Game options review

[Rwn]

You misread, either we remove the two that we have, or, we add two more options that does the opposite.

With unnecessary options like these we either cater to all, or cater to none.

I think we're on the same line but to be sure, you mean that we could have either:
- Two "more X" options available, none checked by default
- Two "less X" options available, none checked by default (while the "more X" are invisible and switched by those less X)
?

Edit: Regarding passable mountains and religious disabling I play with none. I don't want units to be able to pass mountains without the mountaineering promotion as the whole point of mountains are to be natural barriers for units (I think/hope this is what that option does, as I'm capable of building improvements on mountains without the option). Religious disabling is a very crude module, and a poor attempt at balancing religions.

For Usable Moutains I think the disagreement comes from a misunderstanding on what it does... From what I've understood it allows to cross mountains after discovering the Mountaineering tech; earlier you can't cross or use them (at least that's how it seems to work when I use it). But you say that you can build improvements on the mountains without this option? What does this option do exactly?

If religious disabling doesn't work well, another path would be to make this option BETA and off (or even invisible and off) and adjust the bonus from religious buildings so that their most powerful effects only apply if they're your state religion (I haven't checked if it's easily doable in the XML) - thus you don't get say +200% because you have cathedrals from four different religions, though you could maybe have a slight bonus from each.

 

[Toffer90]

They do only work if the mapscript equiv option is set to default. It wasn't a matter of laziness but a matter of being told it couldn't be done in the mapscripting python for all maps. I wasn't getting much instruction there so perhaps there was a better way. Was just really frustrating that some maps were otherwise an improvement but you couldn't do anything with the resources and rivers.

Ah, makes sense.
Good to know that lazyness wasn't the real reason for these options, although lazy people, like me, would like them.

 

[Rwn]

They do only work if the mapscript equiv option is set to default. It wasn't a matter of laziness but a matter of being told it couldn't be done in the mapscripting python for all maps. I wasn't getting much instruction there so perhaps there was a better way. Was just really frustrating that some maps were otherwise an improvement but you couldn't do anything with the resources and rivers.

I'm probably too tired, but I'm reading again and again Toffer90's and your message and I'm completely lost on how More Rivers/Ressources work and why they have been implemented...

Are they adressing a specific problem with some mapscripts or are they intended as a bonus for newcomers?

 

[Toffer90]

I think we're on the same line but to be sure, you mean that we could have either:
- Two "more X" options available, none checked by default
- Two "less X" options available, none checked by default (while the "more X" are invisible and switched by those less X)
?

Correct, although they do seem to serve more of a purpose than I thought (see TBs' post).

For Usable Moutains I think the disagreement comes from a misunderstanding on what it does... From what I've understood it allows to cross mountains after discovering the Mountaineering tech; earlier you can't cross or use them (at least that's how it seems to work when I use it). But you say that you can build improvements on the mountains without this option? What does this option do exactly?

I think passable mountains have been halfway implemented to the core. Without the option you will still need the mountaneering promotion to pass mountains after the mountaneering tech; I'm not even sure the mountaineering tech is in the tech tree without the option on.

If religious disabling doesn't work well, another path would be to make this option BETA and off (or even invisible and off) and adjust the bonus from religious buildings so that their most powerful effects only apply if they're your state religion (I haven't checked if it's easily doable in the XML) - thus you don't get say +200% because you have cathedrals from four different religions, though you could maybe have a slight bonus from each.

It works as intended without bugs, it's just that it's not the most elegant way to balance religions in any way. This makes it a controversial default ON option. ^^

It makes it a no-brainer to remove all non-state religions as they have absolutely no positive effect at all. There should be upsides and downsides (influenced by civics and other factors) to having multiple religions and it should be the players task to figure out the balance. The option removes important layers from the game, even though most of these elements have not been brought to their full potential yet.

