1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Balance and some suggestions

Discussion in 'Communitas Expansion Pack' started by Bernd-das-Brot, Jan 2, 2014.

  1. mystikx21

    mystikx21 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,229
    Location:
    ohio
    FYI, it's come down somewhat since then. But yes, off-topic.

    I think the issue is that at 80-100 it has a very large effect of giving a bonus to people who pursue optimizing strategies already but doesn't really encourage people who want to play a non-optimizing strategy (for immersion or because of the civ or for warfare related reasons, or whatever), to do anything differently.

    What we're effectively doing by giving the large bonus to chopping is benefiting something that people already do and decreasing the amount of choice others experience.
     
  2. Eunomiac

    Eunomiac Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    You're completely right, and I am sincerely sorry; I hesitated a moment before posting, and really should have gone with that instinct. Stupid to even touch on hot-button issues when making an unrelated point.

    Back on-topic: Ideally, very few decisions should have an "always-optimal" answer. But it occurs to me that---regardless of chop value---an optimal answer is always going to exist if the "forest equation" is limited to "chop now or lumbermill". So perhaps considering alternate forest-related mechanics/tweaks---benefits to keeping them; penalties for clearing them---to go alongside any changes to the chop value, might serve to "muddy up the math" and make the decision more subjective?

    Just off the top of my head, some ideas to piggyback off of: adjacent villages/farms gain small bonuses; cities suffer a food/production penalty if they lack a minimum number/chop too many forests; a straight buff to Lumbermills; or an increased emphasis on forests in the Story aspect of the game.

    I remember chopping being a big part of Civ IV, but I also (vaguely) remember a building (or perhaps it was a Wonder) that benefited a city who, in the late-game, was surrounded by forest tiles. Unfortunately, as I recall this was never enough to stop people from clear-cutting everything around their early cities for hammers, but I think it was a step in the right direction!

    TL;DR: Suggesting that focusing solely on the chop number might not address the real issue, that there will be an "always-optimal answer" to whether chopping is better than keeping. Parallel tweaks to forest-based mechanics could increase the complexity of the decision, and even add some breathing room around finding that "perfect" chop value.
     
  3. Bernd-das-Brot

    Bernd-das-Brot Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    326
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Regarding "chopping", I quote myself from earlier in the post:

    So my suggestion would be 30-40 hammers for chopping and add something to lumbermills. Perhaps +1 extra gold or generally +2 prod (and no later boni from tech with or without fresh water).
    Because of the instant chopping prod-bonus, the lumbermill should be more effective than a mine over time or it is nearly always weaker.
     
  4. Ahriman

    Ahriman Tyrant

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    13,266
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I agree with this, but I don't agree that lumbermills need a significant advantage over mines. I think the advantage of forests is that they're versatile, you can use them for lumbermills, or farms, or village. You can have them as rough terrain or narrow terrain.

    Once chopping is only 30-40 hammers then it is of only moderate value, and so mills don't really need any particular advantage in order not to chop. If they are to have an advantage, it could be that they get their freshwater or non-freshwater bonus slightly earlier in tech than do mines. But they absolutely should not give a higher total yield than do mines. 1 production, going to 2 with freshwater and some early tech, and 2 without freshwater with some ~industrial tech, and mines should be this too.
     
  5. ExpiredReign

    ExpiredReign Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,450
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Tasmania
    If someone could refresh my memory, why exactly did we go to a higher yield and more importantly, why are we still debating this? What is the reason we haven't just picked a value and gone with that?

    I guess it will fall back on the decision of the lead developer over-rules!
    Come on guys have we not provided more than enough evidence for the change?

    What value? What tech gives the yield increase? Let's do this.
    I'll take the blame.:lol:
     
  6. mystikx21

    mystikx21 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,229
    Location:
    ohio
    My understanding is the idea was that for some reason it was seen as desirable that people should chop more often or that chopping should be rewarding and useful. To that end, it was raised from 20 to 40, which was fine.

    At some point it went from 40 to 100, which no longer served or addressed this and put it out of balance. It's still out of whack at 80. Just put it back at 40 or 50 at most and move the mills up to be competitive with mines. (Also lower engineer yields).
     
  7. ExpiredReign

    ExpiredReign Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,450
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Tasmania
    Until it gets done it looks like EricB's work may address this.
     
  8. EricB

    EricB Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Messages:
    404
    Location:
    Michigan
    I guess that's why I made the mod :)

    I like the Communitas mod a lot. I actually stopped playing Civ5 because it was so horribly designed until I found this mod that fixed a lot of the things I considered "broken." The CEP mod is really good, but in my opinion it still has a ways to go. We're heading in the right direction, but the progress is very slow (or maybe I'm just impatient :) ). So, I figured if I can make some changes to make my games more enjoyable then why not? Been doing that for a while. The amount of changes started to become a nightmare to keep track of, so I decided to finally learn how to make a mod to make it a bit more elegant and less tedious. I'm sure there's things in there that people won't like and fully expect to hear some grief.....Ahriman.... but I figure someone might like it and it doesn't hurt anything to put it out there so people could get a taste for something new.
     
  9. mystikx21

    mystikx21 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,229
    Location:
    ohio
    Ahriman is probably somewhat closer to your changes than some of those in the mod right now, and he's good at offering some critical thoughts about why a change may or may not be desirable to include or remove.

    I'll probably give it a run this weekend also to run some things by you. Fixing yield balances and cleaning up the units, leaders, and beliefs were probably first order changes that are easier to implement. Policies and ideologies are still much messier (and where we likely have bigger disagreements, which is why they're messier in the first place). Things like building costs or upkeep are lower order issues for another phase.

    And yes, ultimately it's much easier to just do a mod-mod on the side to season things to taste.
     
  10. Tomice

    Tomice Passionate Smart-Ass

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,290
    Location:
    Austria, EU, no kangaroos ;)
    Back to the topic of stories:

    Couldn't we just delay them until turn 100 or so?
    I like them personally, but the concerns about them being overpowered early on are valid. I don't think they are so unbalancing when you already have some cities, units and workers.
     

Share This Page