Beta Sioux Discussion

[zoom]

Please discuss anything relating specifically to the Sioux, in this thread. The following are the current changes to the civilization:

– Teepee gather-rate aura increased from 3% to 5%; no longer stacks; range decreased from 24 to 18
– Teepee hitpoints aura increased from 7% to 10% [revert]
– "Aggressive Expansion" shipment increased from +2% to +5% Teepee gather-rate aura; now also increases all Teepee auras' range from 18 to 24
– War Club hand attack increased from 10 to 12
– Rifle Rider cost reduced from 120f, 100c to 120f, 90c (bounties adjusted accordingly)

The following changes are currently being considered:

– Axe Rider light cavalry multiplier increased from 0.75 to 1
– May now build walls in Industrial Age
– “5 Villagers” shipment decreased to 4 [revert]

[Mitoe]

I'd rather just do away with the teepee eco aura, but I guess we can try this first and see what happens.

[Hazza54321]

Fuck eco teepees
Altogether lol

[Goodspeed]

I think this is a good try to get Sioux on the right track.

– May now build walls in Industrial Age

I wouldn't consider this one though. If we need Sioux to be better able to defend their base from IV and on, then we should find other, non-standardizing ways to do this like giving them a tech that allows vills to garisson into teepees or greatly buffs vills' stats when near teepees.

[Hazza54321]

Garrison in teepees? Sure lets make sioux unraidable

[Goodspeed]

Yeah idk why you would want that, but that seems to be the goal of the wall change that's apparently being considered? I'm just giving non-standardizing alternatives.

[deleted_user]

I think these changes are reasonable overall, hopefully sioux won't be a civ anymore where you would camp until 16min for bigbutton push.

[Goodspeed]

Seems likely that will remain the case as long as the BB isn't nerfed

[[Armag] diarouga]

It seems okay overall.

I wouldn't revert that however :

– Teepee hitpoints aura increased from 7% to 10% [revert]

[n0el]

Yeah idk why you would want that, but that seems to be the goal of the wall change that's apparently being considered? I'm just giving non-standardizing alternatives.

In age 3/4 maybe, as part of a card. That way its a clear late-game alternative to walls, and doesn't affect the regular play and raiding in the early/mid game. still seems not great.

[Garja]

Remove. The. Ability. To. Build. Teepees. With. Infantry. By. Default. Already.

[Mitoe]

That's not even an issue right now

[deleted_user0]

Meh, reducing the aura sux for the hp function. Cant the hp and eco function have different aura ranges? Id rather have no eco function and big hp aura than this lol

[zoom]

Fuck eco teepees
Altogether lol

Opinion noted. Please take solace in that fact that this is fucking them, to 75%.

[zoom]

Yeah idk why you would want that, but that seems to be the goal of the wall change that's apparently being considered? I'm just giving non-standardizing alternatives.

It's only an idea I would like additional feedback on.

Being unable to build walls for the entire game is not necessarily more dinstinctive than being unable to build them, until the end of an exceptionally long game. However, it might be problematic to late-game balance.

The fact that you consider adding walls in the Industrial Age relevant standardizing, seems testament to the extreme of your principles (it's an even better example than 140w Manors being standardizing). That's not to say it's technically wrong, though!

[zoom]

Yeah idk why you would want that, but that seems to be the goal of the wall change that's apparently being considered? I'm just giving non-standardizing alternatives.

Did you miss the part that says "Industrial Age", or did you just pretend like it? Obviously, the goal is not to make Sioux impervious to raiding.

[zoom]

Seems likely that will remain the case as long as the BB isn't nerfed

Agreed. Unfortunately, there remains more severe and urgent problems. Incremental progress over immediate mess – that's the motto of this patch!

[zoom]

Remove. The. Ability. To. Build. Teepees. With. Infantry. By. Default. Already.

As soon as I see a convincing argument for it, I shall consider it! I've noted you dislike the change, though.

[zoom]

Meh, reducing the aura sux for the hp function. Cant the hp and eco function have different aura ranges? Id rather have no eco function and big hp aura than this lol

I don't understand. The hitpoints aura remains buffed (50%, by radius, over 110%, by area).

[[Armag] diarouga]

Remove. The. Ability. To. Build. Teepees. With. Infantry. By. Default. Already.

As soon as I see a convincing argument for it, I shall consider it! I've noted you dislike the change, though.

As GS said, we don't need a reason to revert a change. You're the one who should come up with convincing arguments to keep it.
We should just revert all the unecessary changes, and this one definitely isn't necessary.

[Garja]

Remove. The. Ability. To. Build. Teepees. With. Infantry. By. Default. Already.

As soon as I see a convincing argument for it, I shall consider it! I've noted you dislike the change, though.

Ye sure, no convincing arguments except you had no right to change it in the first place and that it doesn't improve balance (in fact it probably works against it).
But then again it doesn't seem you need many convincing arguments to go ahead with w/e nonsense change you like.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yea, it feels like you go for a lot of arbitrary changes (spanish gold, teepee changes, the chinese changes, rusket buff etc) without consulting anyone and you don't want to revert them even when the majority of the community is against it.

"We don't need a reason to revert a change if it doesn't make the game more balanced or better" should be an EP rule.

[Cometk]

“We don’t need a reason to revert a change” is the worst philosophy ever

"We don't need a reason to revert a change if it doesn't make the game more balanced or better" should be an EP rule.

that is literally two reasons to revert a change

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yea so we don't need a reason to revert a change, we need a reason not to revert that change.

If the change is good there is a reason not to revert it, if there is no reason to keep it however, revert it.

[deleted_user0]

Meh, reducing the aura sux for the hp function. Cant the hp and eco function have different aura ranges? Id rather have no eco function and big hp aura than this lol

I don't understand. The hitpoints aura remains buffed (50%, by radius, over 110%, by area).

Ah ok, thought eco and hp aura were the same. N