Game balance and AI

[Hydromancerx]

Acorn Grove gives 1 of each gold, food and production. Why gold and production? It's not like you can manufacture anything out of acorn shells? Does it really warrant an extra gold to your nations treasury too?

Oak trees can be used for wood. Also all farms, mines, factories and shops give gold as revenue. its under the sim city model of commercial/industrial buildings. And acorn grove would be under the agricultural side (which is a subgroup of Industrial).

Almond Grove only gives 1 gold and food, so I'm assuming the lack of production enhancing shells account for the lack of 1 production in this building.

I don't think almond wood is good for lumber (I could be wrong).

Animal hide tents apparently produce 1 food and a wopping 2 gold for some reason. I might put some up in the back garden and I'll not need to go to work anymore as they magic up gold and food out of nothing.

They were put in the residential categories for the prehistoric era. Thus a Hide Tent is a Medium Wealth and Low Density (should give 2 gold and 1 production).

The most puzzling of all in the "A's" is the Assassins guild. 10 gold a turn! Why? Do assassins really add to a nations treasury?

Hmm you have a point.

Finally the Stone Tool Maker is the single best building I have ever seen, it's possible without doing anything other than progressing your techs to have a building that gives 5 gold, 5 production and 5 research with no negatives.

See the other topic. Its being worked on to fix it.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I think as well that there is a gold issue, at least in the early (pre-medieval) game. Even on higher difficulty with Koshling's new option for gold it doesn't seem like it's hard to maintain 100% research and a large treasury. I agree with you, there are a lot of Prehistoric buildings that give gold bonuses, and since you are building every building in the Prehistoric Era that gives more gold, that can be an issue.

I know for a fact that once you get past a certain point Inflation will kick in and rein in Gold excesses, but the offest is enough for most speeds to cover the Prehistoric and Ancient Eras, and increasing inflation too much will make the game unplayable, so that is not really a good option.

I think that what should be done is to make all of the Prehistoric + buildings cost 1 . That way, the effects will go away for the most part after Writing, but keep things a bit tighter in the Prehistoric Era, which could really use it.

@Hydro: Those buildings are mainly yours, do you think that this is a good idea? Also, he's right that stone tools needs to be nerfed a good bit.

Actually no, only SOME buildings can be built in the prehistoric era. Soem replace each other or have stricter requirements such as the grass hut now requires tall grass in the city vicinity.

Here is an example ...

Lean-To -> Grass Hut -> Bark House -> Hovel

Each are Low Density / Low Wealth houses. However a Mud Hut will not replace a Grass Hut since the Mud Hut is a Low Density / Medium Wealth house.

 

[Thunderbrd]

And the moral of this story is... we listen to those who post but please realize most of the time things do have rhyme and reason and have been fairly well thought out even if its not too apparent on first evaluatory glance.

I back Hydro's thinking on those things, knowing that he's reinvented his own wheels a few times to try to get things working and looking right. He's got most things established along linear lines of progression and quite logically.

Some of those building issues may yet again be modified to fit a new methodology down the line too so with the mod in constant flux, its always good to hear advice like this to take into account the impressions players may get about things when looking at reworking a building line or function. Even if we don't know what to say directly to respond sometimes, everyone's comments are being considered.

 

[Antmanbrooks]

And the moral of this story is... we listen to those who post but please realize most of the time things do have rhyme and reason and have been fairly well thought out even if its not too apparent on first evaluatory glance.

I back Hydro's thinking on those things, knowing that he's reinvented his own wheels a few times to try to get things working and looking right. He's got most things established along linear lines of progression and quite logically.

Some of those building issues may yet again be modified to fit a new methodology down the line too so with the mod in constant flux, its always good to hear advice like this to take into account the impressions players may get about things when looking at reworking a building line or function. Even if we don't know what to say directly to respond sometimes, everyone's comments are being considered.

Yep, point taken, I knew there was reasoning behind it all but sometimes without a completed pedia that can get overshadowed and it needs explaining. Pedia has to come last though, once it's all polished and working well. I didn't expect such a positive reply to my critique though. I dip my toe into C2C every now and again and I appreciate it's going to be amazing when finished. Even more impressed to see that feedback seems to get acknowledged. I'm inspired to go play it right now infact!

 

[Thunderbrd]

We had a thread started somewhere about adding some content to the pedia. I should go dig it out soon as I'm going to have a lot new to add and I agree that its getting pretty seriously necessary to do some updates there and explain a lot we haven't really detailed yet.

