Are there too many GAP sources in VP?

[pineappledan]

Seems complicated; converting GAPs into other yields during GAs does little to serve the issue at hand, other than muddle it further.

These are the potential action points I see:

• The base cost of GAs should go up (the first one especially is very cheap).
• We have a GA scaling cost per city parameter which is currently set at +1% per city. That should be raised to something like 4%
• We have GArtists giving enormous sums of GAPs. They get +20% per theme on empire when no other GP bulb scales that high anymore. It should be lowered to 10% to start
• We have oodles -- OODLES-- of sources of GAP per turn, to the point where players have started treating it as a regular yield. Like it's food, essentially. It muddles the perception of GAs as a mechanic, and of the game's economy to have so many different sources of what should be a rare and circumstantial yield. It should be removed from as many per-turn sources as we can get away with:
  • Remove and from all 'All Yields' abilities (pagodas, statecraft opener, etc.)
  • remove the to specialists on Mastery follower belief (maybe replace with something else)
  • Remove the Stupas follower belief. Yup. Just axe it.
  • remove the +2per city per policy on the Artistry scaler.
  • remove the +4 to universities on Heritage (Artistry)
  • remove the +3 to GWWriting on Humanism (Artistry)
  • remove the +3 to buildings on Creative Expression (Freedom)
  • Remove the +2per resource on GA-boosting monopolies

 

[statusquo]

These are the potential action points I see:

Removing all those yields and increase scaling seems to me, it will leave you with like 2-3 golden ages per game, right? Not counting other instant triggers like from World Wonder.

Will there be any sources beside excess Happiness and monopolies?
There should be be some from Enhance/Reformation if i recall correctly..
Did i miss something?

Seems complicated; converting GAPs into other yields during GAs does much to serve the issue at hand, other than to muddle it further.

With the changes you proposed, storing GAP during GA shouldnt be that much of an issue, even Impossible AI shouldn't have that much Great Artists

 

[pineappledan]

Removing all those yields and increase scaling seems to me, it will leave you with like 2-3 golden ages per game, right? Not counting other instant triggers like from World Wonder.

Will there be any sources beside excess Happiness and monopolies?
There should be be some from Enhance/Reformation if i recall correctly..
Did i miss something?

My list is not exhaustive. Thank you for reminding me about the GA monopolies. The GA length bonus for those should be increased from 25% to 30% and the GAPs on resource tiles should go away.

Excess happiness and instant yields, like for GP births etc. should become the main sources of GAPs. Maybe the instant sources would need to be increased, but doing that right away would get in the way of us guaging the effects of the changes.
I don't know what the effect would be re: the number of golden ages per game. I'm not suggesting that Korea or Aztecs or Persia lose their unique trait abilities that give them an extra source of GAPs. The thing about GAs, and many other mechanics in the game is that their costs grow exponentially. So, if you only want 1-2 fewer of that event throughout the game, you will have to remove a lot of that resource to do it, because all you've done by removing 1 GA is make every GA after that cheaper.

 

[statusquo]

instant yields, like for GP births etc. should become the main sources of GAPs. Maybe the instant sources would need to be increased

I have a little concerns about if like Tradition/Artistry wouldn't be too good vs for example Authority/Fealthy in terms of pumping GPs..
Imo core mechanics shouldn't punish too much those policy paths that don't focus on GPs..
But from the other hand GA is just 20% culture and production and more gold, so with new restrictions going "all in" into GAs shouldn't be a reliable strategy any way..

 

[ma_kuh]

I think we could start with just the first 3 suggested actions, and removing / from "All yields". I don't doubt there's some trimming to be had with policies and buildings, but I think changing too many things at once is liable to destabilize the mechanic for quite awhile before the right numbers are found.

 

[pineappledan]

yup! See if that makes much of a dent, or at least delays the first one.

I think that the ultimate goal should be to remove "perpetual golden ages" except for in a few rare occasions. Only increasing the cost of GAs will lower GAPs' value as a yield. We would be better off approaching the problem from both sides, increasing the cost and making GAPs more rare, or else we will have the 3rd problem of radically changing the value of GAPs, and all the components that depend on them

 

[AndreyK]

Seems complicated; converting GAPs into other yields during GAs does little to serve the issue at hand, other than muddle it further.

