[Vote] (1-26) Proposal: Change the distribution for CS quests asking for a number of buildings in the empire

Approval Vote for Proposal #26 (instructions below)


  • Total voters
    91
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
4,585
Location
Antarctica
Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented. You can vote for both options.

All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.

VP Congress: Session 1, Proposal 26

Proposer: @Delvemor
Sponsor(s): @Recursive
Previous Discussion Thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...r-a-number-of-buildings-in-the-empire.679541/

Proposal Details
CS quests asking for a number of buildings in the empire in exchange for a production boost in the capital vary greatly in terms of opportunity cost, making them either very good or totally not worth it to the point that the CS might be trolling the player. Currently, the CS will ask for the required building in all your non-puppet cities 50% of the time, half of them 25% of the time and a number in between 25% of the time.

For example, if you have an empire of 12 cities and Lhasa really likes the idea of you having hotels, they will ask you to build 12 hotels 50% of the time or 6 hotels 25% of the time. The former is ridiculously bad in terms of production return, the latter is much more reasonable. The hotel is situational and expensive to build once unlocked. This is less of an issue for culture UI civs like Brazil, France or Morocco going for a culture victory, but for other civs you will usually build only a few of them. Spending hammers and gold for a few extra hotels that you don't need is doable and reasonable, in which case the quest is worth the investment. But 50%+ of the time Lhasa will be like "Nah man, that's not enough. You gotta build a hotel in every corner of your empire, or no deal." Furthermore, the times a CS asks for a higher number of buildings doesn't seem to correlate with the production bonus in the capital from the reward. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The proposal is the following: Adjust the values so the CS requires a building in all of your non-puppet cities 25% of the time, half of them 25% of the time, and a number in between 50% of the time.

Edited after receiving feedback from notaspambot, nekokon and CrazyG
 
I think just remove the quest entirely. It's pretty silly considering I will be building this building anyway.

If anything, this quest should be changed so that the first player who builds this building wins the quest. I can choose to then specifically buy that building in a city and maybe invest gold into it just to get that influence.
 
I think just remove the quest entirely. It's pretty silly considering I will be building this building anyway.

If anything, this quest should be changed so that the first player who builds this building wins the quest. I can choose to then specifically buy that building in a city and maybe invest gold into it just to get that influence.
This is an interesting proposal for next session: make it a global quest.
 
There are still a few situational buildings that you won't get in every city. If you build EVERYTHING in every city this is not optimal.

Making this global wouldn't make sense. Different players will have a different number of a specific building, and in higher difficulties it's unlikely to be the human player to have the highest number of that building.

Speaking of higher difficulties, this quest is a feature helping the human player to compete for wonders if you time it right. Why would anyone want to remove that?
 
Last edited:
There are still a few situational buildings that you won't get in every city. If you build EVERYTHING in every city this is not optimal.

Making this global wouldn't make sense. Different players will have a different number of a specific building, and in higher difficulties it's unlikely to be the human player to have the highest number of that building.

Speaking of higher difficulties, this quest is a feature helping the human player to compete for wonders if you time it right. Why would anyone want to remove that?
What about instead of a situational building, there is a new building project that says "Build project for Sydney", it will work the same as a world congress project and either the first or the person with the most production on it will gain the influence and reward
 
What about instead of a situational building, there is a new building project that says "Build project for Sydney", it will work the same as a world congress project and either the first or the person with the most production on it will gain the influence and reward
I would not be opposed to it, although it would nerf the ability for the human player to compete for wonders at higher difficulties.
 
I think this is a straight up difficulty reducer for the sake of it. Statecraft/any CS play is very easy and extremely powerful already. Picking hotel as an example is extremely bad, as 90% of the time CS will ask for a building you need like markets, walls, etc. If you don't want a building, just finish one of them in any of your cities and you won't get the quest. This change will lead to unearned wonders for the player. You should be supposed to take an effort/additional cost for quest that gives not only production but also CS influence.

I'm fighting the lost battle here, but this proposal is just bad in my opinion.
 
