This is intended to be a discussion of faction customization costs and how to improve on the current system. Before I begin, I would like to point out that the 0 point "picks" are something I really enjoy. Things that change the game flavor, but not in an imbalanced way (except for Heroic which is an oversight, I'm sure). Also, the upgraded Archers, Axes, etc lines are also thematically interesting to me, although I haven't gotten very far into a balance analysis of combat weaponry (and upgraded weaponry perks) yet.
The cost/benefit ratio of the various Faction Customization abilities is not very well equalized currently. This is largely due to the small amount of granularity you have because of the design choice to give 3 points and make most things 0, 1, or 2 points. What I recommend is increasing Faction Customization picks by a significant margin and balance this by increasing Faction Customization picks costs. If you raised Picks to 30 from 3, and raised cost by a factor of 10 as well, there would be effectively NO CHANGE. However, the advantage this provides us is this: We can now provide a smaller step change when assessing the cost/benefit ratio of a given ability. This is something that can be done with minimal effort in a small time commitment (F3 "cost" in CoreAbilities.xml, add a 0, F3, edit, edit, done). Once things have been raised by a factor of 10 or whatever you choose, it will allow the various faction customization options to be more finely adjusted to equalize the cost/benefit ratios. Before anyone goes down the "just mod it yourself" path, I have (mostly, except for split outs), and my intent is to help improve the BASE game via positive, constructive, concrete feedback.
My specific recommendations are:
ALL of the "you get 1 tier one technology" faction customization picks are pretty underwhelming compared to the % faction bonus abilities. There are more exciting ways to go about this. For example, a 1 point cost pick that unlocks worgs. The player still has to find and build a kennel, and/or save the gold to buy a champion a worg, but it's an interesting option compared to "I've skipped 6 turns of research". woo. hoo. Or a partial unlock bonus from a higher tier, such as "Firestaves" which unlocks the 6 attack power ranged weapons from the start for 2 points, etc. Again, they still need to get the crystal to make a unit wielding them, and/or save the gold to buy one from the Shop.
Defensive is 20% per city level in my modded version. It's just not compelling at 10%. I'm not even sure if it's compelling at 20%, but it makes Krax a tougher nut to crack.
Split out the Enchanters ability (see above for gear unlocks you buy), and just make the Scrying Pool it's own pick. Trust me, no one is picking it for the staves. In my higher granularity example, the Scrying Pool would be one of the more expensive picks.
Lower the % bonus for Lucky, and split this out from accuracy. This also reduces the plausibility of a major abuse path for dodge stacking.
By increasing the granularity, MANY of the multiple ability picks could be split up. Providing increased variety and customization options. Great examples of this are the Decalon, Death Worship, and Fleshbound Tome.
For example, instead of Having the Decalon cost 4 points in a 12 point system, it could be 4 different one point picks for the same relative cost as the current system, and also provide more customization.
MasterScouting should CLEARLY be costing more than 1 pick in the current system, it is very powerful from an early expansion AND strategic mobility point of view. It is powerful from the start of the game until the map is covered in roads and teleportation is trivial, i.e. late into the game. Personally, I would recommend splitting this into subcategory bonuses which are each picked separately.
To summarize, costs and/or faction customization benefits need to be better balanced. This can be done by increasing granularity (raising picks AND costs) and splitting up bundled options to make the cost/benefit ratio of the various faction customization picks better equalized and provide deeper customization and thematic choice for players. The cost ratio increase can be done in a few minutes (see F3 above), the splitting up of picks would be largely cut and paste. It's the getting a whiteboard/notebook/spreadsheet/forehead tattoo of what the final costs need to be that takes some time. And the work required to format the syntax for adding completely new ones.
You could up-ratio the current system, and split out the bundled faction customization picks in a free patch. Then, given a better (more granular) framework, create a deeper faction customization / sovereign customization to include in your next DLC for nonmodders. More added value for the customer at a minimum of developer time investment. Win, win. Think about it.
Great ideas. Splitting out abilities into more traits and removing or improving the worthless ones is a good idea.
IMO, Master scout needs to be plain removed as does Stealth.
Will I still be able to end up with a Lucky, master scout, enchanter with binding? If so, go for it. If not, meh. If other options are sub par, they should be buffed rather than nerfing everything else.
Other than being reactionist with all these recent nerf posts, I actually agree. More granularity = more flexibility = more replayability = good.
With that said, there is something to be said for a base level of simplicity and clarity. I would be concerned that with 60 choices it may be a bit more difficult for your entry level player.
I think it would be valid to go for a % cost as well - i.e. 1 pt for 10% dodge, 2 pt for 20% dodge, 3pt for 25% dodge or something similar. They did do that with GalCiv2 and it was pretty powerful.