These are the potential action points I see:

• The base cost of GAs should go up (the first one especially is very cheap).
• We have a GA scaling cost per city parameter which is currently set at +1% per city. That should be raised to something like 4%
• We have GArtists giving enormous sums of GAPs. They get +20% per theme on empire when no other GP bulb scales that high anymore. It should be lowered to 10% to start
• We have oodles -- OODLES-- of sources of GAP per turn, to the point where players have started treating it as a regular yield. Like it's food, essentially. It muddles the perception of GAs as a mechanic, and of the game's economy to have so many different sources of what should be a rare and circumstantial yield. It should be removed from as many per-turn sources as we can get away with:
  • Remove and from all 'All Yields' abilities (pagodas, statecraft opener, etc.)
  • remove the to specialists on Mastery follower belief (maybe replace with something else)
  • Remove the Stupas follower belief. Yup. Just axe it.
  • remove the +2per city per policy on the Artistry scaler.
  • remove the +4 to universities on Heritage (Artistry)
  • remove the +3 to GWWriting on Humanism (Artistry)
  • remove the +3 to buildings on Creative Expression (Freedom)
  • Remove the +2per resource on GA-boosting monopolies

I think that for start we could begin with first 3 actions and then look at how we'd like it. If we raise base cost of GA then it seems like second takes forever.

 

[Jozrael]

I like the timing of the first GA.

My second GA feels far away after my first one finishes.

Lategame I feel like I am in a perma-GA with zero investment.

 

[statusquo]

I don't doubt there's some trimming to be had with policies and buildings, but I think changing too many things at once is liable to destabilize the mechanic for quite awhile before the right numbers are found.

Imo removing GAP as yield would be generally be step in the right direction.. Like now, if you have excess happiness, you could "capitalise" on that by just expanding.. But if you don't expand, game could reward you with golden age, it works
kinda like a weak self regulating mechanism.. Imo Golden age is nowhere near as good as 1-2 additional cities, but at least its something.. Generating flat GAP points, can give you golden age points even if you are below 50% in happiness, it basically bypass the "excess happiness" requirements. so you basically can ignore the "excess happiness mechanics", not to mention, currently number of flat GAP points gives you much bigger numbers, than you can achieve trough happiness..
Hmm.. just had an idea.. maybe instead totally kill flat GAP points, it would be better to just buff GAP points from excess happiness, like for example give 3-5 GAP from 1 excess happiness, with of course appropriate GA breakpoints scaling..
This way happiness would be still best way to get GA, but there would be still some "supplementary" strategies? This way GAP points would be slower but reliable way to get GA in wider empires, but smaller/tall would get more reliable GA trough happiness?

 

[pineappledan]

Hmm.. just had an idea.. maybe instead totally kill flat GAP points, it would be better to just buff GAP points from excess happiness, like for example give 3-5 GAP from 1 excess happiness, with of course appropriate GA breakpoints scaling..
This way happiness would be still best way to get GA, but there would be still some "supplementary" strategies? This way GAP points would be slower but reliable way to get GA in wider empires, but smaller/tall would get more reliable GA trough happiness?

I had this thought as well.

Currently, there is Divine Right policy in Fealty bonus that gives 25% of Happiness produced in a city as culture. Back when happiness was global, this bonus was 50% of excess Happiness on empire is converted to culture. We no longer have an ability that augments happiness in excess of unhappiness.

You could have an ability that gave an additional 1 or 2 GAP in a city for each Happiness generated in excess of the unhappiness in the city. That would re-center happiness as the core component for generating Golden Ages.

 

[statusquo]

You could have an ability that gave an additional 1 or 2 GAP in a city for each Happiness generated in excess of the unhappiness in the city. That would re-center happiness as the core component for generating Golden Ages.

Yea, that seems like a good idea, it solves many issues and first of all it seems very "non invasive"..
But i still think, that if you want give just 1-2 GAP, then values from buildings still should be trimmed down..
Happiness should be able to give you possibly highest numbers, otherwise still happiness remain "supplementary" source of GAP..
Basiclly GAP is like "Happiness for GA only", so its like "Culture for Border Growth".. so You can value it as 1:2, so basically 4 GA should be as hard to get as 2 Happiness..
So it seem, at the moment GAP points are just too easy to get..
Late game cities can gave bigger numbers of happiness and more abilities to remove unhappiness, but then again, each next GA cost more, so it should kinda stabilize..

