1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Late Game Building Yields

Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Stalker0, Dec 13, 2019.

?

Are End Game Yields too high?

  1. Yes

    3 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. No

    3 vote(s)
    50.0%
  1. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,253
    Some have mentioned concern that the yields in the late game have grown too strong. I'm going to repeat my thoughts from a previous thread:

    "The balance points we have to maintain is:

    1) Balance the overall yields for a good gameplay experience.
    2) Ensure a buildings yields are worth the hammers it costs to build that building. Aka "good mouthfeel".

    Personally if we think end game yields are too high...I think its time to start dropping buildings. End game buildings need significant yields to pull their weight, and if those yields are too high, than lets just drop the building. "

    So the primary question I have put in a poll: Are end game yields too high?

    Assuming they are, there are 3 buildings I think we could target for removal/adjustment:


    1) Powerplants: These buildings have been hotly debated in the past, and personally we could just drop them.

    --Probably the simplest option. Combine Hydro and Wind. Create Power Plant: Gain +2 prod, science, and gold to ALL tiles. -2 urbanization.

    --Simple and efficient. No more worrying about terrain (the choice for terrain is LONG past, I am not choosing where I place my cities because of the power plant choice I am going to have 250 turns in the future, its just a waste of space). This balances out the yields no matter the terrain, and lowers the bonuses overall for the civs that had the perfect terrain previously. In effect, you are rewarding big cities that aren't converting everything into specialists. No muss no fuss, just a nice boost to yields without getting crazy.

    2) Research Lab / Medical Lab: Since both of these represent modern "labs", we could just drop one....and potentially cannibalize some of the buildings bonuses and give it to the other.

    Example: Drop Research Lab. Medical Lab now: +2 pop, -1 poverty and illiteracy, +2 yields for scientist, merchant, engineer (any ideology bonus to the research lab now goes to the medical lab)

    --So this removes some raw science yields, but also reduces GS production....which is already the strongest GP at this point in the game. So this gives you some science reduction, and keeps the medical lab as a strong and powerful building.

    3) Coal Refinery: We remove the 15% production. The main purpose of the refinery (similar to the recycling plant) is to provide strategic resources for those that need it. But because of the 15% production its actually a strong building in your big production cities, so it gets built more than it was intended imo. We could just remove that bonus, lowering late game yields and turning it back into the "only when needed" kind of building.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2019
    Bromar1 likes this.
  2. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Deleting stuff is...tricky, because Firaxis, in their infinite wisdom, tied some defines in the game to the table layout of the vanilla game. It's not terribly safe to delete XML items. That's a technical knock against removal.

    If there's a yield imbalance here, let's give the powerplants an instant yield bonus and remove some tile inflation.

    G
     
  3. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,253
    The Wind plant is not a vanilla building (had to go to vanilla to doublecheck its been so long, and man the vanilla tech tree looks SOOOO weird now). So we could rename hydro and remove wind. The Coal Refinery and Agribusiness are also still viable candidates for removal because they were created for the mod.
     
  4. Gazebo

    Gazebo Lord of the Community Patch Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    17,848
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Sure. BUT I don't think deletion is necessary - the late game is already starved for novel building production options, reducing choices harms building production % modifiers and would have a negative impact on non-standard speeds. I don't think this is the best solution. I'd rather find niches for the existing constructions than remove them.

    G
     
  5. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,062
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    But the power plants are all mutually exclusive, so they are really only 1 building. Why would you delete some of them?

    I like the power plants. I want them to stay. I like them so much I made an entire mod around my desire to see a 5th plant added, so that all the tiles get the love. There’s nothing wrong with nice big yields on terrain, but they have to be in line with other bonuses like policies and traits so that they don’t just make it all feel like a wash at the end.

    the problem you cite with having to choose terrain and it being too late for that is indeed an issue right now, but why not change power plants so that every tile mix is represented rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water? The real issue right now is that tundra and coastal have no good options for power plants except nuclear. That can easily be fixed.

    I fully support the idea of removing the 15%:c5production:production from refineries. I think the refinery is too good for that bonus alone. However, I would also add 1 free oil to the refinery. So it gives 1 iron, 1 coal, and 1 oil.
     
  6. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,253
    And I have no issue with that, but your original counter was that it wasn't technical possibility. This is actually not the case. If we want to keep the buildings to keep the buildings, no issue. But there is no "well we can't delete buildings because technically its really difficult". So I wanted to make that clear to the audience that its still a viable option if we get to that point.
     