I think this is a straight up difficulty reducer for the sake of it. Statecraft/any CS play is very easy and extremely powerful already. Picking hotel as an example is extremely bad, as 90% of the time CS will ask for a building you need like markets, walls, etc. If you don't want a building, just finish one of them in any of your cities and you won't get the quest. This change will lead to unearned wonders for the player. You should be supposed to take an effort/additional cost for quest that gives not only production but also CS influence.

I'm fighting the lost battle here, but this proposal is just bad in my opinion.
It's not that big of a deal, you will still get "what you want" 25% of the time instead of 50% of the time. I did acknowledge that those quests can be very easy to complete sometimes, and if it's beneath you that's all right. If you see timing those quests to get a boost for a wonder as an exploit simply ignore them. Your own experience of the game will not be affected.
 
Difficulty will be affected and that's all I care about.
Are you saying you care about other people experience too? You can choose to play on Deity AND ignore the building quests, while someone else might be playing on prince and time those quests for wonders. Why do you care about what other players do in their own games?
 
If proposal are to be just making difficulty easier, that's a wrong direction and I can express that opinion.
I understand your point, but do you get mine? Nothing prevents you from ignoring CS entirely, not going Statecraft, and even not building any wonder at all if you want to. It's a single player experience and you can self-impose things to yourself to make the game more difficult. I do it all the time in XCOM 2. For example I would never use a mimic beacon because I think it's silly, but at the same time I don't care if somebody else relies on it for their own campaign.
 
I understand your point, but do you get mine? Nothing prevents you from ignoring CS entirely, not going Statecraft, and even not building any wonder at all if you want to. It's a single player experience and you can self-impose things to yourself to make the game more difficult. I do it all the time in XCOM 2. For example I would never use a mimic beacon because I think it's silly, but at the same time I don't care if somebody else relies on it for their own campaign.
That's not really a valid argument. Some CS quests are very difficult to ignore, so the point is fair. Now I don't agree with that point:), but I understand the platform its based off of.
 
I understand your point, but do you get mine? Nothing prevents you from ignoring CS entirely, not going Statecraft, and even not building any wonder at all if you want to. It's a single player experience and you can self-impose things to yourself to make the game more difficult. I do it all the time in XCOM 2. For example I would never use a mimic beacon because I think it's silly, but at the same time I don't care if somebody else relies on it for their own campaign.
?? Are you seriously suggesting something like ignore a certain playstyle? That means you don't understand my point. It means you don't care about balance and difficulty. You care only about easier access to CS quest reward at lower cost to you. It upsets balance, for some games very much as you might get half of a wonder much easier which could be impossible now. It is not me trying to enforce die hard difficult rules on others. It is you trying to make an already beneficial mechanic easier.
 
You're the one claiming Statecraft/CS play is already too easy and powerful. It's up to you to decide for yourself how far you're willing to benefit from it, just like Stalker0 decided to have a no SOI challenge. You can also decide to include Austria an an AI whenever you're willing to go for a diplomatic victory. The proposal is not a major change, not comparable at all to what made the new Great Engineer so good now.
 
If your rebuttal to something being too good is "don't use it" then honestly you have no business participating in any balance discussions.

Moderator Action: Please be less aggressive in your tone. All players are welcome to participate in discussions. - Recursive
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If your rebuttal to something being too good is "don't use it" then honestly you have no business participating in any balance discussions.
That's not exactly what I said. Is it even the case that Statecraft or CS quests are too strong to begin with? It remains to be seen. Anyone convinced that it does make the game too easy can choose to abstain from using that mechanic or at least limit it because they want a bigger challenge. I don't see anything wrong there. Many people disable ancient ruins, the events system, espionage, vassalage and raging barbarians while playing Authority.
 
That's not exactly what I said. Is it even the case that Statecraft or CS quests are too strong to begin with? It remains to be seen. Anyone convinced that it does make the game too easy can choose to abstain from using that mechanic or at least limit it because they want a bigger challenge. I don't see anything wrong there. Many people disable ancient ruins, the events system, espionage, vassalage and raging barbarians while playing Authority.
Yeah, but you may even not know that sth is OP. It's always better to have more balanced game than not.
 
Proposal passed on November 1, 2022.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom