Broad Alignment refit

[deadliver]

I think BA needs a masive workover.
Firstly, wonders and single shot effects need to scale with the map size and speed.
Secondly, religions need to count a lot less, maybe +/- 150 - 200, not an instant allligement switch.
Someone runing order might still be an evil tirant to his own people. But he just realy hates demons too. Does that make him good?
Thirdly, there needs to be more work done in adding events and other effects that add or subtract from your alligment.
And Finaly, I sugjest that each civic gets a temporary + or - to the BA that lasts only as long as you have it.

This is just one of the various suggestions to make BroadAlignment more relevant in FF. Trust me, there are more I am just lazy.

To be frank, I have only just begun to delve into Broad Alignment's xml though I love the concept. I have little to offer right now other than the suggestion that you should be able to push certain civs into other alignments.

This is not a thread for discussing additions to BA, but for ideas balancing the current material we play with.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I agree. It's interesting to see one civ have +180 and another have +500, but in the end they're both Good, and without changing religion, neither is likely to actually change alignment. Religion needs to be greatly reduced, and other effects added(I was thinking +/- for creating certain units... Some like Drown would only be -2/unit, others like Liches could be -40/unit)

 

[Earthling]

Yeah, from my experience almost every effect outside of religion is minimal - 100s of turns will pass by and you wouldn't see a change of more than some 20 points unless you change religion. Most units/buildings have absolutely tiny effects, same thing with civics - I'd double or triple the numbers compared to how they are now. And it doesn't seem like more than a handful of events use this system, it would be great if they did, since I really do like the concept of Broad Alignments compared to the default system.

 

[Vehem]

The following is roughly what we have planned. That being said, we've had it planned in this form since 044 and had the rough idea since around 020. It's "one of those things we need to get around to" (tm).

The original plan - each change had a rate and a maximum shift. Public Healers for instance might be +2 rate and a maximum shift of +300, meaning that it continues to add +2 to your alignment every turn until it reached +300, then it is no longer counted. Likewise there could be negative modifiers and these are all summed to get an overall "per turn" modifier.

If the total shift for a value would take it beyond the limit, only enough to reach the limit is added.

Runes of Kilmorph - +5 per turn, max shift of 200
Fend for themselves - -1 per turn, max shift of -100

Turn 1
Alignment: 194
Valid shifts: Runes (+5), Fend -+1)
Net shift: +4

Turn 2
Alignment: 198
Valid shifts: Runes (+2), Fend (-1)
Net shift: +1

Turn 3
Alignment: 199
Valid Shifts: Runes (+1), Fend (-1)
Net shift: +0

(stabilized at 199)

===

With Order (+7, +450) and Healers (+2, +200)
Fend (-1, -100) and Slavery (-3, -200)

Turn 1
Alignment: 194
Valid shifts: Order (+7), Healers (+2), Fend (-1), Slavery (-3)
Net shift: +5

Turn 2
Alignment: 199
Valid shifts: Order (+7), Healers (+1), Fend (-1), Slavery (-3)
Net shift: +4

Turn 3
Alignment: 203
Valid shifts: Order (+7), Healers (+0), Fend (-1), Slavery (-3)
Net shift: +3

Turn 4
Alignment: 206
Valid shifts: Order (+7), Healers (+0), Fend (-1), Slavery (-3)
Net shift: +3

(increases until it gets close to 450)

====

The problem arises where two values reach the limit at the same time...
Runes and Healers (+5/+2, both max at +200)
Fend and Slavery (-1 and -3)

Turn 1
Alignment: 194
Valid shifts: Runes (+5), Healers (+2), Fend (-1), Slavery (-3)
Net shift: +3

Turn 2
Alignment: 199
Valid shifts: Runes (+1), Healers (+1), Fend (-1), Slavery (-3)
Net shift: -2

Turn 3
Alignment: 197
Valid shifts: Runes (+3), Healers (+2), Fend (-1), Slavery (-3)
Net shift: +1

Turn 4
Alignment: 198
Valid shifts: Runes (+2), Healers (+2), Fend (-1), Slavery (-3)
Net shift: +0

(stabilized at 198, but has the oscillation at 199/197 - which is confusing for players.

 

[Valkrionn]

I remember seeing that post before... It's the main reason I haven't gone through it myself.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I don't think that a simple mater of a small oscilation would be so much of a problem realy.

What I would sugjest is to make the diplomacy modifiers from alligments be changed.
Diplomacy and Balance Proposal:

-Assumptions:
-These are the assumptions that will be used in the examples. They represent the conditions under witch the conclusions from the examples are valid.
1) The number of points needed from crossing from neutral to good or back again is X
2) The number of points needed from crossing from neutral to evil or back again is Y
3) Civs A and B classified as good
4) Civs E and G classified as evil

-Proposal:
a) Any civ classified as Good gains +1 to it's diplomatic relations to any other civ for every 100 points of that civs alligement above X.
-Example:
X = +100, A = +300, B = +200; A has +1 for B and B has +2 for A;

b) Any civ classified as Evil gains +1 to it's diplomatic relations to any other civ for every 100 points of that civs alligement below X.
-Example:
Y = -100, E = -300, G = -150; E has +0.5 for G and G has +2 for E;

c) Any civ classified as Good gains -1 to it's diplomatic relations to any other civ for every 100 points of that civs bellow Y.
-Example:
Y = -100, E = -300, A = good; A has -2 for E;

d) Any civ classified as Evil gains -1 to it's diplomatic relations to any other civ for every 100 points of that civs above X.
-Example:
X = +100, E = evil, A = +300; E has -2 for A;

This system would allow for a much broader diplomatic impact of alligements.
Especialy since it would allow the AI to weigh civs based on more than a 1,0,-1 scale.

-Notes:
1) X and Y are already defined in the game, and do not need to change.
2) The actual number of points +/- that are given in diplomacy has been assumed in the examples to be 1. This number can increse and decrese, and I sugjest that it does based on:
a) The civ and leader in question
- Certain leaders (Basilium, Os Gabriela, the Banor...) would be highly intolerant against civs of oposite alligement. On the other side, certain leaders (Perpentarch, Lorda, Cassiel...) would be quite tolerant of others.

b) The religion the said civ is using
- Using AV would double any negative points from alligment values.

 

[deadliver]

I like this idea. It will be another reason to watch your alignment.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Also(though this might be overcomplicating things) a dramatic alignment switch(Going from Good to Evil or Evil to Good very rapidly) should cause domestic problems as well. I'm not sure Elohim citizens would embrace adopting AV, making a bunch of liches and running evil civics. Same thing for visa-versa, why would the barbaric and savage Clan like to adopt Order? Not saying it shouldn't be possible for either of these to happen, but if something happens, such as:

Evil civilization gets +20(or a different high number) alignment per turn, production modifiers decrease.
Good civilization gets -20(or a different high number) alignment per turn, riots/unhappiness develops.