cluttering mass expansion

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Balance Suggestions cluttering mass expansion

This topic contains 133 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by  NINJEW 6 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 121 through 134 (of 134 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #225009

    NINJEW
    Member

    please kill settler spam dead, there is nothing about it that sounds like a fun or interesting strategy to either use or play against, and it’s also crushingly powerful.

    #225020

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I can’t believe you aren’t getting it.

    1) Settler spam needs SPACE, otherwise you are fucked with it (you need a relatively big map with relatively few players)

    2) You cannot build a lot of Outposts when Outposts are a strain on your economy. You don’t want to kill the possibility to settling you just want to limit the amount of settling you can do at the same time.

    That means (whether you get it or not).

    a) You simply heap an upkeep on Outposts (and if you are STILL not grasping the concept, imagine you have to pay 100 Gold for an Outpost for as long as it IS an Outpost; what do you think how many Outposts you can afford to have at the same time? And before you start – Throne City may be an exception.)

    b) Since in that case the number of turns a settlement will be an Outpost is very important you CAN limit pop growth in Outposts.

    Problem solved. Period.

    #225022

    NINJEW
    Member

    1) Settler spam needs SPACE, otherwise you are fucked with it (you need a relatively big map with relatively few players)

    nope. you get your return on investment in like 10 turns i believe, so your cities don’t actually need to have much in them to be worthwhile. if you changed it to 20 turns until return on investment it’d still be a good idea, since you’d still have an exponentially growing economy if settler costs stay constant. it’d be less viable in small/medium maps due to the danger of being rushed, of course, so if that solution was easy and didn’t affect other parts of the game (such as naturally gaining outposts through conquest of indie cities), i’d be ok with it.

    a) You simply heap an upkeep on Outposts (and if you are STILL not grasping the concept, imagine you have to pay 100 Gold for an Outpost for as long as it IS an Outpost; what do you think how many Outposts you can afford to have at the same time? And before you start – Throne City may be an exception.)

    personally i’m not a big fan of making certain cities a liability to hold economically. the game is purposefully not focused on city management and i think that kind of additional consideration would detract away from the main focus of the game when you look at how it affects gameplay outside of settlerspam.

    also conquest of indie outposts would be affected, which i don’t think should be made detrimental

    #225026

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    1) Settler spam needs SPACE, otherwise you are fucked with it (you need a relatively big map with relatively few players)

    nope. you get your return on investment in like 10 turns i believe, so your cities don’t actually need to have much in them to be worthwhile. if you changed it to 20 turns until return on investment it’d still be a good idea, since you’d still have an exponentially growing economy if settler costs stay constant. it’d be less viable in small/medium maps due to the danger of being rushed, of course, so if that solution was easy and didn’t affect other parts of the game (such as naturally gaining outposts through conquest of indie cities), i’d be ok with it.

    You don’t need to change anything when space is short, because you simply cannot SPAM settlers, because it’s too dangerous without adequate military support.

    a) You simply heap an upkeep on Outposts (and if you are STILL not grasping the concept, imagine you have to pay 100 Gold for an Outpost for as long as it IS an Outpost; what do you think how many Outposts you can afford to have at the same time? And before you start – Throne City may be an exception.)

    personally i’m not a big fan of making certain cities a liability to hold economically. the game is purposefully not focused on city management and i think that kind of additional consideration would detract away from the main focus of the game when you look at how it affects gameplay outside of settlerspam.

    also conquest of indie outposts would be affected, which i don’t think should be made detrimental

    [/quote]Your reasoning isn’t correct, because existing Outposts are even better than settling. When you get to conquer an Outpost you saved the cost for settling. If you don’t want the cost – vassal it, until it’s a village.

    Let me repeat: You don’t HAVE to play MP with settling AT ALL, but IF you do, there is no reason to destroy the settling game for everyone else.

    Keep also in mind, the aim is to avoid settler SPAMMING, not settling as a whole, so you just have to consider what you don’t want (say x settlers rushed out in y turns, then set an Outpost duration time (you can limit pop growth for outposts to, say, 500 per turn, no matter what, spells, Expander) so minimum 6 turn duration for each. So you are at 6x, and you now need to find a good sum: If X is 4 or 5, and we take 30 Gold as upkeep for an Outpost, we look at 720 or 900 Gold the player would have to spend EXTRA…

    #225028

    NINJEW
    Member

    You don’t need to change anything when space is short, because you simply cannot SPAM settlers, because it’s too dangerous without adequate military support.

    people literally do this already in medium maps, or were you unaware that that’s the standard mp map size

    are you talking about cramming 8 players into a medium map, or small maps, or what?