 

[RidetheSpiral23]

I'm glad someone is else giving some feedback about the number of buildings because I always feel like people will get mad when I say so. I still think some buildings need to be cut out or combined. It's just not fun. My fiancee won't even play C2C with me because she gets so bored. She says she will play vanilla but who wants to do that?

Can we maybe get a serious constructive thread going for cutting back on and readjusting buildings to be more unique?

 

[Hydromancerx]

Can we maybe get a serious constructive thread going for cutting back on and readjusting buildings to be more unique?

*twitches* I cannot believe you can say something so controversial in one sentence.

1. We don't need more threads, we have enough threads on this. Go use one of the other threads which discuss this.

2. We have both serious and constructive discussion about all aspects of the mod all the time and we are constantly tweaking an improving things.

3. Many buildings have been re-invented over and over and have a reason why they are the way they are.

4. We have TONS of unique buildings both in types, requirements and even stats.

5. It is true that some buildings have the same stats as another but that is only because they were either fill the same game niche or are expressed in a similar way.

6. Not all buildings have to have different stats. The fact you can build up your city with small bonus adds up over time. Thus if someone spends time to build up their city they will have a much more productive and well rounded city than if they just build large bonus buildings. This is specifically made to reward the builder playing style (as opposed to the warmonger style).

7. There are also special buildings chains that unlock if you build the right types of buildings. Also some buildings only get unlocked by population level, civics, trade resources, resources in the city vicinity and even by subdued animals. Thus making each building unique.

8. We are not "cutting back". The whole reason I started C2C with SO was so I could have the freedom I did not have with Afforess and RoM/AND which cut back everything. They believed in "less is more" but I say "more is more". If you cannot accept that then go play RoM/AND. If I did not have that freedom I would not have done this mod.

9. Lastly you must realize that everyone on the C2C team is volunteering and modding for fun. My reason is to do the stuff I wanted to make for RoM/AND but could not due to limitations. Each modders contributions are maintained by them. For instance the Subdued Animals is DH's domain since he pioneered it. While we do take suggestions/ideas from players as well as from others on the team we still have control over our own creations.

Since much of my work is the buildings of C2C I feel strongly on how they are represented in the mod. So much so that a blanket statement like yours honestly pisses me off since I spent a lot of time designing and coding for each building and even in some cases re-inventing some older RoM/AND buildings.

In short I am always open to new ideas but in the end I am going to do it my way since its my mod (no offense to the other C2C team members since I suspect they feel the same about their own contributions to the mod).

 

[BlueGenie]

My first input here is that I'd rather have 5 buildings giving +1 and +1 costing 500 each build-able in one city because of 5 resources (on map or from buildings/trade) than one building giving +1 and +1 per resource costing 2500. This is on Eternal Speed and having it that way means I can get earlier access to these and than by having one building. If the same 2500 building only had access to 2 resources in another city I could just spend 1000 instead of 2500 for the 2 and it would give in that city.
I can also chose to build something in between doing these and buildings rather than having to either wait until all 2500 are built or put the building on hold because something I need/want/like more comes along. I want some "instant" gratification.

My second input is to ask that instead of seeing a load of buildings that all do the same you can try to see a big building that has been split up into many parts, each of which is situational per city. Some you can build everywhere, some you can only build in a single city, but you don't have to deal with a generic catch all building that you basically have to build in every city.
Now that would be boring, at least for me. The variety is good. Having the exact same buildings required by all cities for the same benefit would make it mind numbingly boring to say the least. It would also make it too easy with choosing what to build really as you'd not have much of a choice anyway.

Rather a lot of small, fast buildings than a few big, forever to build buildings.

More is more!
Cheers

 

[Hydromancerx]

@BlueGenie

I already have plans for re-doing the Guilds system which will give a free building to every city. This will mean if you establish your core buildings first you can help build new cities with more starting buildings. For example if you build X amount of Glass Makers than you can build a Glass Maker Guild Hall (national wonder) that gives Glass Makers to all cities.

However this has taken a back seat to other projects.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm glad someone is else giving some feedback about the number of buildings because I always feel like people will get mad when I say so. I still think some buildings need to be cut out or combined. It's just not fun. My fiancee won't even play C2C with me because she gets so bored. She says she will play vanilla but who wants to do that?

Can we maybe get a serious constructive thread going for cutting back on and readjusting buildings to be more unique?

