New Version - November 26th (11/26)

[Gazebo]

While i agree with you on this, eventhou i am among those you mentioned(emperor but do not matter ), you should probably realize, that that ,, your'' proposal for changes are actually not proposals at all, just disscussions led somewhere on mainboard or in created subthread. As long as nothing is proposed at balance changes/ leader changes etc, wouldn't be taken as balance change proposal. And i kind of feel, that you absolutely devalued an effort, which Gazebo spend to you and other most skilled people here. With you and others he leads prolonged disscusions about everything, while the others get roughly an answer for question. One thing ido not get is, why he doesn't post some change log ideas before he actualy launch a new version, but everything should be tested in practice. With potery for ai on deity, i kind feel sorry for you, at least me not being such mad to try get there.

That's just it - this is the discussion. I don't typically post my changelog data before launching a patch because the patch is the 'proof' in the 'pudding' of my new version.

G

 

[Moi Magnus]

Turn 0 farming is essentially 'marking time.' The AI does it, but it is a waste on Deity, as their handicap bonuses more than make up for it. That's my point: the first 10 turns or so (i.e. until the AI gets pottery) were essentially 'catch up time' for humans, as a lot of the initial unit needs are already met for them. I want Deity to hit the ground running, and this is the best way to do that.
G

Can I have the reasoning behind the choice of pottery ?
Additionally to the player now being unable to build Stonehenge, it probably makes half of the AI wasting production by failing to build it in time.
Anyway, I don't like free tech, and I think it would be more elegant to give to them raw science equal to half a tech.

For the worker change. I really like the idea, but some of the criticism are true. Is it possible to make the promotion disappear with time (50 turn ?), or have the possibility to give the worker to a CS against influence ? Or maintenance reduction cost ? So that workers captured in war are not auto-disbanded.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

but the AI definitely loses about 10 turns of useful production on Deity in the early game.

I'm not sure I understand where the 10 turns of lost production come from. I was under the impression that by the time Deity AI would build a shrine/monument in its first city, it would already research its first technology, thus unlocking new buildings/wonders/units?

 

[Owlbebach]

I mean there was a time where slave labor was more efficient. You don't think that slavery was so popular because it DIDN'T work, right?

Well speaking of real world i actually meant exactly what i said - slave labor never was more efficient than free labor. This is due to the fact that slaves do not decide what they do, while free workers are driven by desire to earn more money(or whatever stuff they earn) so they try to maximize their efficiency by doing things that they are good at. In simple words professional builder builds walls and professional musician plays music, and it is driven by supply and demand. On the other hand slaves do what they were told to do, and professional musician builds walls, and he is bad in building walls therefore he builds walls slowly and the result is ugly and will fall apart soon.

 

[Deadstarre]

5. Moving paper around doesn't suddenly make Diplo a tall-only affair. G

I hate to bring this up (no i don't), but you do realize it was only a couple weeks ago someone else suggested to you that paper should come exclusively from national wonders right? and what was your reply to them? https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/envoys-emissaries.623944/page-4#post-14908938

Spoiler :

Punishes wide play, precisely the opposite of CSD's intended design. Not gonna happen.

G

and then not only did you do that, you one-upped them by tying paper to great people.

so what changed that youre now making the argument in the other direction exactly? I know who is getting flip flops for christmas!

 

[tu_79]

so what changed that youre now making the argument in the other direction exactly?

Knowing G, he probably tested it.

It was me who argued that limiting paper won't be such a nerf to wide. Wide AI is not producing diplo units 100%, but when it wants a CS allied, then it produces some diplos at the same time. With limited paper, it needs more time to get the same diplos, but having the production lead means wide still can control more CS than tall. The difference is that it won't happen in bursts anymore, and it will be more a steady increase.
But I'm not sure if AI will react better, not spending tons of hammers influencing the same already assured CS ally.

