Upcoming Beta - Changelog Preview

[Rekk]

Alright so I know that Marathon city state influence rewards were often very high (like 100+ influence with 100+ yield) but the recent change might have made them too low. Across all my recent games I consistently saw quests like the one below.

Spoiler :

I don't know what changed, but there has to be a middle ground that doesn't involve making city state quests only useful for their yields.

Unless of course that is the stated goal? I remember it was to make city state quests stronger early game and then phase out.

Quest rewards should be exactly the same as standard, including the frequency at which they are offered.

 

[Ziad]

Quest rewards should be exactly the same as standard, including the frequency at which they are offered.

Not sure about that. Yields need to scale according to gamespeed, and I suspect they already do.

As for influence, perhaps. I just find it odd given that city state quests are presumably supposed to be a major source of influence early on only to be passed by emissaries etc later. If that has changed then that's what it is. Just commenting.

 

[DarkZero]

Not sure about that. Yields need to scale according to gamespeed.

As for influence, perhaps. I just find it odd given that city state quests are presumably supposed to be a major source of influence early on only to be passed by emissaries etc later. If that has changed then that's what it is. Just commenting.

The influence rewards where for sure lowered, but it appears that whatever formula balances for game speeds is making it even lower than normal, on standard speed it averages between 20 to 40 influence at least, whit irrational cs fudging the average.

 

[Rekk]

Not sure about that. Yields need to scale according to gamespeed, and I suspect they already do.

Why should yields scale with game speed if CSes are offering those yields at the same rate as standard? If quests are being offered at a reduced rate, then sure, increase the yields.

 

[tu_79]

Regarding diversity:

For realism.
A trader always brings and takes away products. Loading more things in origin city A, means the trader can sell more things in destination city B. The trader does not return with his benefits back to city A. He purchases exotic products in city B that he thinks he can sell back in city A, making a second profit when he's back. And back to his origin city, the trader will expend his money living in his city. The trader just cannot sell things to one city that already exist in the city.

A simple case. City A has 1 salt. City B has nothing. Then City B can buy salt to City A. A gains 1 gold for the trade scaled by city B size (more people, more merchandise can be bought), plus the same amount as the traders benefit, who stays at city A for a living.

Other case. City A has 1 salt. City B has 1 salt. No trading is possible.

Other case. City A has 1 salt. City B has 1 amber, 3 truffles. City A can sell its salt. City B can sell all of their goodies too. City B gets 4 gold, scaled by city A size. City A gets 1 gold scaled by city B size. City A also gets the sum of everything as the trader benefit.


For gameplay.
Cities that are far away normally don't have the same resources, so we can ignore that part. For simplicity, each city gains their number of improved resources, scaled by the other city size. And the origin city gains the sum of both values. After that, apply distance modifiers.
For example. City A: 10 pop, 3 resources. City B: 15 pop, 2 resources.
A base value = 3 * 1.5 = 4.5.
B base value = 2 * 1.0 = 2.0
Trader (from city A) earnings = 6.5
Distance modifier to trader earnings (say 75%) = 4.9
So A gains 9.4, and B gains 2

Other example. City A: 25 pop, 3 resources. City B: 10 pop, 6 resources.
A base value = 3 * 1.5 = 4.5
B base value = 6 * 2.5 = 15
Trader earnings = 19.5
Distance modifier (say 50% for a close route) = 9.7
A gains 14.2, and B gains 15.

 

[Gazebo]

Regarding diversity:

For realism.
A trader always brings and takes away products. Loading more things in origin city A, means the trader can sell more things in destination city B. The trader does not return with his benefits back to city A. He purchases exotic products in city B that he thinks he can sell back in city A, making a second profit when he's back. And back to his origin city, the trader will expend his money living in his city. The trader just cannot sell things to one city that already exist in the city.

A simple case. City A has 1 salt. City B has nothing. Then City B can buy salt to City A. A gains 1 gold for the trade scaled by city B size (more people, more merchandise can be bought), plus the same amount as the traders benefit, who stays at city A for a living.

Other case. City A has 1 salt. City B has 1 salt. No trading is possible.

Other case. City A has 1 salt. City B has 1 amber, 3 truffles. City A can sell its salt. City B can sell all of their goodies too. City B gets 4 gold, scaled by city A size. City A gets 1 gold scaled by city B size. City A also gets the sum of everything as the trader benefit.


For gameplay.
Cities that are far away normally don't have the same resources, so we can ignore that part. For simplicity, each city gains their number of improved resources, scaled by the other city size. And the origin city gains the sum of both values. After that, apply distance modifiers.
For example. City A: 10 pop, 3 resources. City B: 15 pop, 2 resources.
A base value = 3 * 1.5 = 4.5.
B base value = 2 * 1.0 = 2.0
Trader (from city A) earnings = 6.5
Distance modifier to trader earnings (say 75%) = 4.9
So A gains 9.4, and B gains 2

Other example. City A: 25 pop, 3 resources. City B: 10 pop, 6 resources.
A base value = 3 * 1.5 = 4.5
B base value = 6 * 2.5 = 15
Trader earnings = 19.5
Distance modifier (say 50% for a close route) = 9.7
A gains 14.2, and B gains 15.

I considered something like this, however - since GPT is already scaled by population (the base value for the city is scaled by GPT, which is in-turn scaled by pop), I decided that making resource diversity solely about resource difference would help communicate more easily the differences between two cities.

G

 

[Gazebo]

FYI, ran into a performance bottleneck. Hope to publish in a little while after a few more tests.

G

 

[infidel88]

For realism - consider this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_right - in civ it would mean a caravan wouldn't be able to go just from point A to point B without passing through other cities (and getting their goods), so whole diversity thing should be based on civs level, not cities level.

 

[Gazebo]

For realism - consider this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_right - in civ it would mean a caravan wouldn't be able to go just from point A to point B without passing through other cities (and getting their goods), so whole diversity thing should be based on civs level, not cities level.

Too complicated.

G

 

[tu_79]

I considered something like this, however - since GPT is already scaled by population (the base value for the city is scaled by GPT, which is in-turn scaled by pop), I decided that making resource diversity solely about resource difference would help communicate more easily the differences between two cities.

G

I was thinking the same thing, later. Probably the best way to implement is the current system, but adding a % when resource types are different between both cities. So if one city has a resource that the other hasn't, then add x% to the route value. But I'm not sure that the number of tiles of the same resource should count, as it does not add diversity. Monopoly extra bonus might be right, since having a monopoly allows increasing the price.

 

[Rekk]

Not sure about that. Yields need to scale according to gamespeed, and I suspect they already do.

As for influence, perhaps. I just find it odd given that city state quests are presumably supposed to be a major source of influence early on only to be passed by emissaries etc later. If that has changed then that's what it is. Just commenting.

I've spent some time thinking about this.

You're right, of course. Influence thresholds for friendly/allied remain the same at 30/60 for all game speeds. Gaining a friend or an ally needs to occur at the same rate, therefore influence gain (and loss) needs to happen at the same rate. In terms of quests, both the time between quest offers, and the amount of yields, should be scaled with game speed. This way, influence per quest can remain constant throughout game speeds. If quests are offered over the same number of turns on all speeds, then yields can remain the same, but the influence gained needs to scale in reverse.

 

[MorphBer]

I like this approach I just want to point out that for events, that are count stuff over time, the duration should be the same on all game speeds then.

 

[yogiebere]

Balance
    General
        Increased unit/building cost by around 30-40% at base

G

So does this mean every building/unit is increased by 30-40%? Seems like a huge change