I just feel that players who feel this way still need to master the filters and build queue copies. There's only one or two buildings I feel could/should be merged into one (the Brewery and the other one just like it is pretty much all that comes to mind because I believe their benefits should run concurrent rather than cumulative, thus making it better to just combine them into one building.) That's pretty much it for me. I see the rest of the buildings all as having a point and a purpose and think we still have more to go. It does take patience to play the mod, but mastering use of its tools helps.

 

[RidetheSpiral23]

*twitches* I cannot believe you can say something so controversial in one sentence.

1. We don't need more threads, we have enough threads on this. Go use one of the other threads which discuss this.

Did i start a new thread?? No. I was suggesting that if this discussion was to go somewhere it might need its own thread. Do we have a limited amount of threads? Is everything going to explode if we start another thread? Sorry I suggested starting a thread in a forum. "More is more" right??

2. We have both serious and constructive discussion about all aspects of the mod all the time and we are constantly tweaking an improving things.

Yes I apologize if that might have worked you up. I agree with this. I was just referring to the crime and religion thread that got out of hand. What I meant was the mod team listening to feedback from players instead of going blah blah, my mod, blah blah.

3. Many buildings have been re-invented over and over and have a reason why they are the way they are.

I understand that you have done a lot of hard work with the buildings. I really do. I am just stating the C2C gets bigger by the day and it might be good to go over them and see if all of them are needed/unique enough.

4. We have TONS of unique buildings both in types, requirements and even stats.

5. It is true that some buildings have the same stats as another but that is only because they were either fill the same game niche or are expressed in a similar way.

I understand that you have done a lot of hard work with the buildings. I really do. I am just stating the C2C gets bigger by the day and it might be good to go over them and see if all of them are needed/unique enough.

6. Not all buildings have to have different stats. The fact you can build up your city with small bonus adds up over time. Thus if someone spends time to build up their city they will have a much more productive and well rounded city than if they just build large bonus buildings. This is specifically made to reward the builder playing style (as opposed to the warmonger style).

I appreciate you bringing that up and honestly I'm kinda a warmonger. I hadn't thought of it in that regard. Thank you.

7. There are also special buildings chains that unlock if you build the right types of buildings. Also some buildings only get unlocked by population level, civics, trade resources, resources in the city vicinity and even by subdued animals. Thus making each building unique.

Good point and I understand that. I am glad you adjusted the stone tool maker also. I have no problem at all with the types of buildings you listed here. I totally agree and I love having unique buildings like that. I'm just not a fan of the repetitive ones.

8. We are not "cutting back". The whole reason I started C2C with SO was so I could have the freedom I did not have with Afforess and RoM/AND which cut back everything. They believed in "less is more" but I say "more is more". If you cannot accept that then go play RoM/AND. If I did not have that freedom I would not have done this mod.

9. Lastly you must realize that everyone on the C2C team is volunteering and modding for fun. My reason is to do the stuff I wanted to make for RoM/AND but could not due to limitations. Each modders contributions are maintained by them. For instance the Subdued Animals is DH's domain since he pioneered it. While we do take suggestions/ideas from players as well as from others on the team we still have control over our own creations.

Since much of my work is the buildings of C2C I feel strongly on how they are represented in the mod. So much so that a blanket statement like yours honestly pisses me off since I spent a lot of time designing and coding for each building and even in some cases re-inventing some older RoM/AND buildings.

In short I am always open to new ideas but in the end I am going to do it my way since its my mod (no offense to the other C2C team members since I suspect they feel the same about their own contributions to the mod).

I am sorry if I pissed you off with my blanket statement. I did not mean to offend any one and I can totally understand why you would be defensive of your work. I would be too. Yes you guys do it for fun but you also post on a civ forum and put up a download link. If you didn't want feedback then why post it. Just keep it to yourself. You need to understand that you are going to get positive and negative feedback on your creations. Not everyone is the same. I wasn't trying to insult you or put down your work, I was just stating my opinions on it. I'm sorry if that offended you to the point where you got that mad. You want more people to play this mod don't you? Why else would you post it on a forum? More players means more feedback, AI logs, and more modders (sometimes). I'm sorry for pointing out an opinion that I have heard/read from a lot of people who have tried this mod.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Did i start a new thread?? No. I was suggesting that if this discussion was to go somewhere it might need its own thread. Do we have a limited amount of threads? Is everything going to explode if we start another thread? Sorry I suggested starting a thread in a forum. "More is more" right??

