Getting Started
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
doktorstick
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 142
You cycle through the top cities--1 (+5); 2 (+3,+2); 3 (+2,+2,+1); 4 (+2,+1,+1,+1); 5 (+1,+1,+1,+1,+1).
doktorstick
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 142
Another feature request: Clicking on the notification panel icon of "trade has ended" takes you to the diplomacy screen with that civ. 
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
If +5
is too much and +3 was too little, I guess we should go with +4?
I've continued the conversation about citystate bonuses in a new thread here, with my thoughts on the matter. It was a long conversation on the Combat thread stretching for several pages.
@doktorstick
The notification panel on the right side is one of the least mod-friendly parts of the game, unfortunately. If I include any changes to it in these mods, it'll be incompatible with every other mod that adds notifications (like Emigration).
is too much and +3 was too little, I guess we should go with +4?I've continued the conversation about citystate bonuses in a new thread here, with my thoughts on the matter. It was a long conversation on the Combat thread stretching for several pages.
@doktorstick
The notification panel on the right side is one of the least mod-friendly parts of the game, unfortunately. If I include any changes to it in these mods, it'll be incompatible with every other mod that adds notifications (like Emigration).
Txurce
Deity
If +5
The reason I buffed it is it was set to +3/2copies/30 turns alliance since November or so and still no one ever captured citystates. The disadvantages were just too severe.
That's why I would leave it as is. My sense of the prior complaints is that it had to do more with their being surprised more than objecting anyway (not that they wouldn't have). If you'll notice, so far no one has said five is OP. the only players who have actually experienced it viewed it as a bug or as a handicap!
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
What errors, if any are displayed in the tuner when these occur?
Sorry, Thal, I can't answer that, as
1. I started another game with the PWM mod
2. I have never used Live Tuner, first I have to learn it
3. I have no time during weekdays for civ
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
For #2 you just install it, and open it.
I will correct myself then in saying five is certainly op. For an early conquest, that is aminimum 6 science per turn at the cost of only the cs population unhappiness given that every cs is guaranteed a luxury resource. A nc and or library spikes this even further. Also, you create another situation that vastly favors the player over ai because the player can anticipate the population boost and build structures accordingly preemptively.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
It's important to look at it in context of disadvantages and feedback, which I tried to summarize in the earlier-linked thread here.
I think what we've got here is a failure to communicate on my part... the stuff's been around for months, but the only real playtesting feedback I've had until now is surprise it exists.
The responses I've seen over time on the topic have indicated alliance is still the de facto strategy, which is why I buffed capture as months passed from 1, to 3, then 5 (and cultural/militaristic accordingly). If most people really didn't know this was there, though, it's a clear indication I need to improve my documentation.
Are the readmes set up poorly in some way, difficult to follow or navigate? Too much information, too little... or just worded confusingly? I've been thinking about doing a summary section if that might help. This is why I've been delaying updates for the threads, I'm thinking I should revise their structure. I might show highlights of each mod there, with details in the readmes, or something... suggestions about this are welcome!
I think what we've got here is a failure to communicate on my part... the stuff's been around for months, but the only real playtesting feedback I've had until now is surprise it exists.
The responses I've seen over time on the topic have indicated alliance is still the de facto strategy, which is why I buffed capture as months passed from 1
, to 3, then 5 (and cultural/militaristic accordingly). If most people really didn't know this was there, though, it's a clear indication I need to improve my documentation.Are the readmes set up poorly in some way, difficult to follow or navigate? Too much information, too little... or just worded confusingly? I've been thinking about doing a summary section if that might help. This is why I've been delaying updates for the threads, I'm thinking I should revise their structure. I might show highlights of each mod there, with details in the readmes, or something... suggestions about this are welcome!
Txurce
Deity
Anticipating the pop boost and adjusting accordingly - anticipating anything, let alone planning ahead - is par for the course in the human advantage over the AI. But it's very hard to show how this is OP when not one person has yet to say it led to a significant advantage. Top of my head, I'll compare it to the earlier, more buffed chariots. I quickly found myself building chariots in very game and keeping them well into chivalry. That was a good indication they were OP. When that begins to happen with Maritime conquest, then we could discuss how much to tone it down. Right now I see it as a very situational opportunity - hence its rarity - that benefits along the lines of an Academy, but with definite downsides (one less Maritime, a rep hit, as well as possible early unhappiness).
Txurce
Deity
It's important to look at it in context of disadvantages and feedback, which I tried to summarize in the earlier-linked thread here.
I think I was just not communicating very well... this stuff's been around for months, yet the only real playtesting feedback I've had up to this point is people surprised to discover I even did anything about ally/capture/ignore balance.
Are the readmes set up poorly in some way, difficult to follow or navigate? Too much information, too little... or just worded confusingly? I've been thinking about doing a summary section if that might help.
This why I've been delaying updates for the threads. I'm wondering if I should revise their structure. I might show highlights of each mod there, with details in the readmes, or something... suggestions about this are welcome!
With regard to Maritimes, my guess is that most of us missed the +5 change because there had been other, earlier changes... and no one had any intention of taking out a Maritime anyway!
As a rule I find your readmes clear and not too skimpy. In terms of presenting the information as usefully as possible, my sense is that the obstacles are 1) how much information there is, 2) that it's not all in one file, and 3) that it's constantly updated in piecemeal form. There's nothing that you can do about #1, and #3 should taper off with regard to the official release. If you had the time and inclination, the different files could all be combined into one big release file, along the lines of a manual.
The big catch is the fact that you work on various aspects of the mods at once, and these betas are inevitably going to be in a state of flux that is bound to create confusion. As long as people understand that becoming involved with the betas is going to lead to bugs and surprises... and if there were a fairly painless way for you to perhaps create a master beta document addressing the various current changes being tested... even this unavoidable issue could be minimized and you might get even more useful feedback.
Txurce
Deity
A loose thought about how these mods are getting tight: the new Leaders mod could influence me to move on a CS before one of them does, as opposed to settling for the usual laissez faire.
Kirschi
~~~
I think what we've got here is a failure to communicate on my part... the stuff's been around for months, but the only real playtesting feedback I've had until now is surprise it exists.
It's not necessarily a failure of communication. In my case for example I have seen your change on CSs, but I wouldn't capture a CS even if you boost the bonus to +10
or whatever. Somehow I feel that I have to protect them and warmonger only with the big bad civilizations ^^For me, the readmes are definitly to big. Maybe a short summary at the top would be great. So fifteen lines of +1 gold, -1 food [...] would be "Several tile improvements." ^^
But what I would really like, is if you could add a new post with some words on what you changed when uploading a new beta (I really love changelogs
). And in the first post you could leave the last 5 beta changes or so. I know you said you do not document the in-between beta changes, but a few lines after uploading wouldn't hurt. Additionally it would be easier for me/us, because then we would know for what to look out. Sometimes there were several betas without an info on the changes and I thought "Ok, what to expect now" ^^
Other than that (and this was nowhere a criticism), I love your mod! A big thanks from me now to you thal and keep up the good work!
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Kirschi
~~~
Yea just seen it. I appreciate that
Without that info i probably would have never found out that there is something clickable now in the infobar
Ahriman
Tyrant
In the build I'm playing, hydro plants still need aluminium.
Why?
Hydro plants should be buildable in any river city.
There's no logical or gameplay need to restrict them.
Why?
Hydro plants should be buildable in any river city.
There's no logical or gameplay need to restrict them.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Mostly just because I plan on tweaking strategic usage again and haven't gotten around to it yet. The current values are basically a rough draft.
Similar threads