I see a couple of legit complaints in ElliotS rant.
Not getting any XP from fighting a CS allied to enemies is one. I don't know if it is possible to just reduce the XP gained from fighting CS instead of just cutting it. Like earning only 50% XP when fighting CS units. We'll still gain 'some' XP if we're forced to fight them, but it isn't interesting for a leveling strategy.
Not being able to compete for Stonehedge is the other. One reason people loved this game in higher difficulties is because, in contrast with vanilla, it spreads the AI handicaps among ages, so players can compete for early things, not just playing a long comeback fight. It sure must be other ways. I know deity is meant for masochists, but even so...

I don't agree on that deity players have the saying. (Well, I'm not a deity player yet, so I have my selfish reasons). One Prince player may be getting things wrong, caused by a bad play style, but when several prince players get the same things wrong, there's an issue even if the issue doesn't exist in more skilled player's eyes: the game is not friendly enough. (This is more or less the same as when AI cannot do something properly, with Gazebo speaking in their behalf). But we are missing Settler and Chieftain player voices in this forum. There is a recurrent complaint from those difficulties where AI is declaring war too often, considering player armies weak if under 90% of supply limit. Clearly undervalueing player combat skills. Maybe they could learn to play better, keeping their armies always with sharpened arms, but if they play better, then they could increase difficulty, isn't it? I don't need to be always prepared in Emperor to beat AI neighbours.
What I mean is that the game should be fun in lower difficulties for lower skilled players. When we give them advice, we are turning them into King players, where those issues no longer affect. But this is not the idea.

 

[Owlbebach]

I've seen prince players make suggestions all the time that everyone agrees with and are great

I haven't.

I just want to impress that a lot of the advice you seem the be taking into accounts for these changes are REALLY REALLY bad

I agree

I'm the opposite. Every time I play tall I feel like I'm cheating. It's so easy. This is honestly interesting that we can have such a disagreement about this.

Me too, though i agree with @CrazyG that wide got some buffs and nerfs that overall push it into right direction.

Also i kinda agree with the Worker stuff. Really stealing workers from CS was way to easy, though maybe the effect can go off when you advance into the next era or something?

Speaking of the Statecraft:
Opener should not even be discussed. It is just straightforward awful. (really do you ever have more than 25 citizen in a city? Maybe somewhere is Atomic era on Epic)
I have some ideas on how to fix wide-statecraft thing and the statecraft overall:
1) Allied Marine CS give food on per city basis, while all other CS give it in capital/empire-wide. Why is that? I do not see any logic behind that. How about making all bonuses from SC on per city basis? I.e. Allied Culture-CS give +2 per city, allied Trade-CS give +3 per city etc. I think this is a good thing to implement anyway, also it will help wide a bit.
2) Chanceries/Wire Services might give 50% less yields (i.e +1 for every allied from Chancery and +1/+1 from WS) and get those yields back in a Statecraft Policy (+100% bonuses from WSs and Chanceries). Another variant - simply give +50% to Chanceries and WSs in a policy so they will be +3 per allied CS. (Actually i'm not sure i like this idea, but still)
3) How about Chanceries and WSs getting its Paper back in Statecraft (instead of this strange +2 per ally)? Here is how this will work out: non-statecraft player will have small amount of paper so that it can maintain 2-3 allied CS at maximum. While Statecraft player has enough paper and he can maintain a lot of allies. So that non-Statecrafter can't compete with Statecrafter for more than 2 City-States and all competition for CSs is between Statecrafters. Actually this idea i like a lot, it will greatly improve diplomatic gameplay

summoning Deity players, criticize me @ElliotS, @CrazyG, @ashendashin, @randomnub, @LukaSlovenia29 and everyone else whom i forgot

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I started 3 Deity games to see how the Pottery change would influence the early game, and the first thing I noticed was that AI's land-grab was very strong&quick. Before, I was usually able to get my second city out before AI built its 3rd city, whereas in my 3 starts now my 2nd city came around AI's 4 city (sometimes a few turns before I saw an AI settle its 4th city). I'm not sure if this is an intended consequence, but to me it seems very punishing for human (early) wide play. In the past, I was able to settle 5-6 good/decent city locations before all the land was grabbed up, but now I've been boxed in much more quickly, forcing me to either play really tall or go for a very early warmongering strategy. Barring a warmongering UA or UU that would allow me early warmongering with Progress, that means I can't see myself going Progress on the new Deity.

