Policies

[Atlas627]

What if I reduced the cost of happiness buildings?

Hmmmm. I don't know if that helps. That makes it easier for wide empires expand rapidly as they can quickly get up a few happiness buildings per city, but it still doesn't let them grow their cities much because the total happiness cap from buildings is the same.

Is this what you want? I don't know all too well, I don't go wide like ever.

 

[Ahriman]

What if I reduced the cost of happiness buildings?

Cost-effectiveness is certainly one problem, but I think the main problem is that they barely produce enough happiness to matter much anymore, and so the techs that grant them are pretty weak.

Reducing build and maintenance cost would help, but it wouldn't solve the core problem that happiness is now being driven by policies rather than infrastructure.

 

[Atlas627]

Everyone here has ideas, and it is very easy to fall in love with your own. Their general value requires vetting. The more successful the system, the more the tires need to be kicked before making changes. VEM has been working well enough, for long enough, not to make changes as often as it has been. In my opinion, there is less and less tire kicking every passing month. All too often, "Hey, how about this?" or "I don't like this" seems to carry the day.

Its a beta for a reason? Also, what is wrong with that being the topic of discussion? If someone doesn't think something works, perhaps we should discuss it. Which we do. Maybe we come to a conclusion too quickly for your liking, which I can understand. But just because the system has been working for you for a long time, doesn't mean there are not other people who disagree. I for one lurked on the forums without signing up, reading all of the discussions and thinking "Oh I hope they don't do that" or "Wait what? I've never seen that happen in my games".

 

[Thalassicus]

The more successful the system, the more the tires need to be kicked before making changes. VEM has been working well enough, for long enough, not to make changes as often as it has been. In my opinion, there is less and less tire kicking every passing month.

I'm not sure how to best explain this because I'm on cold meds right now, so my head's a little loopy today. This is my long term plan:

1. Firaxis released a patch on the 10th of August.
2. Fix bugs caused by the patch.
3. Add reasonable gameplay changes.
4. Release a public version on Wednesday
5. Leave it mostly unchanged for 1 month.
6. Focus on fine-tuning balance to get the mod into a highly polished state.
7. Start my new job, which will mark a significant reduction in my time for this project.

I was doing #2 over the past three weeks. I then did #3 over the weekend, versions 106.1 - 106.8 beta. Your request is step #5.

 

[Ahriman]

Everyone here has ideas, and it is very easy to fall in love with your own. Their general value requires vetting. The more successful the system, the more the tires need to be kicked before making changes. VEM has been working well enough, for long enough, not to make changes as often as it has been. In my opinion, there is less and less tire kicking every passing month. All too often, "Hey, how about this?" or "I don't like this" seems to carry the day.

I certainly agree that sometimes lots of ideas are thrown around on an issue where there isn't a clear problem, and I think that it is important to identify a clear problem before making a change. But I don't think that this means that people shouldn't be posting "Hey, how about this?" or "I don't like this". I think it is fine to test out lots of different options in a beta and see how they play out. That's how vetting gets done.

I think the diversity of opinions on Ceremonial Rites probably indicates that it isn't that big of a deal.

 

[Seek]

Everyone here has ideas, and it is very easy to fall in love with your own. Their general value requires vetting. The more successful the system, the more the tires need to be kicked before making changes. VEM has been working well enough, for long enough, not to make changes as often as it has been. In my opinion, there is less and less tire kicking every passing month. All too often, "Hey, how about this?" or "I don't like this" seems to carry the day.

I agree, and am often shocked at how quickly some ideas are included in the beta after what seems like minimal discussion. Personally, I like a few days to mull over the farther reaching ideas before expressing an opinion - but by then it's usually too late - so I'm forced to react only after inclusion and since I dislike being overly negative I'll let some things fly if I don't see a major issue with them. It also seems like a small contribution to discussion to post things like "everything's fine with this" so I think a lot of people don't do so, or if they do it gets lost in the debate.

That being said, I support buffing happiness buildings at the expense of policy happiness, since policies which add happiness are not limited by population, and this is the most critical issue to me: policies allow far more excess happiness than buildings. Since this is a bug Thal has said he can't do anything about, buffing the more limiting happiness buildings is a better interim solution, I think. (In fact, I would love it if happiness from WWs - of which there seems to be a lot right now - were constrained by population as well, but that is a discussion for some other time.)

