Mining, Writing, GL, Phil, NC?

[Rittmeyer]

The problem in this kind of thread is that what works for Deity is different to what works for every other level.

On Deity, the good wonder is the one you can get. That being said, and considering that you problably can hard build the Hagia Sophia consistently, plus liberty GP, it looks like the `wonder set`for Deity would be: HS -> Porcelain Tower, Notre Dame (Liberty finisher). Adding the Hanging Gardens would be amazing, but I still resist to putting too much focus on it (tech and production wise).

 

[MadDjinn]

The power of the Great Library is consistently rated over the power of other world wonder options. Just look at strategy discussions like this very thread, or the Wonder Elimination Thread. I like options to be equally balanced and useful.

@MadDjinn
What I'm pointing out is about A, not B:

• Great Library -vs- other early wonders
• Going for a wonder -vs- not going for a wonder

To put it another way...

We're having this do-or-don't discussion about the GL and Hagia Sophia, not the Great Lighthouse and Angkor Wat. I think we can agree the first two are better than the second two. That's the basic point, not if wonders are better/worse on a particular difficulty level.

yes, the Great Library is strong. Is it stronger than the Angkor Wat? Only in the immediate term, and only if you aren't expanding very much. (going tall) the Angkor Wat is a longer term benefit.

But you do have to assess risk of missing it. The more 'OP' a wonder is, the more everyone will go for it. So going for it is a risk-reward scenario, and since it comes early, the risk is a lot higher than for the Angkor Wat.

Hence why Hagia Sophia is far more 'OP' than the Great Library as there's very little risk to getting it, and it gives far more than the Great Library does.

The Hanging Gardens gives +10fpt. With that, you can far outstrip a GL on tech OR be able to switch to 5 hills/forests/etc at 5 pop and still grow. That again, is high power.

To sum up... If there's something (or more) in the game that's far more 'OP' than the thing you're measuring, then it's likely not 'OP'. Not everything can be 'OP', but if they were, it'd be 'balanced' in it's own OP way.

 

[Txurce]

yes, the Great Library is strong. Is it stronger than the Angkor Wat? Only in the immediate term, and only if you aren't expanding very much. (going tall) the Angkor Wat is a longer term benefit.

But you do have to assess risk of missing it. The more 'OP' a wonder is, the more everyone will go for it. So going for it is a risk-reward scenario, and since it comes early, the risk is a lot higher than for the Angkor Wat.

Hence why Hagia Sophia is far more 'OP' than the Great Library as there's very little risk to getting it, and it gives far more than the Great Library does.

The Hanging Gardens gives +10fpt. With that, you can far outstrip a GL on tech OR be able to switch to 5 hills/forests/etc at 5 pop and still grow. That again, is high power.

To sum up... If there's something (or more) in the game that's far more 'OP' than the thing you're measuring, then it's likely not 'OP'. Not everything can be 'OP', but if they were, it'd be 'balanced' in it's own OP way.

Your summation could use some clarification, but some of the specifics preceding it miss the point. That the Hagia Sophia may be more OP than the Great Library doesn't make the Great Library not OP. Regardless of difficulty level, a few Wonders in each era are clearly more desirable than others. That makes them OP (not broken) in the eyes of some. The focus on pursuing just those constricts strategy. If more Wonders were about as desirable in pursuit of a certain Victory Condition - that is, about as likely to give roughly the same edge - then grand strategy would be enhanced.

 

[Thalassicus]

Like Txurce said, what's important is options available at the same time are equal in desirability. To rephrase the earlier list, it's comparison A that's the matter at hand:

• Great Library -vs- other early wonders
  ...not...
• Great Library -vs- later tech wonders (like Angkor Wat)
• Getting wonders -vs- ignoring wonders

It's entirely possible to get the early wonders balanced (GL, lighthouse, pyramids, etc) so none are particularly overpowered. It can't be done exactly right for all possible situations, but can be improved from the current state.

