Building Re-Costing Project

[JosEPh_II]

If on Noble the player does not make Classical by 2000BC then That is actually good especially for Normal GS. Because it will ramp up. But the longer it takes the better in the long run.

This also emphasizes why I resisted making all GS symmetrical in using multiples of 100 for many modifiers. And also illustrates what I was saying about the slower speeds accumulating more to actually speed up many factors in game play in relation to Eras and Research. It's why I had Eternity originally set at a much larger research % than what it has now, and similarly for snail as well.

By you getting in some real play time and comparing 2 different GS you are starting to see what I was trying to convey.

 

[cammcken]

I DID decide to hold off on getting Sedentary Lifestyle until I got all the techs I was about to leave behind so as to give more time for 2nd and 3d city development and constructing at a lower expense.

How does Sedentary Lifestyle affect this, exactly?

 

[Thunderbrd]

If on Noble the player does not make Classical by 2000BC then That is actually good especially for Normal GS. Because it will ramp up. But the longer it takes the better in the long run.

This also emphasizes why I resisted making all GS symmetrical in using multiples of 100 for many modifiers. And also illustrates what I was saying about the slower speeds accumulating more to actually speed up many factors in game play in relation to Eras and Research. It's why I had Eternity originally set at a much larger research % than what it has now, and similarly for snail as well.

By you getting in some real play time and comparing 2 different GS you are starting to see what I was trying to convey.

The main thing is that you can get more cities out faster if you plan things well on a longer gamespeed. And the rounding factor that limits the 'time resolution' allows for shaving here and shaving there.

Gold is much more on target on the longer game. On Normal I have an absolute glut of gold.

How does Sedentary Lifestyle affect this, exactly?

I have it set so that when you reach the Ancient era, all building construction costs go up by 20% for that player, regardless of whether or not the building was qualified by an Ancient tech or Prehistoric. So this means that if you rush Sedentary Lifestyle, you make your cities less capable of constructing as fast and thus less capable of empowering themselves as quickly. If you wait, you may lose out on the free tech, but your cities develop faster and that may be more effective than the free tech! I managed to achieve both but I was playing on Noble level so not the most fair test on which is more effective, rushing for SL or leaving it alone and not getting the free tech (and being delayed in getting to some more powerful techs beyond that too.)

 

[Rmi]

In all my games so far gold is never an issue. Only when saving up subdued animals to get your herdboost in the first few cities does it matter. After that it just keeps stacking up to the millions.

 

[JosEPh_II]

In all my games so far gold is never an issue. Only when saving up subdued animals to get your herdboost in the first few cities does it matter. After that it just keeps stacking up to the millions.

This should probably be in the Game Speed (GS) thread But....since you brought it up please give GS used plus Handicap played with for starters.

 

[raxo2222]

So anyone tried cutting initial Palace commerce to 5 or even 2 from default 10 ? That would slow down initial research speed until commerce from palace gets irrevelant.

 

[Toffer90]

So anyone tried cutting initial Palace commerce to 5 or even 2 from default 10 ? That would slow down initial research speed until commerce from palace gets irrevelant.

I've tried it, in my modmod it is set to 0 .
But I've changed so much in the modmod that it's pointless to compare the effect of this one change with stock C2C.

 

[raxo2222]

I've tried it, in my modmod it is set to 0 .
But I've changed so much in the modmod that it's pointless to compare the effect of this one change with stock C2C.

I guess you had to hunt a lot to get your first flowing.

 

[Thunderbrd]

It'll be a lot more like that when you don't have a city to start with on the nomadic start.

This might be a good idea actually...

 

[JosEPh_II]

So anyone tried cutting initial Palace commerce to 5 or even 2 from default 10 ? That would slow down initial research speed until commerce from palace gets irrevelant.

Initial research speed is not really a problem. It's the buildings and especially WWs and NWs that give big research boosts that are. But I can guarantee that as soon as I would cut a WW's research bonus players would come screaming that the Wonder is now worthless. Happens all the time.

Example from another part of the mod, just like now, after having gold rate relatively under control, Pit comes complaining his UEM is broken, gets T-brd and others involved. So I reduce his/Eternity goldmodifier by 10%. And raise all the others but Eon and iirc Snail. Already I have others players complaining in just the last few days that they are "swimming" in gold again. Not every suggestion is a good suggestion and not every player will get satisfied. I have to weigh the balance and be on the heavy side now most of the time. Otherwise we're back to that Old Tired Mantra of "Too Much Gold".