 

[Thalassicus]

It's due to practical reasons outside modding. I've worked quicker over the summer than pre-graduation because I have lots of free time on my hands, and I know that will change once I start my new job. Fine-tuning existing stuff requires less work than adding new things, so I'm trying to get the basics in place in advance.

Most of the things I've added over the weekend have been on my todo list for a few weeks. I just didn't add them until now because I was first solving the bugs introduced in the August 10th patch. The upcoming Game of the Month will be a great test of the current state of the mod. I'm hoping the discussions about it will provide valuable feedback for polishing the project.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm wondering if the latest boosts to Piety increase the value of monuments, temples and monasteries sufficiently such that the old ceremonial rites (+1 free culture building in 4 cities) is ok after all.

 

[Txurce]

Its a beta for a reason? Also, what is wrong with that being the topic of discussion? If someone doesn't think something works, perhaps we should discuss it. Which we do. Maybe we come to a conclusion too quickly for your liking, which I can understand.

I certainly agree that sometimes lots of ideas are thrown around on an issue where there isn't a clear problem, and I think that it is important to identify a clear problem before making a change. But I don't think that this means that people shouldn't be posting "Hey, how about this?" or "I don't like this". I think it is fine to test out lots of different options in a beta and see how they play out. That's how vetting gets done.

I think the diversity of opinions on Ceremonial Rites probably indicates that it isn't that big of a deal.

I'm wondering if the latest boosts to Piety increase the value of monuments, temples and monasteries sufficiently such that the old ceremonial rites (+1 free culture building in 4 cities) is ok after all.

Boys, let me know where I even hinted at there being something wrong with any idea being a topic of discussion, so I can retract it.

I said there wasn't enough vetting to satisfy me in this case, and that there has been increasingly less of it in the last few months. As you can see, I am not alone in my opinion. Given how well VEM works in general, I'm not always up for playing with a beta that has an idea some guy proposed and Thal quickly instituted. Most ideas here, like most ideas anywhere, are half-baked. Unless Thal has a definite pov, I'd rather get a consensus on the desirability of a particular experiment first.

Ceremonial Rites is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There was no conclusion on it, GamerKG. In fact, there were wildly divergent opinions on how to change it, or whether to change it at all. My preference would have been to leave it alone, since it's been considered okay for a long time, and Sneaks and I felt it's a strong policy, never mind an acceptable one. But while this chaotic debate was taking place, (I believe) Thal uploaded three different betas for the policy. That basically means the first two options weren't even tested (and the last wound up getting a decidedly mixed reaction).

I don't think this is the best way to go about vetting any system, let alone a mature, working one.

I'm not sure how to best explain this because I'm on cold meds right now, so my head's a little loopy today. This is my long term plan:

[*]Leave it mostly unchanged for 1 month.
[*]Focus on fine-tuning balance to get the mod into a highly polished state.
[*]Start my new job, which will mark a significant reduction in my time for this project.

Looking forward, this sounds good to me.

 

[Seek]

I'm wondering if the latest boosts to Piety increase the value of monuments, temples and monasteries sufficiently such that the old ceremonial rites (+1 free culture building in 4 cities) is ok after all.

Aside from the addition of +10% science on monasteries the effects on culture buildings wasn't changed in the Piety tree - they were just rearranged. The tree does feel stronger now overall, though I haven't gotten a chance to test it yet.

 

[Ahriman]

Aside from the addition of +10% science on monasteries the effects on culture buildings wasn't changed in the Piety tree - they were just rearranged

But that rearrangement makes a big difference. The two boosting policies are now tier1, and the culture policy was boosted, which makes Piety much more appealing overall.

 

[Atlas627]

Boys, let me know where I even hinted at there being something wrong with any idea being a topic of discussion, so I can retract it.

