[Vote] (2-39) Museum Split

[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 39
Problems:
- Cultural victory is too strong. Increasing the production and gold cost of cultural buildings may help address this by raising the infrastructure cost of CV
- There aren't enough things to do in Renaissance
- Architecture, if you didn't get a wonder, is a barren and useless tech
- the Hermitage's prerequisites are weird. It requires Opera House, which is unlocked at Acoustics on the same tech level, but 2 away, meaning you need both techs to build the Hermitage
- Hermitage is a dumb name for the national wonder. 'The Hermitage' is too specific of a name for a national gallery/exhibition hall, especially because 'A Hermitage' is something completely different from 'The Hermitage'. It's a confusing, navel-gazing choice by the civ 5 devs to name this national wonder so specifically and bizarrely, and we shouldn't indulge or continue the practice.

Solution:
Split the Artist bonuses from buildings into 2 buildings, like how Musician bonuses are split between the Opera House and Broadcast Tower

Proposal:

Gallery (New Building)

Unlocked at Architecture​

600 ​

4 maintenance​

Requires Amphitheatre in the city​

+2 ​

Adds +1 to Great Works in this City​

+33% generation rate of Artists in this City​

+1 to Artist Guilds on Empire​

1 Great Work of Art/Artifact Slot​

Great Works:

Reduced to 32 base (need a Gallery to bring back to old 33)​

Uffizi

Gives a free Gallery (in addition to current bonuses)​

Hermitage:

renamed to 'Grand Exhibition'​

requires Gallery in the city instead of Opera House (same tech)​

Museum

new icon from Enlightenment Era mod​

Requires Gallery in the City​

No longer boosts Artists generation rate or Artist Guilds (moved to Gallery)​

Allows city to train Archeologists (moved from Public School)​

Public School

Increase per scaler from 1 per 4 to 1 per 2​

Skola (sweden UB)

Increase per scaler from 1 per 1 to 3 per 2 (ie. 150%)​

Increase per scaler from 1per 3 to 1 per 2​

​

Cultural Exchange (Artistry policy)

+2 to Amphitheaters, Opera Houses, and Galleries​

 

[pineappledan]

Okay so a few things not covered in the OP:

The GW nerf: This is big. I predict this is going to be a significant part of the solution towards slowing down CVs. It means that merely getting GWs to the level they are currently requires a mid-game unlock and significant investment in any city with a GW

This is part of a larger idea I had to split all GW buildings into sets of 2, like they are with Music. There is another proposal to split Amphitheater in the same way as this.

The Hermitage/Grand Exhibition change

Better name is better. Alternatively, we could call the NW the State Gallery, and the Gallery building could be called a Studio​

streamlining the NW prerequisite building is a major quality of life bonus. If you rush architecture, but you missed or lost out on the 2 world wonders, then this tech has no usable components without the Acoustics tech. That's horrible design, the idea of a tech that could situationally provide zero benefit should not exist.​

The public school / Skola buffs:

This building sucks. Full stop.​

A few versions ago we had a late game tech cost rebalance and it lengthened the games longer than expected. Nearly by 100 turns.​

That same version, I implemented a change to zoos so that they give more instant than most public schools are likely to generate in the entire game, and it did barely anything to counteract the game length. As a result SV has fallen even further behind as a viable VC.​

The Archaeologist unlock made no sense on this building. Archeologists unlock a tech level later, so this ability is unusable when public schools come out. It also makes no sense thematically. Archeologists are not trained, nor do they work in public schools.​

​

 

[Stalker0]

Proposal title could use some work. You come in expecting an Opera House split, but you get a major GW change and a major change to the public school along for the ride.

• The gallery seems like a reasonable idea to reduce early great works but then bring them back up again.
• Your worried about the public school being weak, but the museum is now even weaker and more expensive.
• I am ok moving the Hermitage to the gallery as a prerequisite, though there is some value in having the opera house remain this prereq, as it forces someone to spread their teching out to the "full benefit" rather than beelining. That's not necessarily a negative.
• This will hurt the archeologist rush by a good bit, as you can no longer immediately build archeologists upon researching the tech (with public schools prebuilt).
• Why does cultural expression need a buff...that seems a bit out of left field here.
• Public Schools: That is quite a big increase in science, in the capital alone that could be like +25 science (which is like +50 science when all multipliers are accounted for). I do agree for a buff, but maybe a 1 per 2 pop kind of thing, 1:1 is a pretty massive increase.