 

[_hero_]

Like Txurce said, what's important is options available at the same time are equal in desirability. To rephrase the earlier list, it's comparison A that's the matter at hand:

• Great Library -vs- other early wonders
  ...not...
• Great Library -vs- later tech wonders (like Angkor Wat)
• Getting wonders -vs- ignoring wonders

It's entirely possible to get the early wonders balanced (GL, lighthouse, pyramids, etc) so none are particularly overpowered. It can't be done exactly right for all possible situations, but can be improved from the current state.

Does Hanging Gardens count as an early wonder? Situationally it can be superior to GL IMO.

 

[MadDjinn]

Like Txurce said, what's important is options available at the same time are equal in desirability. To rephrase the earlier list, it's comparison A that's the matter at hand:

• Great Library -vs- other early wonders
  ...not...
• Great Library -vs- later tech wonders (like Angkor Wat)
• Getting wonders -vs- ignoring wonders

It's entirely possible to get the early wonders balanced (GL, lighthouse, pyramids, etc) so none are particularly overpowered. It can't be done exactly right for all possible situations, but can be improved from the current state.

the 'same time' is questionable. Taking wonders out of context of the game is also a very questionable way of doing it.

But whatever, if you want to make settler more 'even' then go for it.

 

[Thalassicus]

Does Hanging Gardens count as an early wonder? Situationally it can be superior to GL IMO.

HG costs +35% more than GL and requires more techs, so availability must be considered too. It's easiest to compare wonders with equal availability. So for example, Pyramids and Great Library should probably be both as desirable.

 

[Randall Turner]

the 'same time' is questionable. Taking wonders out of context of the game is also a very questionable way of doing it.

But whatever, if you want to make settler more 'even' then go for it.

Amen. And there's another problem with your approach, Thal - you guys tend to identify statistically "overpowered" elements and reduce their effectiveness.

Basically, this reduces variance off optimal for any given build choice. It's true that you're making all choices more balanced - but you're also removing asymmetry.

Now, in one way this is beneficial - it gives an AI that's not very good at identifying leverage opportunities a better chance against a human player. Taken to its logical extreme this means that the AI can't screw up - any choice it makes is "okay", because no build choice is significantly better than any other.

The flip side of this, though, is that it makes a human players' build choices nearly irrelevant. You get a menu of like-effect buildings any of which are also "okay" - not great, not bad. Problem is, given a flat AI build (and initial start) advantage at higher difficulty levels, it's impossible to compete effectively without asymmetrical (ie, "overpowered") opportunities. This forces us away from any build-centric strategy (because we need to exploit the one constant leverage opportunity, ie, that of the AI's lack of tactical expertise.)

It doesn't seem to me that the GL is so overpowered that it needs balancing. As MadDjinn says, the benefit of acquiring it's more than compensated for by the risk of lost production when you "miss". (I'd also point out that it going by turn 40 in MD's game is waaaay late for a Deity game, and only happened b/c he was playing Pangea with his AI opponents crammed in next to each other - it goes around turn 32 on a normal Deity game on Continents, which is close enough to impossible for a human player as makes no difference.)

TL;DR - if it's so unlikely to get the silly thing in my normal games that it's not worth trying for, it's not overpowered.

 

[Txurce]

Amen. And there's another problem with your approach, Thal - you guys tend to identify statistically "overpowered" elements and reduce their effectiveness.

Basically, this reduces variance off optimal for any given build choice. It's true that you're making all choices more balanced - but you're also removing asymmetry.

Now, in one way this is beneficial - it gives an AI that's not very good at identifying leverage opportunities a better chance against a human player.

The flip side of this, though, is that if makes a human players' build choices nearly irrelevant.

I don't know what the "Amen" is about - a comment about context that is the opposite of what Thal did, or a wisecrack that inexplicably implies balancing Wonders makes the game much easier. (Speaking as someone who has played both versions... it doesn't.)