Having said that, I'd propose that IF (see my post above) the Deity AI needs to start with a free technology, that it'd rather be The wheel instead of Pottery. It wil imho prevent early settler-spamming by the AI, while giving the AI something to build (councils) and its workers something to build instead of farms (roads).

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

@Owlbebach ,

your post has several good points! I think, however, the Statecraft opener takes all your citizens from all your cities and divides that number by 25. Stealing workers from CS is such a cheesy strategy that I never steal a worker from a CS. I think this change won't affect some people going for this strategy (they'll still be getting "half a worker" in the early game where it will make a significant difference), whereas it will be punishing players that go for early warmongering against the AI. So my suggestion would be, if it's possible code-wise, to change so that CS' workers get destroyed upon capture except when captured by barbarians.

At a first glance, I like Owlbebach's idea of changing CS yields to behave similarly to maritime CS. If possible, it'd be interesting to test out if all CS would give a higher amount of yields to the capital (good for tall) and a smaller amount of yields to every non-capital (good for wide). I'd also prefer, like Owlbebach says, Statecraft giving paper on some other basis than the number of allies (because this currently imho leads to snowballing). But I like the current yields from CS from chanceries and wire services, so I wouldn't change that (number 2 proposal from Owlbebach).

 

[Owlbebach]

however, the Statecraft opener takes all your citizens from all your cities and divides that number by 25

Yes, which means that if you have 7 cities with 25 population - you get 7 of all yields in you capital. Same with 14 cities with 12,5 population. Sounds amazing, don't it?

 

[Owlbebach]

but demanding that your opinion count for more than others, isn't a good look. Statements like "1) I'm the best at understanding warfare, and 2) I'd just ignore someone's advice 99.9% of the time, because they play at a lower difficulty (implying again that you are superior) just make you look foolish.

Lastly, and this is the one I want you to READ CAREFULLY: don't start creating a class structure where the only good advice on VP is given by Deity players. I listen to all feedback. The game isn't just for you, it's for everyone at every difficulty.

I was the first one who claimed here that the game should be balanced around Deity and i will reply to this. And i want you to READ CAREFULLY because i have a perfect explanation why is this true.

@Gazebo, i remember that you are historian, tell me, is there any class structures among professional historians? Should an explanation of historical process made by PhD in History be taken into consideration on equal footing with an explanation of the same process made by PhD in Biology? After all, history is for everyone, right?

I'm saying that nobody creates class structures here, i'm not a better human being! But what i can say is that i, or @ElliotS or @ashendashin or @CrazyG play this game better than others and it is a goddamn truth, no matter how polite do i want to be.

There are 2 different types of advices. 1st type is a "general advice" - it is an advice on general game design and other stuff (example - tall/wide debate, debates on the role of policy trees). It should be taken into consideration no matter who said it. 2nd type of advice is a "balance advice" - an advice on exact and precise design of everything (example - how much science should pantheon grant: +2, +1, or +3). This type of advices should be taken into consideration if they are given ONLY by Deity players.

Now i'll tell you why. Thing is, that no matter how democratic do we want to be, players with lower skill level understand less. This means that usually they do not understand how changes will affect the game. And the problem is that if changes, proposed by more casual players are implemented - (after several iterations) the game becomes less interesting, even for those who proposed the change!

There are two examples of perfectly balanced games. Those are StarCraft 2 and Dota 2 (actually WC3 and SC:BW also but they are too old). This games are very old but still drag a lot of attention. Why? Because they are challenging and require deep understanding (as Vox Populi, i really think so! Thanks to you @Gazebo!), but they are also perfectly balanced:
Here is the all-time statistics of SC2 professional matches: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
As you may see, starting from July, 2013 all three races have winrate of ~50% ± 3%!
Here is the statistics of Dota 2 winrate http://www.gosugamers.net/dota2/hero-stats
As you may see highest all-time winrate is 57%, lowest is 43%, and 50 out of 114 heroes are within 49-51% range!