I could also see some level of future customization where certain traits were only available to certain blood types. Why is enchanter available to Gildern with their innate magic resistance. etc. I don't really like it but I could see it logically making sense.
Booo. Funkiller!
Of course, when you split out A from B in a case where "everyone wants A and no one wants B" you are not really adding any diversity
I have to respectfully disagree...
Splitting out traits is just another way of saying, I don't want the useless parts, let me stack all the more OP abilities more efficiently. No really, why would you ever waste points on picking staves if you already got the scrying pool? The points that you then saved, can go towards another OP ability instead.
What you end up is custom factions stacking a bunch of useful things, and a bunch of useless stuff that no one ever uses. That's not the right way of balancing things. There should be a reason to pick every option.
Oh, and... defensive isn't compelling at JUST 10% per level... ahahahah. Putting aside the 1handed spears (!!!!!!!!)... Just a typical little town (lv2) gives 20% def and accuracy. That is very powerful. Hint: Try stacking it with an Armorer Sovereign. If you use some real units to defend instead of relying on militias, your cities are virtually invincible. And then there's the 1handed spears...
Civics and Wealthy is actually a pretty harsh combo, since you can rush from day 1. And if you you don't have access to inspiration (or don't have a starting position with essence), it will take a lot more than 6 turns to get Civics...
@Rhaegor, if MasterScout was split into 5 different traits and picking the entire thing bankrupted your entire trait pool then it might be alright. You would have incredible early game mobility, but at the opportunity cost of heavy armor, high hp, and dodge/accuracy late game. The problem with MasterScout really is relative cost to benefit ratio. It's just plainly too good for a single pick. I modded it to 3 picks in my personal mod.
As for Stealth... I agree in it's current form. Easily modded down to -30% aggression (instead of -100%) in a single spot edit, making your units LESS likely to be attacked, but not immune. Again a balance of cost to benefit, I believe. The current implementation is begging for abuse.
@Kalin, I think you only took away part of my message. Yes, in my opinion, diversity and granularity are good, but the entire POINT of the post is that each customization should be balanced to have a similar cost to benefit ratio.
So in the case of your example, the staves part could be buffed (see OP about firestaves from turn 1) and also cost fewer points than the scrying pool. Thus making it a viable choice when compared to the scrying pool, which I also believe I mentioned SHOULD cost much more on a relative scale to balance out its power (see OP). The goal isn't to remove the chaff, but turn the chaff back into wheat (see OP).
With respect to Defensive... I try to consolidate my borders asap, and thus my cities don't endure attacks all that often. I did mention it will help Krax become a tougher nut to crack, but for my own cities and play style... I'd rather take something that helps me with the overwhelming majority of my combat (proactive pick) over a reactive customization pick that hopefully doesn't come into play very often. A personal preference about what constitutes a compelling choice. Any buff to the trait would only serve to enhance your differing play style.
I do appreciate your respectful discussion on the topic, even if you disagree. It's ok for us to disagree about the best approach to making the game better! The discussion itself is a useful tool to move forward.
@Rince, I tried to stay away from wealthy, lucky, stealthy and masterscouting as starting choices before I modded them into the dirt, but I completely agree that civics and wealthy are still very powerful as a matched pair in the game as of 1.1. Civics becomes less compelling without wealthy though. My solution was to lower wealthy down to 350 gold (nerf) for 1 point in my modded files. Enough to buy about 3-4 pioneers, which is a powerful advantage, but not as crazy as when set to 800 gold. I do agree with other posters that it's not nerfing that is necessary, but balance. I'm happy to have each trait feel powerful in a unique way, and even provide the kind of synergy which you discussed.
Certainly there are an intrepid few who play with ironman rules, no cntl-N, impossible against 11 AIs... but I find that approach to be a real grind. I'd rather have the freedom to game the system less (abusing dodge stacking, etc) and enjoy the journey more. In my mind, strategic games play out like a good book, but I'm probably the only one who sees a story in the strategy of it all.
In a completely unrelated topic, I have not yet located the "number of picks you get" variable. If someone (Stardock folks, throw me a bone here?) could give me the name of that variable and the file in which it is located, I would be happy to email Brad/Derek my suggested balance feedback and the xml files containing it, along with a detailed changelog from FE 1.1.
Without a complete list of game variable definitions though, creating completely new traits would remain difficult. IS there a documentation file containing global variable definition remarks already included in the game? MOST of the variables are very intuitive, but I'll give you an example where such a list would be useful:
Stealthy (faction customization) applies a -100 aggression to the entire faction's units globally. Stealth (trained unit trait) is SUPPOSED to do that, but does nothing (only the description text exists in this trait). One could easily cut and paste the xml from Stealthy into Stealth and change the variable name to ... whatever the variable name is for specific unit aggression modifier. If one had any clue what that was. Which one doesn't.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