I was just trying to remember, are currently negative happiness subtracts GAPs from the pool?
So if you don't have any excess in current city like let say 7 happiness, 8 unhappiness, you would get 0 or -2 GAP?
Just wonder, isnt like in Civ 6 the concept of "Dark Age", like the reverse concept of golden age ?

BTW, i would love to see in the city screen the values for Golden age points Just as additional Culture for border growth

EDIT: Hmm, maybe even 1 GAP should be as hard to get as 1 happiness in terms of acquiring. If one happiness would give you 2 GAP points, then it is still not reliable, since you need to maintain
positive happiness to get any GAP points, in other words, you only "could get 2 gap points".. And since flat GAP point is independent from happiness, the only value that comes to my mind is "1"..
So maybe instead remove all of those sources of Gap points from buildings maybe just leave them with 1? Ofc Artistry scaler still would be OP, so i don't know maybe, just give 1 on opener and
1-2 on finisher, but it would still be a lot?

 

[azum4roll]

Seems complicated; converting GAPs into other yields during GAs does little to serve the issue at hand, other than muddle it further.

These are the potential action points I see:

• The base cost of GAs should go up (the first one especially is very cheap).
• We have a GA scaling cost per city parameter which is currently set at +1% per city. That should be raised to something like 4%
• We have GArtists giving enormous sums of GAPs. They get +20% per theme on empire when no other GP bulb scales that high anymore. It should be lowered to 10% to start
• We have oodles -- OODLES-- of sources of GAP per turn, to the point where players have started treating it as a regular yield. Like it's food, essentially. It muddles the perception of GAs as a mechanic, and of the game's economy to have so many different sources of what should be a rare and circumstantial yield. It should be removed from as many per-turn sources as we can get away with:
  • Remove and from all 'All Yields' abilities (pagodas, statecraft opener, etc.)
  • remove the to specialists on Mastery follower belief (maybe replace with something else)
  • Remove the Stupas follower belief. Yup. Just axe it.
  • remove the +2per city per policy on the Artistry scaler.
  • remove the +4 to universities on Heritage (Artistry)
  • remove the +3 to GWWriting on Humanism (Artistry)
  • remove the +3 to buildings on Creative Expression (Freedom)
  • Remove the +2per resource on GA-boosting monopolies

Sounds like only the AI is allowed to have many golden ages now.

 

[pineappledan]

Sounds like only the AI is allowed to have many golden ages now.

Do we want anyone to have "many"?
It seems to me like the concept of golden ages depends on them being kind of special. If you spend more time in golden ages than you do out of them then the GA becomes the normal, and not being in GA is perceived as punishment

 

[pineappledan]

Actually, on the topic of AI and golden ages. I’m sure someone has written a full description of how the AI gets free GAPs for difficulty. Could someone link that or copy that info here?

I’m just thinking that AIs getting more GAPs as a handicap bonus is kind of deranged. Golden ages give a periodic bonus to on empire, but it also combines with various abilities, policies, beliefs, etc. It seems like those bonuses would affect different civs/policy branches etc less variably if the difficulties just gave % modifiers to AI directly, or reduced costs for AI. Those modifiers are more inert, and interact less with all the other mechanics than more, easier GA triggers. Augmenting the AI’s ability to enter GAs is indirect and filters the handicap bonus through multiple layers of mechanics that can obfuscate the bonus’ direct effect and make the way it affects different civs more variable.

I really can’t see how giving GAPs to AIs as a handicap bonus can be justified. Maybe seeing exactly where and how much are given can convince me otherwise though.

 

[AndreyK]

I still think that GA are not suppose to become permanent too easy and too early, which is a state we have now.
First GA comes too early and second 200-300 turns later. So, first needs to be dalayed, but not to affect the second, espesially as we going to nerf GApoints overall.

• We have a GA scaling cost per city parameter which is currently set at +1% per city. That should be raised to something like 4%
• We have GArtists giving enormous sums of GAPs. They get +20% per theme on empire when no other GP bulb scales that high anymore. It should be lowered to 10% to start

I think those are very good points that we should implement.
Also, I agree that we should remove GA points from all 'All Yields' abilities (pagodas, statecraft opener, etc.).

I believe that we should try to implement this and see whether it's enough or not.
I don't think that we should thouch Artistry.