 

[Rwn]

I think passable mountains have been halfway implemented to the core. Without the option you will still need the mountaneering promotion to pass mountains after the mountaneering tech; I'm not even sure the mountaineering tech is in the tech tree without the option on.

How do you build improvements on mountains if you don't even thave the mountaineering tech that would allow mountains to be crossed?

It works as intended without bugs, it's just that it's not the most elegant way to balance religions in any way. This makes it a controversial default ON option. ^^

OK, let's put it into beta/unchecked for the moment and try to remember to balance religious buildings at some point

 

[Arakhor]

I thought the idea of this review thread was to end up with fewer options, not more. I don't see the point of having a "fewer X" option, especially if there's already a "more X" option.

 

[Toffer90]

How do you build improvements on mountains if you don't even thave the mountaineering tech that would allow mountains to be crossed?

I just need llama workers who start with the mountaineering promotion. Also attaching a great general to a unit allows that unit to get the mountaineering promotion as early as in the prehistoric era.

I thought the idea of this review thread was to end up with fewer options, not more. I don't see the point of having a "fewer X" option, especially if there's already a "more X" option.

I was only making a point to Rwn, I didn't mean it. ;p

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm probably too tired, but I'm reading again and again Toffer90's and your message and I'm completely lost on how More Rivers/Ressources work and why they have been implemented...

Are they adressing a specific problem with some mapscripts or are they intended as a bonus for newcomers?

They were, in the mind of the developer (myself) designed to address a problem with many maps - that they don't have the option to increase rivers/bonuses. It also does it in a (I think) satisfying and uniform way that many varying other efforts made in individual mapscripts have failed to find a nice harmony on.

I don't think it's just a new player/vet player choice to want more or less rivers and/or resources. As a vet player it pisses me off to no end when I end up with a capital that has hardly any resources and isn't on a river and coast because all I can see is how my ultimate potential was cutoff by poor luck. I feel these options help to balance the starts between players better by making a greater percentage of the map a valid place to get a great city out of eventually. Otherwise, you too often have a large luck based discrepancy between starting spots. If you play as a two player team you'll end up having one player winging about their starting spot far too often without these settings.

But some players like the masochistic game experience, and others prefer to play with more sparse resource conditions to enhance the need for trade between nations (which I generally don't take part in much in my play style) so it's nice to have it as an option.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Usually if it appears that you have no resources near your starting position it is because you have later strategic resources there like iron and uranium.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Usually if it appears that you have no resources near your starting position it is because you have later strategic resources there like iron and uranium.

You'd think right? Too often I find this presumption incorrect without the more resources option being on.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Well, without Religious Disabling, a city can accumulate bonuses from all religions - with a +10% per monastery and +25% (or was it +50%?) per cathedral, it can go a bit too far.

If religious disabling doesn't work well, another path would be to make this option BETA and off (or even invisible and off) and adjust the bonus from religious buildings so that their most powerful effects only apply if they're your state religion (I haven't checked if it's easily doable in the XML) - thus you don't get say +200% because you have cathedrals from four different religions, though you could maybe have a slight bonus from each.

NO NO NO!
DH has worked and worked and worked on Religions just Please Stop screwing with the part of the Game that WORKS!!! Yes I'm being Demonstrative to drive home a point. Religions is one of The Better Balanced and Fun portions of this Mod. And if you start whacking at it's culture you are just crippling Culture all over again. It's Science %s have been adjusted time and again. It plays well and does Not need adjustments.

And this Subject is beyond the scope of this discussion about the Options List.

JosEPh

 

[Yudishtira]

Have you been playing it and found the labels are sticking around after you save and reload a game? If so, then it should stay as an option. I wasn't sure that had been resolved.

The signs (all signs actually) still disappear as soon as you save, but lately they (only the personalized map ones I believe) do come back every time an autosave is done. The names are still there (ie. on mouseover), even when the signs disappear.

