(3-WD) Reduce GP% in city after GP is born.

[GeneralAmadeus]

Proposal Details:
Every time a GP is born that city gets a 10% penalty to . To compensate for that the GP point requirement increase is reduced from 250 to 200 (i think that is correct for standard, if not let me know).
Reason:
This gives a bigger reason to use different cities to generate GP.

Amendment: Cap penalty at 60% (additive with other effects). Give Tradition finisher a reduce penalty from 10% to 7% effect (max penalty now 42%). Do not apply the penalty to Venice. National Monument gets additional effect +10% in other cities.

 

[Dimmy]

But overall it slows down the generation of GP for no reason? What's the rationale here?
Do you find the game spam too much GP? Else?

 

[gwennog]

Yes, my idea was to encourage the appearance of GPs in cities other than the capital, not to limit the appearance of GPs overall.

 

[DeAnno]

This really singles out Tradition, which is kind of forced to play into make-all-your-GP-in-capital. Don't like.

 

[GeneralAmadeus]

It should not reduce the overall appearance of GP. The second part of it is supposed to make sure of that. If it does not then the reduction there is not big enough.
EDIT: Did a bit of calculating and it seems fine.

 

[Recursive]

This appears to be a big nerf to Tradition (a playstyle which relies greatly on Great People) which does not address the plethora of Tall vs. Wide balance issues it would raise. Much like the proposal last session for adding attrition damage in enemy territory without adding other mechanics that justify it, I'm tempted to veto this as out of scope.

Only reason I'm not is due to the cost reduction.

Edit: After 10 Great People would the penalty be -100%, thus no GP would be generated?

 

[GeneralAmadeus]

This appears to be a big nerf to Tradition (a playstyle which relies greatly on Great People) which does not address the plethora of Tall vs. Wide balance issues it would raise. Much like the proposal last session for adding attrition damage in enemy territory without adding other mechanics that justify it, I'm tempted to veto this as out of scope.

Only reason I'm not is due to the cost reduction.

Edit: After 10 Great People would the penalty be -100%, thus no GP would be generated?

I was thinking it should cap at some amount but that amount could be anything from 50% to 100%. But even at 100% the city can still generate GP because it can get +% modifiers from gardens and other things.
Tradition honestly seems the biggest obstacle here and I do not think I have a good solution for this. It honestly feels like there is a massive flaw in the specialist system but no one has figured out how to fix it or even what it is.

 

[pineappledan]

Maybe instead of making us vote on wild swings at the issue, we should discuss what the issue is with specialists in the discussion thread asking what people think the problem with specialists is?

Specialists... What are We Doing Here, Guys?

Over the past 2 congress sessions we have had quite a few proposals to increase the yields on engineers, change the manufactory, decrease the yields on mines so they compete with engineers less, discussions for changes to Towns and Great Merchants, and for creating a global GPP pool for...

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[Stalker0]

With these numbers, the first 2 GP in each city will be faster than they are now (with the biggest change being that first artist from tradition). The 3rd one is the same, and then the 4th+ is when things start to slow down.

 

[GeneralAmadeus]

Hey I just realized something. What about Venice. Are they completely screwed over by this change?

Moderator Action: Edited for language. - Recursive

 

[rkkn]

(with the biggest change being that first artist from tradition)

I don't see any changes to the first great person

Anyway this looks super terrible if the penalty is additive (100 -> 90 -> 80 -> 70 -> ... -> 0). If the penalty is multiplicative (100 -> 90 -> 81 -> 72.9 etc) so that it never goes to zero then it's only a little terrible.

 

[AndreyK]

I don't like it - it is a terrible proposal.

 

[GeneralAmadeus]

An amendment has been added.

 

[rusbeh]

I like the idea behind the proposal, but this is not it.

 

[Cebrudras]

As someone who almost exclusively plays Tradition-Arabia this proposal feels like a personal attack on me

 

[GeneralAmadeus]

@Recursive, I wish to withdraw this mess.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal withdrawn by request.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.