zoom wrote:It isn't that you missed anything. It's that you reply disregarding facts put forward. Arguing with you is impossible, because you are completly incapable of seeing any other perspective than your own absolutist one. I never asked or expected you to be positive.
Again, a last attempt to at least communicate a couple of things: It's hard not to disappoint you without removing the gather-rate aura, when that's the only thing you aren't disappointed by. Please keep in mind this is just an iteration we're looking to test.
Criticism is fine. In fact, I like it. I think you are overdoing it, though, to the point of disregarding my points, and clinging on to false assumptions – for example, this being a waste of time. This is an early opportunity taken to test a potential solution to a particular issue. If it weren't taken, no other changes would have been made in its place, at this time, regardless. As such, it is the exact opposite of wasting time, so please stop it. It is as disrespectful to us both as it is frustrating to me. Other than that, I certainly appreciate your opinion.
It's not like I don't see your perspective, I just consider it wrong. So in that sense I completely agree that it's impossible to argue with me, simply because there is nothing to argue.
You asked me to be construnctive. My contribution to this has been a list of changes that is strictly better in every possible way to any combination you proposed and that involved additional teepee stuff. Not just from a balance pov (not hard task since that's just about tweaking variables) but also from design perspective (because every change I proposed was in line with Sioux design and pre-existing tools).
I do think that not reverting the eco gather thing in a way or another is just wrong so that inevitably disappoints me. I would have been less disappointed, though, if any step back was taken. For example, removing eco boost from default, aggressive policy by default, etc.
Instead, as if the mess wasn't enough, you added more changes than just create further problems. The only thing reverted is the wakina speed, which in this context and without any compensation is another mistake.
What do you want me to test? I can tell you exactly how thing will evolve from here.
Sioux will be basically the same as last iteration, except for 4 tipis instead of 6 and wakina being RE wakinas. Aggressive civs can again rush them with moderate success. Other civs really can't. Their fortress will be significantly weakened to the point of losing to most of civs (certainly Dutch and other good semi civs). There is the possibility of having a broken lategame with 20 tipis to place around farms and plantations (not OP just very unusual good late game for how Sioux one should be).
In all of this, the design of the civ will be significantly different from what it was conceived originally, even though mustang+wakina changes will undirectly push for more cav oriented play.
This change implementation is obvisouly a waste of time. It's another official patch iteration (not a beta one) being unsuccessful with regard to Sioux and by a large margin. I find it hard to estimate if this iteration is better or worse than the previous one for Sioux. And previous one was terrible.
I really don't understand what point of yours I'm disregarding. This is a waste of time because the correct action right now should be to revert everything back to 2 iterations ago and then start again thinking of potential buffs. The teepee campaign was just a fail, I don't understand what are you trying to save from it. The idea behind it has always been questionable and the practical implications created more imbalances than before.