C2C Balance Thread
- Thread starter ls612
- Start date
To give you some idea, I'm researching sedentary lifestyle (and for the first time ever playing c2c I may reach it first) and my largest city is only size 6. It has good food resources as well. I think things are moving too fast on gigiantic and giant maps but on huge maps, it's insanely fast.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
I think we have a perception problem here. On snail on a Giant map with even 15 AI you are not going to have super wars in Prehistoric Era. If you are overly aggressive in the early game the game Will be over by Classical. If you play builder/defender thru Preh and Ancient then by Late Classical and Med era's you can start to have some big wars. And If you can curb your aggressiveness even further and allow the AI time to build up you can have centuries long wars by Ren Era.
If more ppl would play the game like they're actually trying to Build an Empire the game has better rewards. But if it's played as the Mad Conquer with all the things a player can do, that the AI needs Time to do, it's lights out before the party even started. Example, the old Axemen Rush . Oh looky I destroyed 4 of my neighbors with my stack of Ax. There's no competition. Awww the Games too easy! Oh Looky! I can make a Million in gold and I can buy anything I want, Awww the games too easy!
Where's the self restraint to allow the AI to develop into a decent competitor? Do ppl just not see this? The AI Needs time to become a decent competitor and the player needs to curb their desire to exploit the game. Set some limits for yourself (genera collective plural "you" here), don't use exploits and the game becomes more challenging and Fun.
This reminds me of the MoO2 days when everyone would play the Psilons (who could research All the techs), but hardly anyone would challenge themselves by playing the Klackons (very tech restricted) or Silicoids( half the growth rate of all the other races and no trade allowed). Then after a few games would declare the game was just too easy and no fun/challenge. Same thing happened in MoOIII too. For 7 years I kept hearing this lament from those looking for and using exploits instead of seeking a challenge. And I had a blast playing the MoO series.
JosEPh
If more ppl would play the game like they're actually trying to Build an Empire the game has better rewards. But if it's played as the Mad Conquer with all the things a player can do, that the AI needs Time to do, it's lights out before the party even started. Example, the old Axemen Rush . Oh looky I destroyed 4 of my neighbors with my stack of Ax. There's no competition. Awww the Games too easy! Oh Looky! I can make a Million in gold and I can buy anything I want, Awww the games too easy!
Where's the self restraint to allow the AI to develop into a decent competitor? Do ppl just not see this? The AI Needs time to become a decent competitor and the player needs to curb their desire to exploit the game. Set some limits for yourself (genera collective plural "you" here), don't use exploits and the game becomes more challenging and Fun.
This reminds me of the MoO2 days when everyone would play the Psilons (who could research All the techs), but hardly anyone would challenge themselves by playing the Klackons (very tech restricted) or Silicoids( half the growth rate of all the other races and no trade allowed). Then after a few games would declare the game was just too easy and no fun/challenge. Same thing happened in MoOIII too. For 7 years I kept hearing this lament from those looking for and using exploits instead of seeking a challenge. And I had a blast playing the MoO series.
JosEPh
@JosEPh: I agree totally with your assesment that if something is broken that one should avoid doing it if they want to have more fun. However, with something in as active development as C2C it is always nice to try to fix things that people agree are 'broken' (for instance, the low wonder costs that were recently changed).
On a related note, the AI has problems surviving early SoDs from the other AIs, I have seen before half or more of the AI eliminated before Prehistoric in the past! (none by my hand) It wasn't as bad for my game, as REV created plenty of new civs in that game, but you don't use REV, so losing AIs early on could be a big issue for you. This shows that there is more tweaking necessary in Prehistoric, and that is what this and other threads are for.
On a related note, the AI has problems surviving early SoDs from the other AIs, I have seen before half or more of the AI eliminated before Prehistoric in the past! (none by my hand) It wasn't as bad for my game, as REV created plenty of new civs in that game, but you don't use REV, so losing AIs early on could be a big issue for you. This shows that there is more tweaking necessary in Prehistoric, and that is what this and other threads are for.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
No doubt on C2C's fast and ever changing development process.
I've mitigated losing AI to AI in early game somewhat by the Map type I play. But my approach isn't for everybody.
