1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

I made a video on why I think donut is the most balanced map

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by GodDamnItAlexander, Sep 28, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. matlajs

    matlajs King

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    807
    Strange discussion. He talks about something, what he is uncapable to implement and Gazebo does not going to implement it either. I want also have such time to waste.
     
    vyyt likes this.
  2. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,867
    It will probably not, or at least, not as VP. After all the debugging, VP will be done. We're on the "final phase" of VP, where less and less major reworks are accepted.
    Then, either it will "die", either modmods will take the lead to a new era of mods based on the stable version of VP (with possibly some balance modmods).

    And I think you underestimate greatly the quality of the balancing of G. From being in this mod for almost 2 years, I can say that "nerf" is NOT the general direction the game had taken (Unless you consider the exterminations of exploits and abuses as nerfs), and that it looks more to an oscillation around the target strength. In almost every patch you will see changes such as "market now gives +3 Gold (was +1)", or some others buff to civilisations.
    As said by others, OP things are usually more a problem than UP things, so OP things are quiclky found by the community and nerf. However, few mounthes ago, the community made a complete rework of ideologies, buildings, ... (see the all the threads named "[Tuning]" in the General Balance subforum, for example https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/tuning-buildings-atomic-information-era.572215/) and it generally ended up buffing all the useless policies and buildings
    If you have the feeling one part of the game is not balanced, you can open a new post on the General Balance subforum and follow the "Tunning" formalism.

    For having the same kind of debates on my Role-Playing table (a friend of mine is creating its own technical and tactical role-playing game, but has an approach very "cinematographic" of it, making it in conflict with one of my friend which has the same kind of "analytic mind" as you seems to have), I can say that this discussion will not end up with you convincing peoples, but :
    + In the best case, you and others failing to understand each others
    + In the worst case, some people feeling aggressed by the fact that you're making a crusade against things that they perceive as "exactly what they find as fun in the game"
     
  3. doublex55

    doublex55 Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2016
    Messages:
    520
    We might be getting somewhere if you were focused on getting standard balancing based on the 3-6 most played maps, 1-2 size, and 1-2 pace (by community survey)

    But this insistence on donut is really hurting your cause.

    Also i dont know if you know this but at this point the goal is to buff or nerf stuff with as little mechanic changes as possible. The biggest benefit of the "hard balancing" you are talking about is to narrow in on very minor changes like +2:c5culture: here -1:c5food: there.

    TBH i feel like there should be several times more of these types of changes for civs that are "pretty much balanced" AND promote good gameplay, each patch.

    Adding new mechanics needs to adress specific gameplay specific issues and have specific intended gameplay patterns.
    Listing mechanic changes is goong to pretty much get you ignored.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2017
  4. RAuer2

    RAuer2 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    Messages:
    72
    Alexander: You are right, I did choose to come here and participate in your public and open discussion. The rest of your response exaggerates and misrepresents what is happening. I do not think that this is still a productive conversation.
     
  5. GodDamnItAlexander

    GodDamnItAlexander Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Messages:
    202
    My sincere apologies if I offended anybody. This isn't my first forum, and each one has a different culture. Sorry folks.
    The point was to make a prediction.

    Arguments aside, I don't think conservatism for the sake of conservatism is ever a good idea. Just look at what happened to Sparta.
    I think this is a trick question. Allow me to explain:
    1) VP was designed from the ground up to be usable on most settings (soft balance).
    2) I'm claiming the most balanced map in the game is donut
    So how can I give you specific problems I encounter only in donut, when at the same time VP is meant to work on most maps and donut is the most balanced of them all?

    Since we're talking about policies, this is an opportunity for me to add another item on my list of why the switch to hard balancing should be made:
    Skill cap - (there are a lot of definitions out there, so I'll just go with "the amount of non-optimal decisions a player can make")

    People like to talk about how VP is very balanced, but they forget to mention the low skill cap (which is caused by soft balancing). Testaments to the low skill cap:

    Players know what tree they're going to pick before the game even started
    How the trees are built (tradition 2-1-2, progress 2-3, authority 2-2-1). They're not very open.
    How seldom the game rewards you for mixing n' matching policies according to the current environment of your game

    Lets assume we're using hard balancing for a second. I'm going to borrow one of the policies

    Honor - Units gain +10% Combat Strength (the rest is omitted for the sake of the example).

