v142.8 on Emperor

[Zaldron]

I'm just saying that I'd prefer not to get the free gold to make things easier for us, but then have to give the AI help to make it competitive.

I'm sorry, I guess I just don't see how us and the AI either having or not having extra gold early in the game hurts the AI relative to us, unless the spending algorithm isn't utilizing it properly.

 

[rfxmills]

I'm sorry, I guess I just don't see how us and the AI either having or not having extra gold early in the game hurts the AI relative to us, unless the spending algorithm isn't utilizing it properly.

Lots of people said they thought the extra gold made the game easier, and Thal suggested a quickfix to that would be to bump up the AI bonuses...

The counterpoint appears to be that the game feels easier. The straightforward way to solve that is to increase AI bonuses.

 

[Thalassicus]

As Zaldron pointed out, when something is given equally to all players, it does not make the game easier or harder.

 

[Txurce]

As Zaldron pointed out, when something is given equally to all players, it does not make the game easier or harder. If the game feels easy then the solution is to raise the difficulty. It's two separate concepts: mathematical equality and psychological equality.

I think we are talking at cross-purposes here. If you give all human players 15g, it makes the game easier than if you gave them 10g. In this case, that "easy" feel isn't enjoyable to enough people for it to be a misunderstanding or an illusion. Going up a level isn't a helpful solution because too much else also changes (especially on Immortal). Since you're understandably unlikely to reconceive your game-start overhaul, it was suggested that the gold amount be lowered by 3-5g at the start, and counter any resultant potential lag by making workers a lower hammer cost.

 

[Seek]

As Zaldron pointed out, when something is given equally to all players, it does not make the game easier or harder. If the game feels easy then the solution is to raise the difficulty. It's two separate concepts: mathematical equality and psychological equality.

I disagree: Having a large surplus of gold (or any resource for that matter) at the beginning of the game quantifiably makes the game easier by making everything (ie, other yields -via workers and buildings- and units) more available, regardless of what the other players receive. I understand your and Zaldron's perspective and it's usually true that equal bonuses don't affect difficulty, but I think it's incorrect in this instance.

In any case, I'll stop posting about this. I have beleaguered the point enough already.

 

[rfxmills]

As Zaldron pointed out, when something is given equally to all players, it does not make the game easier or harder. If the game feels easy then the solution is to raise the difficulty. It's two separate concepts: mathematical equality and psychological equality.

We don't have equal starts with the AI though, they have more starting units and other assorted bonuses. Giving GPT to everyone to smooth the difference in start locations also allows the human to close the gap on the AI faster.

 

[Thalassicus]

Thinking about it some more, there's several comparisons to make:

• Players - A gets something B does not.
• Versions - something in version X is different from version Y.

• Numerical - feels the same, but numbers are different.
• Perception - numbers are the same, but feel different.

In this case there's a numerical difference between versions, which is causing a "feels easier" problem. However...

• Empires decentralized.
• Start locations are more balanced.
• Early opportunity costs can be higher.
• More flexibility in the early game.
• / balance shifts less through time.
• / border expansion costs scale better.

The yield change improved all these problems. I'd like to find a way to make the game feel harder while also keeping these other problems solved. The simplest way to make the game feel harder is buff the AIs (a numerical between-player change). Can you think of a third option?

 

[MortalD]

Why dos AI get all sort of "buffs" ? Cuz its basically dump.
So you need to keep in mind that 15 gold will be used lot more effectively by human player then AI.

We could test 10 /turn for human and 15 for AI.

Or make it 10 for both and return just 1 hammer to capital.

Total difference of 2 hammers more will fade away fast enough and return the production wise start we are all used to. Both sides happy.
Also hate to discover whole teach while my city is busy building 1 unit.

Then again, just proposing and will be fine with whatever u came with or leave as it is.

 

[wobuffet]

So you need to keep in mind that 15 gold will be used lot more effectively by human player then AI.

But this is true of everything in the game! I'd argue this is most of of the fun – if not the whole point of! – the (single-player) game, in fact: to make strategically more coherent and effective choices than the AI in order to win.

• Empires decentralized.
• Start locations are more balanced.
• Early opportunity costs can be higher.
• More flexibility in the early game.
• / balance shifts less through time.
• / border expansion costs scale better.

I really do feel that these are really nontrivial improvements in gameplay! The yield changes have made the early game – especially if I don't have a river start – much more enjoyable for me.

If it's just early-game gold levels that people are unhappy with, perhaps all luxury resources could be reduced by 1/turn, added back upon discovering Trade? Anything below 12 gpt for free (i.e., 10 after the initial Warrior's maint) would make it psychologically feel even more like a cheap bonus and not a legitimate gameplay element.

 

[Zaldron]

I disagree: Having a large surplus of gold (or any resource for that matter) at the beginning of the game quantifiably makes the game easier by making everything (ie, other yields -via workers and buildings- and units) more available, regardless of what the other players receive. I understand your and Zaldron's perspective and it's usually true that equal bonuses don't affect difficulty, but I think it's incorrect in this instance.

Actually now that I think about it more, I think you're right here. If we let A=base empire yields, B=AI starting bonuses, and G=15GPT, then we have the following power ratios. Let's even say that they're all approximately equal in power (just hypothetically for example) and give that power a number like 5:

AI/player => (A+B)/A => 10/5 = 2:1 AI : player starting power

Now if we add G into the equation:

AI/player => (A+B+G)/(A+G) = 15/10 = 3:2 AI : player starting power

So when we add the extra gold to both sides of the equation it *does* weaken the AI relative to the player.

