A new mod enters the ring - Introducing "Close to Home"

[scooter]

Crossposted! Here's a thought - would you consider also tracking the commerce bonus if vanilla FIN was still in place? That might provide a good baseline. I wish I had done that from the start.

[Charriu]

Crossposted! Here's a thought - would you consider also tracking the commerce bonus if vanilla FIN was still in place? That might provide a good baseline. I wish I had done that from the start.

That's a bit harder, but I see if that can be done. Also I do hope that you are all fine with me spying a little bit on your progress in-game. Know that I will only get access to the file after any game that I'm participating in.

[Charriu]

Oh, but this should be obvious. I will open up those data sheets to the public after each game.

[Zed-F]

I tend to think that more games are effectively decided before FIN really becomes dominant than people have historically appreciated, meaning the early game traits may have historically been undervalued in comparison to FIN by some parts of the community. But it's correct to say that it really is map-dependent. To me that's a good argument for distinguishing PRO vs. FIN by way of early economy power versus late economy power, by whatever mechanism.

I agree with the sentiment that probably we need more games/data and examination of multiple balance points /points of view to make an ideal decision - whether that means multiple balance passes to try different ideas out, or just more discussion before the next change.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Also, I'm done with RtR mod at this point, at least after I do a final update. There's no way to test the next level of changes without problems with map generation and relative player skill being solved and that's beyond me to fix.

I think working towards improving map scripts/terrain gen and overall quality of maps for pitbosses should be a vital goal. Getting enough novices to have separate novice games and vet games would also balance player skill. Although, there's the problem of mid-tier players like me, but that's pretty minor compared to whatever Krill was griping about in 46 regarding map gen and player balance. Going to a selected-start system like PB50 would be interesting, perhaps with very rough map shapes released in advance? There's a lot to think about in this direction....

[pindicator]

One thing to consider with the data you'll be getting is that which trait you have affects how you play the game. I might be tracking the extra commerce I get from PRO vs what I would get with a hypothetical FIN in my 52 game, but that is going to still be less than what I actually would get if I had picked FIN because I would likely emphasize coasts and lakes more to leverage the trait. Similarly my tech and building choices are going to be effected by trying to leverage the trade route bonus in PRO more.

It's probably going to give you better information to look at a civ that either is running both PRO and FIN, like scooter in 53. Or look at civs with neither trait and then compare a hypothetical PRO vs a hypothetical FIN in their situation.

This is all from a data standpoint. From an overall game trait balance standpoint, I would still put more stock into what stronger players think of the trait balance.

[The Black Sword]

Shouldn't Expansive's expansion ability be more than 2x better than a trait that has something to offer all game long? PRO in CTH seems to be operating around the level of vanilla FIN.

I'm just not sure the game-long benefit is big enough.

Interesting question: what would you prefer +75% yield on your first trade route per city, or +75% yield on all the rest of your routes?

Right now my contention is that the first trade route is more important (though I'm not as sure on this). If that's the case then over half the value of the trait is in that first trade route. 

If over half the value is in the first trade route then EXP's granary being twice as good, means EXP>PRO.

Btw, what's up with Aggressive? It seems really weak and looks like the biggest outlier trait to me.

[pindicator]

That first PRO trade route is pretty big. It's +4c at a time where you're total economy is around 12

[scooter]

Shouldn't Expansive's expansion ability be more than 2x better than a trait that has something to offer all game long? PRO in CTH seems to be operating around the level of vanilla FIN.

Interesting question: what would you prefer +75% yield on your first trade route per city, or +75% yield on all the rest of your routes?

Right now my contention is that the first trade route is more important (though I'm not as sure on this). If that's the case then over half the value of the trait is in that first trade route. 

If over half the value is in the first trade route then EXP's granary being twice as good, means EXP>PRO.

I like this way of looking at it. To answer your question: I think it depends on how long I expect the game to last and how many cities I expect to be able to get. Can I get to other buildings/wonders/techs that increase the trade routes? Also, I think there are cases where you are slightly undervaluing what that first route opens up. (Also, I think Protective's other bonuses are better than Expansive's other bonuses, though neither are huge deals.)


For example, I don't think it's too spoilery now to talk broadly about my pre-game tests for PB53. I had both Pacal and Wang Kon as options. I was initially leaning Pacal, but in my tests, Wang Kon was nearly as fast at expansion because he wasn't nearly as bottle-necked on worker techs thanks to trade routes. He was still slower than Expansive, but Pacal forced me to choose between Pottery and worker techs (or spending gold on techs which seemed bad) for a long time, which seriously cut into the allure of Expansive unless it was paired with Protective, which wasn't an option for me. Retry your start with Exp + something else, and I'd be curious to know if you see similar issues. Wang Kon was still definitely slower in raw expansion, but no chance was the granary worth 2x as much for me because the gold got me to key growth spikes faster. Advanced Start is a weird thing that isn't directly comparable to Ancient, so you may be right in a more traditional game.

[Charriu]

One thing to consider with the data you'll be getting is that which trait you have affects how you play the game.  I might be tracking the extra commerce I get from PRO vs what I would get with a hypothetical FIN in my 52 game, but that is going to still be less than what I actually would get if I had picked FIN because I would likely emphasize coasts and lakes more to leverage the trait.  Similarly my tech and building choices are going to be effected by trying to leverage the trade route bonus in PRO more.

It's probably going to give you better information to look at a civ that either is running both PRO and FIN, like scooter in 53.  Or look at civs with neither trait and then compare a hypothetical PRO vs a hypothetical FIN in their situation.

This is all from a data standpoint.  From an overall game trait balance standpoint, I would still put more stock into what stronger players think of the trait balance.

I definitely have this in the back of my mind for the data analysis.

Btw, what's up with Aggressive? It seems really weak and looks like the biggest outlier trait to me.

It's on my list of things that need a change. I want to give it a smaller economic bonus that also fits to the trait, but so far I didn't come up with anything that I found satisfying.

That first PRO trade route is pretty big.  It's +4c at a time where you're total economy is around 12

But that first PRO trade route only generates 2 more commerce compared to a standard trade route.