Caveman 2 Cosmos

[raxo2222]

Does now that Toffer, Blazenclaw?, and you upped Maint. costs on everything.


Nope was meant for Capitol City


Yup!

Why do you all not test what you are changing Before you put it on Git or SVN? The standard and best practice has Always been Test Before You Add To Game!
I seriously doubt that the discord Team does this. I Hope I'm wrong.

I adjusted one building, because it was effectively taking gold from player as he screnshotted that.
I think you would adjust in such way, that it would give gold only in some cities.

About year ago I reduced all gold modifiers from bonuses to 1%.
I guess this one building was hurt most by this change.

Spoiler :

By the way @Toffer90 didn't increase maintenance modifiers.
He nerfed all maintenance reducing things by changing how negative maintenance works:
-100% or -200% to maintenance used to mean "no maintenance"
Now it means maintenance reduced in half or to 33% of original value.

So if city had -50% maintenance from buildings, now it actually means less.
Tooltips must be adjusted to show this effect.

 

[ElanaAhova]

Are you talking about a message on a particular promotion?

What I'm referring to is the red message. EXAMPLE: unit with promotion for hill defense.
1> Does the red warning mean that no promotions will be in effect if said unit is not on a hill square? If other (not hill defense) promotions actually work for this unit even when not on in hill square -- what's the point of the caution?

 

[Thunderbrd]

What I'm referring to is the red message. EXAMPLE: unit with promotion for hill defense.
1> Does the red warning mean that no promotions will be in effect if said unit is not on a hill square? If other (not hill defense) promotions actually work for this unit even when not on in hill square -- what's the point of the caution?

I THINK the answer to your question, though the question is confusing me, is that it's saying on some units that some of the effects on the promotion might not apply to that unit - probably because that unit doesn't GET defense modifiers at all as a unit feature because they are dynamic and don't take defensive fighting positions or stances.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I adjusted one building, because it was effectively taking gold from player as he screnshotted that.
I think you would adjust in such way, that it would give gold only in some cities.

About year ago I reduced all gold modifiers from bonuses to 1%.
I guess this one building was hurt most by this change.

Spoiler :

View attachment 603136

By the way @Toffer90 didn't increase maintenance modifiers.
He nerfed all maintenance reducing things by changing how negative maintenance works:
-100% or -200% to maintenance used to mean "no maintenance"
Now it means maintenance reduced in half or to 33% of original value.

So if city had -50% maintenance from buildings, now it actually means less.
Tooltips must be adjusted to show this effect.

@raxo2222 ,
Every email I get from git about any changes made I read them to stay abreast of what you all are doing. I even go to Git to see the changes. Plus I use the SVN to also see what was changd from version to version. Your reply is nearsighted/shortsighted.

Was not Toffer and Brazenclaw involved on putting a "maint cost" on every tile worked?

And your personal involvement over the past several years, like taking all bonuses down to 1%, have been major reductions. I'm not referring to your most recent change to 1 building. And generally won't on something like that. But the overall effects of the changes made over the past 2-3 years have been substantial.

So the gist is this. Every change like these changes (you mentioned and others I mentioned) over the flow of the mod's development for past several years changes how a Civic with a cost/maint modifier interacts to the game when used. And the original intent of the Civic may become "warped". And a problem with a Civic that was there 2 years ago may now be the opposite of what it was back then when addressed. It also changes civics that have not been Tweaked/adjusted yet.

So do I now need to go back and remove Main maintenance Modifiers like Distance to Palace and Number of Cities? For the whole of the Civics? You touching upon how Toffer changed negative maint. Is a Major Change in this regard. Your reduction to all bonuses to 1% was a similar Major change. In many cases it was justified. But in many other it was not. Making wholesale changes greatly alters the mod's play and all it's options as well. I'm advocating caution when doing so. Because as many fingers are in there now this will occur time and again.

My caution and stance is now duly noted in this thread for all to read and comment on.

@raxo2222 Have a Great day and enjoy the freedom you enjoy to make game altering changes to this Mod unhindered. Please use this Freedom Judiciously and with Consideration.

 

[Blazenclaw]

Was not Toffer and Brazenclaw involved on putting a "maint cost" on every tile worked?

The only thing I did, way back when, was to A) increase the cost of constructing improvements moderately, while pursing the main goal of B) making them more similar to each other, in the sense that some don't cost wildly more than others for no specified reason. I don't think I saw anyone adding a turn-over-turn maintenance cost to tiles themselves, but that would indeed be a much larger change... one I would be for, but of course you are absolutely right in that it would make balances tricky.

