Single Player bugs and crashes v37 plus (SVN) - After the 24th of December 2016

[Thunderbrd]

I was quite surprised when TB suddenly added the hammer cost modifier tags to difficulties so close to the v38 release, I felt it was rash decision and should have waited until after v38 was released.

It was. I thought it might blend in a little better than it did. My apologies to all on this.

 

[Thunderbrd]

An update: I'm not removing the new tags, nor some of the tag changes made. I'm also not completely denying their use in helping to address the original problem of easier game settings being dramatically imbalanced. But I did return us to the basic process of math we were using up until these adjustments and the same basic values in use. I then added a more gentle application of the difficulty production cost adjustments where Nightmare is only 10% more than it was (though the global is 20% less still so you'll probably see a slight decrease in construction and training costs overall even on Nightmare.) And then from there it adjusts 5% less per difficulty. At Noble level, it's quite a good balance to the tech progression it appears.

After this is committed, I'll need playtesters to confirm. If its off, please don't totally flip out about it. Just explain what the cost target for a building or unit was, what it was at (in both absolute production cost and rounds to complete) before the start of all this attempt to address the problem for easier gamesettings, and where it is now. All adjustments come with risks and this is a bit daring to not totally revert. I simply did not see the need to overreact when the most efficient and effective thing, if it could be pulled off, would be to correct the math and move ahead with a much softer approach.

The tech cost calculations are not adjusted at this time but that IS something we should throw back into the forge and recast next cycle. If it was a bad idea to remove multiplicative processing for construction and training cost calculations, it is also a bad idea (especially since both should be able to be easily brought into a ratio alignment between them) for technology calculations. I certainly do owe Joseph a huge apology over that. Perhaps those old numbers that were being used for v36 might be a good basis for recovering a good sense of balance since we had it nicely dialed in then. We'll look at it after release.

 

[raxo2222]

Got this error when I tried Duel/Settler/Normal combination.

Spoiler :

Assert Failed

File: CvGlobals.cpp
Line: 3280
SVN-Rev: 9890
Expression: eTechNum > -1
Message:

----------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Both normal and debug DLLs are 21 MB...
Normal DLL would be smaller.
This meant you accidentally set Debug DLL for normal use

I guess Thunderbird is Jebediah Kerman from KSP

I added calculator in XML voodoo, where you can normalize Noble to 100 without changing final costs.
It uses global production modifier as thing to adjust.
From there you can do further adjustments like trimming handicaps to multiplies of 5 (aren't all modifiers for everything in multiplies of 5?).
Did trimming as example in XML and cost didn't deviate by more than 5%.
Basically this is changing frame of reference.

In short I changed Global Modifier to 0.6 (0.8*0.75, 0.75 being Noble handicap/100).
Then from Noble being 100 I stepped down by 5% to 85% for settler.
Up from Noble to Immortal I used steps up of 5%.
For Deity I stepped 10% and for Nightmare - stepped by 20%.
Settler - 85, Noble - 100, Immortal - 120, Deity - 130, Nightmare - 150.
For comparison current handicaps are 60, 75, 95, 100 and 110 for mentioned difficulty levels.
Now in this SVN difference between Settler and Deity is 1.83x.
After trimming it got slightly lowered to 1.76x.
For comparison: cost difference between Prehistoric and Future modifiers is 2.86x.

If math is done correctly inside of game then I should get 1.83*2.86*8.25 = 43.18x difference in costs between Settler/Normal/Prehistoric and Nightmare/Eternity/Future (will change modifier accordingly for prehistoric to simulate future era cost).
If I get 43x (rounding errors are a thing) then it should be fine.
I picked most expensive normal building from end of tech tree.
Settler/Normal/Prehistoric: 9964
Nightmare/Eternity/Future: 430 588
430 588/9964 = 43.21x in cost difference. YAY.
My XML calculator managed to recreate these numbers (base cost is 29 655)
Internal consistency of production math is holding up in these cases.
By the way it seems like production cost tooltip doesn't take era location of building under account.
If it did, I would see 28 445 instead of 9946 on Prehistoric start.