I said there wasn't enough vetting to satisfy me in this case, and that there has been increasingly less of it in the last few months. As you can see, I am not alone in my opinion. Given how well VEM works in general, I'm not always up for playing with a beta that has an idea some guy proposed and Thal quickly instituted. Most ideas here, like most ideas anywhere, are half-baked. Unless Thal has a definite pov, I'd rather get a consensus on the desirability of a particular experiment first.

Ceremonial Rites is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There was no conclusion on it, GamerKG. In fact, there were wildly divergent opinions on how to change it, or whether to change it at all. My preference would have been to leave it alone, since it's been considered okay for a long time, and Sneaks and I felt it's a strong policy, never mind an acceptable one. But while this chaotic debate was taking place, (I believe) Thal uploaded three different betas for the policy. That basically means the first two options weren't even tested (and the last wound up getting a decidedly mixed reaction).

I don't think this is the best way to go about vetting any system, let alone a mature, working one.

You basically said exactly the same thing as above, except you never stated "in this case", instead trying to make your statement generic so as to (I believe) not offend anybody. You said you didn't like people saying "I don't like this" or "Hey, how about this". What you probably meant was you didn't like those things being taken so seriously, and would prefer to discuss it some more.

Again, you seem to think that just because nobody says anything, then there was nothing to be said. And that is what I was talking about with the "Conclusion comes too early for your liking". What I meant there was that you are perhaps one of the people who has something to say but does not get a chance to say it. Also, people do come to conclusions. What you are talking about is a consensus. I would define them differently.

I have had a problem with ceremonial burial for a long, long time. Not in terms of how balanced it is, but in terms of how fun/exciting it is. Balance-wise, I think it was fine before. For now we can certainly leave it alone. And we can definitely wait a little longer to make a decision. But you seem to think that because nobody complained before, that meant it was good enough. Perhaps it was just better than all the obviously broken and un-fun stuff, and so we are finally getting around to it.

 

[Txurce]

You said you didn't like people saying "I don't like this" or "Hey, how about this".

No, I said: 'All too often, "Hey, how about this?" or "I don't like this" seems to carry the day.'

What you probably meant was you didn't like those things being taken so seriously, and would prefer to discuss it some more.

Yes, this is what I meant... and as you can see above, essentially what I wrote.

Again, you seem to think that just because nobody says anything, then there was nothing to be said. And that is what I was talking about with the "Conclusion comes too early for your liking". What I meant there was that you are perhaps one of the people who has something to say but does not get a chance to say it. Also, people do come to conclusions. What you are talking about is a consensus. I would define them differently.

When months go by when a particular policy is not critiqued, I assume it's working well enough. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it's a reasonable assumption. After Ahriman proposed altering CR, it was put on the table. That's fine with me. As for the following discussion, I am definitely not one of the people who has something to say but does not get a chance to say it - and I definitely said my piece regarding CR.

If a conclusion was reached, it was only by Thal - and then he changed his mind two more times in the course of a week. That strikes me as a series of short-lived experiments more than it does a conclusion. As for the rest of us... I can't recall an issue where the proposals were more divergent. That's the opposite of a consensus or conclusion.

 

[Atlas627]

No, I said: 'All too often, "Hey, how about this?" or "I don't like this" seems to carry the day.'



Yes, this is what I meant... and as you can see above, essentially what I wrote.



When months go by when a particular policy is not critiqued, I assume it's working well enough. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it's a reasonable assumption. After Ahriman proposed altering CR, it was put on the table. That's fine with me. As for the following discussion, I am definitely not one of the people who has something to say but does not get a chance to say it - and I definitely said my piece regarding CR.

If a conclusion was reached, it was only by Thal - and then he changed his mind two more times in the course of a week. That strikes me as a series of short-lived experiments more than it does a conclusion. As for the rest of us... I can't recall an issue where the proposals were more divergent. That's the opposite of a consensus or conclusion.

Obviously I misunderstood (and still do misunderstand) what you mean by 'carry the day'.

And yes, it is a reasonable assumption. But it is still an assumption.

 

[Thalassicus]

Releasing versions is my way of participating in discussions. Instead of proposing or agreeing with ideas I sometimes do them. I think of it like clay. I mold versions into particular shapes to show my viewpoint as a conversation progresses, and like clay, nothing has to be permanent.