    Your reasoning isn’t correct, because existing Outposts are even better than settling. When you get to conquer an Outpost you saved the cost for settling. If you don’t want the cost – vassal it, until it’s a village.

    if outposts cost gold to maintain then conquering an outpost isn’t a pure-gains reward, which sounds pretty shitty to go out of your way to do, or buy. i don’t think normal conquest-based expansion should be slowed down by forcing players to vassal or eat some additional costs that weren’t there before. also i don’t think owning a city should ever be a detriment to you in terms of pure numbers, that should come from strategic positioning and potential value to your enemy alone. again, this is not a city focused game, that aspect of the game is intentionally kept simple, i don’t think that’s a game design goal that should be gone against by introducing further economic complexity.

    Keep also in mind, the aim is to avoid settler SPAMMING, not settling as a whole, so you just have to consider what you don’t want (say x settlers rushed out in y turns, then set an Outpost duration time (you can limit pop growth for outposts to, say, 500 per turn, no matter what, spells, Expander) so minimum 6 turn duration for each. So you are at 6x, and you now need to find a good sum: If X is 4 or 5, and we take 30 Gold as upkeep for an Outpost, we look at 720 or 900 Gold the player would have to spend EXTRA…

    i don’t really understand what this accomplishes that is all that different from an upfront cost anyways outside of being needlessly more complicated and also affecting outposts gained from conquest. you’re just saying that instead of having to pay an extra 200 gold to found a city, you’re paying 600 gold in 30 gold installments per turn.

    #225041

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    You don’t need to change anything when space is short, because you simply cannot SPAM settlers, because it’s too dangerous without adequate military support.

    people literally do this already in medium maps, or were you unaware that that’s the standard mp map size

    are you talking about cramming 8 players into a medium map, or small maps, or what?

    Medium map with 2 players is WAY too big. It’s normal you “force-settle” when you have that much space, MP or not – and I wouldn’t see anything wrong with it either; the map calls for it, so what?

    [/quote]i don’t really understand what this accomplishes that is all that different from an upfront cost anyways outside of being needlessly more complicated and also affecting outposts gained from conquest. you’re just saying that instead of having to pay an extra 200 gold to found a city, you’re paying 600 gold in 30 gold installments per turn.

    [/quote]Rushing does this anyway. If you build a settler in 1 turn for a regular 3, you pay 100 extra – so what? You have it, you pay it. So SETTLER cost is easily calculable, when you increase it. It will cost you MORE, but only from the money you have. If you have upkeep, it’s different: you will have to “care for” your outpost(s) making them villages fast, while you suffer from a reduced (and maybe even negative income).

    Keep in mind that the reduced income will be a liability when your towns are free to produce.

    The underlying problem is, of course, that the model is somewhat wrong. City size doesn’t matter when it comes to population growth, and it’s also not a big factor in gold production.

    Imo, pop growth should be limited or strongly influenced by town growth and intrinsic gold income should be different:

    Gold gain now and (suggested):
    OP: 2 (-15)
    Vil: 10 (0)
    Town: 20 (15)
    City: 30 (30)
    Metro: 40 (50)

    Also: Pop Growth should be limited by actual Population (I suggested that).

    There is also a possibility to limit the number of sites a town size can make use of, but that would need a change in mechanics. OPs, for example might not be able to profit from more than 2 sites, Villages no more than 4.

    I’d also have to repeat my post about immersion. Settling should be more than just an investment/gain thing. I’m therefore for finer solutions.

    #225046

    Dr_K
    Member

    i don’t really understand what this accomplishes that is all that different from an upfront cost anyways outside of being needlessly more complicated and also affecting outposts gained from conquest. you’re just saying that instead of having to pay an extra 200 gold to found a city, you’re paying 600 gold in 30 gold installments per turn.

    Why not just run with the idea of having the founding of the city cost gold, but have it based on domain proximity? Very expensive the closer you are to your domain, but taper off linearly or faster. This shouldn’t actually hamper expansion on maps that require it and isn’t some sort of hard cap before consistently paying.

    #225197

    ExNihil
    Member

    Guys, why are you trying to over-complicate this so unnecessarily? There are very simple settlement mechanics in the game, problem is that they are currently out of whack because the prices are way too low and impact is too great. Idea is not to kill settlement, simply to slow it down and perhaps make it more into a high risk strategy.