This bug was introduced since v29, by a process like this thread, where it was collateral damage when a change was made for reasons that had no visible benefit, and the problems caused by which have still not been addressed. The idea of solving the bug by sweeping the option away somewhere where no-one notices it, is one order of magnitude worse crazy (ie. than this thread in general).

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

There is a solution to the problem. It involves a small dll change that has been made in Rocks to Rockets.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The signs (all signs actually) still disappear as soon as you save, but lately they (only the personalized map ones I believe) do come back every time an autosave is done. The names are still there (ie. on mouseover), even when the signs disappear.

This bug was introduced since v29, by a process like this thread, where it was collateral damage when a change was made for reasons that had no visible benefit, and the problems caused by which have still not been addressed. The idea of solving the bug by sweeping the option away somewhere where no-one notices it, is one order of magnitude worse crazy (ie. than this thread in general).

If the heart of the function of an option doesn't work at all and nobody present can fix it, does it make sense to keep it visible? What's the point?

There is a solution to the problem. It involves a small dll change that has been made in Rocks to Rockets.

God Emperor did seem to be the only one with a grasp on what the problem was. I never understood why he wouldn't fix it for us in our code. Or why none of us could follow what he did to fix it when he tried to explain it. I could understand why I couldn't of course... it was all way over my head.

 

[Yudishtira]

If the heart of the function of an option doesn't work at all and nobody present can fix it, does it make sense to keep it visible? What's the point?

If you're referring to Personalized Map, I don't agree that the heart of it doesn't work.

Secondly, it is the buggy commit that made it stop working that should be got rid of.

If not, and in general, no-one in the future will fix it either if they don't know it's there. Look how many months - maybe years - we wait before someone like Alberts, Sparth or Toffer comes along and fixes something, sometimes even known bugs (and you too are finding bugs that have been there for years).

Bugs in 'disappeared' functions are less likely to be reported, let alone worked on, ever.

 

[Rwn]

If not, and in general, no-one in the future will fix it either if they don't know it's there. Look how many months - maybe years - we wait before someone like Alberts, Sparth or Toffer comes along and fixes something, sometimes even known bugs (and you too are finding bugs that have been there for years).

What's limiting is not the amount of bugs that are found, but the time modders have to fix them. Would you rather have them spend time on fixing things like Personalized Maps rather than, say, AI behavior, general game performance or even sea tunnels?...

 

[Toffer90]

Secondly, it is the buggy commit that made it stop working that should be got rid of.

I'm pretty sure that "buggy commit" was the introduction of graphical paging; and I would never remove that feature to regain personalized maps.

I see no harm in hiding away this particular option, though you do have a point in that hiding away buggy features can make them forgotten and less likely to be fixed.

@Rwn: Modders work on whatever they think is most important and rewarding no matter what options are visible, or not, in-game.

 

[Yudishtira]

What's limiting is not the amount of bugs that are found, but the time modders have to fix them. Would you rather have them spend time on fixing things like Personalized Maps rather than, say, AI behavior, general game performance or even sea tunnels?...

If you don't fix newly-introduced bugs, you can't fix anything.

I'm pretty sure that "buggy commit" was the introduction of graphical paging; and I would never remove that feature to regain personalized maps.

The fallacy here is the implication that you can't have both. There was no need for graphical paging to break personalized maps.

 

[Toffer90]

There was no need for graphical paging to break personalized maps.

If you say so, I do not have insight in the graphical paging code, so can't argue back here; all I know is that personal maps broke around the time graphical paging was introduced and that no one currently modding C2C understands why/how. If Koshling comes back maybe he will fix it.

 

[JosEPh_II]

If you don't fix newly-introduced bugs, you can't fix anything.



The fallacy here is the implication that you can't have both. There was no need for graphical paging to break personalized maps.

Maybe you should PM koshling about Why and How graphical paging "broke" personalized maps. (He still responds to PMs, not quickly but eventually.) Instead of barking at these fellows.

JosEPh