Yield value discussion (food vs others)

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Tomice, Feb 25, 2016.

  1. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,917
    There are no percentile bonuses from yields anymore. The happiness system allows for constant, controlled expansion. These 2 together create this problem, since population = everything and has no limit.

    The happiness system is wonderful, and my only qualm is that lategame you can have tons of happiness (but then you get Golden Ages as a reward, though expanding seems to not cause much unhappiness by then). Don't change the happiness system.

    The lack of percentile bonuses for yields means working that yield always has the same amount of value, and that value is less than gaining more population (which gives more yields, especially with all the percentage-of-population buildings). This is what we should look at changing, imo.
     
  2. Wario Mario

    Wario Mario Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Wario Ware INC
    I was messing around with modded civs, trying to get them to work properly with CBP. It seems that the civs with food related bonuses were always OP compared to the other civs, and now I know why. I also now know why adding percentile bonuses to UBs also refused to work.

    I don't suppose anyone knows how to make Palace replacements properly give historical events?
     
  3. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Look at Doge's palace.

    G
     
  4. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    18,328
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    I think that dropping the 1 science per citizen is a good idea. It's the only yield that gets this treatment, and - within the context of civ and history - it doesn't really make sense. There's no 'investment' in science if food essentially equals science because of population. Citizens are currently the best source of science with or without science buildings. That's crazy, if you really stop to think about it.

    The more I dwell on this (while on a business trip, mind you!) the more I absolutely adore the idea. It makes a lot of sense, and would really open up strategies quite a bit.

    Suddenly the extra science from tile yields, pantheons, early trade routes, and more all become way more valuable. Global literacy rates will stabilize, and the science line of buildings will actually allow for science specialty cities. Science will accrue at rates comparable to the other yields (hundreds, instead of thousands, on average). Academies will be very useful into and past the Renaissance.

    There's a lot going for this. Really, all that would be needed would be a soft tweak of the science per citizen values, some stronger scaling on science from specialists, and an ancient-era science producer (a science per citizen bonus on the palace would probably suffice.) Tech costs would also, of course, come down.

    G
     
  5. grmagne

    grmagne Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    Toronto
    I like the idea. When I first started playing Civ5 I found the notion that population = science a bit extreme. Though I like your proposal in principle, it seems inevitable that this will create a lot of new work to rebalance Tall vs. Wide, science civs, runaway tech leaders, etc. I do trust your judgement, though. Virtually everything you've done to Civ5 has been outstanding and I have no doubt I'll like this too.

    Are you concerned this might exacerbate runaway tech leaders? If so, I'd be in favour of increasing the science from trade routes even further. In real life most nations don't research their own technologies but import ideas from a small handful of cutting-edge countries. I think tech leaders are already amply rewarding in the Civ franchise and a bit of extra catch-up opportunity for the bottom civs would be OK.
     
  6. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,211
    Could also tweak the modifier that makes technologies cost less the more civs there are that have already researched it. Making trade routes the main way to keep up in science might punish a diplomatic victory seeking civ that sends it trade routes to CSs for the influence bonuses, or punish tall civs using trade routes for internal food/production.
     
  7. Dallandra

    Dallandra Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    96
    I really do not like the idea. At all. That's a very roundabout way of trying to fix an improvement that has no use and a lot of changes that will require way more balancing down the road than it first looks like.

    Besides, at least in my games, I've never seen science outpace any other yield like that. Culture and science output is usually around the same level, unless I focus on one, followed by faith unless THAT is the focus but is usually much lower than either of the other ones. Gold varies wildly depending on era, active trate routes and current wars, but can be in the hundreds way earlier than any other yield.

    Frankly, the only thing that needs a change is the Great Scientist. His improvement is useless while popping him usually results in anything from an almost finished technology of the next tier to one finished one and another half done one. He's essentially a free technology, which is otherwise a very rare thing and for good reasons. As others have mentioned, the snowballing effect is massive with him. The only needed change here is an increased science output for the academy and a definite nerf to the science gain of popping a GS.
     
  8. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,917
    We discussed this a few months back and I agreed it was a good idea, but there were several arguments for and against it. If anyone remembers which thread that was, we should go check it out.