You just said "Can we maybe get a serious constructive thread going". That sounds like your asking for a new thread to be made. And no we do not have a limited amount of threads but its much easier to find things if topics of the same idea or theme are in the same thread (ex. We don't need 5 topics on steampunk.) And even with my 'more is more' mantra I try to not repeat anything (with the exception of RoM/AND's Farmscraper I, II and III).

Yes I apologize if that might have worked you up. I agree with this. I was just referring to the crime and religion thread that got out of hand. What I meant was the mod team listening to feedback from players instead of going blah blah, my mod, blah blah.

Dude! Specifically with Joe's thread and Joe in general I have the up most respect for him and his ideas. he has been on the forum a very long time and I very much value his discussion about things. If not for him then gold would be a lot tighter than it is now. As for religion and his views, I think they are very personal to him, however this is a game and I do not see a Revivalist Church building being anything but a civic building for the Intolerant tech. Aside from the crime I added (which was only +5 per turn) the rest of the stats were as Generalstaff made them. I liked his work and feel like the stats should remain for that. However I have redone soem of his buildings, such in the case of the Manor to Grand Manor, Estate to Grand Estate, etc. Only because they shared the same names as my Housing buildings.

I understand that you have done a lot of hard work with the buildings. I really do. I am just stating the C2C gets bigger by the day and it might be good to go over them and see if all of them are needed/unique enough.

How many times must one go over buildings? No offense but after a while I get tired of re-working the same buildings over and over just because some new person shows up and says "why did you not do it this way?" Some top buildings that have been redone many times; Bandits Hideout, Market, Bazaar, all the Housing and Huts, etc. I honestly don't mind reviewing newer buildings but the older one that have been redone over and over drive me nuts.

I appreciate you bringing that up and honestly I'm kinda a warmonger. I hadn't thought of it in that regard. Thank you.

We have many types of players but C2C has a good following of builders so I wanted to make sure they were not left out. Note we have a TON of warmonger features too.

Good point and I understand that. I am glad you adjusted the stone tool maker also. I have no problem at all with the types of buildings you listed here. I totally agree and I love having unique buildings like that. I'm just not a fan of the repetitive ones.

The Tool Makers Workshop took me extra time to consider. Players get impatient and want things done NOW! I have been accused on a number of occasions of being to compulsive so I have been trying in recent months to slow down and reconsider things before changing things. I am not sure if that's a good thing or not.

I am sorry if I pissed you off with my blanket statement. I did not mean to offend any one and I can totally understand why you would be defensive of your work. I would be too. Yes you guys do it for fun but you also post on a civ forum and put up a download link. If you didn't want feedback then why post it. Just keep it to yourself. You need to understand that you are going to get positive and negative feedback on your creations. Not everyone is the same. I wasn't trying to insult you or put down your work, I was just stating my opinions on it. I'm sorry if that offended you to the point where you got that mad. You want more people to play this mod don't you? Why else would you post it on a forum? More players means more feedback, AI logs, and more modders (sometimes). I'm sorry for pointing out an opinion that I have heard/read from a lot of people who have tried this mod.

We do want feedback, but please educate yourself first!! Both the forum and civpedia can answer main of the complaints, ideas or worries you may have on a subject. In general it comes down to this ...

1. Its already in the mod, but you just have not found it yet. (Check Civpedia)
2. Its already in the works but has not been applied yet. (Check Forum)
3. It was already considered and was either tweaked or rejected. (Check Forum)

If they don't fall under one of those 3 categories then by all means post your ideas! Try to be specific a possible too. Don't say "the game has too many buildings", we are not going to listen to that. Ideas like "could you add a Gym to the game" is a perfectly good suggestion/idea. Even better would be adding specific stats about the Gym.

Existing buildings can be done this way too such as "I think Cave Paintings should require Caves terrain feature". Its specific and involves a few feature that was just added so the existing building could be changed to incorporate the new feature.

As for more people playing, that's a hard one. Actually I don't really mod to be popular I do it because I want to add stuff I would want to play the game with. If others like it fine, but I would be perfectly happy making it for myself (which is what I did in the beginning). The upside to sharing is that I can combine efforts with other modders. Which is the main reason for not just making a personal mod.

So yeah its great to get nice comments, especially when its in the form of "Let's Plays" and stuff, but that's not why I mod.

 

[RidetheSpiral23]

@Hydro

Sorry for being so general with my "blanket statement". I really just wanted to see if any one else was interested in discussing that topic more in depth (also why I said it might need a new thread if the discussion got large). I would like to give some examples of buildings that I think would be a possibility to combine/change etc. If you don't want to read them than that's fine, you can do what you want .