In the game I've been posting about, they only way I've kept Egypt from getting radical is to keep my cities on his Island continent(they're my buffer zone) well staffed with elite units. Otherwise...
JosEPh
I've mitigated losing AI to AI in early game somewhat by the Map type I play. But my approach isn't for everybody.
In the game I've been posting about, they only way I've kept Egypt from getting radical is to keep my cities on his Island continent(they're my buffer zone) well staffed with elite units. Otherwise...
JosEPh
Honestly Joseph, I have a hard time understanding your post. You seem to be saying that everyone who doesn't play like you is 'exploiting the game'. You compare it to MOO2 but this is a very poor comparison. People here try to make the game more challenging for themselves, by playing on higher difficulty levels for example, not easier by giving themselves advantages from the start.
I don't think that, for example, building an army and using it, is an exploit. The AI can build an army too (and usually a better one than the player, because on higher difficulty levels the AI tends to have a tech advantage). The problem is that the AI cannot use its armies effectively.
I have pointed out many things that I feel make the game less challenging and/or unbalanced or that can be exploited. I see this as important in making the game better. I certainly don't accept that things like too much gold or over rapid expansion are problems of 'perception' instead problems of game balance.
I don't think that, for example, building an army and using it, is an exploit. The AI can build an army too (and usually a better one than the player, because on higher difficulty levels the AI tends to have a tech advantage). The problem is that the AI cannot use its armies effectively.
I have pointed out many things that I feel make the game less challenging and/or unbalanced or that can be exploited. I see this as important in making the game better. I certainly don't accept that things like too much gold or over rapid expansion are problems of 'perception' instead problems of game balance.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Apparently what I posted didn't make sense to you. No where did I say if ppl don't play like me they are exploiting the game. Maybe you should read it again but don't personalize it.
I posted examples of common exploits that many players do use.
And the MoO2 reference, in the context of what I posted, is a valid comparison about general 4X game exploits.
Again you personalized my post as something against you (the individual) instead of the corporate or general "you" of players overall.
Please continue to post what you feel is not right with the mod but don't personalize the response posts unless they are addressed specifically to you. Neither of my recent posts started off with @ TC.
JosEPh
I posted examples of common exploits that many players do use.
And the MoO2 reference, in the context of what I posted, is a valid comparison about general 4X game exploits.
Again you personalized my post as something against you (the individual) instead of the corporate or general "you" of players overall.
Please continue to post what you feel is not right with the mod but don't personalize the response posts unless they are addressed specifically to you. Neither of my recent posts started off with @ TC.
JosEPh
Johnny Canuck
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 146
I've been playing a game with the SVN on Epic (Huge, Immortal/Deity) and I'm finding that the building costs (inc. for units) are a bit low. I'm about a third of the way into Ancient, and my capital has built every possible building (with the exception of 2-3 defence buildings that cost - 
), and spends most of its time now building gold/research (i.e. the pattern is research new tech, build the associated building(s), and then build gold/research until the next tech comes in). I can see that my next oldest cities will soon be completely built up as well. Overall, it seems I'm able to build pretty much every building in almost every city, which reduces the strategic value of picking which buildings to prioritize.
My impression in this case is that building costs (inc. for units) could be raised by about 25% or so. Have other people encountered similar situations, or is my game the exception?
), and spends most of its time now building gold/research (i.e. the pattern is research new tech, build the associated building(s), and then build gold/research until the next tech comes in). I can see that my next oldest cities will soon be completely built up as well. Overall, it seems I'm able to build pretty much every building in almost every city, which reduces the strategic value of picking which buildings to prioritize.My impression in this case is that building costs (inc. for units) could be raised by about 25% or so. Have other people encountered similar situations, or is my game the exception?
I've been playing a game with the SVN on Epic (Huge, Immortal/Deity) and I'm finding that the building costs (inc. for units) are a bit low. I'm about a third of the way into Ancient, and my capital has built every possible building (with the exception of 2-3 defence buildings that cost -
My impression in this case is that building costs (inc. for units) could be raised by about 25% or so. Have other people encountered similar situations, or is my game the exception?
You have the exact same impression, as well as the same percentage increase, that I have been thinking of.
I'm just testing it for myself on Marathon to see how it works.
