An update from Firaxis Games regarding Beyond Earth feedback

[Eisenhart]

Looks like an interesting patch is coming.

Hopefully this will fix the feel of the game.

 

[Gort]

Off the cuff, a fair estimate might be 4food/8hammer outgoing, 2food/4hammer back on a land route = 6food/12hammer. I'd value that at 25 or 30 energy/turn - half your estimate - for a modestly optimized route set in the mid or late game. Early game value might be half of 25 - maybe 13 EPT.

Thing is, you've taken a not particularly optimised trade route as your example. First off, it's a land route. Sea routes give bigger yields, and on many maps it's not hard to make every one of your trade routes sea routes. Not only that, but there are additional riders on trade routes you can get - for instance the Recycler which produces extra production per trade route.

There's also value in being able to switch between food/production and science/energy for your trade route, which means the trade route has utility above and beyond the raw yields, as there is power in being able to choose what return you get.

Finally, there's also value in being able to focus your trade routes on a particular city - for example a city that's building your game-ending wonder, or a new city that has lots of things to build. This also grants utility above and beyond raw yields.

In any case, the fact that we're debating whether one choice in a quest is thirty or sixty times better than the other choice in the quest is pretty damning evidence of a horribly balanced game.

 

[Roxlimn]

Thing is, you've taken a not particularly optimised trade route as your example. First off, it's a land route. Sea routes give bigger yields, and on many maps it's not hard to make every one of your trade routes sea routes. Not only that, but there are additional riders on trade routes you can get - for instance the Recycler which produces extra production per trade route.

There's also value in being able to switch between food/production and science/energy for your trade route, which means the trade route has utility above and beyond the raw yields, as there is power in being able to choose what return you get.

Finally, there's also value in being able to focus your trade routes on a particular city - for example a city that's building your game-ending wonder, or a new city that has lots of things to build. This also grants utility above and beyond raw yields.

In any case, the fact that we're debating whether one choice in a quest is thirty or sixty times better than the other choice in the quest is pretty damning evidence of a horribly balanced game.

I took all of those into consideration. Energy is malleable, so in terms of flexibility of what to use it for and where to use it, it's much more flexible that TRs. Consider than a normal external TR would yield less than half of 30 ept, so 30 is extremely generous.

The quest decision point itself is badly balanced. There's really almost no reason to choose hammers. This only justifies the game itself being badly unbalanced if you already believe that and are just looking for reasons. Confirmation bias is a tricky thing.

 

[Gort]

I took all of those into consideration.

No you didn't. You assumed every route was a land route and mentioned none of the things I mentioned. That is the very reason I mentioned them in the follow-up post.

Energy is malleable, so in terms of flexibility of what to use it for and where to use it, it's much more flexible that TRs. Consider than a normal external TR would yield less than half of 30 ept, so 30 is extremely generous.

External trade routes yield less than internal ones (and indeed enrich an opponent rather than yourself twice), so again you're assuming towards the low-powered end.

The quest decision point itself is badly balanced. There's really almost no reason to choose hammers. This only justifies the game itself being badly unbalanced if you already believe that and are just looking for reasons. Confirmation bias is a tricky thing.

Right so having a quest choice that nobody in their right mind would pick is not evidence of poor balance? You're going to have to explain that bit of spurious logic.

I'm glad the developers are a bit better at analysing game balance than you or we'd never see balance patches for anything at all.

 

[Roxlimn]

Gort:

No you didn't. You assumed every route was a land route and mentioned none of the things I mentioned. That is the very reason I mentioned them in the follow-up post.

There were a lot of other things I did not mention and that you didn't either. I took those into consideration as well. I did pay attention. I crunch the numbers. I don't just look at the screen and think, "Tons," as you yourself confessed that you do.

External trade routes yield less than internal ones (and indeed enrich an opponent rather than yourself twice), so again you're assuming towards the low-powered end.

Hence, why I estimated 30, which is more than twice the energy value of the usual external routes. The variables change from game to game. I'm taking both high and low ends into account.

Right so having a quest choice that nobody in their right mind would pick is not evidence of poor balance? You're going to have to explain that bit of spurious logic.

I think we already hashed that out in the Trade Routes thread. No need to repeat all that here and clog the thread.

 

[Gort]

Hence, why I estimated 30, which is more than twice the energy value of the usual external routes. The variables change from game to game. I'm taking both high and low ends into account.

This is an error, as someone analysing both sides of the Autoplant quest is going to pick the one with the best returns. If you lowball the equivalent energy value of trade routes to the player by assuming they're going to use external land trade routes instead of good ones, you'll just end up with another quest option nobody picks. You need to balance the options around an empire that's built to take advantage of them.

I think we already hashed that out in the Trade Routes thread. No need to repeat all that here and clog the thread.

"Now that I've had my say, let's end the discussion". I seem to recall in the Trade Route thread that you're arguing that everything is fine with Trade Routes and you couldn't even form an opinion on what to do with the Autoplant quest and insisted that the Autoplant quest has nothing to do with Trade Routes even though it gives you 50% more of them. Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

 

[Roxlimn]

Gort:

This is an error, as someone analysing both sides of the Autoplant quest is going to pick the one with the best returns. If you lowball the equivalent energy value of trade routes to the player by assuming they're going to use external land trade routes instead of good ones, you'll just end up with another quest option nobody picks. You need to balance the options around an empire that's built to take advantage of them.

I was. If I was just using the lowball option, the estimate would be much lower than 30. The worst routes get something like +1/+3 hammers and no food. Not every game is going to be played on Atlantean. Not every capital start is coastal. Not everyone pick Continental Surveyor. It'd be a less interesting game if that's the only thing anyone ever picked.

I seem to recall in the Trade Route thread that you're arguing that everything is fine with Trade Routes and you couldn't even form an opinion on what to do with the Autoplant quest and insisted that the Autoplant quest has nothing to do with Trade Routes even though it gives you 50% more of them. Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

You read wrong. I didn't say any of that, and all of that is better discussed in that thread.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

• Adjusting Affinity reward ramping when earning Affinity from Quests.

I misread this at first thinking it meant affinity from more quests but reading it again I think it's just an adjustment to the current ones.
What I was hoping for was less points from tech and more quests tied to improvements. Some have suggested having improvements give points. That could be done threw the quest system.
Also this has been said before, but Alien Genetics really shouldn't be a purity tech. The description of the tech says it could lead to engineering their own alien lifeforms, which is what harmony does. And it boosts biowells which in their description names harmony as who would most use it. Plus, Xenomass. The only why it would make sense for purity was if it game you some sort of anti-alien bioweapon.
I'm thinking they needed more purity points in that area of the tech web and that's the only reason it's there.

 

[Gort]

I was. If I was just using the lowball option, the estimate would be much lower than 30. The worst routes get something like +1/+3 hammers and no food. Not every game is going to be played on Atlantean. Not every capital start is coastal. Not everyone pick Continental Surveyor. It'd be a less interesting game if that's the only thing anyone ever picked.

Nobody ever picks the worst routes. You should pick a highball option. I am heartened that I'm getting through to you that more choices make for a more interesting game - that's why it's in everyone's best interest that they balance trade yields against tile and building yields, otherwise it becomes a boring no-brainer that you max out your number of trade routes in every city at all times.

You read wrong. I didn't say any of that, and all of that is better discussed in that thread.

OK, I'm glad you now agree with me that trade routes are in dire need of revision and have moved on from your earlier position of "I don't consider (the Autoplant quest) relevant to the mechanic of TRs."

 

[Roxlimn]

Nope. I still don't consider that quest relevant to the mechanic of TRs. But there is a TR thread for a reason - that's where that stuff goes. It's still open.

By the by, it's tile and building yields that determine TR yields. "Balancing" them against each other is a completely nonsensical statement.

 

[AgentDib]

The reason why TR/City yield balance is a thing is that the difference between tile and building yields determines TR yields. Newly founded outposts have extremely strong TR yields compared to their tile yields, regardless of city placement. That cheapens one of the key civ decisions and makes ICS a dominant option.

My solution would be to reduce health to limit ICS and reduce TR to one per city. That's an easier fix than adding a TR interface and if you can only build a few cities there will be more reason to care about the placement.

 

[Roxlimn]

Health coming down harder on the Civ as a whole will limit City expansion. Unlimited expansion is not ICS. Infinite City Sprawl is about maximizing tile yields. If you're not even considering the tile yield, then that's not ICS.

Newly founded outputs have strong returns if your capital is already strong. The strong return is a reflection of the capital's yields. If Health forces you to limit cities, then city placement becomes important, whether or not TRs are in there. In fact, redone TRs wouldn't get you to reconsider city placement anyway, if Health were lax enough - just the city tile itself and the output of the city tile is a major gain in real ICS.

TLDR: expansion being strong is a health problem, not a TR problem.

 

[Senethro]

Uhhhh, no? With trade routes being hugely valuable and the number of trade routes being limited by number of cities, trade routes are driving tight and rapid expansion.

 

[Acken]

expansion being strong is a health problem, not a TR problem.

It's currently a problem of both system. If TR weren't there there already would be a bigger incentive to stay healthy because it influences your science output. With 1 in knowledge this is a 20% difference between healthy and not healthy (and a 30% difference if we compare +20 to -1).

It takes quite a lot for a new city to be worth this 20% difference and the 5% penalty for a new city. TR helps making this expansion worthwhile because 2 routes can easily yield enough food/prod (to help pop and buildings each providing science) and science (external routes) to make it worth staying in healthiness.

Both system work hand in hand to make expanding the primary strategy. However yes if instead of removing TR you make un-health so undesirable that the penalty isn't worth the gain acquired by a new city and TR then yes this is the other side of the coin in how to make expanding less strong.

I personally hope they come down on both systems. If they only make unhealth bad it really doesn't fix much (and I'd have to see what they really consider doing there). It will just make expansion slower, you'll still end up with 20-30 trade routes at the end of your now slower game. This is a matter of opinion here but I dislike having to manage that many, it's just a boring task. Also it would make +health type virtues even stronger than it is right now since the new goal would simply to spam while achieving health balance.

 

[Roxlimn]

That reflects a profound misunderstanding of the core Civ conceits. Civ has always rewarded unlimited expansion - that's at the heart of classic ICS from Civ 2 and SMAC. If TRs accelerate that process, it's only emphasizing a core Civ problem. Health aims to put a kibosh on that to make the game more interesting. Its core problem with TRs is that they don't currently interact.

Illustration: If TRs got a 100% reduction in output from being a -1 Health, you'd see a rapid decline in REXing for TRs pretty much immediately.

I personally hope they come down on both systems. If they only make unhealth bad it really doesn't fix much (and I'd have to see what they really consider doing there). It will just make expansion slower, you'll still end up with 20-30 trade routes at the end of your now slower game. This is a matter of opinion here but I dislike having to manage that many, it's just a boring task. Also it would make +health per city type virtues even stronger than it is right now since the new goal would simply to spam while achieving health balance.

That's less a new goals than it is an old goal. Corporations in Civ IV eventually outpace even TR returns currently, so once you get strong enough Corporations, you just literally ICS'd the entire planet in the worst way possible - like a city every other tile.

TR UI management is universally held as a disaster. I don't think anyone's gone up to bat saying it's the best it can be, or even good.

Managing TRs can be interesting, but I think we need a Strategy Guide here for it, since most people even here just just bumble around the thing. Strategically altering TR directions and focus can be used to power and optimize an economy.

 

[Senethro]

Again: Uhhhh, no? In some patches and times in Civ3/4 it was quite possible to expand yourself into a hole. The concept behind Health isn't new. Efficiency, Corruption, City Maintenance etc. Its just all dependent on the strength of the constraint on expansion and sometimes it has been wicked strong. Its a difficult thing to get right, seems to get fiddled with in many patches and yet somehow its always part of Firaxis 33% of a game thats either changed or new.

That solution you're proposing is also a hell of a blunt instrument. I'd rather not put up with mass starvation or all my units disbanding on capturing a large city. Or three. Putting up with -20% science for a few turns is acceptable, economic collapse is not.

 

[Acken]

Illustration: If TRs got a 100% reduction in output from being a -1 Health, you'd see a rapid decline in REXing for TRs pretty much immediately.

But like I said it only slows down your expansion and your acquisition of your TR army.
Listen, I agree that this make you more careful about expanding but as I said it only slows down your game, late game is still the same: management nightmare/boredom of TRs. Everything you do would just be about staying healthy in order to continue this "only competitive" strategy which is to get as many TR as possible. And like I said you also made health virtues the #1 priority now. Getting healthy in CivBE is easy, despite rumors of the contrary.

Let me focus on other aspects of the game rather than making this the ultimate goal where everything you do is only considered in regards to how it helps you get your TR spam going.

Maybe it's just a matter of opinion and you'd be happy with a game like that. Harder (due to health effects), but where the bulk of it is about TR maximization. I certainly do not share this desire.

 

[Roxlimn]

The "solution" I was "proposing" was a blunt instrument showing that the core problem is expansion restraint, not the economic system. The economic system could be anything underneath that expansion constraint.

It is actually not possible to expand yourself into a hole in Civ3. The corruption mechanic didn't work like that. It could make new peripheral cities all but useless, but the effect on the main capitals would be minimal.

Civ4's mechanic could force you into an economic hole provided that you weren't just making enough money to pay for each city that went up - that's doable. In fact, the payment comes instantly later on once you get Corporations. The output of your 1 population 1 tile city was always and instantly strongly positive.

The point is, the problem is with the restraint, not the economy.

But like I said it only slows down your expansion and your acquisition of your TR army.
Listen, I agree that this make you more careful about expanding but as I said it only slows down your game, late game is still the same: management nightmare/boredom of TRs. Everything you do would just be about staying healthy in order to continue this "only competitive" strategy which is to get as many TR as possible. And like I said you also made health virtues the #1 priority now. Getting healthy in CivBE is easy, despite rumors of the contrary.

The problem with late game TR management right now is interface and people not knowing how it works properly due to lack of transparency. Those things can and should be fixed.

You get your TRs as soon as the city gets up. You don't "maximize" the number of TRs. You simply get them up and running the same way you would any basic building or unit. The design means that it's not a choice, anymore than it's a choice or not whether to use tiles or grow citizens. You just do it.

The strategy in TRs is in how you direct them, where, and for what reasons. If you're like many in the TR thread and make useless snow cities just to power your capital, you're leaving an awful lot of resources on the table. The economic system isn't that simple.

 

[Senethro]

The point is, the problem is with the restraint, not the economy.

Only for a hypothetical game. For CivBE trade routes make new cities profitable so quickly that you'd need a ridiculous constraint to keep it in check. And then you'd need to teach both the AI and all players how to use it.

 

[Acken]

I didn't say there's no strategy with the assignment. We "all" know about differential making the TR stronger etc etc.

This is not the subject. What I'm saying is that ultimately it just isn't an interesting concept, which might be just a difference in opinion like I said.

Also please explain why a snow city is useless in current civBE (in general).