Why is that happening? Because the developers take into account only balance feedback made by top 1% of players. Of course they say that they value all feedback, but i know for sure that this is not true. Now, are this games made only for professionals? No they are not. In fact they are MUCH more for casual players than for professionals, because casual players are those who generate revenue! But still only feedback from top 1% of players is considered.

Why!? How dare them?!

Because this is required to keep the game interesting for those casual players. Period. Unfortunately democracy does not work when it comes to fields that require deep understanding. There is now democracy in Historical Sciences. There is no democracy in Physics. There is no democracy in Biology. Git gud first, suggest ideas after.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

True, just wanted to point that it doesn't work like God-King (only followers in a city). I think it's too weak. Some of my ideas (brainstorming) for Statecraft opener (exact numbers to be determined):
- "+50% to CS' quests, +20% production of diplomatic units in all cities",
- "+35% production of diplomatic units in all cities",
- "+1 paper for each owned city"
- "+20% production of diplomatic units in all cities, +50% production for diplomatic buildings & national wonders".

My wish for the Statecraft scaler:
"Each policy adopted increases yields from friendly&allied CS by __%."
OR
"Each policy adopted increases yields and quests' rewards from CS by __%."

 

[MorphBer]

I did change it, I forgot to mention it. :3

I also greatly increased the AI's interest in the Oracle. We shall see.

G

Do you leave some changes out on purpose or is it just that you forgot?

I would really appreciate if the changelog was complete, I don't want to know everything by hard and check each building fir changes...

 

[Gazebo]

I was the first one who claimed here that the game should be balanced around Deity and i will reply to this. And i want you to READ CAREFULLY because i have a perfect explanation why is this true.

@Gazebo, i remember that you are historian, tell me, is there any class structures among professional historians? Should an explanation of historical process made by PhD in History be taken into consideration on equal footing with an explanation of the same process made by PhD in Biology? After all, history is for everyone, right?

I'm saying that nobody creates class structures here, i'm not a better human being! But what i can say is that i, or @ElliotS or @ashendashin or @CrazyG play this game better than others and it is a goddamn truth, no matter how polite do i want to be.

There are 2 different types of advices. 1st type is a "general advice" - it is an advice on general game design and other stuff (example - tall/wide debate, debates on the role of policy trees). It should be taken into consideration no matter who said it. 2nd type of advice is a "balance advice" - an advice on exact and precise design of everything (example - how much science should pantheon grant: +2, +1, or +3). This type of advices should be taken into consideration if they are given ONLY by Deity players.

Now i'll tell you why. Thing is, that no matter how democratic do we want to be, players with lower skill level understand less. This means that usually they do not understand how changes will affect the game. And the problem is that if changes, proposed by more casual players are implemented - (after several iterations) the game becomes less interesting, even for those who proposed the change!

There are two examples of perfectly balanced games. Those are StarCraft 2 and Dota 2 (actually WC3 and SC:BW also but they are too old). This games are very old but still drag a lot of attention. Why? Because they are challenging and require deep understanding (as Vox Populi, i really think so! Thanks to you @Gazebo!), but they are also perfectly balanced:
Here is the all-time statistics of SC2 professional matches: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
As you may see, starting from July, 2013 all three races have winrate of ~50% ± 3%!
Here is the statistics of Dota 2 winrate http://www.gosugamers.net/dota2/hero-stats
As you may see highest all-time winrate is 57%, lowest is 43%, and 50 out of 114 heroes are within 49-51% range!

Why is that happening? Because the developers take into account only balance feedback made by top 1% of players. Of course they say that they value all feedback, but i know for sure that this is not true. Now, are this games made only for professionals? No they are not. In fact they are MUCH more for casual players than for professionals, because casual players are those who generate revenue! But still only feedback from top 1% of players is considered.

Why!? How dare them?!

Because this is required to keep the game interesting for those casual players. Period. Unfortunately democracy does not work when it comes to fields that require deep understanding. There is now democracy in Historical Sciences. There is no democracy in Physics. There is no democracy in Biology. Git gud first, suggest ideas after.

Sorry but this is asinine. I’m not going to ignore non Deity feedback. You can stop this now, it’s really not a good look.

