Should be.
New Version - October 17th (10-17)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
Should be.
Thanks for the quick fix. BTW the instant yield part of the UI is a fantastic addition
Deadstarre
Expert
I noticed that
Thanks. Yeah, it's a shame I waited this long to add it, as it wasn't nearly as difficult as I thought it would be. Might someday add a more detailed one that adds up the yields per type (i.e. border growth, etc.) so you can really see the changes, but that's a bigger fish.
I see why - an ancient blip of code popped up. Fixed. OP is updated.
Blue Ghost
King
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 710
Reposting my query. @Gazebo?
ElliotS
Warmonger
Will a series of nerfs happen every time one of us posts a won deity game on here? 
No, it's all hard-coded in the DLL. My call out was to note that instant yields received in game should all show (i.e. yields from city-state meetings, events, etc.). If they don't, let me know.
Will a series of nerfs happen every time one of us posts a won deity game on here?
To be fair, you should all be ashamed for not reporting an exploitable mechanic!
ElliotS
Warmonger
My point is this: Either a scaler's number means annexing is a good idea, or a bad idea. If annexing/creating cities is profitable on standard, wide is triply profitable on huge because the scaler is halved and the amount you can place is increased substantially. The whole 'people will have more cities so scaler should be lower' logic is flawed. If there was going to be a change based on map-size it should be inverted, so from duel to huge it goes 3/4/5/6/7/8 because that would keep the progress/authority vs tradition a bit more balanced. However I support a
I'd honestly like you to really think over if the current scaling system makes sense or hurts balance a lot, because I'm 99.9% sure it's backwards and only works on the surface.
I'm not sure how you think Deity works! Playing fair is fighting a grizzly bear bare-handed. (The results will be grisly.)To be fair, you should all be ashamed for not reporting an exploitable mechanic!
SLGray
Emperor
So you want to base it on how many cities each civ can build, not on how many you exactly build? It should be on the number of built cities.
My point is this: Either a scaler's number means annexing is a good idea, or a bad idea. If annexing/creating cities is profitable on standard, wide is triply profitable on huge because the scaler is halved and the amount you can place is increased substantially. The whole 'people will have more cities so scaler should be lower' logic is flawed. If there was going to be a change based on map-size it should be inverted, so from duel to huge it goes 3/4/5/6/7/8 because that would keep the progress/authority vs tradition a bit more balanced. However I support aflat taxflat scaler of 6% per city on all maps.
I'd honestly like you to really think over if the current scaling system makes sense or hurts balance a lot, because I'm 99.9% sure it's backwards and only works on the surface.
I'm not sure how you think Deity works! Playing fair is fighting a grizzly bear bare-handed. (The results will be grisly.)
Gonna need some sweet, sweet maths here for this to be considered, yo.
I'm absolutely sure that the space is not the same, at least for Standard, Large and Huge (with default number of civs, the bigger, the more distance between them)
tu_79
Deity
Seems daft , will probably have built most religious buildings by then.,,
ElliotS
Warmonger
Boredom was ramped up in the somewhat recent past. It used to mean nothing, so I don't mind. It might be a bit too high now though. It's hard for me to tell.
MightyThor34
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2017
- Messages
- 4
My point is this: Either a scaler's number means annexing is a good idea, or a bad idea. If annexing/creating cities is profitable on standard, wide is triply profitable on huge because the scaler is halved and the amount you can place is increased substantially. The whole 'people will have more cities so scaler should be lower' logic is flawed. If there was going to be a change based on map-size it should be inverted, so from duel to huge it goes 3/4/5/6/7/8 because that would keep the progress/authority vs tradition a bit more balanced. However I support aflat taxflat scaler of 6% per city on all maps.
I'd honestly like you to really think over if the current scaling system makes sense or hurts balance a lot, because I'm 99.9% sure it's backwards and only works on the surface.
I'm not sure how you think Deity works! Playing fair is fighting a grizzly bear bare-handed. (The results will be grisly.)
I don't get the entire theory behind this post.
Why is the "people will have more cities so scaler should be lower" flawed? On a larger map you ARE more likely to have more cities. Yes there are more civs in the game on a larger map but there tend to be more cities overall and the "base" number of cities tends to be higher. But quite simply in any given game you are going to tend toward a certain % of the map owned, and that will quite simply mean more cities on a large map than on a small. I think the scaler makes perfect sense, and would definitely be against a scaler that went the other way (was lower for smaller maps than higher).
- Status
