State of the Union

[Gazebo]

I seriously Lol'd here. Considering the amount of changes that get wormed into the project without discussion (nevermind consensus) that are just plain broken (read: very unbalanced), it's hard not to laugh.

the current Chancery is an easy and obvious example. There wasn't much complaint about it beforehand, and definitely nobody asked for putting large sums of gold and culture on it yet here we are. you rush buy them, sell some paper if necessary to immediately pay itself back, and use your gold to rush-buy envoys which give huge influence boosts (what was it, 55 a piece with printing press?). suddenly all your cities are swimming in gold, your happiness problems are gone, on top of whatever city state bonuses you get for being all their friend in the first place, so now you can gift a unit to quickly steamroll those friends into allies... you know how easy it is to have 5 allies on a standard map? a building in the Medieval that is now also giving 10 plus culture per city easily ( and really getting 10 allies isn't hard from here either with the amount of gold and paper you have). so, how quickly will you get through the social policy tree now? nobody even wants to attack you because you have all the CS allies, and declaring war on you means declaring war on all of them. so you literally just broke the game by rushing chanceries as a strategy because you could see how OP they are, but of course the AI had no idea.

BUT! if anyone wants to see it changed, there had better be 'consensus' lol. consensus with people like Funak running around (i see you Funak, cheers)

it took me all of 2 deity game blowouts to realize chanceries needed a fix, so i went ahead and fixed them. if its something you feel strongly about, dont hold your breath for G but just go change the yields in the files - it's absurdly easy. I havn't gotten to ideologies yet but they're on my to-do list because theres clearly problems there. to me it's at the point this CBO needs a CBO of it's own just to balance it, but honestly a simple yield change here and there can really make an enormous difference. im currently in the middle of the best / most competitive game i've played in months.

I don't get the hate. The point of this thread was to bring up issues that have consensus. Saying 'fix all ideologies' is not consensus. There's no solution there. Anyways, calm down, relax, and stop pointing fingers.

This is the first I've heard about chanceries having an issue (I've been absent for about three weeks now, if it wasn't clear already). What's up?

G

 

[ashendashin]

I don't get the hate. The point of this thread was to bring up issues that have consensus. Saying 'fix all ideologies' is not consensus. There's no solution there. Anyways, calm down, relax, and stop pointing fingers.

This is the first I've heard about chanceries having an issue (I've been absent for about three weeks now, if it wasn't clear already). What's up?

G

Paper has been a subject of debate. Too easy to exploit the AI with deals that they put far too much worth in.

Edit:
Or something along those lines. I may have mixed this up with a much older debate. I've been avoiding exploits for a long while now.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

The 2 Culture per CS Ally does make Chanceries powerful, but the AI does get too heavily involved with CSs that it isn't easy to get without effort.

 

[Txurce]

The 2 Culture per CS Ally does make Chanceries powerful, but the AI does get too heavily involved with CSs that it isn't easy to get without effort.

That's my basic sense, too, and I play Statecraft almost every game.

 

[tu_79]

No issues with new chanceries here, either!

 

[ElliotS]

I don't find chanceries to be a problem here.

 

[Gazebo]

Okay, so there isn't anything wrong with Chanceries? Just waiting for Deadstarre to explain what exactly he thinks is broken in the CBO...(but not here, in a new thread, you buncha gits!)

G

 

[Bromar1]

I don't get the hate. The point of this thread was to bring up issues that have consensus. Saying 'fix all ideologies' is not consensus. There's no solution there. Anyways, calm down, relax, and stop pointing fingers.

This is the first I've heard about chanceries having an issue (I've been absent for about three weeks now, if it wasn't clear already). What's up?

G

The consensus on ideologies is that the late game ones are very underwhelming. However, I find it frustrating to discuss them effectively because I'm not sure what is technically possible for you to implement and how willing you are to make these changes. I would love to hear some broad stroke suggestions from you, Gazebo.

 

[Gazebo]

The consensus on ideologies is that the late game ones are very underwhelming. However, I find it frustrating to discuss them effectively because I'm not sure what is technically possible for you to implement and how willing you are to make these changes. I would love to hear some broad stroke suggestions from you, Gazebo.

Ideologies are policies so they can use any policy related functionality. There's a lot there, so load up the game and then sql browse all the policy and policy_ tables.


G

 

[Deadstarre]

Was a state of the union thread right? My real point wasn't about chanceries (symptom) but rather this - the mod is constantly being inundated with undiscussed, unnecessary and/or very unbalanced changes. Then discussion goes on for some time about whats -currently- broken, consensus's are (occasionally) reached and things could be balanced back a bit, but of course at the exact same time that is happening, more of 1, 2 and 3 come right back in with every new patch. For me it's a bit laughable because from a lot of yield and balance perspectives the mod has continued to go in circles chasing its own tail while always being deeply flawed as-is.

Don't get me wrong though, on AI and basic game functions incredible work has been done by G Ilteroi and company and the mod continues to move forward with real, tangible progress in these areas. Trade deals for example are nearly perfect to me right now, the AI overall is very competent in all general areas and really smarter than ever in so many ways

But on general balance? And by this i mean the balance between simple and obvious choices? Well, if it's G who's the one pulling the strings on all the yield changes / building changes seemingly out of nowhere (circus, zoo, beliefs, go on), it will continue to be a rough ride. Maybe some people enjoy the rough ride/ tail chasing that goes on here, I don't know but I know I don't. I honestly think G should just stop making those kinds of balance choices and leave the balancing to somebody else because it's really not his strong suit. And there is no shame in that, we all have strengths/weakness and G has absolutely fantastic -ideas- for the game, but to me whats become a rather poor record of implementation of them. The chancery made a good example of that; I wouldn't have even thought about attaching yields to a building that fluctuate per friend/ally, and it was a great idea, but at the same time the yields that were put are simply ludicrous (I'm not looking for consensus on this, and I did spell out already clearly in my first post why). Actually though adding the cooldown to envoy buying will now make the most significant impact on nerfing chancery back to something reasonable again, but that was still just one example of many, many deep balance problems in the mod. Beliefs are a mess. Statecraft vs piety vs aesthetics is still such a skewed and flawed choice for another easy example, but honestly after all this time is there any reason the policies and beliefs shouldn't be reasonably balanced with each other by now? How long has it been? I really dont have interest in chasing tails around here, i just fix things myself now. Combined with the intangible work G Ilteroi and company do, i'm having the most fun with the game i've ever had.

State of the union- really great in everything except basic balance. But while G in charge of balance, it's definitely not a bad idea to get used to changing yields in the files on your own if you want a fun challenging game - that's all I was saying.

 

[Stalker0]

the mod is constantly being inundated with undiscussed, unnecessary and/or very unbalanced changes. Then discussion goes on for some time about whats -currently- broken, consensus's are (occasionally) reached and things could be balanced back a bit, but of course at the exact same time that is happening, more of 1, 2 and 3 come right back in with every new patch.

i just fix things myself now.

I will agree with you on your original point, at least to a point. I also do think we make changes a bit hasty and without enough discussion. Not to the extent you feel, but I can agree with the theme.

That said, its clear you have some strong opinions on things that are imbalanced in the game. In which case, I encourage you to join the tuning threads and bring your ideas to light. You mentioned beliefs, we are in heavy discussion around pantheons as we speak, please join us!

 

[Gazebo]

Was a state of the union thread right? My real point wasn't about chanceries (symptom) but rather this - the mod is constantly being inundated with undiscussed, unnecessary and/or very unbalanced changes. Then discussion goes on for some time about whats -currently- broken, consensus's are (occasionally) reached and things could be balanced back a bit, but of course at the exact same time that is happening, more of 1, 2 and 3 come right back in with every new patch. For me it's a bit laughable because from a lot of yield and balance perspectives the mod has continued to go in circles chasing its own tail while always being deeply flawed as-is.

Don't get me wrong though, on AI and basic game functions incredible work has been done by G Ilteroi and company and the mod continues to move forward with real, tangible progress in these areas. Trade deals for example are nearly perfect to me right now, the AI overall is very competent in all general areas and really smarter than ever in so many ways

But on general balance? And by this i mean the balance between simple and obvious choices? Well, if it's G who's the one pulling the strings on all the yield changes / building changes seemingly out of nowhere (circus, zoo, beliefs, go on), it will continue to be a rough ride. Maybe some people enjoy the rough ride/ tail chasing that goes on here, I don't know but I know I don't. I honestly think G should just stop making those kinds of balance choices and leave the balancing to somebody else because it's really not his strong suit. And there is no shame in that, we all have strengths/weakness and G has absolutely fantastic -ideas- for the game, but to me whats become a rather poor record of implementation of them. The chancery made a good example of that; I wouldn't have even thought about attaching yields to a building that fluctuate per friend/ally, and it was a great idea, but at the same time the yields that were put are simply ludicrous (I'm not looking for consensus on this, and I did spell out already clearly in my first post why). Actually though adding the cooldown to envoy buying will now make the most significant impact on nerfing chancery back to something reasonable again, but that was still just one example of many, many deep balance problems in the mod. Beliefs are a mess. Statecraft vs piety vs aesthetics is still such a skewed and flawed choice for another easy example, but honestly after all this time is there any reason the policies and beliefs shouldn't be reasonably balanced with each other by now? How long has it been? I really dont have interest in chasing tails around here, i just fix things myself now. Combined with the intangible work G Ilteroi and company do, i'm having the most fun with the game i've ever had.

State of the union- really great in everything except basic balance. But while G in charge of balance, it's definitely not a bad idea to get used to changing yields in the files on your own if you want a fun challenging game - that's all I was saying.

Ugh, please stop trying to troll me, it is really lame. Seriously. You've been a part of how many balance discussions? None, you say? And why is that, exactly?

The project moves at my pace because if we didn't implement changes with accelerated frequency it would have died over a year ago. The point of rapid iteration is to push potential designs to the community and let them weigh in and offer feedback. I've never entrenched on a balance choice without cause. Also, just a small reminder that you were the only person with a complaint about the Chancery, and you are also (as I can see right now) the only person who dislikes the Piety/Aesthetics/Statecraft policy balance. You keep speaking of 'deep balance problems' yet do not weigh in. You complain of 'having to change yields on your own' but never offer your solutions. Frankly, either put up (i.e. show us your numbers) or shut up. I for one would be happy to see them.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you live in a fantasyland if you think your opinion alone counts against that of the entire community.

G

 

[Braum]

Culture seems to be too important in this game. I've been playing Babylon on level 6, and coming in a hopeless 2nd place. I dominate my landmass but one Civ on the other landmass always takes that over and begins hogging all the wonders. Then I spend 100 turns in epic mode building buildings to get my happiness positive but always ending up at about -10. Then they pick Freedom and my happiness and ability to keep City States is lost. My science lead evaporates and I'm 10 techs behind unable to launch a cross continent attack. Then I lose to a culture victory or give up with the mounting unhappiness.

I had been using Authority and Progress. Then I tried Tradition and just steamrolled on level 5 in two games in a row. The culture boost to border expansion and ability to build wonders earlier was overpowered. I took Tithe and the buy units with Faith so the AI had no chance. I had almost every wonder.

What about removing the Social Policy requirement from some of the wonders. Do Arts, Music and Literature really have anything to do with the Slater Mill? Make some of them just tied to technology. Maybe have some like the Pentagon tied to Military Strength Score and Technology. That might at least make it possible to compete with a run away. Culture and Social Policy are beneficial in themselves. Making them also tied to all wonders makes a snowball effect that's difficult to counter.

In Civ 4 you could take down a giant. In this game you just die slowly to unhappiness, especially if they are on another continent. Or you have such a lead it's not necessary to finish the game.

 

[Txurce]

Culture seems to be too important in this game. I've been playing Babylon on level 6, and coming in a hopeless 2nd place. I dominate my landmass but one Civ on the other landmass always takes that over and begins hogging all the wonders.

This is what's been happening to me on Immortal.

 

[tu_79]

I was asking for a removal of the policy requirements for the scientific wonders. Gazebo conceded a reduction, that many players find suitable. You still need some policies, but you don't need to lead anymore.
If you want to build wonders without policy requirements, there's a pantheon that allows.

 

[IcyAngel]

I was asking for a removal of the policy requirements for the scientific wonders. Gazebo conceded a reduction, that many players find suitable. You still need some policies, but you don't need to lead anymore.
If you want to build wonders without policy requirements, there's a pantheon that allows.

The scientific wonders? Meaning the Great Library and Porcelain Tower? (Plus Himeji Castle and other wonders that give a free GS, perhaps?)

A scientific player doesn't want to go for the Great Library or the research agreement version of Porcelain Tower, because their marginal utility diminishes the more science you have (i.e. they are most useful for culture players who need to catch up). Only the alternative version of Porcelain Tower (+25% science in city) is useful in this case.

Stripping them of their policy requirements wouldn't help much with nerfing culture.

 

[Gazebo]

I've said before, but I'll say again - culture is great, but it has little merit if you can't get to techs quickly enough to capitalize on it. And vice-versa.

 

[Stalker0]

I've said before, but I'll say again - culture is great, but it has little merit if you can't get to techs quickly enough to capitalize on it. And vice-versa.

I believe what he is suggesting is that the science pace exceeds the culture pace, so ultimately the science you gain does nothing to help you acquire wonders or deal with ideology unhappiness or encroaching culture victory. The argument from the other side would be that even if you focus hard on culture, you still have the science you require to get the wonders you want and the culture victory you are pushing for....so that science does not strongly matter.

I am not attempting to say its true or not but clarifying the position.

 

[peterw1987]

Culture and science pace is the same. Maybe because you pick science heavy civ, you feel that the policy req for wonders is too high.

If you pick culture heavy civ, you will feel that science pace is too slow.

I might need more testing after the new patch.

 

[CrazyG]

I sort of like the idea of having a few wonders scattered around with an unusually low policy requirement, so its basically unlocked only by tech. Sort of like how Alhambra is basically unlocked only via culture, but the opposite.