanic makes sense to bring back....bring it back. But I hate this notion that we drop something for balance reasons, but feel desperate to shoe horn it back in somewhere else. That mentality just leads to endless creep. Its ok if mechanics go back on the bench, maybe they will see the light of day in a new format, maybe they won't, but no one seems to be calling for Industry to have some GW focus or new science focus, so I don't see the reason to take something from rationalism and slap it on over.

pineappledan · Dec 20, 2022

Stalker0 said:
But I hate this notion that we drop something for balance reasons, but feel desperate to shoe horn it back in somewhere else. That mentality just leads to endless creep. Its ok if mechanics go back on the bench, maybe they will see the light of day in a new format, maybe they won't, but no one seems to be calling for Industry to have some GW focus or new science focus, so I don't see the reason to take something from rationalism and slap it on over.

You may wish to re-read the proposal and amend your comment. The proposal is to replace an existing % :c5science:

modifier with another one.
What I proposed for the industry policy is removing the 3% :c5science:

from market/caravansary/Customs House/Bank/Stock Exchange and adding the GW boost there in its place.
Something going back into the toolbox is fine, technically, but it's not doing any good there. The local % yield per GW bonus is more interactive than Industry's current building modifiers. It's just a better mechanic, and finding a place to put it is good, especially if we can get it to replace a less interesting bonus of similar strength.
It's more than likely this would be a nerf to Industry, not a buff or "creep".

pineappledan · Dec 20, 2022

Stalker0 said:
Is it "too much"? Rationalism clearly has the best ones, the fact that its a reduction to all modifiers is the closest to being "+2 happiness" without actually being "+2 happiness".

Evidently I agree that it's not too much, because I moved the -2 to all unhappiness in its entirety to Rights of Man in the proposal.
Is it too much? maybe, but it's definitely too much on an opener that also has 2 other bonuses.

Stalker0 said:
The only interesting decision is which tree I'm going to pick, not the policies within it. If the goal is to truly increase the "interesting decisions" of policies, than the way to do that is through xmas tree synergies.... aka creating incentives for people not to finish a given tree but to pick from multiple trees. Now you have a huge increase in build orders and new and interesting combinations. THAT's how you make things interesting, a few tweaks here and there does not do anything in that regard.

Maybe so. I'm more concerned with polishing the trees and identifying places where 1 policy tree flows obviously into another. Tradition and Artistry being natural sequential policy choices for many games, for instance. It's less stark with Artistry/Rationalism, but I think you correctly identified that Artistry->Rationalism is a bit too obvious, and therefore offers less of a choice right now.

nekokon · Dec 20, 2022

pineappledan said:
No, my rationale is that Rationalism already syncs a little too much with Artistry. I gave a similar reason for removing the GPP focus off of Artistry: It was syncing too much with Tradition.
It's almost as if I have "a solid specific design in mind". More accurately, I have an larger goal of making the policy trees act less like direct continuations of each other, so that the choices between trees are more open-ended.

Rationalism has 1 GA bonus and 1 GW bonus right now, those are the two main focuses of the Artistry tree. That was true before the previous version and it is still true, and it will be true whether or not the artistry rework is ratified. The current state of the Rationalism tree is that it has bonuses that are a continuation of both of Artistry's 2 main emphases. Do you think it should do that? Discuss.

meanwhile, Industry has 1 GW-related bonus too, oh and it already has a place for a stacking % bonus. That's funny, we have code for that. What if we moved the 2 GW-related industrial policy bonuses together? Discuss.

You take umbrage that I propose to make changes sometimes? Sort of like what has always happened with this community? Note that this isn't a congress proposal (yet), and that I want to get a discussion going about Rationalism more generally.

I used to publish overall design tweaks in my tweaks mod, where people could even try the changes I was proposing. The congress is too dynamic and I am too busy to maintain that mod right now. I'm not even able to keep up-to-date enough for compatibility right now. I might be able to in the future, but the pace of the changes is very fast. I have ideas about more things that I would change; I'm not going to mod them out, and I'm not going to create some massive super-post for all of them together, because many of them are disconnected and aren't conflicting, and creating a large omnibus document creates as many issues as it solves.

I take umbrage at anyone who propose big changes which ride on previously changed stuffs that we still don't have enough player data yet (regardless of who proposed previous changes). You being the one who proposed the previous changes only makes it slightly better IF you also have (and present along) a specific design in mind for all of these related change, which doesn't even take that much space. Somethings like "my goal is to make all policy trees choice more open-ended" and proposal the general idea of which tree would focus on what "tradition should focus on gpp, artistry should focus on GW and GA, rationalism should focus on science and GA, industry should focus on production and GW...." so ppl can actually see the end goal instead of trying to follow your unexplained thought.

And just from me trying to follow your unexplained thought above, I would see the obvious issue that Artistry would get along well with both Rationalism and Industry, and the other 2 medieval trees can get stuck with Imperialism for all I care. Not saying that's your intention, but it's what ppl would see from just your explanation (or the lack thereof). If you want a real discussion, give out all information at once, else ppl would simply condone anything you throw in solely from your selective explanation.

Legen · Dec 21, 2022

On the

Happiness side, I don't think Rationalism has an issue. The previous "-15% all needs" version was also more powerful than the usual "-20% X need" from Industry and ideologies, and for a good reason: Rationalism has few :c5production:

production/gold to address unhappiness through buildings. The tree also has :c5food:

food and growth bonuses on top of it, further exacerbating the needs of your cities. Rationalism's stronger needs reduction was chosen because the alternative would be to give it more production/gold instead, which would break its core distinction with Industry and Imperialism. As such, I don't agree with the rationale; Rationalism's tradeoff is meant to be lower :c5production:

production/gold for better :c5unhappy:

need reduction.

On the :greatwork:

GW part, I partially agree with Rationalism having some overlap with Artistry, since both have bonuses towards GW, universities and GAs. I don't think the answer is to move the GW science to Industry, though. Industry is in a good state right now and doesn't need more science, nor more incentives for a cultural victory. I'd just change the golden age part; in older patches, Rationalism had conditional science tied to either WLTKD or the empire being happy.

Personally, the only two things that bother me regarding Rationalism's design are:

"+2 luxury from Great Admirals", it should be in Imperialism instead, the tree that actually bothers with navies and admirals
The last three policies having no immediate science contribution (assuming you're placing academies, instead of bulbing scientists, at this point of the game)

As such, the only changes I'd personally make to the tree would be:

Move the Great Admiral part to Imperialism
Switch Free Thought's "+25% yields from spending great scientists" with the finisher's "+33% Great Scientist rate in all cities"
Add some science on Rights of Man (e.g. "+1 for every 2 non-specialists" or "+2 from villages")

This would be an overall buff, though, so I'd have to nerf something else, likely the :c5goldenage:

Golden Age part.

pineappledan · Dec 21, 2022

No one said anything about removing the unhappiness reduction.

No one said anything about giving industry more science.

If you move the GAdmiral bonus somewhere, the only kinda special thing that rationalism does is unlock a building. Everything else is just yields. Meanwhile imperialism is already loaded with unique abilities like upgrading in CS territory, increasing leadership aura radius, and powering up monopolies.

A look at Rationalism

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

Prince

Prince

Warlord

Deity

Deity

Deity

Prince

Deity

Prince

Deity

Baller Magnus

Deity

Deity

Prince

Emperor

Deity

Similar threads