Would you like 4UC modmod to be integrated to the VP?

[pineappledan]

The experience of seeing that civ selection screen with the the extra boxes is, for a long-time civ V player, an amazing moment. It's the first thing you will see, and it will tell you that VP means business.

*Opens up civ select screen*

THIS AINT YOUR DAD’S CIV 5

 

[Cebrudras]

We don't really know the balance implications of doing that.
And which would you integrate, all the units or all the economic components? Or would you go through and pick based on the civ (nightmare).

I was thinking off having someone with a good idea of what aspects could be challenging for inclusion go through 1-by-1 and pick the safer component for each. Doesn't sound nightmarish at all compared to the work that's already being planned.

That it also makes the balancing more laborious is a good point though. It probably really is better to just do everything in one big push.

 

[allbrain]

I really love 4UC mod, it add incredible depth and variety to the game. I always play wuth it enabled, so the idea of having it integrated in VP would be a definitive Yes! on my side.

 

[Rekk]

Doesn't sound nightmarish at all compared to the work that's already being planned.

Picking and choosing which component to keep vs just integrating everything that is there would indeed be more effort.

 

[azum4roll]

The same thing can be said back then when there was a poll about merging the separated mods (CBP + CSD + C4DF + More Luxuries) into a single VP mod. The majority voted for that and people who prefer not using some optional mods are now forced to play with those, some even disliked the VP merge.

The thing is, back then, those separate mods were already part of VP installation, and balance discussions always accounted for them.

---

And I definitely don't want 4UC to be a separate mod inside VP. All the sweep sql files will have to be run twice, for example.

 

[hokath]

You mean you would need 2 insert statements instead of 1?
Seems of insignificant importance compared to allowing player choice, no?

 

[azum4roll]

Doubling the dev time and potentially congress proposals isn't insignificant.

And now the new 4UC modifies base VP too. Good luck handling that.

 

[CppMaster]

Good luck handling that.

Thanks!

 

[hokath]

Sorry Azum I'm just trying to understand what you mean, you don't always provide all the details in your posts

I am saying split the file into two. You are saying doubling dev time. I don't understand how this doubles dev time?

 

[JNZS13]

Thanks!

im curious here you are a coder from VP git team?

 

[CppMaster]

Nope.

 

[Cebrudras]

Picking and choosing which component to keep vs just integrating everything that is there would indeed be more effort.

I mean technically yeah but my judgement was that it would be a tiny thing compared to the overall work of integrating and documenting everything. I am satisfied with the provided reasons for not splitting this huge project of integrating 4UC into smaller chunks, but the devs could probably split off a 3UC code version a dozen times just within the time they will spend on preparing the voting threads themselves.

 

[azum4roll]

Sorry Azum I'm just trying to understand what you mean, you don't always provide all the details in your posts

I am saying split the file into two. You are saying doubling dev time. I don't understand how this doubles dev time?

Let's say we have VP and 4UC as separate mods. 4UC loads after VP and changes some of the VP stuff.

Now a proposal passes that changes the Incan UA from ignore terrain on hills/mountain to double moves on hills/mountain. The UA text will need to be modified on both VP and 4UC mods, since they're different.

Another proposal passes that makes Parthenon give 1 per 4 on empire. Now that has to be removed from 4UC after being added to VP.

Not to mention the amount of proposals will also be doubled.

 

[hokath]

Right, I understand now. Yes that would be bad.

The way I would do it is only the civ replacement lines (Civilization_BuildingClassOverrides and the equivalents) would be in this (5) component.
So everything is in the database. Deleting the (5) just stops them appearing.

 

[N.Core]

I mean technically yeah but my judgement was that it would be a tiny thing compared to the overall work of integrating and documenting everything. I am satisfied with the provided reasons for not splitting this huge project of integrating 4UC into smaller chunks, but the devs could probably split off a 3UC code version a dozen times just within the time they will spend on preparing the voting threads themselves.

We currently don't know the balance implication of only implementing one additional UC to make 3UC. Going all 4UC from the get-go is better because we already see the balance result thanks to Vern's analysis.

Right, I understand now. Yes that would be bad.

The way I would do it is only the civ replacement lines (Civilization_BuildingClassOverrides and the equivalents) would be in this (5) component.
So everything is in the database. Deleting the (5) just stops them appearing.

Then those components will appear on the Civilopedia and you can spawn it with IGE.
Also, separating 4UC from Base VP still has different balance considerations because you never know which components are the most impactful.

 

[hokath]

I don't know why I've appointed myself spokesperson for the 4UC fence-sitters when it's not my own position.
Perhaps no one really cares about this possibility of "opting out", I will stop arguing for this imagined constituency.

 

[Stalker0]

43 separate votes for proposals/counterproposals for each civ with no ‘Nay’ option

How would that work? If the community votes no....we would have a civ with only two components when everyone else has 4?

 

[Stalker0]

You mean you would need 2 insert statements instead of 1?
Seems of insignificant importance compared to allowing player choice, no?

People are just way underestimating the effort that has to go into maintaining two code bases. This isn't a professional large dev team, its a group of volunteers, and its an unfair burden to expect them to code more AND troubleshoot more because we want our cake and eat it too.

This to me is a straightforward decision, going forward either VP is 4UC or its not. If you don't like being forced into it....then vote no. Its that simple.

 

[Agiwan]

How would that work? If the community votes no....we would have a civ with only two components when everyone else has 4?

There will be no "No" option if I understand well.

 

[ma_kuh]

I think there's Yes/No for "Integrate 4UC".

IF that passes, then there's individual proposals for each civ, where the options are Yes, or any counter proposals. That's where there won't be a No option.