Spoiler :

Spoiler Construction cost levels in SVN 9895 as percentages of production costs in SVN 9873 - before they were interfered with :

It seems like production costs were absolutely destroyed

 

[strategyonly]

@Thunderbrd; you got the debug and the default dll the SAME again, pls change, thx. . SO

 

[raxo2222]

Thunderdog is sleeping

@everyone it appears like costs were strongly lowered.
What do you think about it?
There is Upscaled Costs gameoption, if someone finds them too cheap.
Upscaled Costs GS modifiers have upscaled modifiers for techs except eternity, and production costs weren't raised 1.35x for some speeds.
Later eras needed deeper cost reductions anyway.
Their resource/property infrastructure should be easier to upgrade now that everything is cheaper.
Upscaled costs option says nothing about more expensive techs.

 

[Thunderbrd]

This meant you accidentally set Debug DLL for normal use

Yep... I can fix that immediately. Though I do also need to look into that assert. I saw that last night and consider it worth investigating.

 

[Thunderbrd]

By the way it seems like production cost tooltip doesn't take era location of building under account.
If it did, I would see 28 445 instead of 9946 on Prehistoric start.

The frame of reference is the current era so it's never going to show quite accurate until you're IN that era in the game.

 

[Thunderbrd]

There is Upscaled Costs gameoption, if someone finds them too cheap.
Upscaled Costs GS modifiers have upscaled modifiers for techs except eternity, and production costs weren't raised 1.35x for some speeds.
Later eras needed deeper cost reductions anyway.

And the point of this option is to keep the tech rate the same while only the construction and training rates go up so that the ratio between production and research is more challenging. I noticed that research rates also go up and that directly contradicts the whole point of this option.

 

[raxo2222]

The frame of reference is the current era so it's never going to show quite accurate until you're IN that era in the game.

Can be this changed after release, so tooltip show correct cost for given era?
Or is it too hard to mess with this?
I think trick, that Toffer used to separate buildings by era would be useful here too.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Can be this changed after release, so tooltip show correct cost for given era?

No I really don't care about that. You'd have to make the calculation be something that can separate out to calculate differently if it's in the tech tree or pedia and this is a section of code that really gets called a lot during end turn processing so I don't want to introduce any delays. In fact, that reminds me that I really should take a moment to speed up the references to the global values in the construction and training cost calculations - it does it the slow way still.


Another note: We may well want to remove the AI construction mod factors at this point.

 

[Whisperr]

What is going on with the over the top amounts of gold in the game. I am in the ancient era I have 4000 gold and my gold per turn has gone from 131 a turn to 145 a turn to 155 a turn in three rounds, and I still have markets, grocers and gemcutters etc to be built.

I have changed the upgrade cost to 100 because that was a ridiculous 50, if you want a discount find a wonder to give it. If you drop basic game amounts too low there is nothing left to offer with a wonder.

 

[strategyonly]

yeah i just seen a way bigger increase also, before i could hardly make enough to buy anything extra, which was fine with me, but now i have over a Million in extra cash?? pls decrease, thx . ..SO . . but not 2 low . .

 

[JosEPh_II]

What is going on with the over the top amounts of gold in the game. I am in the ancient era I have 4000 gold and my gold per turn has gone from 131 a turn to 145 a turn to 155 a turn in three rounds, and I still have markets, grocers and gemcutters etc to be built.

I have changed the upgrade cost to 100 because that was a ridiculous 50, if you want a discount find a wonder to give it. If you drop basic game amounts too low there is nothing left to offer with a wonder.

I set it to 50 on Upgrade Unit cost When the new formula was put in that made Upgrading a unit cost almost 3 times the cost of building a new unit. But I said there was a problem and well...

After that I have not touched the SVN but to add TPEHEP Vertical Map. Go look for your self. All new changes that have been made were done so by others. Not me. Take the gripe to the source please.

yeah i just seen a way bigger increase also, before i could hardly make enough to buy anything extra, which was fine with me, but now i have over a Million in extra cash?? pls decrease, thx . ..SO . . but not 2 low . .

Same as above.

 

[Whisperr]

I set it to 50 on Upgrade Unit cost When the new formula was put in that made Upgrading a unit cost almost 3 times the cost of building a new unit. But I said there was a problem and well...
Same as above.

You are the one that changed to a 50 upgrade unit cost, which is ridiculous. It cost 3 gold to upgrade and even at 100 it was only 7 and it takes 42 hammer to build. And no I haven't updated since I made my commit on the weekend. You want cheap upgrade build a wonder to give it to you. There has to be some challenge to the game. So yes I am taking it to the source.

