There were 10 votes out of 12 for 3:1 ratio. Either as 33%/100% or 50%/150%.
New Hotfix Version (12-15)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 12-15 ho-ho-hotfix vox populi
- Status
CrabHelmet
King
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2017
- Messages
- 732
I do not like the distance modifier for TR, personally.
ElliotS
Warmonger
The poll was flawed. I did a second poll on just ratio and people favored 2:1 pretty heavily.
ElliotS
Warmonger
Nor do I.
Did you walk the stack for the difficulty bonus code? I’m curious to see if it is actually granting yields or just printing the log message.
G
It returns the number of player cities, not map cities.
I don’t think digs are causing the problems you think they are. Also I don’t like hardcoded shrine changes. I think that tweaking the difficulty bonus to not trigger on capital settling will slow the pantheons down such that a hard code won’t be needed. I’m also surprised that the capital is triggering, as it wasn’t doing so when I was doing debug testing before release.
G
FYI: ilteroi has posted a save game compatible hotfix dll that fixes the difficulty on capital. You can find it in his thread.
Here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-test-build-for-15-12-version.625566/
Here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-test-build-for-15-12-version.625566/
ElliotS
Warmonger
I don't think there's much room for error on the shrines thing. It doesn't really matter if the AI has a 1 or a 3 turn advantage on pantheons if they're able to take the one you want without much chance to contest. I think not offering an AI discount on shrines is a good idea for the same reason as wonders.
In your tests, how spread out are the dig bonuses? I can't imagine it going to more than 3-4 civs, with 1 or 2 hogging most of them. This seems like a fairly decisive turning point that will make balancing harder.
Also historic events become more common later, and yields get bigger. Having another late-game exclusive trigger makes balancing harder. I don't think dig handicaps add anything, but I do think they pose problems. The yields can be adjusted easier without them for correct balance.
tu_79
Deity
He's on holidays. I don't think he has time to test it now. That's too much that he's still answering questions.
One thing I've been thinking about with the new trade routes. The goal was to encourage players to spread out their trade routes, but I feel that the happiness system already does this.
If you focus all of your routes into a few cities, you are going to have poverty problems in your other cities. Spreading out your trade routes actually grants you more happiness in general. So I don't know if hard coding that behavior is really needed.
If you focus all of your routes into a few cities, you are going to have poverty problems in your other cities. Spreading out your trade routes actually grants you more happiness in general. So I don't know if hard coding that behavior is really needed.
tu_79
Deity
Not actually. A tall player has happiness in excess. An aggressive player has unhappiness in excess. Happiness doesn't change where I want my trade routes.
Also, the problem is not where they depart, but where they go. Previously, we were sending 4 or 5 trade routes to the same, safe, profitable, nearest allied city state.
Lissindiel
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 48
As if Marathon wasn't painful enough before... Why exactly gamespeed XP scaling has been added?
Questdog
Prince
If playing Marathon seems painful then maybe you do not want to play it.....
Many claim Marathon is easier than Standard and mostly because getting highly promoted units was much easier. This alleviates that.
If I'm allowed to have some words as a casual player, I really don't understand why you're all trying to hammer down on this balancing act.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's ok to have a runaway civ sitting at double the 2nd civ's score, but here it's more like you're trying to put them into perfect score bracket 1st place 1500, 2nd 1400 3rd 1300,... when there're already lots of other things which can affect the overall outcome (starting location, ruins, events, AI interactions,...). Unless it happens in majority of your games where you absolutely can't do anything, isn't it better to just assume a more immersive perspective and try(or fail trying) to go against the odd, rather than abusing programmer privilege "this is unbalance, I'm just gonna drop the game and try to fix it so I won't encounter this again" ? Replayability also relies a lot on unexpected situations not just well balanced gameplay, especially with single player mode.
Can we reallocate programming power toward enriching some other gameplay elements instead ? Right now I'm hoping there will be an update of the espionage system to allow picking more specific actions and open more warfare strategy (sabotage resource, defensive building, spread fake info to other civ "Korea's spy stole your tech" to try pushing them away, pay to spawn barbarian near city,...). Or an AI diplomacy overhaul allowing more intervention (like gifting unit to another civ for favour, guarantee independence - aka 1-way defensive pact, ask for one civ's religion). Or an improved combat system which feels less turnbased-ish (or less "run in, wreck their units, run out unscathed ") and more interactive - by allowing ranged unit to fire back when attacked by ranged attack, and a chance to do (reduced) dmg to unit moving into their range once a turn (aka setting up point defense, like AA gun), while fortified melee units get a chance to do (reduced) dmg to unit leaving their zone of control...
I know all of these sound complicated and maybe exploitable, but imo it's easier to fix glaring exploits than try to balance tiny details.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's ok to have a runaway civ sitting at double the 2nd civ's score, but here it's more like you're trying to put them into perfect score bracket 1st place 1500, 2nd 1400 3rd 1300,... when there're already lots of other things which can affect the overall outcome (starting location, ruins, events, AI interactions,...). Unless it happens in majority of your games where you absolutely can't do anything, isn't it better to just assume a more immersive perspective and try(or fail trying) to go against the odd, rather than abusing programmer privilege "this is unbalance, I'm just gonna drop the game and try to fix it so I won't encounter this again" ? Replayability also relies a lot on unexpected situations not just well balanced gameplay, especially with single player mode.
Can we reallocate programming power toward enriching some other gameplay elements instead ? Right now I'm hoping there will be an update of the espionage system to allow picking more specific actions and open more warfare strategy (sabotage resource, defensive building, spread fake info to other civ "Korea's spy stole your tech" to try pushing them away, pay to spawn barbarian near city,...). Or an AI diplomacy overhaul allowing more intervention (like gifting unit to another civ for favour, guarantee independence - aka 1-way defensive pact, ask for one civ's religion). Or an improved combat system which feels less turnbased-ish (or less "run in, wreck their units, run out unscathed ") and more interactive - by allowing ranged unit to fire back when attacked by ranged attack, and a chance to do (reduced) dmg to unit moving into their range once a turn (aka setting up point defense, like AA gun), while fortified melee units get a chance to do (reduced) dmg to unit leaving their zone of control...
I know all of these sound complicated and maybe exploitable, but imo it's easier to fix glaring exploits than try to balance tiny details.
Txurce
Deity
A lot of players here like to tinker. It's impossible to achieve even near-unanimity as to what, if anything, really needs work at this point. What you and I find pointless, someone else finds critical. Most proposals are never incorporated into the game, but most of the ones that are, have improved the game.
Lissindiel
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 48
How is it easier? Combat takes as much time on Marathon as on faster game speeds. I don't remember getting more than 2-3 levels on units I actually used for war.
- Status
