Going for Gold: Pantheons

[pernas]

Craftsmen's best effect is its "side effect". One every 3 is really good for tradition, India, or if you have a really food heavy start (lots of flood plains or sea resources).

If you can get a religion with it, it's gonna give you a lot of hammers in mid-late game, whereas other resource based pantheons like the desert or tundra one have a better bonus early but also come with a "hard" cap on their yields.

Festivals seems weak to me, but I never get it since the AI prioritizes it a lot, so maybe it's actually really good?

 

[Gazebo]

I've been tinkering with Goddess of Wisdom in testing lately, and I find I like this balance quite a bit:

+1 Faith for every 10 Science per turn, scaling inversely with Era. +1 Science, +1 Faith and Golden Age Points in every City with 6 Citizens or more.[/CODE]

Scaling inversely means that 1/10 becomes 1/20 in Medieval, 1/30 in Renaissance, etc. - so it becomes weaker just as science starts to take off, making the early game benefit more important here. The latter (6+ citizens) limits some of the wide spam synergy builds with this (i.e. China).

G

 

[Owlbebach]

+1 Faith for every 10 Science per turn, scaling inversely with Era. +1 Science, +1 Faith and Golden Age Points in every City with 6 Citizens or more.[/CODE]

This is a step into right direction, though i think that numbers should be tweaked. 6 citizen is too much, should be not more than 3 i think, otherwise you'll never ever found with it.

Not sure about inversive scaling, idea is good, numbers seem to be okay, but need testing. Maybe change to 1/5, cause it pushes player towards weird behaivior of not entering next era as long as possible

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I've been tinkering with Goddess of Wisdom in testing lately, and I find I like this balance quite a bit:

+1 Faith for every 10 Science per turn, scaling inversely with Era. +1 Science, +1 Faith and Golden Age Points in every City with 6 Citizens or more.[/CODE]

Scaling inversely means that 1/10 becomes 1/20 in Medieval, 1/30 in Renaissance, etc. - so it becomes weaker just as science starts to take off, making the early game benefit more important here. The latter (6+ citizens) limits some of the wide spam synergy builds with this (i.e. China).

G

6 citizens or more? That's poor man's God-King, trading tons of different yields and better scaling for an unreliable inverse scaling Faith. Maybe 2 or 3 citizens.

 

[ElliotS]

I've been tinkering with Goddess of Wisdom in testing lately, and I find I like this balance quite a bit:

+1 Faith for every 10 Science per turn, scaling inversely with Era. +1 Science, +1 Faith and Golden Age Points in every City with 6 Citizens or more.[/CODE]

Scaling inversely means that 1/10 becomes 1/20 in Medieval, 1/30 in Renaissance, etc. - so it becomes weaker just as science starts to take off, making the early game benefit more important here. The latter (6+ citizens) limits some of the wide spam synergy builds with this (i.e. China).

G

Yeah I'll echo that this would be the worst pantheon in the game by a huge margin and totally unplayable.

Just adding inverse scaling to the current pantheon would be more than sufficient. It's not so good it needs major changes. Even a cap would be fine, and probably less weird. (Why is this the only thing in the whole game that scales inversely?)

I honestly thought of asking for inverse scaling myself but said "Nah, too weird." A cap would be a better choice, and that's really all it needs. It's fine if it's strong and fairly general early as long as it doesn't turn into a monster late game too.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

How has the springtime pantheon (1 food, 2 gold per plantation, 3 faith from markets) been working out for you guys?

Is there a particular reason all faith is tied to markets and none to plantations?

I would personally prefer a small change where plantations gain 1 food, 1 gold and 1 faith, and markets gain 2 faith and 1 gold (or a different combination for markets). That would be more in tune with other pantheons where the resource improvements provide 1 faith (Earth Mother etc.).

 

[Gazebo]

This is a step into right direction, though i think that numbers should be tweaked. 6 citizen is too much, should be not more than 3 i think, otherwise you'll never ever found with it.

Not sure about inversive scaling, idea is good, numbers seem to be okay, but need testing. Maybe change to 1/5, cause it pushes player towards weird behaivior of not entering next era as long as possible

Oh sure, numbers are in flux. I’m mainly interested in seeing founding/scaling potential on the inverse scaler.

 

[CppMaster]

Maybe change to 1/5, cause it pushes player towards weird behaivior of not entering next era as long as possible

This is my concern also about inverse scaling, it feels artificial

A cap would be a better choice, and that's really all it needs. It's fine if it's strong and fairly general early as long as it doesn't turn into a monster late game too.

I agree that cap would be better, but it also feels a little artificial to me. I prefer smooth functions. How about logarithmic scaler instead of linear?
For example instead of [ f(s) = 0.1 * s ] it could be [ f(s) = floor( a * log(s * c + d), b) ) ].
With values: a=1, b=1.5, c=0.09, d=0.6 it would be [ f(s) = floor( log(s * 0.09 + 0.6), 1.5) ) ]

science    faith
1    0
2    0
3    0
4    0
5    0
6    0
7    0
8    0
9    0
10    1
11    1
12    1
13    1
14    1
15    1
16    1
17    1
18    1
19    2
20    2
21    2
22    2
23    2
24    2
25    2
26    2
27    2
28    2
29    2
30    2
31    3

...

