[Vote] (2-24) Proposal: Slight tweaks to Persia

[pineappledan]

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, which is equivalent to saying "I'm fine either way", but adds to the required quorum of 10 votes in favor.

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 2, Proposal 24
Current Situation:
Persia has 2 parts of their kit that give GAP per turn:

• Note: "Gold income" in the UA refers to net GPT, meaning the GAP conversion is done after your gold income is reduced by things like unit and building maintenance.

Problems:
The Gold to GAP converter in the UA is fairly weak.

• It's contribution towards your GA progress is too subtle to be noticeable
• The wording is misleading. "Gold Income" is used in the UI to denote GROSS income, but testing done by @ridjack indicates the converter is based on NET income

The / scaler on the Satrap's Court is basically doing the same thing.

• It's not good design to have 2 different passive bonuses giving the same yield in a kit. Persia would be more elegant and functional if it had 1 strong GAP source, rather than 2 weak ones.

Proposal:
UA: Increase the Gold to GAP converter to 15%, and make it use income before expenses

• This is more clear, and simpler to grasp for the player
• UA ability would pass the 1/8th rule. A good rule of thumb for ability design is that they should be 12.5% or higher, or else they won't be noticeable to a player
• Having the calculation be on gross income means that Persia's converter isn't undercut by his army size
  • Unit maintenance shrinks net GPT
  • Persia is incentivized by his UA's converter to lower maintenance costs, which conflicts with his militaristic bonuses

UB: change the yield scaler from 11 per 5 to 1 per 3

• Stronger gold generation on UB feeds into stronger GAP converter on UA.
• different components of the civ now have synergy rather than overlap.

 

[pineappledan]

Barring anything else, the UA description should at least be amended so that it clearly indicates the GAP converter uses net gold. It currently uses the same " Gold income" verbiage the UI uses to indicate gros GPT, which is misleading.

 

[Rekk]

For reference, can you show other examples of "income" referring to gross gold per turn?

 

[pineappledan]

Spoiler :

In the above example, the player was receiving +4 GAP per turn (10% of 47.1 rounded down)

A few turns later, he concluded a peace deal with a civ who agreed to pay him as war winnings. His net income increased to 79 GPT, and +7 per turn.
Thus, gold from trade deals is included, and calculations are based on GPT after total expenses.

 

[InkAxis]

Seems like a buff to persia, do you think persia is weak?

 

[KlHannibal2]

Current Situation:
Persia has 2 parts of their kit that give GAP per turn:
View attachment 645382

• Note: "Gold income" in the UA refers to net GPT, meaning the GAP conversion is done after your gold income is reduced by things like unit and building maintenance.

View attachment 645383


Problems:
The Gold to GAP converter in the UA is fairly weak.

• It's contribution towards your GA progress is too subtle to be noticeable
• The wording is misleading. "Gold Income" is used in the UI to denote GROSS income, but testing done by @ridjack indicates the converter is based on NET income

The / scaler on the Satrap's Court is basically doing the same thing.

• It's not good design to have 2 different passive bonuses giving the same yield in a kit. Persia would be more elegant and functional if it had 1 strong GAP source, rather than 2 weak ones.

Proposal:
UA: Increase the Gold to GAP converter to 15%, and make it use income before expenses

• This is more clear, and simpler to grasp for the player
• UA ability would pass the 1/8th rule. A good rule of thumb for ability design is that they should be 12.5% or higher, or else they won't be noticeable to a player
• Having the calculation be on gross income means that Persia's converter isn't undercut by his army size
  • Unit maintenance shrinks net GPT
  • Persia is incentivized by his UA's converter to lower maintenance costs, which conflicts with his militaristic bonuses

UB: change the yield scaler from 11 per 5 to 1 per 3

• Stronger gold generation on UB feeds into stronger GAP converter on UA.
• different components of the civ now have synergy rather than overlap.

I like this proposal, mainly for eliminating the conflict with having a big army. I don't mind per se having 2 weak sources of GAP instead of 1 stronger source.

 

[rusbeh]

UB: change the yield scaler from 11 per 5 to 1 per 3

That's too powerful especially with the other buff. Persia would be swimming in gold. I dont feel like Persia really needs a buff.

 

[AndreyK]

What about +50% to GA?

 

[pineappledan]

The main thrust of the proposal is to move the GAPs off the satrap’s court and fully onto the UA.

Maybe the gold per pop could just stay where it is, but 1/5 is very low. I think 1/4 is a minimum. Could also look at removing the gold to specialists and focus on the scaler

 

[Stalker0]

The main thrust of the proposal is to move the GAPs off the satrap’s court and fully onto the UA

I think the way to do this is leaving the UB bonus alone. You’ve already buffed up Persia a bit with the UA change, the UB change feels like a double buff, which isn’t needed.

As you said, the goal here is not really to buff Persia, it’s to make its core ability relevant.

 

[pineappledan]

If by “leave it alone” you mean stop at removing the GAP off the UB, then sure.

 

[AndreyK]

So, the 50% to GA length stays on UA? Because in proposal you say nothing about it.

 

[Stalker0]

If by “leave it alone” you mean stop at removing the GAP off the UB, then sure.

Yep, basically the only thing that changes is the UA: +15% instead of +10%, on gross gold rather than net.

 

[rusbeh]

Yes and remove the GA generation from satraps court. I get stupid rich already with Persia so buffing the gold production or GA production seems excessive.

 

[azum4roll]

Buff the gold scaler to 1/3, but at the same time give Satrap's Court 4 gold maintenance now that it doesn't affect the UA's GAP generation. It'll break even at 9 pop (still has base 1 gold) if you don't work any EMS specialists.

I think the gold to GAP converter can stay at 10%. It's very strong with gross gold income.

 

[CrazyG]

Buff the gold scaler to 1/3, but at the same time give Satrap's Court 4 gold maintenance now that it doesn't affect the UA's GAP generation. It'll break even at 9 pop (still has base 1 gold) if you don't work any EMS specialists.

I think the gold to GAP converter can stay at 10%. It's very strong with gross gold income.

Would it makes more sense to have no GPT but lower maintenance? I realize there are differences but this seems odd.

I agree the converter could be just 10% if its gross income.

 

[azum4roll]

4 maintenance is from the base Courthouse, so Satrap's Court would have no maintenance reduction.

I'm not sure if there's precedence of a unique building having less maintenance cost that's not 0.

 

[pineappledan]

I'm not sure if there's precedence of a unique building having less maintenance cost that's not 0

It’s a fairly common bonus in the case of UBs that unlock early, across an era where the maintenance costs increase. Ostrog, for example, had the maintenance cost of a renaissance building (4) when it was an early Arsenal.

 

[Rekk]

For reference, can you show other examples of "income" referring to gross gold per turn?

Could you please include other instances of text where income refers to gross gold per turn?

 

[pineappledan]

Could you please include other instances of text where income refers to gross gold per turn?

I already did. Look at the screen cap in #4. “Total Income” is 68.