And if you think there is such an influx of gold, why are you reducing upgrade costs?

 

[JosEPh_II]

I set it to 50 on Upgrade Unit cost When the new formula was put in that made Upgrading a unit cost almost 3 times the cost of building a new unit.

I repeat what I posted. You can slam me all you want to.

So make the change and commit it. trouble over.

 

[Whisperr]

@JosEPh_II You are the only one that makes changes to the gold, so what have you changed so we know what we are dealing with?

 

[Noriad2]

I just tested latest SVN, on my favorite settings (nightmare/snail/large map). Building costs were roughly what they used to be, but my own tech speed was notably faster. But that was probably because of increased tech diffusion because the AI is teching MUCH MUCH faster than before. 2 weeks ago, I could reach tribalism before the AI reached Sed. Lifestyle. Now I had just reached Cultural Identity and the AI already reached Sed. Lifestyle. For me, Tribalism is still 25 techs away and Sed. Lifestyle 48 techs. And that was not a one-civ fluke as my 2 neighbours already had hunters when I sent out my first trackers.

I'm not sure if the game is winnable at these settings if the AI techs this fast.

 

[JosEPh_II]

@JosEPh_II You are the only one that makes changes to the gold,

This is incorrect whisperr.

so what have you changed so we know what we are dealing with?

Absolutely nothing. Please, ask T-brd what he has changed. He is your source for information.

Surely you can not be unaware of the big disagreement we have had since he made the changes to the "formula that was being used" up until about 2 weeks ago.

See Noriad2's post below.

I just tested latest SVN, on my favorite settings (nightmare/snail/large map). Building costs were roughly what they used to be, but my own tech speed was notably faster. But that was probably because of increased tech diffusion because the AI is teching MUCH MUCH faster than before. 2 weeks ago, I could reach tribalism before the AI reached Sed. Lifestyle. Now I had just reached Cultural Identity and the AI already reached Sed. Lifestyle. For me, Tribalism is still 25 techs away and Sed. Lifestyle 48 techs. And that was not a one-civ fluke as my 2 neighbours already had hunters when I sent out my first trackers.

I'm not sure if the game is winnable at these settings if the AI techs this fast.

The old formula was not reverted back to. New changes were made to the New one.

@All, I am not the one responsible for what your games are like now. And I will no longer take the blame.

Any further posts addressed to me over these changes I did not make I will no longer respond to. Clear? Thx.

 

[Whisperr]

This is incorrect whisperr.



Absolutely nothing. Please, ask T-brd what he has changed. He is your source for information.

He does not make changes to gold. I guess we will have to go through all the SVN commits to find it

Oh and don't tell TB to call me off. What, you can't take it when some one is coming at you. Yes I have watched the discussion that has been going on. And the next time the moderators want to ban you from the forums for being rude an abusive I don't think TB will going to bat for you.

Moderator Action: Please do not troll. I have edited your post to remove the worst of it. If you have an issue with something someone else wrote, please report the post and let us handle it. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Toffer90]

Guys, gals, chill a bit.
Due to the way I include svn changes to the "my take on stuff" modmod, I am in a unique position to know about almost all changes that are made to C2C. it's been a long time since any xml changes that could noticeably impact the treasury was made.

The latest example I could remember was that initial city maintenance was reduced from 10 to 5 by Joe and that was (investigation....) as long ago as in rev. 9774. However, I don't believe this would have had a big impact.
Someone (@raxo2222 ?) might want to investigate how much of an impact it (INITIAL_CITY_MAINTENANCE) has on a game where you have like 5-6 cities. Perhaps the impact is bigger than I assume.

If anything, Joe has mostly increased gold expenditure in C2C by upping the <iGoldModifier> in gamespeed infos extensively. And that does have a big impact.
There is two xml areas of the mod that I don't look too closely at regarding SVN changes, and that is the properties autobuilds, and civics, I do my own thing with them in my modmod and therefore don't look closely at what is done with them in the SVN.

In my experience, too much gold has been a continuous problem, and you may just be imagining that it somehow got worse now.
Look, in your game, at how much gold built buildings give, how much crime and disease your cities have, look at the economic advisor screen, and see if you can't find anything that seems unbalanced instead of starting an argument and pointing fingers again. We've all had enough of it at this point.