City Development

The latest patch nerfed Seaport too hard. Are there any plans to make them useful again ?
 
The Seaport didn't receive the large cost increase from the patch?
 
I found the list. So... they took the seaport (already weak), halved its effect and increased the cost 40%. Maybe they intended to reduce the cost 40%?... :crazyeye:
 
Seek said:
Someone did post a list on a thread in the general discussions forum (titled "XML changes" or similar). I'll see if I can find it. The seaport went up by about a third iirc.

EDIT: Found it http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=428763. Seaport went from 180->250.
Click to expand...

I dislike really most of the cost increases here.
Monastary, forge, garden, museum, military academy, public school, Brandenburg gate didn't need cost increases.

Some of the cost decreases also look too much, particularly Porcelain tower, great library.

I really dislike the idea of making the factory cheaper but weaker. In our design where we make strategic resources more meaningful, I would really prefer to have buildings like the factory to be powerful.
 
Ahriman said:
I dislike really most of the cost increases here.
Monastary, forge, garden, museum, military academy, public school, Brandenburg gate didn't need cost increases.

Some of the cost decreases also look too much, particularly Porcelain tower, great library.

I really dislike the idea of making the factory cheaper but weaker. In our design where we make strategic resources more meaningful, I would really prefer to have buildings like the factory to be powerful.
Click to expand...

I commented on this indirectly in the 7.7 Thoughts thread. I think the point of these reductions and the Wonder buffs you mentioned - are part of a conceptual rebalancing of the game. It makes equal sense to me that someone would like or dislike these changes in general. I happen to think they've greatly improved the game.
 
The changes actually result in a simple fact: each "column" of techs, buildings or wonders now costs the same in vanilla (with few exceptions). Some do need buffs and nerfs from this baseline and I'm working on that for v8.2.
 
The changes actually result in a simple fact: each "column" of techs, buildings or wonders now costs the same in vanilla (with few exceptions).
Click to expand...
But I can think of no particular reason why this should be true, or why this is good design.
It seems to me that the appropriate design mechanism is to decide on what the effects of each building should be, and then balance the hammer costs accordingly.
As it is, making every building cost the same feels totally arbitrary when their effects clearly aren't (and shouldn't; some techs should be more useful than others, some techs give multiple effects or allow units so their buildings should be weaker, etc.).

Costs are much more continuous than effects; I can make a building cost 65 or 70 or 75 production, but I can only make it give 1, 2, or 3 food.

I would strongly vote that we reject the design approach of doing costs first and then balancing effects.
 
Thalassicus said:
The changes actually result in a simple fact: each "column" of techs, buildings or wonders now costs the same in vanilla (with few exceptions). Some do need buffs and nerfs from this baseline and I'm working on that for v8.2.
Click to expand...

Since we're not speaking about anything specifically yet, my own view is that any balancing maintain the feel that the new patch has created, so that TBC continues to enhance it, rather than reconceiving it.
 
@Ahriman
I do actually agree with you, just pointing out the pattern I saw. :)

I'm not sure they intend to keep it this way permanently. It's sort of like how I first did all unit maintenance as a fixed multiplier of their purchase cost... then went back and tweaked individual unit classes or types to adjust balance further.
 
Why was the factory boosted when late-game buildings are cheaper than pre-patch? Having played a few games post-patch, I did not feel that my late-game building was diminished.

I also wondered why the GL, CI, HG and PT were nerfed - just a sense that they're too much? What does the GL do now - give 3 beakers? CI also seemed okay to me, since GA's are shorter. Finally the HG was a lot of fun to play with, and required researching a sub-optimal tech to build.

The Colossus and Brandenburg boosts made more sense to me.
 
There seems to be a consensus forming on the strategy/general forums the GL opening strategy is rather overpowered. Porcelain Tower is also seriously overpowered in vanilla... RA bonus added and the cost nearly halved. I think these apply in TBC too since TBC is close to vanilla in this area.

Chichen Itza I've always felt is a bit too important, and Firaxis buffed it even more with the extra happiness. I think trading more happiness for less GA duration is a better move.

The new Hanging Gardens I strongly suspect is vulnerable to exploitation. Whenever there's such a huge value of a single stat, smart players can usually find a way to abuse it. I think trading -5:c5food: for +25%:c5greatperson: has less exploit potential since neither stat is extremely high.


These are the bonuses of the various early wonders:

Pyramids
80:c5production: net cost (Settler)
+1:c5culture:
+1:c5greatperson: Engineer creation
+25%:c5trade: improvement speed

Great Library
110:c5production: net cost (Library)
+5:c5science:
+1:c5culture:
+1:c5greatperson: Scientist creation

Great Lighthouse
110:c5production: net cost (Lighthouse)
+1:c5culture:
+1:c5greatperson: Merchant creation
+1:c5moves: and sight for ships
Free Great Merchant.

Hanging Gardens
130:c5production: net cost (Garden)
+5:c5food:
+1:c5culture:
+1:c5greatperson: Artist creation

Great Wall
175:c5production: net cost (Walls)
+3:c5culture:
+1:c5greatperson: Engineer creation
Slows enemies.

Colossus
185:c5production: net cost
+8:c5gold:
+1:c5gold: on water
+1:c5culture:
+1:c5greatperson: Merchant creation
 
Thalassicus said:
There seems to be a consensus forming on the strategy/general forums the GL opening strategy is rather overpowered. Porcelain Tower is also seriously overpowered in vanilla... RA bonus added and the cost nearly halved.

Chichen Itza I've always felt is a bit too important, and Firaxis buffed it even more with the extra happiness. I think trading more happiness for less GA duration is a better move.

Great Lighthouse
110:c5production: net cost (Lighthouse)
+1:c5culture:
+1:c5greatperson: Merchant creation
Free Great Merchant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I could see the first two - just wanted to conform your thinking.

CI doesn't strike me as OP when GA's are 10 turns. Nerfing it feels UP to me - I would never build it to pick up 2.5 more turns of GA once or maybe twice in the game.

The Lighthouse might be OP now - especially given how TBC buffs the GM. But we'll see.

***

I was also curious about the factory buff, in light of the vanilla lowering of late-era building costs.
 
Happiness golden ages have a base length of 15 turns. If we spend at least 40 turns throughout the game in a golden age, Chichen Itza provides one extra golden age for free. It also gives some happiness.

The Great Lighthouse has always been rather worthless (except on archipelago maps) so I want it to have some sort of big buff. A free merchant fits the theme. If it's too powerful now I can change it to something else.

If Factories are too strong I can reduce its fixed-production value. Increasing the percentage modifier is important for two reasons... 1) it affects tall-empire high-population cities more 2) coal is scarcer in TBC than vanilla (until/if we get Fascism).
 
This looks possible, let's test. I think powerful factories are important; this is the industrial revolution, it *should* lead to a major increase in production.
 
Hey Thal. How possible is it to make Stone into a Strategic Resource under the current modding abilities? Also, is it possible to have certain Buildings be sped up by access to resources (like Stone for the Pyramids or Marble for the Oracle), the way it was in Civ4?

Aussie.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
Hey Thal. How possible is it to make Stone into a Strategic Resource under the current modding abilities? Also, is it possible to have certain Buildings be sped up by access to resources (like Stone for the Pyramids or Marble for the Oracle), the way it was in Civ4?

Aussie.
Click to expand...
I support this idea. :)
 
I think the main purpose of stone is as a substitute for cows, for increasing local production in map placement. If we started giving it more benefits, then it might end up being too strong. I don't think it should be better than cows.

We already have a resource that speeds wonder production: Marble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bvanevery
SMACX AI Growth mod
Replies
5
Views
2K
Blake00
Blake00
usadefcon1
UI - Production Menu Cheatsheet
Replies
6
Views
442
ryanmusante
ryanmusante
The_J
  • Sticky
Old World update #121
Replies
3
Views
477
Solver
Solver
The_J
New indie game release: LakeSide
Replies
1
Views
188
Blake00
Blake00
Eyswein
  • Sticky
6otM180 AAR
Replies
7
Views
897
Monthar
Monthar
Top Bottom