New Beta Version - Feb. 9th (2-9)

[Cokolwiek]

I dont know if others "feel" the same.

Two separate things:
About yield inflation, I agree wholeheartedly. I mentioned this problem quite a few times, but I don't think Gazebo and majority of community agrees and I decided to tinker my own minimod to nerf some growth potential and buildings yields, while maybe adding a few (that part is most uncertain) instead of bringing bad vibe complaining about it.
About development, give a man a break. He's doing it in his free time, free of charge. I would have abandoned this colossal task and ungrateful (at times) community years before, if I was him.

Note about cheating. How many of you consistently are beating deity, through domination and cultural or progress victory, wide or tall? Well, I am. Both on standard and epic. Also ask yourself how much of your conquering games are artificially made easier by exploiting mass ranged units or stealing workers (I never do that since vanilla, I loath it as the most game breaking mechanic ever Firaxis hadn't forseen) or rushing before walls in ancient, when I wait for the AI to develop until classical or medieval and allow some resistance. Anyway, I have never said I play epic exclusively and switched to standard exclusively as of now when I learned it is more balanced.

Furthermore, I think that one-range archer should be destroyed.

 

[Cokolwiek]

On my local copy I bumped the A,B,C to 500/300/200. I'm able to build wonders but barely, and I can't quite catch up in tech or culture. We'll see if I can pull ahead during medieval, I'll see if I can still keep up without war.

How to do that? What exactly should I change? Are you trying this in standard deity?

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Some debate-related comments:

1.) I'm very happy with the progress the mod made in the recent past, it's been great, big thanks to all involved! I'm in no hurry to get the gold version, because a.) I understand the people involved have personal lives and therefore can't approach this as a full-time job, so any time they invest is very much appreciated and b.) we can see how much more can be improved, for example with Recursive making major diplomacy improvements in the last months.

2 I play Deity on standard settings. I win only sometimes and don't consider it too easy (if I avoid certain exploits/cheesing/overpowered stuff). If some find Deity too easy and want to make it harder before the mod does it, they can locally change the ABC bonuses to AI or change other settings to the AI's benefit (starting units, their production modifier).

 

[JamesNinelives]

Yet, we are getting to a stage where introducing one thing or another affects balances of other aspects.

There is often a need to change something in order to know exactly what impacts that kind of change has. Often one change will change other things - this is the nature of change. If we are playtesting the beta version of this mod we need to be willing to accept these kinds of tests have to be done in order to get clear and useful data. It's not something that you can reliably predict by theory, or determine from making only marginal changes.

The fact that things which were brought up earlier are adressed later on is evidence that this is the case. For example:

I already have this fixed. I'm always on the lookout for simpler things like this that creep in - it's useful feedback for simple AI goofs to be recorded for us.

If we do feel that our feedback is not being taken into account though, the solution is not to say it again louder. What is needed is better communication. We need to be willing to work with the devs to make this happen though. Part of that is trying to improve the way we communicate. These threads often have a lot of information in them, and making sense of that can be difficult. I think there's a couple of things we can do to try to adress this:

1) Try to be polite. I'm guilty of this myself - debate often gets heated and the original point becomes lost.
2) Try to be succint. Reading through paragraph after paragraph makes even the most devoted person tired and it's easy to miss important points.
3) Listen to one another. Attempt to find common ground. If we can at least agree on certain things, then we can present a united voice. It's much easier to adress a few concerns that many people share than to respond to numerous competing arguments.

It's just something for those who loves VP but not always in the mood of being beta testers

All of these changes are fun and exciting but I'm sure there are people who want a stable version to just have fun and not worry about a change that might make their old strategies obsolete.

There are stable releases for exactly this reason. If you are tired of all the changes in the beta don't play the beta! Perhaps it needs to be clearer that these exist and where to find them?
It's not called 'gold' because that implies the final product. Or rather, that is meaning that we have attributed to it, and changing that now would be confusing.

Furthermore, I think that one-range archer should be destroyed.

Hold on, sending my archer straight at enemy lines.
OK, it's done. Now what?

 

[ProCatGamer]

If we can get a framework for diplomacy from @HeathcliffWarriors regarding what we are trying to achieve, then we can give better feedback like:

@HeathcliffWarriors have started another thread with all his objectives for diplo changes

 

[amateurgamer88]

As I said, when you are at a point where much of the balance in the game is decent, there is a need to change something to see what happens. Often if will change other things, that is the nature of change. If we are playtesting the beta version of this mod we need to be willing to accept changes, to understand that they are not neccesarily permanent, and to have some faith that our comments are not simply forgotten.