 

[Thunderbrd]

Initial research speed is not really a problem. It's the buildings and especially WWs and NWs that give big research boosts that are. But I can guarantee that as soon as I would cut a WW's research bonus players would come screaming that the Wonder is now worthless. Happens all the time.

The very first techs feel like they are coming a bit quickly for the production and part of that is due to the flaw you pointed out in the ramping up of the base charts allowing a little too much cost on some of the earliest units and buildings. A reduction of palace commerce could help to make this feel a bit more on target. That's what I'm seeing in this that might make it a good idea.

Also, those earliest wonders ARE valuable, BUT:
1) The obsolete at Sedentary Lifestyle
2) Should at least be group wonders so you can't hog them all
3) Are extremely undercost - as I'm working on the world wonders recosting I'm finding that they are gaining more construction cost according to their World Wonder status (which I'm not yet shifting over to a little cheaper group wonder status). This will make building them even more a reluctant factor for the wise player.

In all, I think players would be right if we pulled their abilities down much. They are already on the fence as to whether it's a good idea to build them or not. Soon to be even more so after the recosting is complete.

Otherwise we're back to that Old Tired Mantra of "Too Much Gold".

Yeah this is always going to be a matter of frustration because as the mod itself gets adjusted here and there, this is one of the hardest things to keep on any kind of a target. But according to the latest testing here, I can say I've not remembered a time recently where gold was so loose. It's always going to be a matter of lots of strings pulling on this factor and keeping it in balance will never be easy as things continue to adjust.

 

[Rmi]

I always get all the cavemen wonders i can. I always focus on production first and calculate best ROI for hammers. The wonders to me are pretty much a no-brainer especially the first few to get you going.
I sometimes feel bad for hoarding them all, but i can't deny myself the value. Making them group wonders would help a lot.
I suggest making several groups though.
- Cave needed
- Coast needed
- Nothing needed
- Prehistoric wonders that last beyond sedentary.

NOTE - I play with pick your traits (start with 0) and always pick industrious first. I LOVE collecting wonders (and animals).
NOTE2 - I play with unlimited wonders.

 

[Rmi]

I already focus on production in favor of everything else, imho this is the most efficient way to play the game. When you play your test games do you focus on production first and then commerce/food or a more moderate approach.
E.G. If someone would focus more on tech and food and hit a new era a bit earlier there would be a big punishment to build the skipped production buildings.
Someone who build those first and build tech buildings later would reach the era a bit later but have very few penalties doing so. And most likely a much better infrastructure.

It seems the production revamp you do, encourages people to be more careful with selecting buildings they need (very good), but also heavily penalize a player going for not doing so. If you go to far with this you make production first the only viable strategy. Especially if the science/culture/wealth buttons are not balanced along side this.

Not saying any of it is wrong or bad, just thinking out loud what it means if building costs become a lot harsher.

 

[Thunderbrd]

you make production first the only viable strategy

It always has been and always will be. What you do after production first makes the difference. However, there comes a point where if it takes too long to get production and you can't get enough of a return on the investment to make it worth it to build up the production base, then sometimes, perhaps food or research might be best to weave some in even if you haven't fully empowered your production levels yet. You can spend too much time on production perhaps.

Ultimately, in the long run, you'll probably find that the building costs aren't THAT much more harsh than they were, just more measured to benefit those who take a more balanced approach to the tech tree. Beelining becomes a bit tougher to benefit from but the benefits still exist so it's harder to measure which approach is best, a more gradual fill in all the techs by collumn approach or rushing to get some of the bigger bonuses quicker, even if they cost more to build and you might not have built up your production base as much when you're trying to construct them.

All in all, imo, the experience comes across as a subtle but powerful game adjustment that makes it harder to determine 'best' courses of action from the numerous good strategies that exist. You are right, however, that it tends to introduce a harsher penalty for clumsy and poor play. This is also good imo.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I just started a new latest-SVN game, and I noticed that the new building costs significantly changes the game. Higher cost of buildings means you get a relatively lower Return on Investment (ROI) i.e. it takes longer to get your investment back, so it is no longer a matter of just spamming all hammer buildings, then all science buildings, then all cheap money buildings, then grab the cheap food buildings to speed up growth to size 6 where new build options become available. Harder choices need to be made and other strategies that used to be non-optimal become valid.

This has been my experience with it as well. Finally, we found a way to break the monotony by demanding the player consider things more selectively and have broken up the best practices into a system where you have to pay attention to the details as they emerge with each city.

Meanwhile, SO is not happy with these changes.

I also have a complaint regarding the amount of time it takes to build wonders. Is x8 too much for the wonders to be worthwhile? Do we need to back these down? Or should we be backing down everything just a little in cost? Or is it just that the game start is too severe on costs? These questions need to be discussed among players that are starting games on the current assets.

Another issue has been the grouping of the cave and feature wonders. I'm told that their costs and the fact you can only get one of each now makes them worthless to build. However, on the flip side, we were clearly seeing a huge problem with them being cheap enough and collectible so they could give a civ, with a little early boost to production from a good tile, a massive runaway lead coming out of the prehistoric era. By grouping them they are not as costly as full on world wonders, are restricted in how much growth surge they can bring to one player, and enforcing that the player select the yields/commerces they prefer to focus on while keeping the race to get the preferred selections. It should make it again, less procedural when to build one, and far more a judgement call for the player which ones to take the risk to reach for, knowing they only get one from the set and someone else may be trying for it too.

I may need to put up a poll as to whether we should keep it this way but I can't see a downside here. Before going to that extent, I'm just asking for open feedback on this and how the re-costing has changed things. We have options now on tweaking how the change impacts the flow of the game. This is just a new platform and we are not completely stuck with it. Ratios, in numerous ways, can be adjusted.

So by all means, lets take our love of arguing and put it to good use shall we?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Another issue has been the grouping of the cave and feature wonders. I'm told that their costs and the fact you can only get one of each now makes them worthless to build.

I think it is more the return needs to be upped slightly so that they are still relevant. Perhaps by 1 each where they produce eg from 3 to 4 just enough to balance with the increased costs of the normal building.

 

[Noriad2]

In my new game I'm in mid-classic and so far I have mixed, but slightly positive feelings about the building recosting project. I play snail and I have a rule-of-thumb that a building must have at least a 1% return-on-investment (ROI) to be worth building, unless it provides a special resource I don't already have. For this rule-of-thumb I count hammers, money and beakers as equivalent.

With the new building costs, at snail speed, many buildings that used to be worth it fall below this threshold and are not really worth building anymore in my opinion. But as it takes more time to build the buildings that are still worth it, I hardly notice skipping them.

Less production from buildings means that production from population becomes more important relatively, so having a high population (with its effects on crime, education, health etc) becomes more important.

There are a large number of buildings that weren't worth building before, and are even less worth building now. For example here are a large number of fruit, vegetable and mushroom buildings in the game. Great flavour but they are too expensive for their benefits. Perhaps the cost/benefit ratio of these buildings should be increased by a lot, making them much more worth building and making cities different from each other. One way would be to meddle with health. For example, you could let every pop cause 2 unhealth in stead of 1. And give the various fruits, vegetable and mushroom buildings an additional health bonus. Perhaps not right from the beginning, but around the time humanity gave up on the hunter-gatherer diet and started farming his food. The hunter-gatherer diet was fresh and diverse, the farmer's diet usually wasn't. In fact, archeologist have found that hunter-gatherers were in considerable better health than the earliest farmers. Letting every pop cause 2 unhealth starting with Agriculture tech would simulate that, and give health-producing buildings additional worth. The various fruit, vegetable and mushroom buildings should give additional health (perhaps even 2 health), and the various herd farms (buildable after you place a herd in the city) should give additional health too (they currently don't).

Same thing for other rare buildings. For example, I can build an Onyx mine for 584 hammers. It gives one unhealth and 2 money (actual 3.06). So the ROI for my rule-of-thumb would be 3.06/584 = 0.52% . Which makes it not worth building, and the unhealth is extra reason not to. The Onyx mine also gives Gems but you only need 1 Gems to supply your entire civ. As these special mines only show up in cities that already have one of the 7 map gem types, additional Gem are only worth it if you can trade them to other civs.

Same for e.g. Marble Quarry. It cost 584 hammers and give +1 hammer, +1 unhealth and 2 money (actual +1 hammer and +3.06). So its ROI would be 4.06/584 = a disappointing 0.7%. And it gives unhealth too. In other words, not really worth building.

In my opinion, such specialty buildings like Onyx mine and Marble Quarry should give much better ROI.

By making specialty-buildings more valuable than regular buildings, you make a step towards making cities more unique based on their location.

 

[pepper2000]

By making specialty-buildings more valuable than regular buildings, you make a step towards making cities more unique based on their location.

This is a very sound analysis. I would say the same applies to map resource-dependent farms and orchards.

 

[Thunderbrd]

There are a large number of buildings that weren't worth building before, and are even less worth building now. For example here are a large number of fruit, vegetable and mushroom buildings in the game. Great flavour but they are too expensive for their benefits. Perhaps the cost/benefit ratio of these buildings should be increased by a lot, making them much more worth building and making cities different from each other. One way would be to meddle with health. For example, you could let every pop cause 2 unhealth in stead of 1. And give the various fruits, vegetable and mushroom buildings an additional health bonus. Perhaps not right from the beginning, but around the time humanity gave up on the hunter-gatherer diet and started farming his food. The hunter-gatherer diet was fresh and diverse, the farmer's diet usually wasn't. In fact, archeologist have found that hunter-gatherers were in considerable better health than the earliest farmers. Letting every pop cause 2 unhealth starting with Agriculture tech would simulate that, and give health-producing buildings additional worth. The various fruit, vegetable and mushroom buildings should give additional health (perhaps even 2 health), and the various herd farms (buildable after you place a herd in the city) should give additional health too (they currently don't).

Interesting idea to have the amount of unhealth per pop increase by era (one way I read into this discussion). It's something I will continue to think on for a bit but I think it's right. And then I have to think on how it gets introduced in and I think there's a way that works with autobuildings and gateway techs to be automatic, maybe not even a full extra unhealth per pop but enough that we could start making it more and more challenging.

Another thing I wanted to do was start increasing base yield and commerce returns on buildings based on the era rather than allowing them to stay at all +1. After a while +1 doesn't cut the mustard when the cost of the building is so high. I want to include some more tags to help with this and establish some new standards by era but those are project waves to come. iN short, point well made, taken and it plays into future plans as I've seen and recognized the issues you're alluding to as well.

Same thing for other rare buildings. For example, I can build an Onyx mine for 584 hammers. It gives one unhealth and 2 money (actual 3.06). So the ROI for my rule-of-thumb would be 3.06/584 = 0.52% . Which makes it not worth building, and the unhealth is extra reason not to. The Onyx mine also gives Gems but you only need 1 Gems to supply your entire civ. As these special mines only show up in cities that already have one of the 7 map gem types, additional Gem are only worth it if you can trade them to other civs.

I have some special ideas for how we should be working with resources like these and a whole set of projects to improve this side of things and the value of collecting further varieties, thus enhancing the benefits of trading. I don't have time to explain at the moment but suffice it to say, I see there being issues with what you're pointing at as well. And now that the buildings are charted by themes, it will be MUCH easier to go through and make adjustments to the way certain building types work.

In my opinion, such specialty buildings like Onyx mine and Marble Quarry should give much better ROI.

By making specialty-buildings more valuable than regular buildings, you make a step towards making cities more unique based on their location.

In short, I completely agree. I just see a few extra angles on how we can work this sort of uniqueness to a more... interactive advantage.

This is a very sound analysis. I would say the same applies to map resource-dependent farms and orchards.

Yep. Again, +1.


What I want to propose on this is too radical for the range of this discussion and probably needs its own thread. I'll explain soon. I've touched on the beginning of it elsewhere previously by mentioning 'Zoning'. But honestly, it should be written out in true project proposition style rather than thrown into an existing discussion.

 

[cammcken]

For example here are a large number of fruit, vegetable and mushroom buildings in the game.

I would be a proponent of combining them into one generic building, such as the fish traps: E.g., a building named "Plantations", with the effect "+1 / +1 for each banana, coconut, papaya, guava, mango, apple, fig, date, almond, pistachio, etc. in city vicinity". This way, the building becomes more valuable the more bonuses you have and vice versa. Just an idea. It would mess with prerequisite chains, and there's no way to grant extra yields for diversity (ie, wheat + apples = strawberries), so there would need to be work-arounds anyway. But I think it would help clean up the build menu.

Full agreement about increasing the value, though. The suggestion I posted earlier in this thread could have a similar effect.

Spoiler Suggestion :

Here's an idea: The forge is a prerequisite for all the smelter buildings. What if the forge's price is increased a little, so that the smelters' costs can be decreased a little? And similar changes for all the other bonus buildings: hunter's camp for specified hunter's camps, fishing nets for bonus fish buildings, miner's camp for bonus resource mines...

I have some special ideas for how we should be working with resources like these and a whole set of projects to improve this side of things and the value of collecting further varieties, thus enhancing the benefits of trading. I don't have time to explain at the moment but suffice it to say, I see there being issues with what you're pointing at as well.

I'm excited