  7. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,253
    I really feel like sometimes people read one part of my argument, and ignore every other part. I offered the possibility of removing the power plant, but in the same breath I also offered an option to change it so its +2 prod, gold, and science to ALL tiles. No muss no fuss, every tile feels the love equally. The plant is still strong, but its no longer "super strong" in the hands of a player with perfect terrain. If that's your preference, well there you go, its about a simple a change as you could want.
     
  8. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,062
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    We talkin' past each other, that's why. You are suggesting that covering all the tiles is a way to remove power plant types, but I'm saying covering all the tiles is a reason to add power plant types.

    Both will work, yes, but I would prefer a solution that gives players one last set of choices to optimize their city for the final push.

    basically, I hope that my power plant proposal gets adopted into the base VP. The tech tree is so empty up there; it’s going to be even worse f you cut buildings.
    Spoiler My Power Plants mod's current setup :


    • Tidal Plant (Requires 1 Aluminum, City must be on Coast)
      • Unlocked at Ecology (same tech as Solar Plant)
      • 2 Specialist no longer produces :c5unhappy:Urbanization Unhappiness.
      • +10 :c5production:
      • +2:c5production:2:c5science:2:c5gold:2:c5food: to Coast and Ocean tiles
      • :c5production: Production yield conversion for all processes in this city increased to 33%

    • Hydro Plant (Requires 1 Aluminum, City must be on a River):
      • 2 Specialist no longer produces :c5unhappy:Urbanization Unhappiness.
      • +10 :c5production:
      • +3:c5production:3:c5gold:3:c5food: to River and Lake tiles
      • :c5production: Production yield conversion for all processes in this city increased to 33%
    • Wind Plant (Requires 1 Aluminum, can be built Anywhere):
      • 2 Specialist no longer produces :c5unhappy:Urbanization Unhappiness.
      • +10 :c5production:
      • +1 :c5production:1:c5culture:1:c5gold: to All tiles (grassland/plains/desert/tundra/snow/coast/ocean)
      • :c5production: Production yield conversion for all processes in this city increased to 33%
    • Solar Plant (Requires 1 Aluminum, City must be on or next to Desert):
      • 2 Specialist no longer produces :c5unhappy:Urbanization Unhappiness.
      • +10 :c5production:, +10%:c5production:
      • +3:c5production:3:c5science: to Desert tiles
      • +1:c5production:1:c5science: to Non-Desert Land tiles (grassland/plains/tundra/snow)
      • :c5production: Production yield conversion for all processes in this city increased to 33%
    • Nuclear Plant (Requires 1 Uranium, can be built Anywhere):
      • 2 Specialist no longer produces :c5unhappy:Urbanization Unhappiness.
      • +20 :c5production:, +33%:c5production:
      • On Completion, 5% of the :c5production: Cost of Buildings are converted into :c5greatperson:GEngineer and :c5greatperson:GScientist points
      • :c5production: Production yield conversion for all processes in this city increased to 33%
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2019
  9. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,253
    I feel like your solution is simply creating complexity where it doesn't need to exist. I already have a choice.... Regular Plant vs Nuclear Plant. I can get some nice general yields on all of my tiles or I can focus on production. A solid choice. This way all of the tiles are taken care of, we have reduced late game yield bloat, there is no risk that one player with perfect terrain gets a god bonus, the power plant is still plenty useful, and it even makes coast/ocean tiles more competitive. Further, I have not technically removed any buildings in terms of how many a city can build....they still can build the same number of buildings overall.

    Why is simple so bad? I feel like this solves all of the major problems people are bringing up in a dirt simple way.
     
    Bromar1 likes this.
  10. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,062
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I've been asking this exact same thing about the skirmisher line.

    But anyways, the reason I oppose it here is because you're talking about deleting 2 vanilla buildings, the hydro and solar plants, and fusing them into some sort of amorphous energy entity. I don’t like the idea of stripping out base CivV components.

    also, I get why Hydro plants boost rivers. I get why solar plants boost deserts. I get why a wind plant could just be hypothetically built anywhere, since we don't have a meaningful way of charting wind speeds on a civ map and they can be built offshore. I don't get how an 'energy' plant is adding value to the terrain in a way that a nuclear plant isn't.
     
  11. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,253
    I didn't touch the solar plant. Though I think its pretty superfluous most of the time, it is not the cause of any late game yield inflation so I left it alone. So the only building that would be removed is the wind plant...which is not in vanilla civ. And a reminder, this does not actually reduce the number of buildings a player can build (as they can build 1 power plant anyway)...so there is no concern about changing that.