I'm happy with the current state of things and want to keep it here for a while. I agree with Seek and Ahriman that Piety feels more powerful now. One other change I made Seek was I replaced the +20% production speed for culture buildings with a flat +5 per-empire happiness, moved back to Piety from the Liberty tree. As someone pointed out elsewhere, the production bonus somewhat conflicted with the free buildings from Ceremonial Rites.

 

[Txurce]

Releasing versions is my way of participating in discussions. Instead of proposing or agreeing with ideas I sometimes do them. I think of it like clay. I mold versions into particular shapes to show my viewpoint as a conversation progresses, and like clay, nothing has to be permanent.

I'm happy with the current state of things and want to keep it here for a while.

That's pretty much how I've interpreted what you do. I also realize that you have a perfectly understandable bias toward experimentation. I just thought you've been effectively ending discussions too quickly - sometimes acting before there's even been one. So I'm looking forward to giving one version of the game a thorough, comprehensive once-over.

 

[Seek]

I'm happy with the current state of things and want to keep it here for a while. I agree with Seek and Ahriman that Piety feels more powerful now. One other change I made Seek was I replaced the +20% production speed for culture buildings with a flat +5 per-empire happiness, moved back to Piety from the Liberty tree. As someone pointed out elsewhere, the production bonus somewhat conflicted with the free buildings from Ceremonial Rites.

Yes, I'm aware. I'm not sure about that change however; probably 50% of the time Piety is chosen by wide empires rather than small/tall cultural empires, and the culture building production modifier was powerful and useful for those wide empires (and I'm not convinced that cultural empires wouldn't find that policy useful). Now it's less desirable for them - the 5 happiness is pretty minor.

Regardless, I'm finding happiness to be much more of a challenge in my current 106.9 game, which is great! A little more happiness from Liberty might be a good thing though; perhaps we could revert "Representation" to vanilla (add -5% unhappiness from population).

 

[Atlas627]

Releasing versions is my way of participating in discussions. Instead of proposing or agreeing with ideas I sometimes do them. I think of it like clay. I mold versions into particular shapes to show my viewpoint as a conversation progresses, and like clay, nothing has to be permanent.

I'm happy with the current state of things and want to keep it here for a while. I agree with Seek and Ahriman that Piety feels more powerful now. One other change I made Seek was I replaced the +20% production speed for culture buildings with a flat +5 per-empire happiness, moved back to Piety from the Liberty tree. As someone pointed out elsewhere, the production bonus somewhat conflicted with the free buildings from Ceremonial Rites.

I think Piety definitely feels more powerful, which is good IMO, but it might be too powerful. I had mentioned that the production bonus conflicted with the free CB buildings, and that the +5 would be better. However, with the increase in unhappiness across the board, is +5 weak? I don't know. Are the 3 policies in Piety that any civ (not specializing in culture) would want the first 3? Yes. Is that good? I'm not sure.

With those generalist policies at the beginning of the tree, any civ can afford to dabble in Piety. Which I like. I think civs should be able to dabble in a branch, and only the specialized civs would want the later benefits. Later ones should be more powerful but situational. If you do this type of thing in Piety though, it should be done everywhere. And if that is the case, then doesn't that accomplish your original goal of making policies useful to everyone? Could you then reduce the total culture in the game (both yields and costs) and put culture victories back to 5 policies?

 

[Seek]

Aesthetics: Minimum 30 influence with citystates (was 20).

This seems OP to me - on taking it you'd be friends with every CS you're not at war with for the rest of the game! That is easily more powerful than any of the policies deeper into the tree.

 

[Ahriman]

This seems OP to me - on taking it you'd be friends with every CS you're not at war with for the rest of the game! That is easily more powerful than any of the policies deeper into the tree.

Permanent friendship does seem too powerful. Maybe set it just under 30? I think you should still have to pay to get to friendship level. I agree it was too weak before though. 29 is a non-round number but might be best, gameplay wise.

On Patronage policies; would it be possible to have the free great people policy have UI (and underlying counter) the same way as military CS free units work? Even if it was X% per turn, which would be ok with me, it would be good to know what that probability was and to have it displayed.
Otherwise, the policy is quite hard to evaluate.