    Now I'm going to make up a new policy (THIS POLICY IS MEANT TO BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE AND IS NOT MEANT TO BE IMPLEMENTED INTO THE GAME IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM)

    GodDamnItAlexander is a smart guy
    :p - All currently existing units gain the Nomadic Solider promotion (units created after this policy is chosen do not get the promotion): Ignore desert and forest tiles terrain cost and gain 15% CS attacking uphill.

    Let's do a small analysis.

    Which one engages the players mind more? Which policy rewards better decision making? Which policy is specific to the current game environment? Which policy, under the right circumstances, should be skipped? Which policy better rewards picking it at a good timing?

    Essentially every social policy is built in this fashion (work on all settings - soft balancing). Again, I can fire up a game of Civ and know which tree I want to use before I've even seen the map. Low skill cap.

    Not trying to be offensive, but you sound like you have problems with text comprehension. The list of buffs were never meant to be implemented into the game, they were there to prove a point. Like I've already told you.
    You know it's funny you and others mentioning e-sports, considering I never said Civ should be an e-sport even once.
    Once, not "at times". Text comprehension.
    Inca UU, Chinese UU, Korea UU, British UU
    This pattern is meaningful. There are a huge amount of different promotion ideas, yet we get this repeating promotion (which also makes the game more bland). Why? Because of soft balancing.

    Soft balancing.
    What if I told you there is a way to play any Civ you wanted, with all victory conditions enabled, on any different group of settings you wanted to use (which means tons of variety - more viable social polices, more pantheons, map size, map type etc...) AND have an extremely balanced game?
    It's simple!
    Have you and the different AI players all play the same Civ. The dream of soft balancing.

    I may sound sarcastic or aggressive, but I want to assure you I'm not. I'm seriously recommending you to try this out, maybe you'll like it even more than having everyone play a different Civ?

    Maybe someone will come up with a mod that automatically sends Gazebo data whenever someone starts a game of VP. I won't be the one though.

    Nowhere in the stickies does it say the mod is nearing the end of its life cycle. Also weird considering the recent change to medieval trees.

    There is a massive difference between buffing buildings which are available to everybody (soft balancing), and buffing individual Civs (hard balancing).

    Very unfortunate indeed. Though soft balancing is already killing the game for them, without any help from me. :)

    In terms of balancing the softer you get the less you can buff Civs over a long period of time. Considering Gazebo uses a random map type each debug, I wouldn't hold my breath.

    Never asked for new mechanics.
    Well then what did you mean by
    "I am not sure that it is helpful to insist upon broad changes to the process that Gazebo has in place after he has declined to implement those changes."
    ?
    Did you mean not to tell me, in other words, to shut up?
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
  6. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    what is this circus? get over yourself.
     
  7. RAuer2

    RAuer2 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    Messages:
    72
    No, I did not mean to tell you to shut up. The sentence you quoted is one that I wrote. Here it is with the sentence that came immediately afterward in the same post (since the Quote feature does not like me right now, post #91 in this thread):

    "I am not sure that it is helpful to insist upon broad changes to the process that Gazebo has in place after he has declined to implement those changes.

    On the flip side, I agree with Paramecium's point that you should share what you find unbalanced about the game based on your thoughts and experiences as a VP player. I know this is plain text, so to make it clear: I am not being sarcastic. I think there is value in you (and all of us) sharing specifics about your game experiences, like what Civ you played in a specific game, what the map/settings were, how the game developed, and what you enjoyed and did not enjoy about that specific game. Do that and other players here can provide their own experiences to compare with yours. That might lead to a change that you want."

    Rather than telling you to shut up, I suggested a change in how you are trying to contribute to VP. The suggestion specifically asked for your contributions. If you mean that you think I was telling you to shut up about hard balancing, then I think there is a difference between telling you to shut up and telling you that I am not sure that you are going to get what you want with your current approach. If you took that sentence as "shut up about hard balancing!", then my bad.

    I don't know how to end this post without you taking offense to, well, everything I have just written and anything I am about to write, but I'll try. As one Civ player to another, it is unfortunate that you are not enjoying VP. I enjoy it a lot, and I hope that something changes and that you enjoy it too. Beyond that, I don't know what to say.
     
  8. Paramecium

    Paramecium Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Messages:
    345
    Yeah thanks. What I wrote wasnt meant to be played with all one civ. Is that your try of being ironic/sarcastic? The game could be totally balanced with a lot of civs and very different ones too. I never said it would be soft or hard balancing, those are concepts you came up with, with your own definition of it, which I just dont share ...