The fact that things which were brought up earlier are adressed later on is evidence that this is the case. Point in case:

If the balance is decent, then ideally the changes are finetuning things to make them better. You cannot finetune things if you change a few dozen variables (which is basically what happened with this latest version) because then you'll be redoing the balance altogether. I was never against changes at all. I just want something of a gold version that was considered before I came to the forums. The gold version can be considered a solid version while the beta versions are still ongoing to make further changes to see how things can be improved more drastically. Currently, we only have beta versions and, after so many variations, it's so easy to confuse the different versions as I don't even know which change came with which version.

What's wrong with only beta versions? Since they differ so much, it's really hard to tell what direction we are headed. You cannot even compare some of them since the changes were so drastic. When I first played VP, there wasn't Distress and instead we used defense. If we have a gold version, then we have something to compare to and figure out what we like to keep and what to remove.

@HeathcliffWarriors have started another thread with all his objectives for diplo changes

I only just noticed it so thanks for the heads up. I actually don't mind seeing that from the other devs as well.

 

[General_Drax]

Is anyone else having problems with the diplomacy button? For me, it is blocked, i can't access diplomacy options. Already created a github ticket.

Yes, it's unresponsive but you can open the diplo panel through hotkey (F4 i think).

 

[JamesNinelives]

If the balance is decent, then ideally the changes are finetuning things to make them better. You cannot finetune things if you change a few dozen variables (which is basically what happened with this latest version) because then you'll be redoing the balance altogether.

I have edited my comment to try to clarify what I mean. Specifically: if you only make marginal changes you will only find marginal differences. Changes need to be significant enough to give clear outcomes in order to yield useful results for the devs.

Humans do not give consistent, reliable, easy to interpret feeback. That means if you only make small changes the feedback you are getting may be on the same scale as natural variation in people's opinion, confirmation bias, and other factors which create uncertainty in data. Indeed, feeback from a single beta will probably not be enough to make solid conclusions about many of the changes made in that beta - that is why many issues are not addressed straight away, but do turn up again later on.

Currently, we only have beta versions and, after so many variations, it's so easy to confuse the different versions as I don't even know which change came with which version.

This is not true, and exactly why listening first and asking questions before calling for major changes is important. There are stable versions of this mod. If you are tired of how things change constantly in the beta version, play the stable release instead.

Part of the reason there are so many changes is that people are pushing for so many things to be changed. If we want betas to only make a few changes it's on us to be communicate more clearly what is most important to us. See the points I listed in regards to this in my previous comment.

 

[General_Drax]

Anyone else feel that hostile spy actions are a bit overtuned? Had them steal gold in expansion cities twice, and both time they stole a whopping 85% (1,700 / 2,000) of my gold on Deity difficulty. Quite devastating when you're saving some for upgrades and only have 1 spy to defend.

It has been from a while. The only guarantee solution is just spending them. I was just tricked on Emperor as well: one of my vassals managed to steal 1'047g/1'380g in my capital with a counterspy lv III and a Constabulary built. Annoying to say the least.

I'm leader in tech and score (closing the game but Domination victory so need more time to mop them up) and all AIs send spies in my capital but really I want the tools to effectively stop them.

 

[DeAnno]

I would actually support 1 move archers over 1 range archers. At least archers don’t just feel like gimped chariots, and don’t function as pointless pallet swaps on barbarian axemen. They’re their own unit with that change.

This is a very intriguing proposal for Archers (possibly the entire archer line tbh), it would make them a harder unit to rush with by the simple expedient of being slower to cross the map, and worse at fighting battles in general while strong on defense. However once besieging the city they'd still be quite strong. My main worry is the AI becomes bad at using them, just like how it was bad at using Siege when it had to set up.

 

[CrazyG]

I don't know a person can compare today's pantheons to those from years ago and call it anything other than yield inflation. I know people want to buff earth mother, but in the process you nerf stuff like Sun God.

How to do that? What exactly should I change? Are you trying this in standard deity?

Difficulty.xml file.

It is probably in documents-mygames-civ5-mods-communitybalanceoverhaul.

A is their early game bonus, B, is mid-game, and C is late game (a small change in C is a big deal)

 

[usadefcon1]

I would actually support 1 move archers over 1 range archers. At least archers don’t just feel like gimped chariots, and don’t function as pointless pallet swaps on barbarian axemen. They’re their own unit with that change.

I would like to try 1 movement, 2 range archers and see how it feels.

 

[tu_79]

Although I'm not so german minded, I agree with the idea of writing down a plan. It's a useful tool to have, even for our lives.

A plan is not set in stone, nor it must be followed at heart. It just provides some guidelines when we are lost on a brainstorming debate to find our way back.
Since VP is already fully playable and content complete, and given that the current rule is 'no new code' unless it's something game breaking, this plan should not be too difficult to state.
Stalker0 opened several threads looking for golden status on several game aspects, but those only served as a focus for further improvements. Which is not a bad thing, but failed to fulfill its purpose.
Those threads asked whether this or that aspect of the game felt good enough to not touch it again. But of course, there's always something that can be improved, there's always a reason to touch everything again. Even if I am 100% content with the current status, there's someone else which is not.