 

[CrazyG]

Great Works:
Reduced to 32 base (need a Gallery to bring back to old 33)

CV is definitely too strong but this doesn't have much impact.

Here are some numbers for a recent game I won by tourism:

• Total tourism racked up towards neighbor by turn 179: 12,678 (This is the turn when I discovered Scientific Theory, a decent approximation for when I'd finish building a gallery in the capital, which is enough to boost all great works)
• Total tourism towards same neighbor at game end: 122,165
  
• Per turn tourism: 1,007 (doesn't factor bonus yields)
• Per turn factoring bonus yields: 3,021 (calced by comparing tourism from 5 turns earlier to now, and dividing by 5 to get the average. I have a +22% tourism).

This change would affect like 10% of my end tourism, and drop that value by maybe 20%? I don't think that really moves the needle, maybe I would reach full influential status a turn later but no more than one turn.

Public Schools: That is quite a big increase in science, in the capital alone that could be like +25 science (which is like +50 science when all multipliers are accounted for). I do agree for a buff, but maybe a 1 per 2 pop kind of thing, 1:1 is a pretty massive increase.

I agree 1 per 2 is plenty. You don't want the first civ to reach this tech to run away with the game.

The rest of this proposal is great, I love that dinosaur art and the new features would be a ton of fun. I'll make a thread to look at tourism and cultural victory in more detail to avoid derailing this.

 

[Stalker0]

CV is definitely too strong but this doesn't have much impact.

Here are some numbers for a recent game I won by tourism:

• Total tourism racked up towards neighbor by turn 179: 12678 (This is the turn when I discovered Scientific Theory, a decent approximation for when I'd finish building a gallery in the capital, which is enough to boost all great works)
• Total tourism towards same neighbor at game end: 122165
  
• Per turn tourism: 1007 (doesn't factor bonus yields)
• Per turn factoring bonus yields: 3021 (calced by comparing tourism from 5 turns earlier to now, and dividing by 5 to get the average. I have a +22% tourism).

This change would affect like 10% of my end tourism, and drop that value by maybe 20%? I don't think that really moves the needle, maybe I would reach full influential status a turn later but no more than one turn.

Yeah I think historical events might be the major cause of tourism bloat now, as the great work tourism just isn't TAHT much until later in the game when you get the big multipliers on them.

 

[pineappledan]

Oops, I meant cultural exchange, but wrote cultural expression (those two policies are too similar in both name and effect)

Why does cultural expression need a buff...that seems a bit out of left field here.

Cultural Exchange (2 to art buildings)
Maybe it's not necessary to add this if the feedback on the new Artistry overhaul comes back with reports that Artistry is stronger now.
I wanted to add this bonus into Artistry to mirror Cultural Expression and Faith of the Masses, so 1 boosts all the GWAM-boosting buildings, and another boosts all the theming buildings

 

[pineappledan]

This change would affect like 10% of my end tourism, and drop that value by maybe 20%? I don't think that really moves the needle, maybe I would reach full influential status a turn later but no more than one turn.

I'm trying to approach the problem of general CV strength with small nerfs to lots of different things. We weakened the GW and tile % modifiers a few versions back, and gave a major nerf to Autocracy's CV potential in the process (airport nerf). I have also proposed a nerf to Order's CV in this congress.

If you are suggesting that I go like a bull in a china shop and try to fix CVs with a single, drastic change, that's probably going to create more problems than it solves.

Yeah I think historical events might be the major cause of tourism bloat now, as the great work tourism just isn't TAHT much until later in the game when you get the big multipliers on them.

Aren't historic events based off culture and tourism per turn, which GWs contribute towards?

 

[Stalker0]

Aren't historic events based off culture and tourism per turn, which GWs contribute towards?

