Will the Adept Blue station be overpowered?

[Kutuzov]

Not bad idea. Certainly much better than the new bonus. The dictionary definition of the adjective 'mediocre' perfectly describes what we've now got. This is the predictable outcome of 'design by committee'. Sad as this design team looked like it was stoked full of creative energy and enthusiasm. I'd rather let them put their game out, play it for a while and then make suggestions.

If I recall my music history correctly, Schumann slated Wagner's 'Tannhauser' in his 'New Journal of Music' after reading the score but he was big enough to retract his criticism in his same journal when he heard it saying that 'on stage, it somehow all came together'. Just because some super-expert level player got it close to his empire in one playthrough and didn't like it is hardly the litmus test for the rest of us.

 

[Gort]

I'd rather let them put their game out, play it for a while and then make suggestions.

This idea is dreadful. Don't test or balance the game at all, just let paying customers be unpaid beta testers for you!

If I recall my music history correctly, Schumann slated Wagner's 'Tannhauser' in his 'New Journal of Music' after reading the score but he was big enough to retract his criticism in his same journal when he heard it saying that 'on stage, it somehow all came together'.

And I'm glad that this design team was big enough to modify one of their decisions after the fact rather than being too stubborn to change. Good example.

Just because some super-expert level player got it close to his empire in one playthrough and didn't like it is hardly the litmus test for the rest of us.

Who are you referring to here?

 

[JokerJace]

Yes I don't disagree that starting positions are important, I just don't see them being worth 10-12 free techs or more. Also, as I pointed out, if you beeline to terrascapes, the base yield of the tile is ignored. And there are buildings that seem to fix much of the terrain that was useless in CiV. And you don't have to think about number of luxery resources near capitol either, so IMHO you can't really compare it with CiV

Even if you beeline terrascapes, a significant amount of turns will have passed before you have a few of them built. The quality of a starting position is not determined by what it can become eventually. Then all starting positions would be more or less equal. I get that that's your point but it is not correct. The early turns set things apart for the whole game if the quality range of the starting positions is too different. And quality being determined by the amount of early yields. And this again is a random aspect far more important than the random station distribution.

And 12 free techs... yeah... You have to make so many presumptions for this to happen. Completely oblivious opponents being one of them... So I think this is absolutely negligible compared to more important random aspects of the game. Starting positions being one of those.

 

[Gort]

And 12 free techs... yeah... You have to make so many presumptions for this to happen. Completely oblivious opponents being one of them...

Thing is though, the AI will treat it just like another station. So they won't take special precautions to prevent you exploiting it - they won't destroy it off their own bat (unless they get a quest to do so, which is hardly guaranteed, and you could always protect it yourself) or raid your trade route specially because they know it's Adept Blue, they won't prioritise trading with it above and beyond other stations.

So yeah, the AI opponents would have been completely oblivious to the power of the original Adept Blue station, so we can make that assumption. It is important to keep the design of your AI in mind when you're designing game elements. A bad starting position is something the AI's designed to be able to deal with, while one station being completely overpowered compared to the others is not.

 

[Inhalaattori]

People should stop beating a dead horse. It was OP in its old form. Anyone who understand the game mechanics agrees with this. The amount of beakers you would get from it on average per turn was about 50 (on standard speed). Like I said earlier if it would give 50% science towards random tech then it might be ok.

 

[JokerJace]

Thing is though, the AI will treat it just like another station. So they won't take special precautions to prevent you exploiting it - they won't destroy it off their own bat (unless they get a quest to do so, which is hardly guaranteed, and you could always protect it yourself) or raid your trade route specially because they know it's Adept Blue, they won't prioritise trading with it above and beyond other stations.

So yeah, the AI opponents would have been completely oblivious to the power of the original Adept Blue station, so we can make that assumption. It is important to keep the design of your AI in mind when you're designing game elements. A bad starting position is something the AI's designed to be able to deal with, while one station being completely overpowered compared to the others is not.

Maybe it's just me, but balance is really only more important than diversity and flavor when playing in MP. And human opponents certainly know the value of things and how to handle them properly.

Your second point makes no sense to me. How can the AI compensate a bad starting position? It can't, just like a human player can't. Because of many other factors you can still win of course, but it's an inescapable disadvantage. And making the AI keep track of other player's trade routes is quite simple. Maybe the neccessary subrouties are even implemented already. Even if they aren't. Removing diversity with respect to a stupid AI rather than making a simple improvement to the AI seems like a bad decision to me.

 

[JokerJace]

People should stop beating a dead horse. It was OP in its old form. Anyone who understand the game mechanics agrees with this. The amount of beakers you would get from it on average per turn was about 50 (on standard speed). Like I said earlier if it would give 50% science towards random tech then it might be ok.

Way to ignore any contrary argument! Why is it an invalid design decision to make one thing better than another thing? This is not unfair per se, because all player are able and required to respond to any situation anyway. It's not like a random player in the game get's a random tech every 25 turns. Yet this is the only argument I have heard so far. Adept Blue will pop up in a secluded area that is only accessible to one person and that person will get 12 free techs in the game. You all confuse theoretical potential and practicability in an actual game. You can't call something imbalanced under the presumption that there is one intelligent and seven stupid players on the map. Even if those 7 players are AI.

Ah, and one more thing, before I forget: "Anyone who understand the game mechanics agrees with me." Seems to be a good argument.

 

[Greybane]

You've only quoted half the statement and misunderstood it as a result.

The intent of the statement was that following a design philosophy in which widespread use of content such as the original Adept Blue was made would lead to a game where a player's success was determined primarily by random factors outside of your control rather than how well you play.

NOT:

Including the original Adept Blue station would lead to a game where a player's success was determined primarily by random factors outside of your control rather than how well you play.

I wouldn't really have a problem with the original Adept Blue if it existed in a game where the other uses for trade routes were of similar power, but it doesn't. It exists in a game where the other uses for trade routes are "some science and energy" or "some food and production", so your choices as a game designer are "Create a situation where the only sensible choice is to trade with Adept Blue every time you see it", "Overhaul the entire trade system so everything else is brought up to the same power level as Adept Blue" or "Reduce Adept Blue to a similar power level to the other options for trade".

I'm glad they went with the latter.

I disagree once again. I would prefer the varying power of stations, that some have greater impact and some lesser. The natural wonder argument made below your post holds a lot of merit in my mind. I also don't think Adept Blues power was nearly as far above the other stations as some of the other commenter believe. which leaves the mediocre replacement disappointing from a flavor and crunch prospective.

On the quote, I originally understood your point, but quoting in part like that worked better as part of the sentence.

I suppose a lot of this comes down to what degree you are ok with introducing random elements into your game. The less you are, the more you are likely to want Adept Blue, in its old form, gone, and vise versa.

 

[ggmoyang]

People can easily raze the station/plunder trade route in MP isn't very good argument IMO. If it was other standard stations, you have option to leave it be and build your own economy better. Against Adept Blue, you are forced to counter it.

 

[Ryika]

I disagree once again. I would prefer the varying power of stations, that some have greater impact and some lesser. The natural wonder argument made below your post holds a lot of merit in my mind. I also don't think Adept Blues power was nearly as far above the other stations as some of the other commenter believe. which leaves the mediocre replacement disappointing from a flavor and crunch prospective.

For me the biggest difference is the fact that the AI wouldn't know how to use it. A natural wonder, a good starting location... those help the AI, passively - probably not as much as a human player who changes his strategy to fit his surroundings, but the difference wouldn't be THAT big. With stations however... the AI would have treated it just like any other station, while the player would have railed all his trade routes to them.

If they ever make the AI evaluate stations and react properly, sure, then I'm all for big differences in strength (for SP at least), but as long as it's just useful for the player? No, thanks.

 

[Haggbart]

Even if you beeline terrascapes, a significant amount of turns will have passed before you have a few of them built. The quality of a starting position is not determined by what it can become eventually. Then all starting positions would be more or less equal. I get that that's your point but it is not correct. The early turns set things apart for the whole game if the quality range of the starting positions is too different. And quality being determined by the amount of early yields. And this again is a random aspect far more important than the random station distribution.

And 12 free techs... yeah... You have to make so many presumptions for this to happen. Completely oblivious opponents being one of them... So I think this is absolutely negligible compared to more important random aspects of the game. Starting positions being one of those.

We clearly disagree on the impact of the starting position. And 12-14 techs was the best case scenario, yeah. But still, the tech web is about 85 techs in total, so it's a considerable % of the total techs in the game. Equal to 15-17 techs in CiV with expansions. And I've yet to see a starting position in CiV so bad I wouldn't win EASILY on any difficulty if I was given 15-17 random techs.

Also a lot of the initial tile and improvement yields seem pretty low anyway, seems a lot of initial city expansion is done by internal trade routes. I think you would struggle to find an example of two starting positions in any of the playthroughs available, with a difference anywhere near the impact of that one example we saw with AB isolated. Not even close.

That it would rarely happen is not a valid argument. If there was a instant win tile popping up in 1 of 1,000,000,000 games I still would want it removed because of the impact of the randomness, not because it was random pr se.

 

[Haggbart]

Maybe it's just me, but balance is really only more important than diversity and flavor when playing in MP. And human opponents certainly know the value of things and how to handle them properly.