    Remember that science unlocks EVERYTHING in the game, so passive science is kinda important. There needs to be at least some passive science. That can come from the Palace only at first, as long as there are 2 or 3 different ways of enhancing science, not just the Library. Otherwise everything will be the same, everywhere.

    We've got the different policy branches, the Library, and some pantheons in early game. Trade routes don't really give science until later.

    Could we make city connections give science? How about making Towns and Villages provide 1 less gold and 1 science instead? Could we create a Monastery improvement (rename the Monastery building to Seminary or something) that can't be built next to other Monasteries and provides +1 science with +1 at Theology and +1 with Piety, but does NOT scale well into lategame? Just throwing out ideas.
     
  9. phantomaxl1207

    phantomaxl1207 King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    876
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indiana
    When I first saw that argument of removing Science per pop, I didn't understand why they wanted it, but now I do, because of the power of having more pop. It's also why Korea and Babylon don't seem as strong in this, you can just get more pop and get a lot of Science from having your pop.
     
  10. Wario Mario

    Wario Mario Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Wario Ware INC
    So every citizen in the game was automatically giving one science? Wow. I must agree with removing it. Large cities aren't automatically more scientific (and this is coming from someone who favors tall so much that they played tall in civ3 :lol:) - it really depends on what you use your citizens for. The only thing you can assure that a large city has is food (it had to get big somehow).

    I also don't like the idea that my size 30 city will have +30 science from being size 30 - I should at least need buildings to get that effect. It also causes science inflation, making each science yield such as academies worth a lot less (gold suffers from this issue too, actually). +10 from my academy? What's the point when the city gets +30 simply for existing? Not to mention that a great scientist is supposed to weigh the short term bulb value against the long term academy over time - but +10 science will never outweigh the bulb value with the science inflation going on here.

    So yes, I favor removing the science from citizens, and I also favor *much* cheaper techs. While I agree that the yields don't need to be 1:1, they should be somewhat comparable, so the player (and AI!) can make a quick decision "What do I want - +3 Science or +3 Culture?".

    Also, thanks for the advice. I was missing "EventTourism".
     
  11. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,211
    The academy isn't the only concern. Population being too important is also something that is addressed by such a change, and I believe is the main thing Gazebo and others find enticing about removing +1 science per population.
     
  12. Funak

    Funak Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    9,127
    I feel like I need to voice the needed other side of the argument here. First of all, this feels extremely drastic. It's not going to lower the value of food at all, getting production is still going to be just as important, the only difference is that you're pretty much forced to rush libraries->universities->public school in every game (a strategy that is already extremely viable). You're also going to be even more reliant on specialists, making that food and the growth as important as ever.
    So in essence you're not changing anything other than making the sciencebuildings (which are already strong) and the science on tiles stronger.

    This is going to be a total hell to balance, with everything from specific buildings getting too important to Korea's UA to Babylon to Maya. Wonders, improvements, rationalism, tenets beliefs, this is a HUGE project all to make Academies feel more viable?
    Do you want to know a secret? Academies have never been and will never be balanced, in vanilla they were completely overpowered for 3-4 city empires, stacking up with all the science-bonuses, and pretty much negligible in large empires for the exact same reason they are negligible in CPP. Only difference here being that building large empires in Vanilla was just not viable.

    You could emulate the power of the vanilla Academy simply by having it double its science gain every era if that's what you want, but I really don't think that's the solution to go for. In fact this is pretty much the exact same argument that was had about the customhouses before they were reworked into their current state. The better solution here would just be to figure out some kind of meaningful boost that could be given to the Academy instead, which makes it viable for the first 4 eras before bulbing outscales it.

    For my closing argument I would like to quote a certain Mr G, and say:
    "Don't reinvent the wheel"



    I'd just like to point out again that removing the scaling science from population would not change anything about population being important. Bigger cities are always better, even in Vanilla, if you could instantly get 60 pop cities (and not get crushed by unhappiness) you would do it every time, the ability to work more tiles and more specialists just makes it better.
     