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
I've been playing a game with the SVN on Epic (Huge, Immortal/Deity) and I'm finding that the building costs (inc. for units) are a bit low. I'm about a third of the way into Ancient, and my capital has built every possible building (with the exception of 2-3 defence buildings that cost -
My impression in this case is that building costs (inc. for units) could be raised by about 25% or so. Have other people encountered similar situations, or is my game the exception?
Apparently you build only 1 or 2 units per city. And you must use Hurry Production all the time.
In my current Epic at 2765 BC Medieval Era I have Not built every building possible in my Capitol or any other major/early city. And I have a 1/2 dozen+ cities that are size 24-27 in pop. And I play Epic all the time.
So I don't agree with a 25% increase in costs. I'd be willing to Try a 10% increase but no more than that!
JosEPh :/
Well, the reason I said that is because my 25% increase is for all things; build costs, tech rates, and everything else. Basically, from looking at your saves and the saves and reports of others, I concluded with my math that a +25% to techs and build costs would put progression on track with the number of turns, at least until Renaissance.
The other option would be to decrease the number of turns, but that is a HUGE pain for me and I would like to avoid it.
Unit costs are not (IMO) the right way to address the general 'to much gold' perception that some have.
I added test setting to allow negative gold to be treated differently, because I think that is more tuneable (especially by difficulty which I think is a large part of what we need), to help address this. I need feedback on it (have had very little) (see the too much gold thread). IMO changing to that and then tuning maintenance modifiers (espially the difficulty ones) is the way to go.
I added test setting to allow negative gold to be treated differently, because I think that is more tuneable (especially by difficulty which I think is a large part of what we need), to help address this. I need feedback on it (have had very little) (see the too much gold thread). IMO changing to that and then tuning maintenance modifiers (espially the difficulty ones) is the way to go.
I'll bet that if we turn it on by default on the SVN we'll get a lot more feedback, currently it's a pain to turn it on every time I update, along with applying my test settings and turning on Dynamic Units.
Is the Dynamic Units setting stable enough where it could be on by default do you think?
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
@Koshling,
I have your negative gold thing turned on (well I did before the last SVN update I did, will need to check if I have to do it again). And I'm not sure what I should be seeing? Got some examples for me for what I should be noticing?
JosEPh
Edit: Well Is612 answered the turn on part for me. Gotta go turn it back on. No wonder I couldn't see what I needed to!
I have your negative gold thing turned on (well I did before the last SVN update I did, will need to check if I have to do it again). And I'm not sure what I should be seeing? Got some examples for me for what I should be noticing?
JosEPh
Edit: Well Is612 answered the turn on part for me. Gotta go turn it back on. No wonder I couldn't see what I needed to!
I'm waiting for new patch to be released to try those changes.
@Koshling,
I have your negative gold thing turned on (well I did before the last SVN update I did, will need to check if I have to do it again). And I'm not sure what I should be seeing? Got some examples for me for what I should be noticing?
JosEPh
Edit: Well Is612 answered the turn on part for me. Gotta go turn it back on. No wonder I couldn't see what I needed to!
Yes. You should see:
- Negative gold buildings now show in the hover text a maintenace cost
- The gold actuals do NOT multiply counter-intuitively with banks etc. (but do increase with things that add percentage maintenance)
- Probably net result of slightly more gold at low difficulty levels, but less gold at high ones
Should we turn on that option by default?
JosEPh_II
TBS WarLord
Okay,
1. look for new maint. costs from -gold bldgs, like Libraries per chance?
2. Banks won't make building things like Artesian Well More expensive. But will on buildings like River Port that has an increased maint % attached.
3. So on Noble I might see a bit more gold!
JosEPh
JosEPh
1. look for new maint. costs from -gold bldgs, like Libraries per chance?
2. Banks won't make building things like Artesian Well More expensive. But will on buildings like River Port that has an increased maint % attached.
3. So on Noble I might see a bit more gold!
JosEPh
JosEPh
Okay,
1. look for new maint. costs from -gold bldgs, like Libraries per chance?
2. Banks won't make building things like Artesian Well More expensive. But will on buildings like River Port that has an increased maint % attached.
3. So on Noble I might see a bit more gold!
JosEPh
JosEPh
yes, exactly
Similar threads
