VP Session 3: Stalker0's voting log

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
10,596
Continuing my tradition, lets see what I think of the latest suite of votes:

(3-01) Proposal: Make Polders buildable in Lakes​

Yes. The new polder is fun, but its not an OP UI by any means, so adding more flexibility here feels good.

(3-02) Proposal: Adjust Quick Instant Yield Scaler​

Abstain. I never play quick, so I have no business telling quick players how their stuff should scale.

(3-03) Proposal: Revert Ranged Line to pre-2.6 Version​

No. As I noted when I created this, I mainly wanted such a large change to go through the congress, but personally I do think its better overall than what we had previously.

(3-04) Proposal: Revert barbarian snow tile spawn change
No. I understand the flavor desire here, but I think gameplay wise it just means certain starts would get a weird lack of barbs, and I see no good reason to pursue that.


(3-05) Proposal: Manufactory = Standard Improvement for Adjacencies​

Yes. I think its a fun little way to boost a GPTI.

(3-06) Proposal: Move oil to dynamite​

No. I like the idea of revealing oil earlier, but not moving oil wells as well, that's where it lost me.

(3-07) Proposal: Archeologists ignore border restrictions​

Yes. I think its a neat way to spice up the artifact race, by making it an actual race. Right now its not a race to me, I get my artifacts, you get your artifact, and maybe a snag a couple in unclaimed lands. I think the "race" looks a lot better on paper than in practice, but opening up border restrictions makes it a brand new ballgame.

(3-08) Proposal: Normalize Ancient Era maintenance costs​

No. The Ger change is debatable, it could certainly be changed for consistency, or maybe leave it as a little mongul benefit. But the herbalist is a niche building, I don't think niche buildings automatically need to have maintenance just because everything else does and I consider the maintenance at this point part of the balance (later game a lot less so, but for those early buildings it does matter).

(3-09) God of War & Goddess of Protection Proposals​

PDan's version only. Rusbeh's version isn't bad, not my cup of tea, but I can see it. But frankly, Legen's version is just OP. That version of protection is basically the only ancestor worship. You now can go walls first in every city and handle both your faith and culture. It has great faith scaling, AND than you still have the +10 healing on top.... that's bonkers.

(3-10) Proposal: City production choice menu sorts by unit type.​

Yes. Don't see any reason not to do this honestly.

(3-11) Proposal: A small rebalance of fighter aircraft​

Yes. I'm all about more vision range for fighters.

(3-12) Proposal: Changes to Respect and Righteousness virtues​

No. Its a weak no for me, I don't have a strong preference but also didn't the change is that much an improvement.

(3-13) Authority Shakeup Proposals​

13 and 13a for me. I think these are the cleanest and simplest improvements of the list.

(3-14) Proposal: Assyria's UU no longer obsoletes​

Yes. Ultimately this happens for the humans anyway, this just makes it fair.

(3-15) Proposal: Imperialism Martial Law rework​

No. I'm all for moving a garrison bonus to imperalism (either from authority or just as a second garrison benefit). However, I don't like removing science/culture in favor of production, I don't think that adds anything to imperalism's identity.

(3-16) Proposal: consolidate most chopping bonuses on Bronze Working​

I do think this creates a very interesting change, where it lets you "catchup" in other areas by focusing on bronze working and then doing a forest cut rush. That may add an entirely new strategy opener to the game, and I'm eager to give it a try.

(3-17) Air Unit Policy Bonus Proposals​

Deanno's proposal. I think this is the more interesting of the two. For imperlism, more attacks while damaged creates fun tension with aircraft and interception (I always think it will be a much stronger finisher overall, as once you do have interception cleared I often run aircraft to nearly dead before healing them up). On the finest hour, I like consolidating all of the aircraft power into 1 single tenent, as if you ignore aircraft you can just ignore this tenent entirely. +2 air slots might be too good, but I'm willing to try it.

(3-18) Proposal: Royal Library generates as many Great Scientist Points as the School of Philosophy​

Yes. not even sure why this is a proposal.

(3-19) Proposal: Make Indirect Fire only for its natural units​

No. This is probably the best of the various promotion nerfs I've seen so far, I'm a soft no just as I think it takes away people's toys and to me is the weakest of the "big 3", but I don't have a strong opinion
 
No. The Ger change is debatable, it could certainly be changed for consistency, or maybe leave it as a little mongul benefit. But the herbalist is a niche building, I don't think niche buildings automatically need to have maintenance just because everything else does and I consider the maintenance at this point part of the balance (later game a lot less so, but for those early buildings it does matter).
You lost me here.

It’s precisely because it is a niche building that it should have maintenance. If a building is only situationally useful but has no downside other than the production needed to build it then it’s not properly functioning as something you might only want some of the time.
 
If a building is only situationally useful but has no downside other than the production needed to build it then it’s not properly functioning as something you might only want some of the time.
For me the herbalist is there now, the prod is expensive enough I don’t build it if I don’t need it. The exception is later on to milk a progress/industry per building bonus…but frankly at that point I build all buildings to get that bonus, maintenance or no.

If other people feel the herbalist needs maintenance or it’s “too good”, that’s fair. I just don’t want it getting maintenance because “a lot of other buildings have it”. We have examples of both, so it’s a purely a balance question, not a “proper form” question
 
The 65 :c5production: is a pittance, even in early game that's barely a speed bump. The real cost of an early game situational building is a -1:c5gold: hit.
We have examples of both
That's equating Herbalist and Lodge to something like a Monument/Shrine/Council, and that's precisely my point.

There should be a difference between those two types of buildings and there is not one right now. Monument/shrine/councils are static sources of rare :c5culture::c5faith::c5science: yields in early game. They are required buildings everywhere, but putting a maintenance cost on them was too constraining for :c5gold:-poor starts, so their maintenance costs were removed. Lodges and Herbalists provide common :c5food:/:c5production: yields in amounts that are variable with terrain. If they are going to properly be perceived as situational then they need to instantiate that :c5gold: burden, or they don't present any meaningful tradeoff. They're just :c5production: for more :c5production:, and eventually are just free instant on-construction yields with no strings.
 
They're just :c5production: for more :c5production:
I can count so many scenarios where an extra 65 hammers could have meant a critical difference. Having 1 one more warrior can be game saving. Having a settler just a few turns quicker can mean the difference between settling a perfect spot, versus losing it to the AI.

This isn't the mid game where I have hammers at my fingertips, the early game is about scrapping the barrel for every bit of yield you can muster, all while trying to take the spots the AI wants to take, all while founding a religion, and not getting pillaged by barbs, and not just dying to an AI rush. Every....hammer....matters.

Now again if you think the herbalist is "too cheap" without a maintenance, that's a preference at this point. But 65 hammers is no pittance, its a cost, and every cost in the early game matters. Everything is a tradeoff.
 
I think you got a little distracted there.
Now again if you think the herbalist is "too cheap" without a maintenance, that's a preference at this point.
I absolutely think it’s too cheap Without the maintenance. It absolutely should present a greater cost than a shrine, etc.

Maintenance free buildings that aren’t gold-centric are the exception, not the rule. saying a building is/ought to be situational and then removing a major cost component to it, making it one of those exceptions is antithetical. It’s saying 1 thing and then doing another. At minimum, a “situational” building should cost what buildings normally cost, and not have exceptions for cost reduction carved out for it.
 
Last edited:
I think you got a little distracted there.

I absolutely think it’s too cheap Without the maintenance. It absolutely should present a greater cost than a shrine, etc.

Maintenance free buildings that aren’t gold-centric are the exception, not the rule. saying a building is/ought to be situational and then removing a major cost component to it, making it one of those exceptions is antithetical. It’s saying 1 thing and then doing another. At minimum, a “situational” building should cost what buildings normally cost, and not have exceptions for cost reduction carved out for it.
Agree to disagree at this point, i think we have laid out the argument well enough
 
It’s precisely because it is a niche building that it should have maintenance.
So the building is not good enough to be a core building and you want to nerf it even more by having a maintance?
I absolutely think it’s too cheap Without the maintenance. It absolutely should present a greater cost than a shrine, etc.
Shrine is considered as a better building than herbalist almost all the time. Why then should herbalist cost more if it's overall worse? It should be the other way around. To nerf OP buildings and buff underpowered buildings.
 
situational does not mean worse. Besides, it's not a competition. Buildings don't compete against other buildings like that. If you have plantations and forests then an herbalist is quite good. If you don't have the terrain to support an herbalist then it shouldn't be worth building.
 
situational does not mean worse.
I think it does mean worse on average. Otherwise it would be core instead, like monument.
Buildings don't compete against other buildings like that.
Yes, they do. You have to decide which to build 1st. If you almost always build a shrine before a herbalist, even when you have the herbalist unlocked, then that means that a shrine is simply better and it's not a meaningful choice.
 
Yes, they do. You have to decide which to build 1st. If you almost always build a shrine before a herbalist, even when you have the herbalist unlocked, then that means that a shrine is simply better and it's not a meaningful choice.
You do have to consider the greater context though. Part of the reason that shrines are so good early on, is because of the faith race. Its hard to compare that to something that just provides yields for that portion of the game. Even if you buffed several other buildings double time over, its questionable whether they would beat the shrine that early in the game, because of the oppurtunity cost of both founding a religion and denying that founding to someone else.

So the real comparison happens AFTER the founding sprint is over. Now if you still build shrines before X building in every circumstance, than I think you could argue that shrines are just plain better than better than building X.
 
IMO the choice of buildings in a city is more meaningful if there is a maintenance cost on a situational building. If it doesn't cost any maintenance one might want to build it anyway for the +1 food and the Progress/Industry benefits, thus making the building less situational than it could be.
 
You do have to consider the greater context though. Part of the reason that shrines are so good early on, is because of the faith race. Its hard to compare that to something that just provides yields for that portion of the game. Even if you buffed several other buildings double time over, its questionable whether they would beat the shrine that early in the game, because of the oppurtunity cost of both founding a religion and denying that founding to someone else.

So the real comparison happens AFTER the founding sprint is over. Now if you still build shrines before X building in every circumstance, than I think you could argue that shrines are just plain better than better than building X.
That's the case for me. Even after religion race I build shrines before herbalists (except when I have pantheon that boost herbalists).
 
Top Bottom