But I agree with much of the rest of your point of view. Thal's approach removes the concept of major and minor Wonders, and I personally enjoy the pursuit of "better" ones, even if I sometimes miss out on them. It also gives the AI more of a chance, which I agree is a good thing.

I disagree that it makes the human player's build choices nearly irrelevant. I find that instead it gives me more attractive options. But there's still a difference between a GL and a Pyramid, and I'll pursue the one that seems more useful to me at the time. And of course, the degree to which you find it "nearly irrelevant" and I don't can be adjusted to a happy medium... which is what TBC tries to do, both by nerfing OP Wonders and by buffing the UP ones.

 

[MadDjinn]

The flip side of this, though, is that it makes a human players' build choices nearly irrelevant. You get a menu of like-effect buildings any of which are also "okay" - not great, not bad. Problem is, given a flat AI build (and initial start) advantage at higher difficulty levels, it's impossible to compete effectively without asymmetrical (ie, "overpowered") opportunities. This forces us away from any build-centric strategy (because we need to exploit the one constant leverage opportunity, ie, that of the AI's lack of tactical expertise.)

no!! don't tell him that!

now he'll try to 'balance' ranged units so that they can't shoot! I'll lose my Artillery advantage.

lol.. or not.

 

[Randall Turner]

no!! don't tell him that!

now he'll try to 'balance' ranged units so that they can't shoot! I'll lose my Artillery advantage.

lol.. or not.

Well, that would be consistent with their philosophy. And the "them" I'm referring to are the devs, not Thal and company - Thal tends to balance by nerf too, but we can choose to adopt a mod or not.

To be clear, I'm objecting to the "balance by leveling" philosophy in general (identifying and weakening any effective player strategies), not any single implementation detail of it. The devs won't hamstring ranged units, I don't think - it'd make the combat portion of the game too boring. But if they did, it'd be similar in spirit to what they've done with our build choices.

There's another way to enhance variety (and balance options) of course - go the other way, strengthen the weaker options and give the human player more strong options. It's more difficult to do right. Doing so would probably make the AI relatively weaker b/c if if can't make "clever" choices, and the choices matter, well, duh. Then, the obvious way to make the game more challenging would be to improve the AI's ability to implement an effective build strategy. I've said this before, I believe improving that part of the AI would be easier than improving the combat AI. And they have made the combat AI better, it seems, it's not impossible this sort of thing could happen too.

The point I'm making is sort of academic. It's more of an observation on what constitutes "good" game design, and that balance isn't the only issue to consider, or even the most important.

 

[Txurce]

...Thal tends to balance by nerf too, but we can choose to adopt a mod or not.

There's another way to enhance variety (and balance options) of course - go the other way, strengthen the weaker options and give the human player more strong options. It's more difficult to do right. Doing so would probably make the AI relatively weaker b/c if if can't make "clever" choices, and the choices matter, well, duh. Then, the obvious way to make the game more challenging would be to improve the AI's ability to implement an effective build strategy. I've said this before, I believe improving that part of the AI would be easier than improving the combat AI. And they have made the combat AI better, it seems, it's not impossible this sort of thing could happen too.

For the record, the TBM mod buffs as much as it nerfs. Perhaps the most fun example is the Leaders themselves - Germany and the Ottomans are both a blast to play.

I agree that there's no reason why the devs can't improve the AI's diplomatic and "grand strategy" performance. They've steadily improved Civ 5, but their priority list is hard to fathom.

 

[Thalassicus]

The main goal is for the game to be a series of interesting, challenging decisions. I find a choice challenging if each option has strengths and weaknesses to seriously consider under different circumstances. This involves more than simply buffs and nerfs.

A good example is the Granary. Its power now depends on circumstances of map terrain, whereas it originally was always 2. This is why I added the localized resource bonuses to the Granary, later included in vanilla. It adds variety to games since the value compared to other buildings varies from city to city. It also rewards smart city placement, since 1 city with a granary can boost 4 resources more efficiently than 2 cities with 2 resources worked apiece.