  13. Dallandra

    Dallandra Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    96
    Population will always be the most important part. You can't produce anything if you don't have the people to work the tiles or specialst slots. Changing something that otherwise works just fine goes past the actual issue that is there, which is that half of a single great person is useless, while the other half is always way too good.
     
  14. Wodhann

    Wodhann South American Norse God

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,507
    I'm not gonna comment on the whole science thing because I feel we're going off on a bit of a tangent.

    Tomice said something that everybody here sort of ignored but I feel we should really consider - re-introducing Health to the game. Why? Because it's the easiest way to reinstate a population speedbump in the game that's comparable with the old happiness system. It's a hand-tailored game value that we can tweak specifically to make players more careful about how fast they grow their cities.
     
  15. Funak

    Funak Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    9,127
    I thought this idea had already been shut down. Personally I don't have a problem with it, it was my solution when the happiness-split happened in the first place, negative health that slows down growth, Academies would raise health, everything would be dandy.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think adding plagues would be a good idea, but health as a concept would.
     
  16. Wodhann

    Wodhann South American Norse God

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,507
    I assume gazebo just said "no, too much AI training" like many times before, which is fair. But I feel it's an idea that needs to be considered.

    And while I'm not an expert in AI coding, I don't suppose it's too big of a deal. I don't think AI focuses on food as much as humans do and I would imagine it's not that hard to say "hey AI, you gotta watch your health man" through code. Buuut, what do I know...
     
  17. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,211
    Of course population would still be important, and you would always want a higher population (assuming your happiness stays reasonable). The idea is to make population a little less omnipotent such that deciding between more food vs. more of some other yield becomes more of a choice rather than food always winning.

    In your example, the question shouldn't be "do you want a city with a population of 60?" because of course you want 60. The question should be "do you want a population of 60, or would you take a population of, say, 58 but you're X number of technologies further along"? If you de-couple population and science yield a little bit then you've created more room for choice.

    Again, population would probably still be most important, but maybe not quite so overpowered as many believe it to be right now.

    Also, some of the objections to +1 pop = +1 science are that it just doesn't make sense. Why would having a large population automatically lead to better technology? That doesn't seem to be the case in the real world. Not that Civ has to always perfectly reflect the real world, but it often tries to when possible.
     
  18. Gokudo01

    Gokudo01 Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,043
    Location:
    Toulouse(France)
    Maybe because more population = more chance to have a genius ? you have one 200 IQ every 10 millions people.
    Moreover you can increase the science potential by increasing your education but humankind survive not because they were fast, strong or tough ...
    because they were smart.
     
  19. grmagne

    grmagne Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    Toronto
    I like the idea of towns & villages generating +1 science. It gives the small cities with limited population potential a niche way to become science centers. And maybe each village adjacent to an academy gains an additional +2 science for synergy?

    That would mean small island cities can only become highly scientific if they have lots of infrastructure and trade routes, which seems reasonable.
     
  20. Dallandra

    Dallandra Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    96
    A larger population means that there's a higher chance that someone will have just the right idea at the right time. By that I don't mean someone incredibly intelligent. Especially during the ancient and classical era, this makes a lot of sense. There might just be that one farmer who figured out a better way of handling his plants or a more efficient way of plowing his fields. Hell, if we go beyond that and look back at prehistoric times, whoever first had the idea to tie a pointy rock to a stick so he has more reach with it was hardly a scientist, yet he had a great impact on his society back then through an important advancement.

    So I think it very much so makes sense that population directly increases science. The only change that would make any sense is if that science got reduced throughout the ages. That's the only thing I can think of that would make sense in this context. Society becomes more and more advanced, the issues more and more complex. Not every random farmer might have an idea as to how to improve his windmill. Not every factory worker knows how this machine works on the inside, so he can check for improvements. Not everyone working with a PC knows how it operates.

    So really, while I think that science from population definitely should stay, it should become less relevant as you move through the eras. We're specializing in this day and age because it is necessary to get anything done. We have experts working on grand problems because you need to be an expert these days to be able to have a chance at solving them. So shifting science slowly from a generic yield to a specialist/improvement-based yield makes much more sense than having it be that way from the very beginning.
     

Share This Page