I can't speak for anything recently (have only been lurking), but you are correct in that the new method of calculating negative modifiers will cause civics and other effects to be possibly warped. That is, however, better than having things be "broken" ala what a -100% modifier represented before this change, no?

 

[JosEPh_II]

The only thing I did, way back when, was to A) increase the cost of constructing improvements moderately, while pursing the main goal of B) making them more similar to each other, in the sense that some don't cost wildly more than others for no specified reason. I don't think I saw anyone adding a turn-over-turn maintenance cost to tiles themselves, but that would indeed be a much larger change... one I would be for, but of course you are absolutely right in that it would make balances tricky.

I can't speak for anything recently (have only been lurking), but you are correct in that the new method of calculating negative modifiers will cause civics and other effects to be possibly warped. That is, however, better than having things be "broken" ala what a -100% modifier represented before this change, no?

My only response is this, where was a -100% modifier ever used? I can not think of any place that it was. But if it was a bad calculation then I'm glad it was found and corrected.

 

[Thunderbrd]

My only response is this, where was a -100% modifier ever used?

It's not about using a single negative modifier so much as multiple modifiers adding up to it or more. Not that I'm really following too closely with this issue or these issues but that's my understanding of it.

 

[ElanaAhova]

I THINK the answer to your question, though the question is confusing me, is that it's saying on some units that some of the effects on the promotion might not apply to that unit - probably because that unit doesn't GET defense modifiers at all as a unit feature because they are dynamic and don't take defensive fighting positions or stances.

Thanks Tunderbrd. Perhaps you are right. I'm confused by the meaning of the 'red' warning. Common sense tells me that IF -- a unit has the hill promotion THEN -- it seems obvious that it won't get the benefit of THAT specific [hill] promotion UNLESS unit is currently on a hill. So what's the point of the weirdly worded red caution? Does said unit lose ALL promotions if it isn't on a hill? SEEMS you are suggesting this interpretation. IF you are correct -- THEN taking any location specific promotion 'LOCKS' the unit to that terrain. I have been playing -- and avoiding these promotions because I don't understand the meaning of the accompanying red caution ... guess I will continue to do so until the mod-maker clarifies the red caution. THANK YOU for replying!

 

[Thunderbrd]

Thanks Tunderbrd. Perhaps you are right. I'm confused by the meaning of the 'red' warning. Common sense tells me that IF -- a unit has the hill promotion THEN -- it seems obvious that it won't get the benefit of THAT specific [hill] promotion UNLESS unit is currently on a hill. So what's the point of the weirdly worded red caution? Does said unit lose ALL promotions if it isn't on a hill? SEEMS you are suggesting this interpretation. IF you are correct -- THEN taking any location specific promotion 'LOCKS' the unit to that terrain. I have been playing -- and avoiding these promotions because I don't understand the meaning of the accompanying red caution ... guess I will continue to do so until the mod-maker clarifies the red caution. THANK YOU for replying!

No - the caution is there to say that although the defensive modifier is showing as a bonus on the promotion, because this unit cannot benefit from any terrain defensive modifiers, it won't ever get that benefit, even if it's on a hill where it is normally given out to units that have this promotion. This was added when we made it possible for units that don't get defense modifiers to still take these promotions for other benefits they may possess. Used to be that instead, we made it impossible for no-defense mod units to take any promotion with any kind of defense modification on it, but we have promotions that are still important to be able to take for even those units because of other benefits those promotions possess. For example, ignoring terrain damage.

 

[ElanaAhova]

No - the caution is there to say that although the defensive modifier is showing as a bonus on the promotion, because this unit cannot benefit from any terrain defensive modifiers, it won't ever get that benefit, even if it's on a hill where it is normally given out to units that have this promotion. This was added when we made it possible for units that don't get defense modifiers to still take these promotions for other benefits they may possess. Used to be that instead, we made it impossible for no-defense mod units to take any promotion with any kind of defense modification on it, but we have promotions that are still important to be able to take for even those units because of other benefits those promotions possess. For example, ignoring terrain damage.

OK, I think.
1> So, a group of say, obsidian spear-men, who get the hill defense promotion, WILL get a defense benefit when attacked while on(in) a hill square.
2> But a unit that never gets terrain defense benefits, (liked many of the single person / creature units) will not get the hill defense benefit -- even when it has the hill defense promotion.
3> So, now I just have to figure out how to distinguish between these two categories of units. -ie how to identify units that actually use the hill defense promotion, and those for whom the hill defense promotion is irreverent.
Thank you T Bird! Actually helps.

