(34) Proposal (edited): Change the distribution for CS quests asking for a number of buildings in the empire

[Delvemor]

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

 

[CppMaster]

Yeah, those are situational, but what's the problem? If you don't need those buildings then it's a choice if you want to spend hammers to complete the quest or ignore it.

 

[Delvemor]

The problem is precisely that some of those quests are never worth to spend the hammers to complete. A quest asking you to build 12 hotels while you might need only 5 of them in exchange for maybe 500-600 hammers in the capital is not worth it.

 

[CppMaster]

The thing is that if only essential building are in the quest then you'd do the quest anyway and you would get a reward just because got lucky and got the quest. Maybe it's better to just delete the quest?

 

[Delvemor]

The thing is that if only essential building are in the quest then you'd do the quest anyway and you would get a reward just because got lucky and got the quest.

Yes but someone who doesn't pay attention would be very unlikely to use it for a wonder by accident. Timing the reward is fun isn't? At least I think.

 

[CrazyG]

The problem is precisely that some of those quests are never worth to spend the hammers to complete. A quest asking you to build 12 hotels while you might need only 5 of them in exchange for maybe 500-600 hammers in the capital is not worth it.

I think the quest should cap at a certain number (rather than just the number of cities you have). Build a herbalist in half your cities is a much more reasonable request.

 

[Rekk]

I think the quest should cap at a certain number (rather than just the number of cities you have). Build a herbalist in half your cities is a much more reasonable request.

Pretty sure it no longer asks for all of your cities to have one now.

 

[AndreyK]

Pretty sure it no longer asks for all of your cities to have one now.

But most of the time it still asks for all or almost all cities.

 

[Delvemor]

If this is already a thing, we could half the number for situational buildings instead of not having them at all in the quest. Having to build a few hotels that won't benefit the cities in exchange for a production boost in the capital is not nearly as bad as having to build them in all cities.

 

[notaspambot]

For reference, the current distribution is:

int iCities = pAssignedPlayer->getNumCities() - pAssignedPlayer->GetNumPuppetCities();
int iActionAmount = 1 + GC.getGame().getSmallFakeRandNum(iCities*2, eBuilding);
if (iActionAmount > iCities)
{
	iActionAmount = iCities;
}
if (iActionAmount < iCities / 2)
	iActionAmount = iCities / 2;

In other words, it should be a player's number of non-puppet cities 50% of the time, half that number 25% of the time, and a range in between for the remaining 25%.

---

On the proposal itself, arbitrary list is arbitrary. I wouldn't mind adding more rules to the process, but it should be actual rules, and not just some list.

Here are the current rules for reference:
1. Not a wonder
2. No more than one currently built
3. Buildable in all cities

 

[Delvemor]

On the proposal itself, arbitrary list is arbitrary. I wouldn't mind adding more rules to the process, but it should be actual rules, and not just some list.

Here are the current rules for reference:
1. Not a wonder
2. No more than one currently built
3. Buildable in all cities

I get why you would say that my list of buildings is arbitrary and that's why I'm open to change it if many people disagree with me. As for adding rules for the current distribution I can see why you prefer that over a list that would have to be updated as the buildings are changed for balance reasons.

I guess I could edit my proposal and simply suggest having the number of required buildings always being half the number of cities, regardless of the type of buildings. Currently it's the case 50% of the time. So basically what CrazyG said.

 

[Little Billy]

I recently had one ask me to build 10 agribusinesses when I didnt have any horses left to spare, so I would add buildings with resource requirements to that list (agribusiness, factory, train station/seaport, mine field, power plants are the ones I can think of right now)

 

[Delvemor]

I recently had one ask me to build 10 agribusinesses when I didnt have any horses left to spare, so I would add buildings with resource requirements to that list (agribusiness, factory, train station/seaport, mine field, power plants are the ones I can think of right now)

Actually this could be included as the 4th rule : "Doesn't require a resource"

 

[nekokon]

You're not required to do every single CS quests though. I only ever do CS quest if I really want to ally them or I would be doing that sooner or later anyway, and if you want that CS but not wanting to do the quest just spend the hammers to spam diplomat.

 

[Delvemor]

You're not required to do every single CS quests though.

Nobody said that. The point of this proposal is simply to reduce the number of questionable CS quests. Quests you would never do have no reason to remain.

 

[nekokon]

But the point is you're also listing those quests as situational, means while you can't make use of them some times, you can some other times.
Removing all situational building quests would just give you building quests you can/want to do all the times, which would turn this back into the concern some quests (not just building quest) are also "situational" (like conquest), thus have no reason to remain, and it will keep repeating on larger scale until CS quests are only full of quests that you can/want to do all the times and no longer optional.
We need a clear consistency, either all quests can be situational or no quest should be situational, not just "all building quests shouldn't be situational but I don't care about conquest or great person because that's not how I play"

 

[Delvemor]

Removing all situational building quests would just give you building quests you can/want to do all the times, which would turn this back into the concern some quests (not just building quest) are also "situational" (like conquest), thus have no reason to remain, and it will keep repeating on larger scale until CS quests are only full of quests that you can/want to do all the times and no longer optional.

Probably for the sake of the principle, you're going beyond the scope of this proposal which is only about buildings quests and nothing else. Some buildings are situational and so a quest asking you to build a lot of them will also be less relevant than any other quest, including wonders or conquest. You're much more likely to conquer a city near your borders for a CS quest than to build 12 herbalists if you have a desert start with very few plantation resources. Same for many other buildings, including the ones requiring resources which you may not spare or simply don't have. Building a wonder, denouncing or declaring war on someone, asking tribute, gifting units or conquering a city is always possible to at least try, and will give you something in return. So those other quests are not exactly situational. It always makes sense to consider doing them.

Also, a list of buildings is not wanted and thus my final proposal would be to reduce the number of buildings required to maybe half the number of non-puppet cities for more than just 25% of the time, as opposed to needing them in all of the cities.

 

[nekokon]

Again, it's not the scale/scope of the proposal, but about the consistency of that proposal among existing elements/mechanic. You can't just make building quests always worth doing while keeping other quests "can be considered". Big difference.
Adjusting number is fine, it's not a binary yes/no option like original proposal.

 

[Delvemor]

Again, it's not the scale/scope of the proposal, but about the consistency of that proposal among existing elements/mechanic. You can't just make building quests always worth doing while keeping other quests "can be considered". Big difference.
Adjusting number is fine, it's not a binary yes/no option like original proposal.

I can see your point. I do intend to edit my initial proposal to make it about adjusting numbers and not about specific buildings.

 

[SpecifiedUsername]

I wouldn't support neither specific building nor numbers. That's the part of the quest, you prioritize things and make sacrifices like useless buildings for a city-state favour strategy. There's a choice in there. It's like saying envoys should only be required if I have spare production, I'm not at war, and I run out of buildings to build. Not to mention, you can still somewhat benefit from construction of buildings that are non essential to your victory with progress and industry bonuses, but this is situational. Same with numbers of cities, you are a big empire, city-states ask more of you.