Your second point makes no sense to me. How can the AI compensate a bad starting position? It can't, just like a human player can't. Because of many other factors you can still win of course, but it's an inescapable disadvantage. And making the AI keep track of other player's trade routes is quite simple. Maybe the neccessary subrouties are even implemented already. Even if they aren't. Removing diversity with respect to a stupid AI rather than making a simple improvement to the AI seems like a bad decision to me.

Disagree. The difficulty level should be somewhat predictable on each playthrough.

 

[Callonia]

This thread.

At first I was like what's Adept blue?

It gives random tech at end of trade route then I was like ooh fun. I like.

Now it gives horribly boring +2 food/science. Basically you send a trade route to adept blue to gain 2 population that you didn't have before that only gives you 2 food and two science.

I"m like Meh. Now i'm uninterested in adept blue. I'd rather send my trade routes to militaristic stations or energy ones.

 

[TLHeart]

This thread.

At first I was like what's Adept blue?

It gives random tech at end of trade route then I was like ooh fun. I like.

Now it gives horribly boring +2 food/science. Basically you send a trade route to adept blue to gain 2 population that you didn't have before that only gives you 2 food and two science.

I"m like Meh. Now i'm uninterested in adept blue. I'd rather send my trade routes to militaristic stations or energy ones.

the military stations no longer give free units, just food, tech, culture.

 

[Kutuzov]

This idea is dreadful. Don't test or balance the game at all, just let paying customers be unpaid beta testers for you!



And I'm glad that this design team was big enough to modify one of their decisions after the fact rather than being too stubborn to change. Good example.



Who are you referring to here?

In your opinion. We're not beta testing or balancing this game. We're watching other people play it and drawing conclusions from their experience. This game is showing so much of itself beforehand. I don't recall seeing so much of a new, anticipated title before release as I am seeing now. Perhaps this is not such a good thing. That is what I meant.

 

[JokerJace]

We clearly disagree on the impact of the starting position.

Yes, it absolutely seems we do. By what you have said so far I'll have to assume that you either never played CiV or you expect Beyond Earth to be significantly different in respect to starting positions. What is the case? And maybe elobarate a bit instead of your crude statements I have read so far.

 

[Callonia]

the military stations no longer give free units, just food, tech, culture.

That would make them resource stations not military stations, what's so militaristic about military stations now?

And Adept Blue in previous form is worthwhile going to a war over for, but for 2 food and science? Meh. I'd keep the peace up.

 

[Haggbart]

Yes, it absolutely seems we do. By what you have said so far I'll have to assume that you either never played CiV or you expect Beyond Earth to be significantly different in respect to starting positions. What is the case? And maybe elobarate a bit instead of your crude statements I have read so far.

You can assume whatever you want if it makes you feel better.
I crunched the numbers for potential AB yields and said they were OP and random, and you came with a claim without any evidence that starting positions were even more significant. So seems it's your task to demonstrate that with numbers.

Clearly the developers and beta testers agree with my (and many others') opinion that AB in its previous form was OP. That's what important.

 

[JokerJace]

6 production and 6 food from turn one onwards, as a fixed output difference. (ignoring energy here) If you say this is a less important aspect than the POTENTIAL for some free techs, I can not respect your opinion in the slightest.

You have a strong misconception of what imbalance means. Faction abilites with a different quality, that's imbalance, for example. Random events A and B, that offer equal oppportunities to all players, with A being better than B. That is NOT imbalance.

And only so you know, AB was not changed because of your "highly educated" opinion. Don't be so complacent.

 

[Haggbart]

6 production and 6 food from turn one onwards, as a fixed output difference. (ignoring energy here) If you say this is a less important aspect than the POTENTIAL for some free techs, I can not respect your opinion in the slightest.

You have a strong misconception of what imbalance means. Faction abilites with a different quality, that's imbalance. Random events A and B, that offer equal oppportunities to all players, with A being better than B. That is NOT imbalance.

Okay, so 6 prod and 6 food difference until you have upgraded terrascapes (which are 3/3/3 and ignore base yield). Let's say in 150 turns that is a 900 prod and 900 food yield. This of course demands that you tech according to your starting position, but I said that already. Compare that to what could be 15,000 beakers with a full game's access to old AB.

Again, we're talking potential here, I never said that it would be relevant in every game (clearly, starting positions will be relevant in any game). To make clear what I meant was that in that perhaps rare case (which we have seen in one playthrough already) where one player has exclusive access to AB, this would be so significant it would dwarf the meaning of starting positions IN THAT PLAYTHROUGH. Meaning that if played optimally that one player would always win, regardless of his or other players' starting positions IN THAT INSTANCE.