    And if the names of the power plants are causing IRL issues we can always change them. Call them General Power Plant (for general benefits) and Industrial Power Plant (for production) if that makes it clearer for people. I mean realistically a Hydro plant wouldn't make rivers better, it would actually do the exact opposite (rivers generally get weaker and less usable past the dam). How the electricity is made has no bearing on what things get benefits...its all about how the electricity is used.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2019
  12. Coffee Monopoly

    Coffee Monopoly Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2019
    Messages:
    101
    Gender:
    Male
    THIS, THIS, THIS! Please, for the love of god, make this happen.
     
    Bromar1 likes this.
  13. phantomaxl1207

    phantomaxl1207 King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    769
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indiana
    I support the idea of an all Tile Power Plant model for the Wind Plant.
     
  14. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    4,831
    Location:
    Beijing
    What I like about the current stuff
    • It rewards growth. Getting 4 science added to weakish tiles makes me thing about growing to 30+ pop instead of stopping at 20-something.
    What I dislike
    • I can't follow the flavor at all. A wind plant could produce some science I suppose, but massive amounts of science to all the tiles?
    • It screws Tundra and Desert, for no good reason.
    • They screw you for working coasts/ocean
    • Yield inflation. Too many yields all of a sudden, it makes other decisions less important
    Dan's mod is probably an overall improvement but I think it leaves a lot to be desired. Those plants aren't really balanced with each other IMO.

    Do the plants needs to buff tiles themselves? They could just have base yields +1 yield per X citizens, or something.
     
  15. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,253
    The only functional difference between "+X to all tiles" and "+X for every Y citizens" is that the first gives benefits for non-specialist growth, whereas the second gives benefits for growth period. You could also argue the first one is a little more visual pleasing for those who like "tile porn". Ultimately though its a very similar mechanic, and I have no issue with either.
     
  16. HungryForFood

    HungryForFood Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    400
    Location:
    Malaysia
    For Wind/Hydro, I suggest just extending the tile bonus to all tiles, while keeping the build restrictions. So the difference between river and non-river cities would just be the type of yields, and tundra, desert, etc would not be unfairly penalised.

    I'm also ok with the yield per citizens idea.

    Why are Wind/Hydro mutually exclusive with Nuclear/Solar? It makes it so that you have to make Wind/Hydro competitive with the hefty +50% production bonus.
     
    phantomaxl1207 likes this.
  17. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    5,062
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    Putting yields on ALL tiles is certainly better than the current state of things. Indeed, my modmod has Wind plant giving yields to all tiles. However, I would prefer more options rather than less. We have the art assets, and they’re mutually exclusive so they aren’t bloating anything, and they help fill out the tech tree so it’s not so empty up there.
     
  18. Rekk

    Rekk Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,048
    And even if cities don't necessarily get options to choose between different power plants, it does add to the consideration in tech choices.
     
  19. Moi Magnus

    Moi Magnus Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,867
    The endgame techs already feel painfully empty to me. If we remove even more buildings, that mean late game techs become even more "we need some techs to delay the science victory, but you're not supposed to care about them"

    Maybe one of the problem is that we expect late game buildings to be "a lot of hammers => a lot of bonuses", which is essentially impossible to balance when there is not a lot of turns remaining. Cheaper late game buildings would be easier to balance.
     
  20. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    6,253
    Ultimately the problem we face is one core to most Civ games (heck most 4x games). At some point you stop "playing civ" and start "finishing civ". And once your at that point, its all about either getting your win condition, or stopping someone else from getting theirs. Its that cut and dry, and nothing else, no matter how cool or interesting, will matter.

    So in terms of getting your end condition, there are several benefits already. Enhanced Tourism, globalization is a huge boon for DV, and lots of units for Domination (or to be used to stop another condition).

    So what's really left? I can think of two possibilities:

    1) Buildings that hinder another person's victory more passively. We already have units for "active interference...aka war". You could go with more passive screw mechanics. Example: "Space Scramblers" - Increase all opponent spaceship part cost by 20%.

    2) More WC type projects. Maybe during the information age you just have certain projects automatically come up....ones that give really solid bonuses. So either you commit your civs to that project or you focus on your win condition...but the projects are really good so you have to juggle your hammers appropriately.


    Things like that. Now personally I think that is beyond the scope of the mod. Civ 5 has this problem innate in its core, its something that would take some real thought to really address.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2019
    cerk likes this.

Share This Page