The toxicity in this thread is absurd. Really, truly, guys. It’s a game. Test, offer feedback, and then we’ll go from there.

Anyways the statecraft scaler seems to be misunderstood: for every 25 pop in your empire you get x yields in capital. So 75 citizens = +3 of each. If the scaler is too punishing we can address it.

G

 

[BazaarJack]

I was the first one who claimed here that the game should be balanced around Deity and i will reply to this. And i want you to READ CAREFULLY because i have a perfect explanation why is this true..

Ok - mission accepted, now your turn to read carefully - fair? Your first statement "the game should be balanced around deity" isn't even the issue at hand. In fact, I'd say the fact that G added Pottery for AI at deity only strengthens the proof that he is attempting to balance the deity difficulty. Please explain how deity difficulty isn't getting the attention it deserves.

@Gazebo, i remember that you are historian, tell me, is there any class structures among professional historians? Should an explanation of historical process made by PhD in History be taken into consideration on equal footing with an explanation of the same process made by PhD in Biology? After all, history is for everyone, right?

Again, you are conflating your ideas. In the first sentence you say "is there a class structure among professional historians?" and then you start comparing PhDs in Biology/History. If the subject matter is biological in nature, perhaps the PhD in Biology is more useful? Regardless, this is like saying the problem with apples is they don't taste like oranges enough.. The problem set we have here is that there are self proclaimed PhD's in CIV, and there are beginners, novices, intermediates, etc. The question is really, should we consider the PhDs arguments to have more weight than the first-year history major? The answer is certainly yes, nobody is disagreeing with that. To proclaim, however, that you are the best at something on an internet forum is dubious. Arguing that you would ignore 99.9% of other players opinions is beyond the pale.

I'm saying that nobody creates class structures here, i'm not a better human being! But what i can say is that i, or @ElliotS or @ashendashin or @CrazyG play this game better than others and it is a goddamn truth, no matter how polite do i want to be.

I've read a lot of the posts by your exclusive set of "worthy players", and generally they are well reasoned arguments, polite enough, and even interesting. You and Elliot are making the argument that the class structure exists and that it wasn't artificially created. Perhaps you do play the game better than others. You know what I'd like to see? A big pit-boss game setup at deity difficulty with all of the self-proclaimed savants, so we can find out who really is the top dog. Until then, you are just another unverified voice in the crowd. The games you mention below are designed for the competitive scene, and there is an actual ranking system to determine who is "gud" rather than forum bravado.

There are 2 different types of advices. 1st type is a "general advice" - it is an advice on general game design and other stuff (example - tall/wide debate, debates on the role of policy trees). It should be taken into consideration no matter who said it. 2nd type of advice is a "balance advice" - an advice on exact and precise design of everything (example - how much science should pantheon grant: +2, +1, or +3). This type of advices should be taken into consideration if they are given ONLY by Deity players.

Now i'll tell you why. Thing is, that no matter how democratic do we want to be, players with lower skill level understand less. This means that usually they do not understand how changes will affect the game. And the problem is that if changes, proposed by more casual players are implemented - (after several iterations) the game becomes less interesting, even for those who proposed the change!

You aren't creating the class structure here? Where is your intellectual honesty?

There are two examples of perfectly balanced games. Those are StarCraft 2 and Dota 2

I can't speak for SC2, but I've played plenty of Dota 2 to say that community has it's own problems with elitism and toxicity. Even the mid-level players sneer at the beginners and pretend like they've earned the oxygen at the top of the mountain. Also, there is no "difficulty" level in Dota, the difficulty is the other players - so the game scales naturally (when matchmaking is working). You can certainly compare balancing civs within this mod to balancing characters within Dota, but that's not even what is happening here. The recent changes were to address some cheese left in the game, and to attempt to maximize the efficiency of the AI in deity, and it's a "work in progress".

Unfortunately democracy does not work when it comes to fields that require deep understanding. There is now democracy in Historical Sciences. There is no democracy in Physics. There is no democracy in Biology. Git gud first, suggest ideas after.

