Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Stalker0, May 20, 2018.
Yeah but Fealty is the mix of catchup and staying ahead. It's the median policy tree.
OK so some concern about statecraft has been addressed ( diplo units and Confederacy bonus ) so I will go back test for some time.
I don't know what @Gazebo think about tradition though because he didn't say a word
Tradition civs are generally top tier in AI games unless they get eaten. I don’t see a lot of need for change.
Don"t the handicap rules favor more tradition ai which leads to distorted perception ?
Correct me if I am wrong but historical event gives handicap bonus in each city ( the value is twice bigger if triggered by era change)
So tradition is able to get more historical event early ( between easier wonders and great person) that can flatten the difference early between trees, which can lead to a big disparity between your perception and mine
Except I test without AI bonuses.
Btw didn't you think about testing stuff with AI bonuses? At least with Emperor-level bonuses as majority of players seems to be at that level (seriously, you don't need much effort to play on Emperor if you pay little attention to what you are doing)? It will return result that is closer to what majority of players see in their games
I want to come back to the idea of toning down the Tradition opener a little bit: it's currently such a huge short term boost that it makes Tradition a must-have when you want to be 100% sure to get a specific settling spot (the other trees are much slower to pump out Settlers which, in the case of Progress in particular, I find jarring) or to get an early Wonder.
I think that +1 pop would be enough. A second +1 could be pushed to the Science policy (middle one), or some other delayed buff to partially compensate.
I think tradition is in the right now and yes it's great if you Absolutly want to claim a spot but you can take it back with war with authority and progress can too so I don't see the issue.
Tradition is fine.
I... don't understand the rebuttal. "You can go to war" doesn't seem like a good balance indicator to me for policy trees, since the player is better than the AI at it. Tradition is strong defensively, so in player vs player or AI vs AI I don't think it would be that easy to take a good spot.
Rebalancing the opener just a bit would allow to tone down the big boost that Tradition gets and spread it out some more, which seems desirable design-wise.
I'll note that I strongly supported the buff to Tradition when it had only +2 C as an opener and lower prod in secondary cities - when some thought it was fine. I just think we overshot a bit on the opener and need to spread it out.
Problem is Tradition need that big boost early more than Authority or Progress, since it depends heavily on getting early wonder.
1 more pop could translate into 1 more culture from the Opener and thats much more important than having 3 more production working a mine.
Indeed the 2 pop increase provides roughly +1 C, + 3-4 P (assuming we work an unimproved hill and something else - improvements are not in place right away), +1 S (via Palace, in truth 0.66 S) and perhaps a small gold boost. It's obviously negligible on the long run but it's a lot at this stage, on top of +F and +C.
I don't think Tradition needs an early wonder; it certainly helps (Progress too benefits... Authority captures them), but I've done fine in the past catching up later on thanks to Religion and Great People.
For Tradition, Splendor gives +2 Culture for Monuments, Baths and Gardens. I understand that Baths is being discussed in another thread at the moment. For Gardens, is this supposed to reward the civ that gets the Hanging Garden as that's a fairly significant amount given how early it is relative to when Garden is available? I'm not sure how people feel about this and whether or not it's balanced or not. I know you need to get the policy first as you have to grab the opener and three other policies. However, there are certain cases where you can stay on a single city and you reach it fairly quickly and get a rather massive boost.
I know Hanging Garden is important for Tradition with that extra food for specialists. However, do we need to buff the Wonder further with the policy?
Well it’s not just the wonder. You can build gardens the old fashioned way.
Yes it means HG gets more benefit with tradition. Plenty of wonders benefit certain play styles or policy choices more than others
The +2 on Monuments seems good enough to me. The on the other 2 Buildings is just plus to me. As Tradition, that +10 to my Capital doesn't seem a impactful as much as the Free Garden, as it ends up with 60+ per turn by around 12 and with the 5th Tradition Policy, somehow, anyways.
With the recent nerf to specialist happiness, I think that artistry needs to be looked at. It's very hard to use specialists in more than a few cities without crippling unhappiness. I feel like picking artistry, the go-to Great Person tree, should allow you to support at least 1 specialist in most, if not all, of your cities.
I suggest replacing the +1 happiness on guilds with a mini version of Capitalism tenet: up to one specialist per city generates happiness instead of unhappiness.
I want to give the happiness system more time to bake in before we start changing everything around it. We may make tweaks to specialist happiness for example (we have on many occasions in the past)
I'm fine with specialists requiring some investment to counter unhappiness, but requiring more investment with no buffs necessarily means they are weaker. And for Artistry specifically, the entire tree is reliant on Great People, GWAMs specifically, so any changes to GP has an effect on the power of the tree itself.
Artistry was the strongest tree before. I think it has come back into line now.
I would argue that Artistry is only nerfed for wide empires now. It is just as strong as it has always been for tall civs (because they won't really notice the difference from specialist happiness) and has only been significantly nerfed for wide.
Separate names with a comma.