[Complex] (6-77) Invert Some City-State Quests to Reward the Weakest Civs, not the Strongest!

[Xaviarlol]

Problem
To reduce the "rich get richer" problem in game, where the strongest civs get stronger faster (exponentially) and weaker civs stand no chance of catching up.

Proposal
Several city state quests should be inverted to reward the players that perform the worst. For example, the quest that rewards the player with the most techs researched should instead reward the player with the least techs researched. Other examples are Most Culture, Most Tourism, Most Faith/religion conversions.

Rationale
It is virtually guaranteed that the top performing civs will always win certain quest types (such as the ones listed above). This does nothing but make the game snowball in favour of the top performing civs, all but accelerating their lead. This inversion of the CS quest mechanic will help the lowest performing Civs to catch up, instead of the opposite. It is not exploitable because for example, the player would be foolish and it would be negative overall to purposely sabotage any of these metrics (techs, culture, conversions etc).

Complex Proposal: DLL + Database Changes

 

[Dimmy]

I like the idea. Maybe it could have to do with the personality of the CS and its type.

 

[rkkn]

you can have multiple civs with zero new followers, and it's also possible to be in the lead while not doing any tourism stuff

 

[Stalker0]

while I do think some of these quests should be adjusted (such as the tourism and culture ones), I think the concept of CS wanting losers to get benefits is not thematic to Civ. Civ is about winners, its about teh snowball, it literally is the rich get richer.

While we have rubberbands where it makes sense, to me this is not one of them. quests are meant to be "earned", not given because you suck

 

[ma_kuh]

You can always denounce the super strong civ that just bullied us. That would surely be in your best interests.

 

[Xaviarlol]

while I do think some of these quests should be adjusted (such as the tourism and culture ones), I think the concept of CS wanting losers to get benefits is not thematic to Civ. Civ is about winners, its about teh snowball, it literally is the rich get richer.

While we have rubberbands where it makes sense, to me this is not one of them. quests are meant to be "earned", not given because you suck

Overall I agree, however with these particular "generate the most X" quests, you basically win them without having to do anything. All it does is make the strongest civs get stronger, for free.

 

[Stalker0]

Overall I agree, however with these particular "generate the most X" quests, you basically win them without having to do anything. All it does is make the strongest civs get stronger, for free.

I don't agree with that for tech, I do think tech there are sufficient levers to pull even if I'm not the tech leader at the moment. Faith conversions is the same. For tourism and culture I do agree with you, but this is not the fix. I would rather just remove them in favor of other designs.

 

[pineappledan]

There are ways for players to sink their own tech etc in order to win. For instance, you could just not complete a tech, and leave it 1-2 turns short of being researched. If it was really worthwhile to win these competitions then players could sell off buildings and crater their economy, then rebuild after they have won

Rewarding losers is difficult, and I don’t think you will be able to do it cleanly with a system that also rewards winners for doing other things. Rubber band mechanics should be their own thing or else they become muddled and confusing

 

[Tekamthi]

i think it would be great to have some trade-system mechanism that rewards or encourages charity and foreign aid -- but this isn't it. Thematically, and abstractly, I'd say the quest reward mechanism is a way for the city state to curry favor with the powerful, who in turn may support its survival

 

[Thibix Magnus]

in immersive terms I could see something like weak civs being considered by city-states as one of their own, probably more a WC resolution ("non-aligned movement") that would apply to quests, rather than rubber-band quests themselves. Like, the lower you are in military or empire-size ranking, the stronger the quest rewards? You would still have to work to get those. It would also be an interesting way to help "tall diplomatic" a bit.

independently, maybe culture quest should be changed to a number of policies quest so it is more focused

 

[Xaviarlol]

I agree with all points raised. The problem statement is that weaker civs have very little hope of getting CS influence vs stronger civs, especially because they are behind in most other aspects of the game (like tech, GPT, culture etc) and will rarely have any capacity to devote production to envoys. Perhaps another mechanic that makes it easier for weaker, behind civs to get influence more easily? Make influence missions give diminishing returns based on how many other CS you area already allied with? (its hard to be efficient when you have so many CS allies!)

 

[rkkn]

Perhaps another mechanic that makes it easier for weaker, behind civs to get influence more easily?

here's an idea: instead of emissaries and etc cost scaling with era, have cost scale with number of allied city states
then civs with no CS allies get cheap diplo units

 

[Tekamthi]

Make an alternative use for envoys, such that powerful civ is encouraged to spend them elsewhere. Using envoys to buff espionage defence is the only specific thought I have but I'm sure there are other possibilities

 

[Xaviarlol]

here's an idea: instead of emissaries and etc cost scaling with era, have cost scale with number of allied city states
then civs with no CS allies get cheap diplo units

Yes I like this. Or make the influence gain from quests and envoys itself by diminished by how many city states you are allied with.

 

[Anarcomu]

Just be aware that it might be far too late to drastically amend your proposal, or to make a new one. It is , however, open for anyone to propose a counter-proposal (up to Wednesday if I remember correctly).

 

[Stalker0]

Just be aware that it might be far too late to drastically amend your proposal, or to make a new one. It is , however, open for anyone to propose a counter-proposal (up to Wednesday if I remember correctly).

Recursive extended the proposal window 1 week, so you still have time!