I think the reason the game hasn't seemed easier to me is that in my last 4 games or so I've had 2-4 of Alex, Oda, Caesar, Nappy, Monty really close to me. That's just (A) bad luck but (B) not fun.

What about 8-10 GPT to start, but add 1 production back to the palace?

 

[Txurce]

But this is true of everything in the game! I'd argue this is most of of the fun – if not the whole point of! – the (single-player) game, in fact: to make strategically more coherent and effective choices than the AI in order to win.

If it's just early-game gold levels that people are unhappy with, perhaps all luxury resources could be reduced by 1/turn, added back upon discovering Trade.

That's not the point - it's that the human player gets too much gold at the start, making early progress too easy. This precedes being able to trade luxuries.

These are really nontrivial improvements in gameplay, but I don't think everybody appreciates this for some reason. The yield changes have made the early game – especially if I don't have a river start – much more enjoyable for me.

I found almost all of those changes a mixed bag, specifically in light of the extra opening gold:

* Empires decentralized: mixed; hurts tall, helps wide.
* Start locations are more balanced: dislike; like some others, prefer variety.
* Early opportunity costs can be higher: okay.
* More flexibility in the early game: problem is too much flexibility in my eyes.
* Balance shifts less through time: not sure how important the change is
* Border expansion costs scale better: not sure how important the change is.

What about 8-10 GPT to start, but add 1 production back to the palace?

That's similar to what MortalD proposed. Some version of that works for me.

 

[wobuffet]

That's not the point - it's that the human player gets too much gold at the start, making early progress too easy. This precedes being able to trade luxuries.

Luxury tiles are typically worked very early in the game, no? I meant -1/turn from luxury tiles from the beginning of the game, added back only upon discovering Trade.


I don't really understand how you can dislike more balance: there's still plenty of variety in starts; it just means that starting in plains with few river tiles doesn't mean your growth will be crippled until turn 50 no matter what you do, because you can rush-buy a Worker and a Granary (but you'd have to forgo your army and Science development in exchange).

 

[albie_123]

I dislike more balance at the cost of variety because I don't play Civ for balance. I find it much more fun when one civilization is at a disadvantage and must overcome it or be wiped from history.

 

[wobuffet]

I think that's an odd remark to make about something that was until recently called "Thal's Balance Mods."

 

[albie_123]

True, but I think balance has come secondary to fun on many occasions. The giving of free units to Civs that were seen as boring, rather than as underpowered, is a good example.

 

[Txurce]

Luxury tiles are typically worked very early in the game, no? I meant -1/turn from luxury tiles from the beginning of the game, added back only upon discovering Trade.

Luxuries aren't worked until after the tech is researched and the tile improved. We are talking about turn 1.

I don't really understand how you can dislike more balance: there's still plenty of variety in starts; it just means that starting in plains with few river tiles doesn't mean your growth will be crippled until turn 50 no matter what you do, because you can rush-buy a Worker and a Granary (but you'd have to forgo your army and Science development in exchange).

I don't see it as meaningfully more balanced as a result. I also happen to agree with:

I dislike more balance at the cost of variety because I don't play Civ for balance. I find it much more fun when one civilization is at a disadvantage and must overcome it or be wiped from history.

I think balance has come secondary to fun on many occasions. The giving of free units to Civs that were seen as boring, rather than as underpowered, is a good example.

There are quite a few examples of Thal choosing fun over balance: for starters, every change that favors the human over the AI.

 

[Thalassicus]

If it's just early-game gold levels that people are unhappy with, perhaps all luxury resources could be reduced by 1/turn, added back upon discovering Trade?

I moved 1 from luxuries to the Market in v131.56, so they don't provide much gold when unimproved.

When we add the extra gold to both sides of the equation it *does* weaken the AI relative to the player.

This is why I suggested increasing AI bonuses.

@albie
Fun decisions are always the number one priority. I talk about this in the goals thread. This sometimes means making things more equal, and sometimes less equal:

 

[Seek]

The yield change improved all these problems. I'd like to find a way to make the game feel harder while also keeping these other problems solved. The simplest way to make the game feel harder is buff the AIs (a numerical between-player change). Can you think of a third option?

It took a while, but I think I did.I was thinking how I missed the direct-yield-from-happiness mechanic that was recently deleted, and it hit me: We could start each civ with a few free gold and give 1 gold per happiness, which would incentivize a good positive happiness, is dynamic enough that the early game won't feel odd from having so much free gold, and probably has more historical realism than science anyway (people spend money when they're happy and things are going well). Thoughts?


PS - My problems with the free gold have greatly diminished since early units' maintenance costs have risen, once I get a couple scouts and workers up it's more or less like before. The effects are pretty short-lived now. The above is just a thought - I really liked the happiness mechanic!

 

[Thalassicus]

These are similar:

• Yield-per-happy is a small amount over a long time.
• Golden ages are a large amount over a short time.

I prefer A, but Firaxis tends to go for B. I think they added culture to goldenages in the expansion. I don't feel strongly about either one so I conceded that point to them.

Something to point out is scouts incorrectly had negative maintenance cost for a while... that might have been contributing to your impression of gold per turn income.

Old Version
1 1 per city
5 5 palace
0 per player
1 scouts

Intermediate
0 2 per city
0 2 palace
15 per player
-0.5 scouts

Current
0 2 per city
0 2 palace
15 per player
1 scouts

 

[Txurce]

My problems with the free gold have greatly diminished since early units' maintenance costs have risen, once I get a couple scouts and workers up it's more or less like before. The effects are pretty short-lived now.

Agreed, happily.