Spoken like a true Russkie eh? Well you'll be glad to know this mod doesn't exist in a democracy. It's a benevolent dictatorship run by G (who apparently doesn't even play the game?). You come to this forum to lobby for change, and he decides what stays and what goes, and he does all the work - isn't that nice?

 

[Deadstarre]

There is no democracy in Physics. There is no democracy in Biology.

there is no democracy here either man. G tries what he wants to try with his patches. and he'll defend it with

this is the discussion. I don't typically post my changelog data before launching a patch because the patch is the 'proof' in the 'pudding'.. G

It's worth the experiment, if nothing else. G

but you may realize there is lots of intelligent discussion around these forums regarding things that are code minimal and certainly "worth the experiment" (more worthy than free pottery most of us that play would probably agree) that wont ever get tried. unless they do it themselves, it is what it is. but he has no qualms about ignoring or summarily dismissing opinions of those who he (usually rightfully) thinks are just plain in the wrong, evidence of that is all around you. the other day @matlajs lodged what was primarily a 1upt complaint about AI traffic jams because they explore inefficiently with low movement combat units all over the place, asking about how hard it would be to make them use proper scouting units more instead and G was just like

No, that...that doesn't make any sense. G

but yeah.

SC:BW also

you made me miss that game just by mentioning it lol

 

[Deadstarre]

Well you'll be glad to know this mod doesn't exist in a democracy. It's a benevolent dictatorship run by G (who apparently doesn't even play the game?). You come to this forum to lobby for change, and he decides what stays and what goes, and he does all the work - isn't that nice?

he gets it. but yeah man, thats a mixed bag actually =)

 

[Gazebo]

there is no democracy here either man. G tries what he wants to try with his patches. and he'll defend it with





but you may realize there is lots of intelligent discussion around these forums regarding things that are code minimal and certainly "worth the experiment" (more worthy than free pottery most of us that play would probably agree) that wont ever get tried. unless they do it themselves, it is what it is. but he has no qualms about ignoring or summarily dismissing opinions of those who he (usually rightfully) thinks are just plain in the wrong, evidence of that is all around you. the other day @matlajs lodged what was primarily a 1upt complaint about AI traffic jams because they explore inefficiently with low movement combat units all over the place, asking about how hard it would be to make them use proper scouting units more instead and G was just like



but yeah.



you made me miss that game just by mentioning it lol

I’m sorry, maybe I’m mistaken, but is the person that asked me to rework CSD and offered ideas that I initially resisted because of AI work...and that I ended up doing ok spite of the work required...really complaining about my lack of consideration of the community? Now you’re just trolling. Please stop.

G

 

[Gazebo]

he gets it. but yeah man, thats a mixed bag actually =)

If this bothers you so much join the code team. I happily welcome all. If you don’t want to put in code monkey work, don’t complain if a code monkey doesn’t want to do a pet project for you.

 

[Deadstarre]

I’m sorry, maybe I’m mistaken, but is the person that asked me to rework CSD and offered ideas that I initially resisted because of AI work...and that I ended up doing ok spite of the work required...really complaining about my lack of consideration of the community? Now you’re just trolling. Please stop.

G

I think you misunderstood what i wrote maybe? i genuinely dont see why youre saying that right now... maybe you are mistaken lol. i didnt say you arent considerate, but at the end of the day you do what you want - thats just true man. and i never asked you to rework CSD, when do i ask you for anything but your opinion? ive used this forum to put down some of my own thoughts and often seen good discussion following that helps me reach conclusions. whether you do or dont integrate any of my thoughts to the mod at large i genuinely don't care, but youve certainly done some of them because things i address are... worth addressing maybe? i dont know. but what you just did with the CSD has nothing to do with me no? those arent my ideas, and it was somebody else made the thread that even alerted me there was a problem with csd.

If this bothers you so much join the code team. I happily welcome all. If you don’t want to put in code monkey work, don’t complain if a code monkey doesn’t want to do a pet project for you.

again i ask nothing of you, you know i do my own code monkey work for myself (or what i can, which is very little but thankfully my needs are very little). what code monkey work do you have that needs doing?