 

[Thunderbrd]

OK, I think.
1> So, a group of say, obsidian spear-men, who get the hill defense promotion, WILL get a defense benefit when attacked while on(in) a hill square.
2> But a unit that never gets terrain defense benefits, (liked many of the single person / creature units) will not get the hill defense benefit -- even when it has the hill defense promotion.
3> So, now I just have to figure out how to distinguish between these two categories of units. -ie how to identify units that actually use the hill defense promotion, and those for whom the hill defense promotion is irreverent.
Thank you T Bird! Actually helps.

Correct.
Units that don't get defense bonuses are units that remain dynamic and on the move at all times, so mostly we're talking about mounted units that don't dismount to fight. Make sure to hold down the hotkey before you hover over a unit's info to get the right combat modifiers page showing in the tooltip.

 

[Blazenclaw]

My only response is this, where was a -100% modifier ever used? I can not think of any place that it was. But if it was a bad calculation then I'm glad it was found and corrected.

I don't think there were any places that had a -100% by itself.

However, if there is -50% modifier for city maintenance (say) from wonder A, another 30% from civic B, and 20% from trait C, then this becomes rather broken, yes? And further benefits were wasted; no point in getting -120% modifier if you already have -100%. So, rather than trying to balance everything around each possible combination of trait/building/civic/etc factors, it's easier to change the calculation such that -100% isn't the 'upper limit', so to speak.

Really, this should give you (and everyone else interested in balancing) more leeway in values to give; what was a -66% modifier, before, is now a -200% modifier. -99% modifier no longer has twice the effectiveness of a -98% modifier, etc. There's always further benefits, if diminishing, for increased negative modifiers.

Does this make sense?

 

[JosEPh_II]

It's not about using a single negative modifier so much as multiple modifiers adding up to it or more. Not that I'm really following too closely with this issue or these issues but that's my understanding of it.

Age old problem with modifiers and ranges/domains. And why just changing a % some place to satisfy an individual whim is never a good thing. Why? because no testing or checking of the results, save for a very specific result, is ever considered by the % changer.

Just like Raxo's change for Rodnovery by removing all it's Negative Mil Production Modifiers because SO did not like the negatives. Bad choices lead to bad changes, imhpo. I've seen too much of this over the past 12 years plus in C2C.

Removed military production modifier from Rodnovery buildings, as it made religion useless -- raxo2222

 

[raxo2222]

Age old problem with modifiers and ranges/domains. And why just changing a % some place to satisfy an individual whim is never a good thing. Why? because no testing or checking of the results, save for a very specific result, is ever considered by the % changer.

Just like Raxo's change for Rodnovery by removing all it's Negative Mil Production Modifiers because SO did not like the negatives. Bad choices lead to bad changes, imhpo. I've seen too much of this over the past 12 years plus in C2C.

All buildings will be eventually rebalanced in building review.
This will be done after unit review.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Age old problem with modifiers and ranges/domains. And why just changing a % some place to satisfy an individual whim is never a good thing. Why? because no testing or checking of the results, save for a very specific result, is ever considered by the % changer.

Not sure what change you're complaining about but the change that Blaze was referring to was a more substantial change to how negative % mods work in general so that they get a decreasing impact the further they approach -100% now so that they won't ever actually total that much negative no matter how much - is applied. I have a feeling that's a LOT more powerful an adjustment than any one building.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Not sure what change you're complaining about but the change that Blaze was referring to was a more substantial change to how negative % mods work in general so that they get a decreasing impact the further they approach -100% now so that they won't ever actually total that much negative no matter how much - is applied. I have a feeling that's a LOT more powerful an adjustment than any one building.

I Highlighted your statement, then highlighted my reply to it. How is that not understandable? And where is the complaining? I stated everything clearly.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I Highlighted your statement, then highlighted my reply to it. How is that not understandable? And where is the complaining? I stated everything clearly.

Well you were saying something about a specific building and a 10% modifier being turned down to 1% weren't you? (earlier) I was saying that I wasn't paying full attention when this conversation began because it was originally in reference to a different subject it seemed.

 

[raxo2222]

Y'all can transplant continental cultures to other cities with migrants, if you didn't knew about this.
They reduce city size by 2 though

So its would be realistic that productivity falls after mass migrations
Those can settle in small cities only though

 

[margolloxx]

Is this intended?
Cave Paintings increase Culture and Science from animal tales added to the city but when replacing Cave Paintings with Fresco Mural that bonus gets removed.

 

[raxo2222]

Is this intended?
Cave Paintings increase Culture and Science from animal tales added to the city but when replacing Cave Paintings with Fresco Mural that bonus gets removed.

It has nothing to do with animal tales.

Spoiler :

Probably you are playing on 41.2 - there were tons of misleading strategy texts.