How do we know when the development needs no further enhancements, other than bug fixing? This is what the plan is for. It gives you something to look at and say whether you made it. Ideally, it's the devs who have to say what they want from their game, but since this mod is quite democratic, maybe we testers could help (in a different thread).

 

[BiteInTheMark]

If we do feel that our feedback is not being taken into account though, the solution is not to say it again louder. What is needed is better communication. We need to be willing to work with the devs to make this happen though. Part of that if trying to improve the way we communicate.

Setting goals like Heathcliffwarrior would be the first thing we should achieve. But I really miss the communication from Gazebo what he want to achieve. Some time ago I was trying to start a discussion which aim the happiness should have (stop early expansion, punish bad infrastructure, punish hard warmongering, how many cities should be manageable, etc.) and someone else was making a poll, but only CrazyG and Stalker0 went into a deeper discussion and Gazebo said, he has no aim, only trying to keep the system running.

What shall I think about such a comment?

There are stable releases for exactly this reason. If you are tired of all the changes in the beta don't play the beta! Perhaps it needs to be clearer that these exist and where to find them?

I've checked it and the "gold" discussions in the balance thread is open since May 2018. We have accomplished some steps. Happiness is a bit more stable but at the price of some irrational complexity and is still too easy in most circumstances. Any warmonger counters which work by unhappiness are partly negated by that.

But on the other side, there are still pantheon adjustments, more than 1 1/2 years after people thought the gold staus is near. (as example)

Specifically: if you only make marginal changes you will only find marginal differences. Changes need to be significant enough to give clear outcomes in order to yield useful results for the devs.

Making corporations, factories, CS trade routes scaling exponential isn't marginal. I don't need to test the outcome of an exponential CS trade route influence increase. I know it's broken. And it should be already known cause the same experience was made and removed for Denmark or Greece.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Although I'm not so german minded, I agree with the idea of writing down a plan. It's a useful tool to have, even for our lives.

Having a plan is a great idea! We need to be aware though, in asking for this, that there are obstacles to overcome.

Gazebo said, he has no aim, only trying to keep the system running.

What shall I think about such a comment?

I'm glad you asked because that is exactly what I am talking about. When the person running the project is so busy with their existing work they have no ability to do things like setting out detailed goals for the community that is a problem. That problem belongs to all of us.

It should not be surprising, for example, that Gazebo does not come on the forums to talk often. First because the ground-level work is very involved, and because managing a the team requires a good amount of effort. But secondly because when he does share with us his thoughts, we go on about how much we appreciate it before repeating statements about what we want and what we think rather than trying to see from his perspective and work together.

Someone with limited time and headspace cannot afford to set everything out in detail if we then insist on arguing about every one of those details.

Setting goals like Heathcliffwarrior would be the first thing we should achieve.

Without a healthy community, nothing else will happen. Good communication is neccesary if we want to have any grand ideas about what this project should be. We all have different ideas, and we cannot all get what we want. Therefore compromise and negotiation must take place.

If you have a goal that you want to achieve, you must recognise it will not happen simply by demanding it. You cannot expect Gazebo to do more work without being willing to do work ourselves. And that does not mean trying to do his job for him! Gazebo needs to be involved if our plan is to be successful, whatever that plan may be. That means asking what he wants, what he needs for such a goal to be achieved, and actually listening and trying to understand. Saying that we respect him is one thing. Behaving with respect is another entirely.

 

[Gizmoman]

It should not be surprising, for example, that Gazebo does not come on the forums to talk often. First because the ground-level work is very involved, and because managing a the team requires a good amount of effort. But secondly because when he does share with us his thoughts, we go on about how much we appreciate it before repeating statements about what we want and what we think rather than trying to see from his perspective and work together.

The most impressive part is how G managed to get 17k posts without coming on the forum to talk. That got to take some serious Tzeentch level sorcery, void magic or serious division by zero to achieve.

 

[Cokolwiek]

It has been from a while. The only guarantee solution is just spending them. I was just tricked on Emperor as well: one of my vassals managed to steal 1'047g/1'380g in my capital with a counterspy lv III and a Constabulary built. Annoying to say the least.

This system is awful and I do not know why Gazebo is standing by it since literally everyone hate it. It i fun killing, and awful. It is obvious your treasury is spread throughout many cities in banks, vaults, financial instruments, patents, with lion's share in the capital. Yeah, how can a single spy load tons of gold ingots into his pockets and flee away? I suggest it should be tied to city wealth, with only chance to steal half of tresury in the capital. If its not possible then tune it down to mostly 20-25% and 33% max and maybe decrease turns. Still hurtful, not a killjoy.

