FfH2 0.21 Balance Feedback

[QES]

Both of you are trying to help the mod by offering to create and refine ideas. The ironic part is that by engaging in personal attacks and not respecting others opinions you are damaging this forum and peoples ability to create and refine ideas (not to a major degree, this is by far the most positive internet community I have ever been a part of).

In a forum if someone says something that offends you the best thing you can do is to ignore it. Internet fights have no winner, but the forum always loses.

Please resist the urge to attack others. Some people will simply always hold a different opinion than you, now matter how strongly you feel about it or how obvious you feel your point is. Accept that they have a differing opinion and move on.

If you feel like your ideas aren't being considered or used the only person you should be mad at is me. I have no problem with anyone being mad because I don't use their ideas, I just ask that if you feel the need to share that anger with me you do it in a PM instead of on the forum.

I'm going to break with tradition and disagree with Kael here. I dont think people should be using Kael as a target for their frustrations at a lack of preceived input into this MOD. - Martyr complex or no, Kael's the backbone of the operation and he deserves our THANKS, not any amount of scorn.

On personal attacks: I would be a hypocrite to say I'd not engaged in them on the interweb in my life. But, I did so when I was younger, full of both vim and vigor, and generally a nuisance mostly to myself. The purpose of an attack is to draw out a reaction, be it a returned attack, or some weakness we hope to expose to the "light of others" so that our disdain for an individual's ideas might be then shared by others we "convince" to side with us.

The facts are the people dont side with anyone as far as loyalties go. People decide for themselves, especially on a forum as wonderful as this one, where they stand on individual ideas by the merits of the conversation and their own values. They seek not to ally with other forum posters in particular - but instead to the forum itself.

As such - personal attacks serve no real purpose on this forum. Especially in the FFH development section. This is because, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, people here tend to love the game itself, and the development of the mod itself. We are all, essentially, on the same side. Disagreements need not break out into all out flaming, because they serve literally no purpose. Emotions are not invested, usually, in the implementation of some key aspects of the design, but instead in the growth and unification of everyone of us as a community.

Aggression, as opposed to passion, is clear to anyone who reads any one person's post. Aggrestion is often done passionately, but those who browse these posts are not idiots, and I'd dare to say well above average intellectually and knowledgably (a word I just made up). As such I would hope we would treat each other as we ourselves would want to be treated.

The golden rule is an oldie but a goldie.

-Qes

P.S. And if you simply must hurt each other, use puns. Puns are the weapon of choice for forums, and I gauruntee they'll cause pain. See my "oldie but goldie" above.

 

[Go Boks]

Both of you are ... engaging in personal attacks

Yes, I know that's not exactly what you said. However, I felt it was implied. Please point out to me where I engaged in personal attacks, because I am obviously an idiot as I don't see it. I feel like I have been attacked myself and tried to move past it and continue the meaningful part of the conversation, and now I am being lumped in with a troll for my efforts, which I don't appreciate.

BTW, I second QES' opinions on how Kael should be treated. I don't know about the rest of the post though. It was too long, so I didn't finish it!

 

[QES]

Yes, I know that's not exactly what you said. However, I felt it was implied. Please point out to me where I engaged in personal attacks, because I am obviously an idiot as I don't see it. I feel like I have been attacked myself and tried to move past it and continue the meaningful part of the conversation, and now I am being lumped in with a troll for my efforts, which I don't appreciate.

BTW, I second QES' opinions on how Kael should be treated. I don't know about the rest of the post though. It was too long, so I didn't finish it!

Examples:

I assumed you were smart enough to figure it out, but I was wrong, so I apologize.

That is an inane comment to make.

You enjoy selective quoting, don't you?

Apparently, your psychologist still has a lot of work to do...

...because I am obviously an idiot as I don't see it.

No one has called you an idiot. I am not calling you an idiot.

To say that one has engaged in personal attacks does not mean they are "obvious" personal attacks as well. I had chosen the more obvious of the ones I could find, but as your last statement identifies, its not necessary to make direct comments to make personal attacks.

It's ok to be angry. It's ok to be frustrated. But then let me recomend saying the words "I am angry." and "I am frustrated" as opposed to throwing something back in the face of your preceived attacker.

I mean not to pick on you Go Boks, you are not the sole person responcible for the aggression that creeped into this thread.

I laid the seeds of discontent loong ago.