100    5
101    5
102    5

...

998    11
999    11
1000    11

It starts similar to linear function, but later you gain less faith per science, so it's not op. It's a smooth function without artificial caps and doesn't need inverse scaling.

 

[Owlbebach]

How about logarithmic scaler instead of linear?

It is great imo, the only problem is that it is a bit hard to explain to new players, especially those who mooched maths in school (though who cares about them?)

 

[CppMaster]

It is great imo, the only problem is that it is a bit hard to explain to new players, especially those who mooched maths in school (though who cares about them?)

True, it would be hard to make an easy to read description. Sth like "+1 Faith for every 10 Science, scaling logarithmically later" would be my attempt.

 

[ElliotS]

To be clear I also don't like the idea of taking Wisdom's unique part of coming online the second you place your city. If it needs a certain pop it's just another pantheon in a group. Scaling back it's late game impact is the way to go, and I think leaving it as is early is best for gameplay and easiest to balance. (It's not crazy OP right now, so a cap or logrithmic scaling both work imo.)

 

[Gazebo]

To be clear I also don't like the idea of taking Wisdom's unique part of coming online the second you place your city. If it needs a certain pop it's just another pantheon in a group. Scaling back it's late game impact is the way to go, and I think leaving it as is early is best for gameplay and easiest to balance. (It's not crazy OP right now, so a cap or logrithmic scaling both work imo.)

The inverse scaler is a bit more fair IMO than a cap as it will play more nicely with map sizes.

 

[ElliotS]

The inverse scaler is a bit more fair IMO than a cap as it will play more nicely with map sizes.

That has the weird problem of A) being the only inverse scaler in the game and B) making moving to the next era a bad think for a pantheon entirely devoted to science.

Thematically that's so bad I can't agree with it on that merit alone.

How about this?

Goddess of Wisdom "+1 & +2 in each city. Gain depending on total output, starting at 1 per 10 and requiring 1 more for each ."

I think that this version is balanced and far more intuitive. It takes 15 more to get to 10 (It's at 1 per 15 right now, right?) and much more at even higher levels. It doesn't punish you for doing #sciencethings though, which would be a huge problem tonally for me.

 

[CrazyG]

Goddess of Wisdom "+1 & +2 in each city.

This part alone is a really good pantheon. I thought we wanted to get away from the really strong early game. With China or Carthage you can just go nuts with settling.

 

[Gazebo]

That has the weird problem of A) being the only inverse scaler in the game and B) making moving to the next era a bad think for a pantheon entirely devoted to science.

Thematically that's so bad I can't agree with it on that merit alone.

How about this?

Goddess of Wisdom "+1 & +2 in each city. Gain depending on total output, starting at 1 per 10 and requiring 1 more for each ."

I think that this version is balanced and far more intuitive. It takes 15 more to get to 10 (It's at 1 per 15 right now, right?) and much more at even higher levels. It doesn't punish you for doing #sciencethings though, which would be a huge problem tonally for me.

Inverse era scaling may be unique here, but it’s also a familiar concept. Yours would need a formula explanation.

G

 

[chicorbeef]

I think the best decision is to just cap Wisdom at +40 faith or so. It's the late-game scaling that people have a problem with, right? Wisdom is balanced otherwise.

 

[Stalker0]

I think the best decision is to just cap Wisdom at +40 faith or so. It's the late-game scaling that people have a problem with, right? Wisdom is balanced otherwise.

This is to me is the simplest and most effective solution. No complicated formulas, no weird inverse mechanics we have never seen before. Its strong and useful, but doesn't ever spiral out of control. And very important....dirt simple for people to understand.

 

[ElliotS]

This part alone is a really good pantheon. I thought we wanted to get away from the really strong early game. With China or Carthage you can just go nuts with settling.

Strong early game has been it's calling card forever and is honestly fine and good. If we pull back the late game power it's well balanced and maintains it's identity.

Inverse era scaling may be unique here, but it’s also a familiar concept. Yours would need a formula explanation.

G

Isn't "Gain depending on total output, starting at 1 per 10 and requiring 1 more for each ." pretty explained? 10 = 1 . 21 = 2. 33 = 3 . 165 = 10 . 420 = 20 . 775 = 30 . 1785 = 50 .

Honestly it's just that the idea of a pantheon that encourages you to avoid going to a new era is just... wrong.

 

[Gidoza]

I'd rather cap it based on a per-city basis. Think of Ancestor Worship - the bonus is based on population, which generally speaking gives you an average per city (later on, it'll be something about 10 per city). I think this is the way to go, and for Commerce as well - a number like 10 Faith per city allows a player to reap the benefits of many cities producing more science without having the bonus get completely out of control.

 

[CrazyG]

Isn't "Gain depending on total output, starting at 1 per 10 and requiring 1 more for each ." pretty explained? 10 = 1 . 21 = 2. 33 = 3 . 165 = 10 . 420 = 20 . 775 = 30 . 1785 = 50 .

I don't think its very clear. Just capping at X faith is what I vote for. I think a cap of 30 is enough. 30 +1 per city is still a lot (barring enormous empires, few pantheons will reach that amount of faith by the end game).

Also I really don't want to see it return to 2 because I enjoy actually picking other pantheons once in a while.