I don't want bad blood between us and I honestly was not trying to take a stab at your hard work. I really appreciate how much you have done for this mod! I am just under the opinion that free discussions will better any creation/work. I don't want to go play ROM/AND, from what I understand it's not in active development anymore. I like this mod obviously. I enjoy working on maps and learning modding slowly and I would rather not give that up.

 

[Antmanbrooks]

I don't frequent C2C much anymore as constructive feeback seems to get shot down, ignored or glossed over by one or two (not all)...

...because I always feel like people will get mad when I say so...

Haha, that's gotta hurt.

 

[ls612]

I think that the main reason so many ideas get 'shot down' or ignored is because we all in the team are very different in our outlook on the mod and in our playstyles. That coupled with the fact that this is a democratic process among the team means that changes don't get enacted unless most everyone agrees.

Some may see this as us being aloof, but I think that it is good to be cautious on game balance, as it was a major game-balance shift on the part of AND that killed it. We do not want to repeat that mistake, and so are more conservative and cautious on major changes. I think though that reacting with anger towards people with good ideas is a poor idea on our part, and that all ideas should be seriously discussed, even if we decide not to implement them.

 

[rightfuture]

I'm glad someone is else giving some feedback about the number of buildings because I always feel like people will get mad when I say so. I still think some buildings need to be cut out or combined. It's just not fun. My fiancee won't even play C2C with me because she gets so bored. She says she will play vanilla but who wants to do that?

Can we maybe get a serious constructive thread going for cutting back on and readjusting buildings to be more unique?

@Hydro

Sorry for being so general with my "blanket statement". I really just wanted to see if any one else was interested in discussing that topic more in depth (also why I said it might need a new thread if the discussion got large). I would like to give some examples of buildings that I think would be a possibility to combine/change etc. If you don't want to read them than that's fine, you can do what you want .

I don't want bad blood between us and I honestly was not trying to take a stab at your hard work. I really appreciate how much you have done for this mod! I am just under the opinion that free discussions will better any creation/work. I don't want to go play ROM/AND, from what I understand it's not in active development anymore. I like this mod obviously. I enjoy working on maps and learning modding slowly and I would rather not give that up.

Everyone,
RidetheSpiral23, Antmanbrooks, even Hydromancerx.
Can we please take the controversial parts of the building conversation to the:

C2C - Productive Controversial Discussions
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=467983

This way we can eventually work it out to everyone's satisfaction (the best possible) without derailing progress.
Debate is great when we can move the conversation forward.
I think everyone's thoughts have merit.
Better UI controls and building grouping may solve the problem with people complaining about too many buildings. Choice can be both a bad and good thing.
Remember that the ModTeam has to make choices, if you have a sticking point or a solution to a major problem, that thread maybe the best place to overcome it.

We all want the C2C to be the best Civ possible. The more we care, the more the decisions matter. Let's try to figure out the best ones, together, and accept that some will just have to be good enough (for the time being) so we can make more progress.
Your opinion matters, just let the ModTeam moderate what they think is best (for the moment) and let good discussion and debate unravel the thorny issues. Remember that it takes time and personal choice to implement solutions.

Everyone's opinion matters, and we must prove the validity of our thoughts to each other. (It is worth it to take the time to defend them.)
Keeping the discussion going might eventually create some great solutions.
Some of the best ideas are the hardest to figure out.
Diverse opinions will forge C2C into greatness.
Please, Let's keep this debate going in the best place. It is worth it to figure it out!

 

[rightfuture]

I think that the main reason so many ideas get 'shot down' or ignored is because we all in the team are very different in our outlook on the mod and in our playstyles. That coupled with the fact that this is a democratic process among the team means that changes don't get enacted unless most everyone agrees.

Some may see this as us being aloof, but I think that it is good to be cautious on game balance, as it was a major game-balance shift on the part of AND that killed it. We do not want to repeat that mistake, and so are more conservative and cautious on major changes. I think though that reacting with anger towards people with good ideas is a poor idea on our part, and that all ideas should be seriously discussed, even if we decide not to implement them.

Awesome job ls612!
I agree with you completely, we all want the best for C2C,
I hope we can find a way to add everyone's best vision together so we can explore all of our ideas.
Looking forward to figuring this out with all of you!
Let's challenge ourselves to find the best solutions possible and keep the debate going in the right places.