But in all seriousness, nothing personal should be taken on this forum. This is, and I mean this whole heartedly - the best forum on the web. The people here are great. We have individuals from all over the world, talking in peace, tranquility (most of the time) and about geopolitical, religious, and philsophical differences. I mean, think of this. There are individuals on this forum (Knight im looking at you) who I know I disagree fundamentally on politics - yet I admire them in near man-crush status. (I'm a liberal - we can have man-crushes) There is a wide vareity of religious (or irreligious) perspectives and we all discuss them genially, and with civility.

That is freaking amazing in today's world. Clearly - those who play civilization, have tacit amounts of civility. I suppose that makes sense. So forgive me, please, if I seem to be coming down rather harshly - it is only that I wish to maintain the beauty of this forum, and its increadible flexibility and adaptations.

Quite simply - There are no Wars on the civ forums - only in the civ games.


-Qes

 

[Go Boks]

There is nothing aggresive about the 2nd and 3rd comments you quoted, nothing at all. The 4th comment was playful, and you took it that way.

The 1st comment was a little aggresive yes, but nothing serious. If you really think that all qualifies as "personal attacks," then I'd suggest you'd toughen up a little.

...and no, that last comment was not aggresive either. People need to lighten up.

 

[onedreamer]

Both of you are trying to help the mod by offering to create and refine ideas. The ironic part is that by engaging in personal attacks and not respecting others opinions you are damaging this forum and peoples ability to create and refine ideas (not to a major degree, this is by far the most positive internet community I have ever been a part of).

Sorry if it seemed I felt the urge to attack anyone about their opinions. Instead it was my intention to discuss about them. In my opinion, to "contest" someone's opinion does not mean disrispect, confronting opinions is the heart of a discussion. But when you contest people because of their opinions, then that's a personal attack.

In a forum if someone says something that offends you the best thing you can do is to ignore it. Internet fights have no winner, but the forum always loses.

Thanks, I'll follow this advice.

 

[Mithrus]

Originally Posted by go boks
I assumed you were smart enough to figure it out, but I was wrong, so I apologize.

That is an inane comment to make.

You enjoy selective quoting, don't you?

Apparently, your psychologist still has a lot of work to do...

...because I am obviously an idiot as I don't see it.

There is nothing aggresive about the 2nd and 3rd comments you quoted, nothing at all. The 4th comment was playful, and you took it that way.

The 1st comment was a little aggresive yes, but nothing serious. If you really think that all qualifies as "personal attacks," then I'd suggest you'd toughen up a little.

...and no, that last comment was not aggresive either. People need to lighten up.

Ok, coming late to this thread, but these posts caught my eye, so I'll add my 2 coppers. Go Boks, I don't know you at all, but I can tell you fairly confidently that those first quotes are valid examples of "personal attacks". You admitted you couldn't see them, and someone was kind enough to point some out to better illustrate. The comment about "toughening up a little" is close to insulting. I can't think of a single reason any "non-personal attack" comment would require someone to have a tough skin. Practically by definition any comment that would be interpreted as targeted aggression is a personal attack, and hence not needed to express your point of view.

Please don't be too quick to dismiss the assistance, as I can attest from personal experience many times my buddies have had to point out something obvious to me that wasn't so much at the time...

 

[QES]

Go Boks,

I understand that you feel perhaps you are merely being playful, as I took your comment to be - but I should say I took it as playful, not because I believed you to be playful, but instead because I chose to react playfully to it.

When one makes aggressive statements, then attempts dry sarcastic/playful humor, the humor is lost because of the previous expectations created.

If I am insulted by an individual - I am less likely to believe he or she is joking when next he or she insults me, even if it's not serious. When a pattern of aggression or hostility emerges then the "joke" is often lost on those hearing it.

Go Boks I provided some examples at your request. I didnt not expect for you try and argue with me about them - becuase your intentions mean nothing when it comes to attacks. It only matters how others preceive them.

If I precieved the quoted above as personal attacks, I am likely not the only one. I also only picked the most obvious, when there were others in which I also sensed hostility but am not willing to presume. And Mithrus' points are very keen. To understand that others may not take one's language as one would intend it, is to by nature understand the weight of the words used.

Again - I am not attacking you Go Boks. I ask that you see me as an individual who is merely trying to cultivate understanding for all involved so that we might reach agreeable consensus for the good of the forum.

This forum (I believe) thinks of a personal attack as (when not in clear jest) a Forum poster is aggressing against the poster of a post - and not the post's concepts or ideas.

You will find that on this forum, people poke fun of each other all the time. I myself have many a scandelous rumor spread about me. (For the last time, Wilboman did not get that disease from me...I wasnt in port that week) But it's always clear that its in good jest, and is never sensical, or genuine. When you give "genuine-looking" cutting remarks, people will consider it an attack.