Its that culture part that may be the problem. The thinking is that even before tourism takes off, your culture is still pretty high, and therefore those historic events start churning out a lot more tourism than any of your other sources for a good portion fo the game before you get to the CV ramp up (aka around radio) where the Great work multipliers start taking off and you get some real strong raw tourism from them.

 

[pineappledan]

• Public Schools: That is quite a big increase in science, in the capital alone that could be like +25 science (which is like +50 science when all multipliers are accounted for). I do agree for a buff, but maybe a 1 per 2 pop kind of thing, 1:1 is a pretty massive increase.

I agree 1 per 2 is plenty. You don't want the first civ to reach this tech to run away with the game.

On this, I disagree that we need to be timid. Like I said, I added 500 on construction to zoos, up from zero. That's more science than a public school is ever going to generate in a game, and standard game turns still went from 300 to 400. It has become clear to me that w.r.t. science, a light touch won't do anything.

• This will hurt the archeologist rush by a good bit, as you can no longer immediately build archeologists upon researching the tech (with public schools prebuilt).

It's a buff to Faith of the Masses, who can faith buy and start working on Archaeologists in 1 turn.
Delaying archeologists by a few turns is another small way we can slow down CV, as if we needed more reason than how strange it is than the thematic and timing mismatch of public schools unlocking archeologists 1 tech too early.

 

[CrazyG]

If you are suggesting that I go like a bull in a china shop and try to fix CVs with a single, drastic change, that's probably going to create more problems than it solves.

I didn't suggest anything to that effect. I even said I like the rest of your proposal. I reread my comment, it was constructive criticism with specific evidence, and I stand by it.

We don't need a single drastic nerf, but we don't need 100 insignificant changes either.

On this, I disagree that we need to be timid. Like I said, I added 500 on construction to zoos, up from zero. That's more science than a public school is ever going to generate in a game, and standard game turns still went from 300 to 400. It has become clear to me that w.r.t. science, a light touch won't do anything.

I'm not disagreeing about timidity, you are completely right that cultural victories are absurdly easy compared to science. I'm disagreeing about what to change, and how it affects balance of other things.

Here's some more in-game examples:
From the turn I start building public schools in a recent game, I had 503 science per turn, and the schools will give me 18 base science. That looks tiny, which is why I'd buff em', but not too much. With your change I'd have 72 science, at least 100 after multipliers, meaning (even without using the specialists) I'm getting like 18% of my science from just public schools. That's way too much of an increase, civs who get here first will leave others in the dust.

Your zoo analogy isn't accurate. Actual real game example from turn 250, this would be worth an increase of 28 science in my tradition capital, multiplied by 1.8x, which is a zoo every 10 turns, and effectively another zoo from my other cities.

Buffs to science aren't necessarily buffs to Science victories specifically; its good for cultural victories because they rush archeology as part of their strategy and public schools are along the way. This changes a lot of balance, more than just CV vs SV. What probably needs to be done for SV is to make late game techs cheaper, and possibly make late game social policies more expensive.

 

[pineappledan]

Amended proposal to 1 per 2 on public school and 2 per 3 on skola

Your (sic) worried about the public school being weak, but the museum is now even weaker and more expensive.

That's... the point? The point of this and the amphitheater split proposal is to make Cultural buildings overall weaker and more costly to build.

An aside about the Museum's expense. The museum currently costs 6 per turn in maintenance but gives 1to each of your 3 artist guilds for a net loss of 3 per turn. I know there are various ways to modify gold and reduce building maintenance, but it looks pretty silly. This isn't resolved by moving the artist guild bonus onto a building that costs 4 per turn, but I guess it could mean with enough modifiers etc. you could start turning a profit on these galleries whereas that was out of the question with museums.

 

[CrazyG]

That's... the point? The point of this and the amphitheater split proposal is to make Cultural buildings overall weaker and more costly to build.

I want to highlight your comment from another thread:

culture is the defense that tourism has to work against. Therefore, if we can't to reduce the number of CVs in a game, adding more to the game might be an easy place to start.

Making museums/opera houses/ amphitheaters worse isn't even necessarily a nerf to a cultural victory because it hurts tourism defense too. Really, nerfing culture sources actually helps any civ focusing on other culture sources, since those sources become relatively more important.

