Suggestion - Moderation in Balance Mods

[Zhahz]

There seems to be a lot of balance/rebalance mods hitting and in a lot of cases people are making sweeping changes to the game seemingly without considering the big picture, or without considering the fact that most things in Civ 5 are done on a very subtle scale (a +1 here, a +2 rarely there), or without considering the game has only been out a week!

You don't create fine art with a sledge hammer! Be gentle.

Another consideration here is this. Some say the early game drags or everything is slow. What I find ironic is that one of the biggest complaints people had in Civ IV is that the early game flew by too fast and then the late game dragged. Main complaint? Units obsolete too fast. So in Civ 5 they extend the early game (kinda feels like FfH paced to me) and now people complain about that. You have to figure the devs think they can't win!

So I guess, keep in mind that huge changes anywhere can have major impact on the game. The game isn't just one tile, or improvement, or one SP - it's a combination of everything and making one huge change in just one spot can throw off balance as a whole.

Lastly, the game has been out a week and people are already rebalancing it? Can you really have played the game enough and tried everything already available to know that it needs to be tweaked? I've put in 100 hours since release (thanks to taking the week off and a wife who puts up with my gaming habits) and I still feel like I'm experimenting and learning how to play the game. I haven't played every civ, built every wonder, played every map type or size, every difficulty, etc -and I'm intentionally mixing it up to cover as much as possible.

And while the AI and some aspects of the game are lacking in some spots, I feel like I'm getting better at playing - getting more efficient and learning how and when to do stuff. All the rebalancing I've seen is boosting stuff across the board, which means you're either already a universal expert and know the game needs changed or you're handicapping yourself and never learning how to play as well as you could.

 

[Edgecrusher]

There seems to be a lot of balance/rebalance mods hitting and in a lot of cases people are making sweeping changes to the game seemingly without considering the big picture, or without considering the fact that most things in Civ 5 are done on a very subtle scale (a +1 here, a +2 rarely there), or without considering the game has only been out a week!

You don't create fine art with a sledge hammer! Be gentle.

Another consideration here is this. Some say the early game drags or everything is slow. What I find ironic is that one of the biggest complaints people had in Civ IV is that the early game flew by too fast and then the late game dragged. Main complaint? Units obsolete too fast. So in Civ 5 they extend the early game (kinda feels like FfH paced to me) and now people complain about that. You have to figure the devs think they can't win!

So I guess, keep in mind that huge changes anywhere can have major impact on the game. The game isn't just one tile, or improvement, or one SP - it's a combination of everything and making one huge change in just one spot can throw off balance as a whole.

Lastly, the game has been out a week and people are already rebalancing it? Can you really have played the game enough and tried everything already available to know that it needs to be tweaked? I've put in 100 hours since release (thanks to taking the week off and a wife who puts up with my gaming habits) and I still feel like I'm experimenting and learning how to play the game. I haven't played every civ, built every wonder, played every map type or size, every difficulty, etc -and I'm intentionally mixing it up to cover as much as possible.

And while the AI and some aspects of the game are lacking in some spots, I feel like I'm getting better at playing - getting more efficient and learning how and when to do stuff. All the rebalancing I've seen is boosting stuff across the board, which means you're either already a universal expert and know the game needs changed or you're handicapping yourself and never learning how to play as well as you could.

+1

Couldnt agree more

 

[Eejit]

I largely agree, even though I made a mod adjusting a UB. The civ-specific things are a bit easier to say if they're imbalanced or not.

 

[Jabarto]

While I, too, would like to see more restraint in these kinds of mods, I think you're being a little harsh on people who want to rebalance things. I mean, it doesn't take a hundred hours of playing experience to see that trading posts are far and away the best improvement in the game and need to be brought in line. Napoleon's unique power is pretty strong, and while I would (just) avoid calling it overpowered, I can see why a lot of people would think that way. I really can't fault anyone for changing the game to their own tastes, whether it's been out for one week or ten.

 

[Thalassicus]

It depends. Sid and the lead dev of Civ IV (other game designers as well, I've read similar articles from heads of major games like WCIII) commonly follow the approach outlined here in excellent manner by Soren Johnson:

http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119

If something feels too weak, you jump it up in strength. Then if it feels too powerful, drop it down by half towards the middle value, toning it down slightly from there. This process is also very similar to concepts like divide and conquer, quicksorting, binary searches.

If you feel you like the game the way it is, can simply leave it that way. Modding is here for those who like fiddling with things until it "feels right".

 

[Louis XXIV]

I feel overall, it's best to wait and see how they finish balancing it based on user feedback. Also, I certainly don't want to get into a habit of doing things one way only to have to play people with the real numbers and be a step behind.

 

[SevenSpirits]

It depends. Sid and the lead dev of Civ IV (other game designers as well, I've read similar articles from heads of major games like WCIII) commonly follow the approach outlined here in excellent manner by Soren Johnson:

http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=119

If something feels too weak, if you jump it up in strength and it feels too powerful, you can tone it down slightly from there. This process is also very similar to concepts like divide and conquer, quicksorting, binary searches.

If you feel you like the game the way it is, can simply leave it that way. Modding is here for those who like fiddling with things until it "feels right".

That's for game design, not balance! The goals there are different. OP's point is that if your goal is balance you probably shouldn't be doing the wild swings. He is most certainly right.

 

[Thalassicus]

I like small adjustments too, just like yourself. I do know some mods are taking a more dramatic approach, I'm not doing things like doubling all production though. There's lots of other people out there too who feel like some things need small changes, to a few select buildings for example, as evidenced in this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=384680

In addition this game is still a work in progress. There will be expansions out that do alter gameplay in wild swings; the design is still going on, it's not a finished product. A lot of people also feel there's some aspects of the game that feel very underwhelming. I'm just tweaking my game here and there to make it feel more fun. You can adjust your game too if you want, or simply leave it alone, it's all personal preference and there's no right or wrong, just having fun!

 

[Buccaneer]

It took me 4 years before I played a gameplay-changing mod in Civ4 and I thought it unbalanced the game too much. I agree with Zhahz.

 

[SevenSpirits]

I like small adjustments too, just like yourself. I do know some mods are taking a more dramatic approach, I'm not doing things like doubling all production though. There's lots of other people out there too who feel like some things need small changes, to a few select buildings for example, as evidenced in this thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=384680

In addition this game is still a work in progress. There will be expansions out that do alter gameplay in wild swings; the design is still going on, it's not a finished product. A lot of people also feel there's some aspects of the game that feel very underwhelming. I'm just tweaking my game here and there to make it feel more fun. You can adjust your game too if you want, or simply leave it alone, it's all personal preference and there's no right or wrong, just having fun!

Yeah, I mean no criticism of what you've done.

And I also realize that from some perspectives, what you or I are doing is a big overreaction, and for some things they are probably right. We all have our blind spots (especially with so little experience with Civ 5). In any case, like you said, it's all done in the spirit of adventure and creation.

 

[Polycrates]

While I, too, would like to see more restraint in these kinds of mods, I think you're being a little harsh on people who want to rebalance things. I mean, it doesn't take a hundred hours of playing experience to see that trading posts are far and away the best improvement in the game and need to be brought in line.

But are they really? Or is this just a side-effect of maritime city-states? Trading posts are hardly more powerful than a Civ IV cottage, really; and given the increased emphasis on vertical growth and the toned-down resource specials, food is still king. It's just that there's a really easy way to get it. Tone down maritime city-states a bit and I think you might find a better solution. Of course then granaries and watermills become more attractive, as does the Civil Service slingshot, etc etc and the effect may be bigger than you anticipated.

I see a lot of mods that pull hard on one string that jerks everything else off course, then pull really hard on another to try and balance that out, and then keep going and end up with an unrecognisable mess. And it takes time to fully understand the nuances of a game's balance anyway. Of course the only way is just to try and see what happens, but I agree that changes on the order of 20-25% are probably going to be better than changes of 100-200%.

 

[Jabarto]

But are they really? Or is this just a side-effect of maritime city-states? Trading posts are hardly more powerful than a Civ IV cottage, really; and given the increased emphasis on vertical growth and the toned-down resource specials, food is still king. It's just that there's a really easy way to get it. Tone down maritime city-states a bit and I think you might find a better solution. Of course then granaries and watermills become more attractive, as does the Civil Service slingshot, etc etc and the effect may be bigger than you anticipated.

I see a lot of mods that pull hard on one string that jerks everything else off course, then pull really hard on another to try and balance that out, and then keep going and end up with an unrecognisable mess. And it takes time to fully understand the nuances of a game's balance anyway. Of course the only way is just to try and see what happens, but I agree that changes on the order of 20-25% are probably going to be better than changes of 100-200%.

Well, yeah, maritime states amplify the problem quite a bit. But even if you take those out of the equation - and, I should add, I never made use of them in the first place - I haven't heard many strategies yet that don't entail building only enough farms to support as many trading posts as you can support.

Again, I'm not saying that the OP is wrong with his message. I just think he's applying it to too literal a degree.

 

[Buccaneer]

One other suggestion. Please limit the "kitchen-sink" mods that are not optioned. There were some Civ4 mods that looked good but it included mods that I did not like or would not play with - it was all or nothing. For example, I had the modder take out the awful Sevopedia so I could enjoy playing it (I did). I believe it was BAT that had a full options screen, allowing the user to customize what we wanted to include or not.