If you believe that this isnt very "tough" then that is your perogotive. But then please respect the lack of hitpoints the forum has.

-Qes

<Casts Heal on thread>

 

[QES]

Apparently my heal spells kill.
-Qes

 

[vorshlumpf]

This thread has been rather tainted. Give it time - it will re-emerge from the ashes.

- Niilo

 

[Frozen-Vomit]

Is there a reason why archery line units can learn shock II, the anti horseman thingy II but not cover II? Seems kind of unecesserily assymetrical.

 

[kenken244]

well i think it might be becuse archers are for city defence and they cant defend a city and attack a city ath the same time so adding it is really pointless because you arent going to use them to attack other archers in cities

 

[onedreamer]

crossbowmen are archery units and they are not specifically for city defense. I'll add that they are a very versatile unit and at certain stages of the game the only counter to them is Ranger (which can only learn cover I) or another crossbowman (which can only learn cover I according to Frozen Vomit -I didn't know that). I think it would make sense that crossbowmen could learn cover II.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Marksmen and Flurries also have uses outside of defense.

 

[uberfish]

could Thessa's and Amelanchier's traits be tweaked please?

Thessa has arcane/expansive and the main bonus of expansive is pretty useless for Ljosalfar who keep a lot of forests around. I would suggest changing it to Philosophical because the idea of creating GPs and sacrificing them for the greater good fits well with her backstory.

Amelanchier has raider/defender and not only do these two traits go together badly, defender seems to be considered a "minor trait" as the Elohim leaders get it for free. Perhaps he could be Organised or Adaptive instead of Defender?

 

[vorshlumpf]

Thessa has arcane/expansive and the main bonus of expansive is pretty useless for Ljosalfar who keep a lot of forests around.

I agree, from a game mechanics point of view.

Amelanchier has raider/defender and not only do these two traits go together badly, defender seems to be considered a "minor trait" as the Elohim leaders get it for free.

I always assumed he was ready for battle, inside and outside his borders. Comparing leaders between civs will not get you far with Kael - its the overall balance that is the primary concern. For myself, since Amelanchier is my favourite elven leader (from a mechanics stand-point), my vote is that he's just fine.

- Niilo

 

[Chandrasekhar]

They're pretty powerful in their other aspects, I think. The slower workers, combined with their less-than-perfect traits make them well balanced with other civilizations. That's my opinion at least.

 

[vorshlumpf]

My main concern is that Thessa is the undesired leader of the three, by a large margin.

Is there anyone who would pick her first?

- Niilo

 

[vorshlumpf]

Based upon conversation in another thread, I'd like to see the early lizardmen changed to a more primitive unit. This would help alleviate the concern many are voicing about these lizardmen being too powerful for that early in the game. For me, it would simply make more sense flavour-wise: these sword-wielding monsters just don't fit in that era.

The primitive version could be STR 2, or 3/1, and the unit graphic could be changed to have no weapon. Also, perhaps due to an extremely feral nature, they could be classified as Animals to give scouts more of a chance against them.

- Niilo

 

[onedreamer]

My main concern is that Thessa is the undesired leader of the three, by a large margin.

Is there anyone who would pick her first?

- Niilo

Me, anytime, any day. The Arcane Trait is one of my favourites. +10% science, and superb spellcasters, which are very powerful and all-around units in the hands of the human player. Expansive is also a good trait if you get your hands on Orders from Heaven before building heroes (very doable, since FoL heroes are not so early ones), convert to The Order momentarily and become good to be able to use Public Healers at no cost. Even just Protect the Meek at no cost is a good bonus alone too, and won't cause considerably higher diplo penalties with evil civs that being Good and with Public Healers does.

 

[Jean Elcard]

Speaking about leaders and their traits ... there are quite some inconsistencies. The Khazad are a good example:

Arturus Thorne
He's getting a production bonus for lighthouses (Organized trait). Are you kidding me? Lighthouses and Dwarves?

Kandros Fir
Through his Aggressive trait he gets a production bonus for stables and shipyards. For some reason I'm getting the impression that FFH Dwarves must be quite some good sailors.

But in earnest: I think the problem in most cases isn't the trait as a whole but parts of it like shown above. Maybe someone should invent a more modular way to describe a leader and its capabilities. An easy way would be to split the production bonuses from the actual traits and put them in a third, more fitting one, for each leader. Just a suggestion.