    So now we come closer to the core to understand what you want. You want to have a more divergent civs? And at the end, everything perfectly balanced? You already said, neither starcraft nor dota are perfectly balanced and they only have 3 factions or just over hundred single units to play for yourself.
    Where I come from, you say that you "compare apples with pears", something what just doesnt work.

    With a game which lasts couple of hours, having so many possibilities and different combinations, I dont see it to be possible to be achieved by some guys who spent their freetime on it.

    And btw, your definition of soft or hard balancing is perfectly fitting for my definition of balancing, it would be nice, if my "dream" would be achieved by having a lot of different civs...
     
  9. Tekamthi

    Tekamthi Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Messages:
    517
    When you were asked, "Name something you would buff under the "hard balance" system", you immediately replied:

    I'm thinking its maybe moreso your problem than mine, considering I seem to be one of many questioning these... :rolleyes:

    "at times" is what's known as an idiom in the english language (just sub out the t for an m in the other word I'm sure you're much more intimately familiar with): it is a synonym to "occasionally". Once qualifies as occasionally; and besides, all of your examples have been of similar or poorer quality, and might as well be characterized as identical to that abstract communism reference.

    Your mod mod would be done by now if it weren't for all these troll-fail posts, Alex..... popcorn anyone?
     
  10. civplayer33

    civplayer33 King

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    965
    I'll take some :p
     
  11. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,765
    Location:
    Beijing
    How about you provide an actual, concrete example of something that is intended to be implemented, and would be implemented if we adopted your hard balance philosophy? If hard-balancing on donut would change so much, it should be easy to provide an example of what would change.

    You are welcome to explain how exactly everyone playing on Donut would cause the community to want to change one of those units, because I don't see it at all. Please do not claim you already have, you haven't; please don't criticize my text comprehension. If you are unable to express your own ideas or pursuade others, it is not the fault of the reader
     
  12. GodDamnItAlexander

    GodDamnItAlexander Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Messages:
    202
    I think soft balancing is the slow but sure death of VP. It will come in the form of an ever-lowering playerbase. I don't want the mod to die, and actually it can become bigger by a huge factor.

    It's all good.

    On the the contrary. What way better to spend an evening than to sit in your comfy chair, put on your favorite music and start up a game of VP? But soft balancing takes away from that appeal, and as time goes on it will only get worse. Not to be confused with "getting bored with the game".

    Either you have a *very balanced game that works on all settings but everyone can only play one Civ, or you have a very balanced game that works best on one group of settings with lots of different Civs. Can't have both.

    *(notice how I'm using very balanced and not perfectly balanced)

    Right now VP is leaning closer and closer towards the former.

    Also I'm not being sarcastic or ironic. I respect everyone here as long as they respect me. I was being serious with my offer.

    No. My goals are to convince everyone on hard balancing and show why donut is the most balanced map in the game.

    My goals are not to:
    1) Achieve perfect balance in VP
    2) Add new mechanics
    3) Change existing mechanics/Civs/gameplay features

    And so on. Basically actually changing the game. That's left to other people (and I can be one of them).
    So why am I insisting on hard balancing then? Because VP is going in a bad direction because of soft balancing.

    Take the policy I made up - if it was implemented right now it would be too good to pass up on when playing on desert/forest/hilly maps. But we don't care too much about that using hard balancing because we can directly balance the terrain of the one map we're playing, to make sure the policy isn't ridiculously strong.

    If the change is made to hard balancing, go figure in what direction the mod will go. I have no clue. Here are some general changes to expect however:

    Play styles for each Civ will be much more unique than now
    Better terrain generation
    UUs are even more unique
    Better pantheon balance
    Better difficulty scaling
    Higher skill cap
    Restoration of units that are currently not being used
    Buffs to all Civs
    Better warfare
    More interesting and engaging social policies

    And more.

    Well they're called UUs. Having them share the same buff doesn't make them unique and we want them to be.
    The goal of the UU is to fit in nicely in each Civs unique strategy. However because of soft balancing each Civs strategy isn't that unique to begin with - which makes the units themselves less unique.

    Here's another question - UU starts with higher CS compared to the unit it replaced. Which unit am I talking about?

