I'd agree with Ceil, simply adding the Aqueducts and Observatories, and even Stables, isn't a big paradigm shift, but when we start swapping. That being said...
(March 24th, 2013, 16:56)Krill Wrote: OK then, challenge for you guys. Rate the following three traits in absolute value (not just a ranking but assign values).
EXP: +35% production of workers and work boats, +100% production of Grocer, Aqueducts Harbour, and Monuments.
ORG: -50% civic upkeep, +100% production of Lighthouse, Factory and Library.
AGG: Free C1 promotion on melee and gunpowder units, +100% production of Barracks, Drydock, Stables and Courthouse
(March 24th, 2013, 16:56)Krill Wrote: OK then, challenge for you guys. Rate the following three traits in absolute value (not just a ranking but assign values).
EXP: +35% production of workers and work boats, +100% production of Grocer, Aqueducts Harbour, and Monuments.
ORG: -50% civic upkeep, +100% production of Lighthouse, Factory and Library.
AGG: Free C1 promotion on melee and gunpowder units, +100% production of Barracks, Drydock, Stables and Courthouse
Been following this discussion for a while and I have a question which keeps coming up in my head.
At what point does 'rebalancing' move towards a more 'redesign' stage? It seems like all the traits are being modified to 'equalise' them - I think its moved from addressing the few remaining major inequalities left in the game post the last patch to trying to make everything balanced for the sake of balance.
"You want to take my city of Troll%ng? Go ahead and try."
(March 24th, 2013, 19:19)Bigger Wrote: I don't like half-price monuments on exp.. it essentially makes EXP and AGG mini-CRE's, which just further nerfs CRE
Honestly, agreed. Still have to think about where I'd rate those traits, to answer Krill's question. No time to do complex math.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
First of all TT, I gotta be honest and say I don't truly understand what you are trying to say about the idea of "trying to make everything balanced for the sake of balance". The aim of the mod has always been to improve the strategic choices available, and with traits specifically that has meant making each and every trait viable, interesting, but with the same flavour as was originally intended by the design team. Players have mentioned since before PB5 started that some traits were still weak even if there were better balanced than in base BtS, even if people argue over to what extent remaining imbalances still exist: Seven has already valued AGG as less than a third as valuable as ORG, for instance.
Now, the difference between redesign and rebalance is how the traits would be altered to improve the trait balance. Each trait was originally designed with a particular concept in mind (PHI, Great People, FIN, Commerce). If we were to change that concept, say, by changing EXP to also give 2gpt because it were a bit weak, that would be redesign, but if it were given a bonus that aided expansion that would be a rebalance. Obviously this is a very blunt overview, but I think it is correct in essentials. Earlier in this thread I explained why giving PRO cheap granaries was not a redesign of the trait, because PRO is intended to promote turtling, and vertical growth is inherent in that strategy. AGG OTOH is supposed to promote horizontal growth, through another civ via warfare, and cheap courthouses fits in with that concept. It makes new additions more affordable, and I've always held that warfare starts with conflict over unsettled land, so courthouses fit in thematically with grabbing that land and making it profitable more easily.
This could be compared with giving AGG cheap libraries, which obviously doesn't fit the AGG theme, and according to some people ORG could do with a minor nerf. Cheap libs would take hammers away barracks and units and instead focus on researching rather than beating the crap out of someone else (at least until they had a tech lead like every other trait). The simplest way to do that it to remove a cheap building from ORG, but out of the four the courthouse would normally be the last one considered but it's the one that could be given to AGG and still work out.
As to cheap monuments nerfing CRE: CRE pops borders faster than anything else and still needs no investment to do so. The sheer utility is significantly greater than saving 15 hammers on a monument, 30 hammers on a barracks. That said, I agree with the overall gist that it makes CRE less special, but I think that would be less important than improving the balance.
i would rather see CRE get cheap monuments. yeah, its a bit redundant and CRE rarely needs them - but it would fit with the "overhwelming border cities with culture" aspect of CRE - i.e. agg settles, perhaps make culture conquering more possible.
I don't like giving 2x monuments to any other civic.
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
Look, the point isn't to think "oh, monuments aren't boosted by a trait, so we have to find a trait to boost them". That's completely misunderstanding the concept trait balancing. The issue is EXP can be considered weak so could benefit from a boost so any ideas should focus on EXP, and not some other trait that irrelevant to that discussion. And why would CRE ever meaningfully benefit from that change? That change would only make Egypt and NA more palatable for CRE leaders to take, which is unnecessary.
Look, the point isn't to think "oh, monuments aren't boosted by a trait, so we have to find a trait to boost them". That's completely misunderstanding the concept trait balancing. The issue is EXP can be considered weak so could benefit from a boost so any ideas should focus on EXP, and not some other trait that irrelevant to that discussion. And why would CRE ever meaningfully benefit from that change? That change would only make Egypt and NA more palatable for CRE leaders to take, which is unnecessary.
Yeah, going to agree with Krill here.
Merovech's Mapmaking Guidelines:
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
![[Image: OpoQQ.jpg]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/112/480/OpoQQ.jpg)