 

[pineappledan]

Yeah, but I didn’t reduce or remove any sources of culture with these proposals, or add any new sources of That aren’t in the game already. The biggest source of from any of these GWAM/theme buildings is the opera house, which I didn’t touch.

The only source of That any of my proposals nerf is moving the 4GWW theming bonus back a full era.

 

[Stalker0]

The only source of That any of my proposals nerf is moving the 4GWW theming bonus back a full era.

Which....is a nerf to culture. So to crazyg's point, is that actually hurting or helping CV, for as you are removing the tourism offense, you are in kind reducing the tourism defense.

 

[pineappledan]

there are buildings that give culture that don’t also give tourism, and I didn’t touch those. I don’t really know what your point is here, but if you’re implying that I can’t nerf tourism buildings because that necessarily nerfs culture too then you’re setting out some sort of catch 22.

Yes, nerfing tourism implies nerfing some culture sources because the two yields are strongly linked. But you’re arguing for a state of paralysis.

Is the point of pointing out that CV is too strong and too fast just to complain about it? Do I need to increase the customs house Per turn to 3 as a necessary ingredient to this proposal?

 

[Stalker0]

if you’re implying that I can’t nerf tourism buildings because that necessarily nerfs culture too then you’re setting out some sort of catch 22.

The answer to that would be to seperate tourism from the culture buildings into their own thing. Aka if your making new buildings and doing splits you should concentrate the tourism there, but leave the culture buildings fully intact with the other benefits. In this example, you make the Gallery the +1 tourism to great works, and give the museum back its toys.

Now would this create lame buildings for every other playstyle except CV....it most certainly would. That has been the pain of tourism since its inception, its a vestigial yield, very unimportant unless you play a CV in which it becomes the most important thing. But it is the scalpel solution, you directly force CV players to commit more resources to get that tourism, you can adjust tourism more exactly, and you don't weaken the culture defense of other civs at the same time.

 

[pineappledan]

In this example, you make the Gallery the +1 tourism to great works, and give the museum back its toys.

This is a solution that you yourself would vote against, because it's a useless building that does 1 thing.
This is basically the exact kind of building you lambasted as worthless in the Amphitheater split proposal.

But it is the scalpel solution, you directly force CV players to commit more resources to get that tourism, you can adjust tourism more exactly, and you don't weaken the culture defense of other civs at the same time.

The fact of the matter is that there are basically no buildings to do this 'scalpel' change to (except Arena, which... yes we should absolutely remove the scaler).
nerfing GWAMs necessarily means nerfing both and because GWs give both yields. Nerfing theming buildings necessarily means nerfing both and because themes give both yields. There are precious few instances where culture exists on any buildings separate from culture.

We can promote more in places where it exists singularly, and we should do that. We should weaken/eliminate places where is given singularly. But to suggest we can't go after in any place where it might also lessen ? No, I can't agree with that. Hitting those linked mechanics is fair game, because it has more of an effect on sources of , of which there are less of, than it will on . I agree that we need more and less in general, but some lost when targeting is a completely acceptable casualty.

 

[Stalker0]

nerfing GWAMs necessarily means nerfing both and because GWs give both yields. Nerfing theming buildings necessarily means nerfing both and because themes give both yields.

Unless that's a coding restriction I don't know if that's true. You can reduce the tourism on a GWAM without reducing the culture. You can reduce the tourism part of a theming bonus without reducing the culture part, can't you?

 

[Stalker0]

.This is basically the exact kind of building you lambasted as worthless in the Amphitheater split proposal.

If you mean your scriptorium, I was lambasting it as being OP, unneeded in medieval, and causing weird interactions where diplo civs suddenly had to pay science to get their diplo units out. Not exactly "worthless".

 

[pineappledan]

Unless that's a coding restriction I don't know if that's true. You can reduce the tourism on a GWAM without reducing the culture.

...Yes, and that's exactly what I proposed to do

You can reduce the tourism part of a theming bonus without reducing the culture part, can't you?

No, this hasn't been un-hardcoded, unlike the 3/3 value of GWs. Furthermore it would require new UI element to communicate that, because the +X next to a completed theme is for in equal amount: