[Vote] (6-62) Remove Dependence on Monument for Border Growth Rate

[Stalker0]

Otherwise you might as well have Settlers cost 65 more production and start the city with a Monument

There is always something that has to be built first, and we have to remember that its not just the choice you make, the time you build that building impacts the power of new cities.

Take your note above for example. It might seem equivalent at first, but its not even close. The version above would allow a well established city to spend just a little extra and give a new city a massive boost to its start. The early hammers spent on a building for a new city is a big deal, its what moves the new little colony from an absolute waste of space into something starting to hold its own weight.

 

[Rekk]

Also, I think this change will cause the Capital to grow its borders much faster, without really moving the needle on whether to build shrine first.

 

[pineappledan]

What it boils down to for me is that this is just a new paradigm, after we just finished making a huge restructuring of border growth that had a lot of kinks in it that we are still ironing.

This has no legitimate balance reason supporting why monuments shouldn’t have % border growth on them; it’s just you don’t think monuments should have it. And then you have to make small adjustments to every other component related to this mechanic, trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again after you push him off the wall.

TL;DR - I think this is make-work that is creating problems for aesthetic reasons.

 

[ma_kuh]

To me this breaks down into whether the Monument should be "the culture building", or "the border growth building". You're right that I think Monument is overloaded by being both. I'm suggesting changing the border growth aspect because it doesn't affect the culture economy.

I consider this part of the ironing process. The changes seem straightforward to me.

 

[CppMaster]

This has no legitimate balance reason supporting why monuments shouldn’t have % border growth on them

There is. Monument is probably the most OP building in the entire game. That's why it's almost always no-brainer to build it first (except maybe shrine, because it's also very strong, but not that strong).

 

[Stalker0]

There is. Monument is probably the most OP building in the entire game. That's why it's almost always no-brainer to build it first (except maybe shrine, because it's also very strong, but not that strong).

My issue is...this would be like looking at Austria in the last version (before we made the big removal of votes) and go "ok...Austria is totally OP. So....-1% GPP removal on the coffee house, that should do the job".

You aren't fixing the problem, because border growth isn't the problem. I am not building monuments because of the 34% border growth, I build them because its 2 culture, which also happens to be 2 border growth. That's it flat out.

You are making it sound like this is a real nerf to the monument....its not. All it does is nerf border growth in the early phase of a city. It won't change any build orders.

 

[pineappledan]

There’s no point arguing a building available to everyone is OP. Buildings aren’t mutually exclusive and they aren’t balanced against each other.

 

[Rekk]

All it does is nerf border growth in the early phase of a city

It doesn't even do that because the proposal gives that border growth up front. Cities will get their first second additional tile *earlier* than now.

 

[CppMaster]

You aren't fixing the problem, because border growth isn't the problem. I am not building monuments because of the 34% border growth, I build them because its 2 culture, which also happens to be 2 border growth. That's it flat out.

You are making it sound like this is a real nerf to the monument....its not. All it does is nerf border growth in the early phase of a city. It won't change any build orders.

No, I don't sound like this at all. I haven't said that it's a strong or enough nerf. I just meant that it's a right direction and it's slightly less OP that way, but it still will be the most OP building without that, so what's the point of keeping it?

There’s no point arguing a building available to everyone is OP. Buildings aren’t mutually exclusive and they aren’t balanced against each other.

They are mutually exclusive in a sense that you can only build 1 building at the time. If a building is too OP then it's a no-brainer to build it first every time, so it's not really a strategic choice anymore. It's more like mundane clicking. The most interesting strategic choices are not the obvious ones, it's the ones where you weight pros and cons of them, like when choices have similar power (so neither is OP compared to the other, because then, what choice is that?).

 

[ma_kuh]

First tile is 20 bgps, the reduced scaling has nothing to do with that floor. This isn't giving +34% bgps from 0 buildings or anything like that. The second a third tiles would be about the same as if you had built monument first, but with the freedom to not have built monument first.

I will agree, we seem to have very different views of what this is supposed to accomplish. The intent is not to nerf Monument-first, the intent is to bring everything that isn't Monument-first up a little bit. It's intentionally a small change. That's what all the counter-acted changes are for: they could all be the same numbers and be buffs, but instead I'm keeping them in-line with adjustments.


All that said:
I did reflect a bit on this today, and in the Civ universe cultural growth is the same thing as border growth. So if anything was to be the border growth building, Monuments used to mark your territory isn't out of place. This isn't about "Monument OP", it's about being able to choose something that isn't Monument for your first building, if the situation calls for it. Right now the threshold for that situation sits too high, in my opinion. I think that border growth not turning on until you build the Monument is a problem. The fact that 25% of your expected border growth points just don't exist until the Monument is built. You all don't think so, and that's fine.

 

[Stalker0]

it still will be the most OP building without that, so what's the point of keeping it?

• It requires coding time, which is a limited resource.
• It changes the early game border growth paradigm, and for no real reason. We all seem to agree that this change will not really change the build order, so all we are doing is speeding up border growth for the capital. Do we really need/want to do that?

It just seems like change for change sake at this point.

 

[CppMaster]

• It requires coding time, which is a limited resource.
• It changes the early game border growth paradigm, and for no real reason. We all seem to agree that this change will not really change the build order, so all we are doing is speeding up border growth for the capital. Do we really need/want to do that?

It just seems like change for change sake at this point.

Then it at least remove some clutter. For the exact reason Recursive removed requirement for Slingers to have Agriculture researched in the last patch. Just to clean it up bit. It only required change a value in a database without changing the code. Isn't it also the case here?

 

[ma_kuh]

We aren't speeding up growth in the capital, that's just false. I repeat, the formula is FIRST TILE = 20 bgps. Period. The scaling, which I'm talking about modifying, doesn't kick in until the SECOND TILE.

The palace provides 1 culture/turn, so you claim that tile in 20 turns. The palace also provides 3 production plus whatever you settle on, 1-3 extra. Even in the worst case, at 4 production you build the monument in 17 turns.
So when does this matter? When you aren't rushing Monument! It's a buff to non-Monument play, as described. "But this won't change any build orders." Then it won't speed up capital growth.

Don't try to argue it will both change how you play the early game, and also that it won't change anything. It makes Shrine first stronger. It makes Smokehouse/Shrine/Council first in secondary cities more enticing. It resolves a discrepancy where, with just the Monument in a new city, you get only 2bgp/turn, even with the +34%, because of flooring. If you think that's unhealthy for the game, or not worth the time, then I encourage you to vote against this.

 

[adan_eslavo]

I think it is a good change. Basically we don't lose anything, but gain 2 starters that are closer to each other in terms of possible outcomes.

Sometimes I feel Monument is a must have. The modifier was added later on and I don't know why. Another possibily would be to buff Shrine somehow, but your proposal looks fine.

I also feel that chose between these two is a bit narrow, and that third party would be nice to see at the start.

@ma_kuh Can you add separate proposal about Sovereignty?

 

[rkkn]

I also feel that chose between these two is a bit narrow, and that third party would be nice to see at the start.

with ruins on, pathfinder is a viable opening build when you can know in advance that you will have plenty of land to explore. I open with pathfinder when playing Polynesia. I don't play pangea much, but it's probably viable there too.

 

[Stalker0]

We aren't speeding up growth in the capital, that's just false. I repeat, the formula is FIRST TILE = 20 bgps. Period. The scaling, which I'm talking about modifying, doesn't kick in until the SECOND TILE.

Fair enough, rereading your proposal you do mention that. Probably worth highlighting that a bit more than, but that does address that part of my concern.

So if I understand, these are the scenarios where this change would have impact:

• You build something other than the monument in capital before the first border growth kicks in (or you had the worst hammer start of all time and couldn't build the monument before 20 turns).
• A city has access to culture/border growth before the monument is built, once the first border growth happens (ie cultural Natural Wonder, Smokehouse, ancestor worship council, etc).
  • This also includes instant yields such as Progress building culture or Authority's Tribute. So this would have a notable impact to Authority play if you don't go monument first.
• Very slight buff to Ankor Wat/Ger in the later phases of the game.
• Sovereignty (Tradition) Border Growth is nerfed at all phases (I'm spitballing from your chart....maybe 5% look like?)

Is that a fair summary?

 

[azum4roll]

Also, I think this change will cause the Capital to grow its borders much faster, without really moving the needle on whether to build shrine first.

Monument is the first or second building in the Capital. First tile cost is still 20, and you're not getting the second one before you complete your Monument.

 

[Rekk]

Yes, it's been made clear.

 

[ma_kuh]

Fair enough, rereading your proposal you do mention that. Probably worth highlighting that a bit more than, but that does address that part of my concern.

So if I understand, these are the scenarios where this change would have impact:

• You build something other than the monument in capital before the first border growth kicks in (or you had the worst hammer start of all time and couldn't build the monument before 20 turns).
• A city has access to culture/border growth before the monument is built, once the first border growth happens (ie cultural Natural Wonder, Smokehouse, ancestor worship council, etc).
  • This also includes instant yields such as Progress building culture or Authority's Tribute. So this would have a notable impact to Authority play if you don't go monument first.
• Very slight buff to Ankor Wat/Ger in the later phases of the game.
• Sovereignty (Tradition) Border Growth is nerfed at all phases (I'm spitballing from your chart....maybe 5% look like?)

Is that a fair summary?

That is a fair summary to me. One addition, I remember a comment about applying % border growth increases to instant yields, but I can't find the post. If the % border growth increase is not currently applying to instant culture/bgps, then this would be about a +33% buff to those methods.

Sovereignty nerf: (remember, these are 0-indexed tiles, meaning Tile #0 is the fixed 20 cost one)
It starts fairly substantial (20% for tile #1, or 6 extra culture/bgps [3-6 turns]), but you probably don't pick it up that quickly, barring extreme circumstances. The ratio tapers off to ~7% by the time you have your second ring (Tile #11), and by Tile #30 it's around 6%.

Spoiler Table of Sovereignty costs :

 

[ma_kuh]

@ma_kuh Can you add separate proposal about Sovereignty?

I probably won't do this for this round of congress, sorry. From the anecdotal comments I've read, Tradition doesn't seem to be over performing at all (if anything it under performs), so I don't think it needs this nerf at this time.

As I've said I think the power of Sovereignty is massive for what it does, but that power doesn't seem to be translating to game wins on its own. I think the right move would be to give it something back in exchange, and I don't think I have the time to figure out what.

The thing to remember is that Sovereignty is making up for having maybe 40% the total number of cities a Progress/Authority. So yes, they get ring 3 in a reasonable amount of time (as opposed to Progress/Authority which struggle to break into that ring), but Progress and Authority are also just dropping an extra city among the tiles Tradition needs to grow into.