    Having higher CS is just one buff out of many and it shouldn't be obvious that just because it's a UU it should have higher CS than the unit it's replacing.
    The problem is when using soft balancing you can't really pick and choose from a big list of buffs because they may not be relevant on certain maps or the opposite, too strong.
    That was meant only for Tekamthi. That was an error in my formatting. My bad.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  13. pandasnail

    pandasnail Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2015
    Messages:
    535
    You know, what you think you are arguing against is not what you are actually arguing against. You have this idea that if we switched to 'hard balancing,' all civs, policies, and whatever else would automatically get all these new features. But that betrays an (understandable since you are newish to the mod) ignorance of Gazebo's core design philosophy. Gazebo doesn't put something in the game unless the AI is at least sorta capable with it, which can take him and Ilt a considerable amount of time to make happen. Just one new unique promotion for all 42 could take them 100 hours. So, yeah, that's not gonna happen. Even if G strongly encouraged people to play on donut, it wouldn't change the fact that Gazebo isn't going to differentiate civs in the AI unfriendly way you desire.
     
  14. Tekamthi

    Tekamthi Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Messages:
    517
    See #109 on this if you're still concerned here my friend.

    How can we expect these results, when the only thing you've given us as evidence that this result might happen is the words you've typed? Can we get a specific civ-relevant example of where this has worked out? Also, don't you think that game design, w/e philosophy it is based on, should "have a clue" of what it is trying to accomplish? You actually might have a good idea for donut as arena-style civ here, but you're killing it... its become a punchline now to everyone reading this thread.

    Look, alex, since you like abstraction in this debate, here's one to consider: civ has sold 33 million copies throughout its existence. starcraft has sold roughly half that. Dota i dont think has ever sold a copy. If these are where the hard balance design philosophy comes from, why would the community want to move towards a less successful model?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
  15. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,765
    Location:
    Beijing
    You seem to have a hard time understanding what specific means...

    FYI I'm pretty sure the mod doesn't do much with terrain scaling, map scripts are an independent thing. And you need factor AI, and I don't even think donut is the most balanced map. Its a good map, but it plays our really similarly each time. Playing every game on donut sounds extremely boring to me, regardless of how spicy you can make the other features. I'd rather have the option to play on other maps, and they still be reasonably balanced
     
    thecraftybee, vyyt and Owlbebach like this.
  16. Owlbebach

    Owlbebach Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2016
    Messages:
    1,729
    Location:
    Moscow
    Actually i agree that donut is a bad choice. a mix of pangea/continents maps should be good. Donut should be good in PvP, but Vox Populi is not about PvP for sure.
     
  17. randomnub

    randomnub Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    564
    Gender:
    Male
    Fixed :p
     
  18. Owlbebach

    Owlbebach Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2016
    Messages:
    1,729
    Location:
    Moscow
    Well there are guys who play PvP with NQ mod. Haven't tried it myself but they have a big community and claim that the game is quite balanced
     
  19. GodDamnItAlexander

    GodDamnItAlexander Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Messages:
    202
    The goal isn't to make any changes myself. The goal is to change one very important aspect in the design philosophy. The changes will follow by themselves, just like how new patches come out.
    Nothing more, nothing less.
    Yes, everything is in theory. Does it make it any less true though?
    Why were some UUs removed from the game?
    I can't give you specific examples because I'm not going to mod the game. What I can tell you is my predictions and the logic behind them.
    Game sales = Successfulness of model AND the mods that derive from it?
    Now that's a stretch.
    Not to mention Dota probably makes more in one TI than Civ did in its entire lifetime.
    My goal is not to mod anything myself, but to make a change in the design philosophy. I want to do this by convincing people through logic and predictions, not by making a mod and comparing results.
    So when you ask me for specific examples, I will use the theory in my head and come up with ideas (like the social policy).
    I guess that doesn't fit your definition of specific.

    Can you explain this?

    Hard balancing won't make VP more interesting just on one map. And it won't necessarily make all the other maps completely out of whack.

    All those maps favor either land or ocean Civs, regardless of PvP.
     
  20. Blue Ghost

    Blue Ghost King

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2016
    Messages:
    689
    Some UUs were removed to make room for new UBs, so every civ could have exactly one UU and one UB. Has nothing to do with hard balancing or a lack thereof.

    You give us predictions with (dubious) logic, but the way to test predictions is to see if they bear out in reality. And it’s plain as day from the most recent changelist, and the trend of VP over the past few years, that civs are NOT getting nerfed into the ground.
     
    vyyt likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page