 

[pineappledan]

So, first needs to be dalayed, but not to affect the second, espesially as we going to nerf GApoints overall.

Makes sense. All the GAP bonuses don’t come until that point. There are no policy or wonders that give GAPs until medieval (except pyramid)

I believe that we should try to implement this and see whether it's enough or not.
I don't think that we should thouch Artistry.

Increasing the cost of golden ages without removing some GAP sources will deflate the value of each individual GA point. They are already considered the lowest value yield and each one of them will do less. Restricting supply would help prop up the value of the yield.

Artistry is the largest single source of GAPs as a per-turn yield. The scaler gives 2 per level and you get 4 on a building bonus. Those seem like the main offenders, and we could just start with those.

Here is what I was thinking:
Scaler: gives 2 per level now.
Replace that with “-5% cost for your next Golden Age.” (Moved from humanism)
Humanism: gives -25% GA cost right now.
Replace that with "Excess Happiness in Cities contributes 100% more to the generation of Golden Ages"
Heritage: gives +4to universities right now.
Replace that with “+50% to Theming bonuses on Empire” (vanilla BNW Aesthetics finisher bonus)

That would still keep GA-related bonuses, but would re-Center happiness as the main source. That helps bring GAs back to being a reward for good empire Management.

 

[ma_kuh]

Just throwing this out there: if there's anything that should be giving GAPs, I would imagine it's Historic Events. Right now they give Tourism packets, but I think it would make a lot more sense that they literally fill your golden age meter instead. This would solve a few things that I've seen mentioned as possible problems:

1. It lowers the amount of Tourism flying around, especially early-game.
2. It gives you an active way to pursue GAs supported by a number of pre-existing systems: if you're rushing eras, winning wars, building wonders, or making great people, you're entering into golden ages.
3. It coincides the reward for playing the game with the feedback of entering a GA: you're more likely to ding that threshold at the same time as something worthy of the trigger.

 

[Rekk]

remove the to specialists on Mastery follower belief (maybe replace with something else)

This is an example, but GAP is added to other bonuses because it's the weakest yield point per point. Mastery, for example needed a buff, but adding a different yield was too strong (we tried both two yields of the same type, which was too strong, and one yield, which was too weak).

 

[Rekk]

I'm just thinking that AIs getting more GAPs as a handicap bonus is kind of deranged.

Pretty much every bonus yield can AI get has been considered "too powerful".

Culture: "The AI is outpacing me in policies".
Science: "The AI is way further ahead on the tech tree".
Production: "I can't compete with the AI on wonders; the AI has nothing to build in their cities".
Food: "The AIs' cities are huge".
Gold: "The AI has so much money that it's meaningless".
so finally we're at the weakest yield and it's
"The AI is getting too many Golden Ages".

 

[pineappledan]

This is an example, but GAP is added to other bonuses because it's the weakest yield point per point.

And GAPs have been dirstributed pretty liberally to fill little power gaps like that. The end result is a death by a thousand cuts for the GA mechanic, which is now overloaded if you actually go for all these little bonuses.

In Mastery's case, we could simply remove the GAPs and give a 2nd bonus in the city:
Mastery
All Specialists gain +1 of their respective Yields. +3 in this city if it has a specialist.

Pretty much every bonus yield can AI get has been considered "too powerful".

Culture: "The AI is outpacing me in policies".
Science: "The AI is way further ahead on the tech tree".
Production: "I can't compete with the AI on wonders; the AI has nothing to build in their cities".
Food: "The AIs' cities are huge".
Gold: "The AI has so much money that it's meaningless".
so finally we're at the weakest yield and it's
"The AI is getting too many Golden Ages".

And that may be the case. Perhaps cost reductions for the AI are a better way to go instead of % modifiers.

This conversation started because the humans are getting too many golden ages. So I imagine the AI are as well.
The problem with the AIs, however, is that if you give golden age points then you aren't just making their , , and economies better, like if you had just given them those yields directly, but you're also making Rationalism (f.e.) stronger for the AI (it has a % boost).
The problem with using GAPs as a handicap bonus is it's not really a yield, it's temporary access to 3 other temporary yield modifiers.... unless also augmented in any other number of ways.
The AI handicaps have been cited as one of the main reasons why the AI is so specifically good with Brazil, because that civ has no extra sources of GAPs (besides its needs reduction), but it gets a large extra reward for triggering GAs.