Barring any major exploits, ideologies and policies are now locked, as well as all beliefs. Not making any more substantial changes to the underlying systems or models.
Hey all,
Yesterday i've been thinking about an interesting fact: while i do like (very much!) the direction of literally ALL of the recent changes that were made to the game, but i do not like the exact result of many of the changes in terms of balance.
The answer to the question that i see is that it happens due to how new changes interact with previous balance. Balance is a very fragile thing, i know this for sure (back in time i was a hardcore Starcraft II player, i know that something as small as changing damage of one of many units from 17 to 18 can turn the whole matchup upside down)
Given what is stated in the quote i was thinking about what current balancing process lacks in terms of final tuning and here is my humble opinion:
1) There should be less changes in every update. There is so much stuff going on that its literally impossible to understand how new changes affect the game.
2) Changes lack consistency. Changes should be analyzed in more details in terms of how they affect current situation (for example recent buff to markets is at the same time a nerf to Arabia, a buff to Ethiopia is at the same time a nerf to all other religious civs, changes to influence decay is a HUGE buff to Austria and Greece)
3) Tuning should be done from big to small (that we actually have), but only one aspect of the game should be changed. I mean if we tune policies - we change policies only, we do not touch religion, particular civs, buildings, etc, except those that are directly affected by the change. Preferably only in one tree.
4) After big changes are done - small issues that were caused by the big changes (like particular civs/strategies/combinations being too strong) should be addressed right away
5) Game should be balanced around the strongest combinations. If something is weak in many combinations and strong in one - it is good, while if the same thing is good in many combinations and overpowered in one - it is wrong
6) If something is very strong - (if possible, not including something ridiculous) it should NOT be nerfed directly, it should be nerfed in some other, indirect way. This is crucial to keep every civ unique.