Setting goals like Heathcliffwarrior would be the first thing we should achieve. But I really miss the communication from Gazebo what he want to achieve. Some time ago I was trying to start a discussion which aim the happiness should have (stop early expansion, punish bad infrastructure, punish hard warmongering, how many cities should be manageable, etc.) and someone else was making a poll, but only CrazyG and Stalker0 went into a deeper discussion and Gazebo said, he has no aim, only trying to keep the system running.

I think your consideations are valid. I also yearn for less complicated (wts is distress?), yet more punishing hapiness system. I read that thread. And yes, some mods are doing this part better than vp (as much as probably you don't like to hear that). Sad to see community here is not anticipating meaningful and needed changes and is mostly interested in cosmetic stuf, along with dragging difficulty level down.

We have accomplished some steps. Happiness is a bit more stable but at the price of some irrational complexity and is still too easy in most circumstances

It is brutally too easy. There is no even a slight penalty for mass annexing cities like it was in vanilla, which tried to acknowledge those are not your citizens.

The most impressive part is how G managed to get 17k posts without coming on the forum to talk. That got to take some serious Tzeentch level sorcery, void magic or serious division by zero to achieve.

Posting a massage and contributing to a discussion are too separate things. It is a general rule, I do not ascribe that to Gazebo, but since I have followed this forums, I really don't see too much of enthusiasm to make CBP more realistic and challenging.

I once read about VP from people who, like me were searching for a more realistic yet more challenging experience in mods, that VP developers are playing at chieftan and are not interested in contributing to creating demanding and realistic mod.

It was a post from like year ago, I do not know if that is still correct, but considering what I read around here, and that in some of you are posting that deity was eviscarated even further it may be at least partially true.

Anyway, if vp is not aiming for a enhanced experience from vanilla, which pretty obviously would entail focusing on veteran players and higher difficulties and more punishing and real-world like mechanims, then I do not know what is it aiming for.

and Gazebo said, he has no aim

And it looks like I am not the only one.

 

[Gidoza]

It's because the AI is considering human players weaker compared to AIs.

It has to do with the way the AI is programmed, but I've isolated human military strength estimations as being a significant problem for three reasons:

1. Humans tend to be better at war than the AI, especially if they're playing on higher difficulties, but this is not accounted for.
   
   
2. Humans can defend against large assaults by using a smaller but more skilled military force and/or by exploiting terrain and chokepoints and/or with better tactics and superior memory. The AI does not account for this and considers humans with smaller forces weak, even if they've fended off a dozen wars so far without losing a single city.
   
   
3. The AI, especially on higher difficulties, has more units and unit supply, which causes them to consider humans weak.

This estimation issue causes a number of problems which snowball into each other and result in AIs targeting humans (especially on higher difficulties), doing things which make them more likely to target them in the future and less likely to target other players, and then not shifting from that mindset except with great difficulty. I'm working on resolving it.

This seems like a fair enough description to me.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

Anyway, if vp is not aiming for a enhanced experience from vanilla, which pretty obviously would entail focusing on veteran players and higher difficulties and more punishing and real-world like mechanims, then I do not know what is it aiming for.

that VP developers are playing at chieftan and are not interested in contributing to creating demanding and realistic mod.

That critic is too harsh, I am sure every developer wants to create a fun, realistic and demanding mod and put a lot of effort into it.
The point with the testing difficulty may be true. I have heard contrary statements from Gazebo, sometimes "without bonuses", which means very likely chieftain, but also remember he had made tests with prince difficulty.

Using chieftan difficulty probably didn't play any role while testing AI diplomacy or military approach. But using chieftain, even prince, might be lead to wrong results for other aspects, like happiness evaluation, cause the advantages for production projects rise much faster in higher difficulties than the advantages in tech and policies, creating differences. (AI using a lot of processes cause they have nothing more to do is only an emperor+ thing and was in my eyes one source of unhappiness the human had to face a lot of versions ago, but it's of course hard to proof by numbers from me)

 

[CrazyG]

First and foremost I love this mod.

We often end up with a series of short term solutions that don't really make anything better. It almost always becomes more complex though. We changed X, to fix it we changed Y, to fix Y we changed Z. It's just chasing your own tail. Pantheons are the best example. They are riddled with yield inflation and feature creep. How is the new Earth Mother balanced exactly? Its directly better than a follower belief.

G has done one a great job overall, but i really wish sometimes we could just go back. Just acknowledge an idea isn't working and remove things that were added. Like this entire massive wave of changes to archers, what if you just undo the major city defense changes of a few patches ago? Really city defense went mostly unchanged for like 5 years I played the mod because it worked well enough. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it worked well enough to be enjoyable. We've had chaos in the military department that threw the balance of a million other things. Our end goal for city defense is what? It's probably going to be pretty similar to what we started with.