    Options:

    1. Make outposts more vulnerable
    2. Make settlers more expensive
    3. Make settlers more impactful by adding morale, production, income or pop negatives
    4. Make settlers unlock from a higher building or require a certain minimum population size
    5. Slow down outpost growth, making expander even more important in the process
    6. Improve forts
    7. Modify the way trade goods/generate mana/seek knowledge work to scale with settlement size

    ALL OF THESE options don’t require new mechanics and will work well and easy, all of them could be combined to fine-tune the desired effect WITHOUT killing settlement or SPAMMING altogether, depending on the desired result. ALSO, you really should give it a go – for empiricism’s sake, and play at least a single MP match.

    #225249

    NINJEW
    Member

    Rushing does this anyway. If you build a settler in 1 turn for a regular 3, you pay 100 extra – so what? You have it, you pay it.

    yeah because at that cost it’s worth it if you get it in 1 turn. is it still worth it if you stack an additional 100 gold on top of that? i don’t understand your reasoning here at all. both methods delay the time until return on investment and that’s pretty much the only thing applicible to settler spam that they do. one of these is needlessly complicated and affects other aspects of the game outside of settler spamming, the other does not. what is your point?

    Medium map with 2 players is WAY too big. It’s normal you “force-settle” when you have that much space, MP or not – and I wouldn’t see anything wrong with it either; the map calls for it, so what?

    if you put 4 players on a medium map i’m pretty certain there is plenty of room for all 4 to settler spam as well. what’s wrong with it is that it’s broken as hell and leads to an uninteresting game with homogenized strategies? what map configurations are you talking about where there isn’t enough room? how many of those do you actually play?

    The underlying problem is, of course, that the model is somewhat wrong. City size doesn’t matter when it comes to population growth, and it’s also not a big factor in gold production.

    except that pop required to next city level changes with city growth…

    I’d also have to repeat my post about immersion. Settling should be more than just an investment/gain thing. I’m therefore for finer solutions.

    i think you’re in the wrong place for an ~immersion~ argument. investment/gain is the way the settler spammers look at new cities and looking at things from that perspective is how they optimized their play to the current broken state. it’s a perspective that requires a direct answer, because that’s what the whole game is always going to boil down to when it comes to people optimizing their play.

    #225265

    Fenraellis
    Member

    if outposts cost gold to maintain then conquering an outpost isn’t a pure-gains reward, which sounds pretty shitty to go out of your way to do, or buy. i don’t think normal conquest-based expansion should be slowed down by forcing players to vassal or eat some additional costs that weren’t there before. also i don’t think owning a city should ever be a detriment to you in terms of pure numbers, that should come from strategic positioning and potential value to your enemy alone. again, this is not a city focused game, that aspect of the game is intentionally kept simple, i don’t think that’s a game design goal that should be gone against by introducing further economic complexity.

    For what it’s worth, preexisting Outposts have at least once cleared basic site by default AND come with pre-built structures in the city.

    I do agree that an Upkeep on Outposts is a little odd, though. Perhaps simply give Outposts a 100% Gold(and maybe Mana/Knowledge, but definitely not Production/Growth?) income penalty, so they don’t boost the Empire’s Income until they grow further. Perhaps this would be mitigated 50% by Wooden Walls, or voided entirely by the presence of Stone Walls, so a (Stone)Fort->Outpost doesn’t suddenly reduce your income on a given location.
    It also fits somewhat nicely into the idea of a ‘settling cost’, albeit with a time delay due to building/upgrading Forts, for full income that was proposed by some here.

    #225269

    NINJEW
    Member

    i like that idea far better than having outposts have a gold upkeep

    #225290

    Zakharov
    Member

    Is settler spam something people do with every race/class, or only with humans, tigrans and warlords? By settler spam I mean building multiple outposts in locations with no treasure sites, not building half a dozen settlers in the first 20 turns and settling them in sensible locations.

    If it’s only a problem with certain races or classes, modifying the per-city bonuses would be a better idea than adding penalties that apply to everybody.

    #225292

    NINJEW
    Member

    By settler spam I mean building multiple outposts in locations with no treasure sites, not building half a dozen settlers in the first 20 turns and settling them in sensible locations.

    both of these constitute settler spam. the general play is one gold mine per settler, i believe.

    yes, it’s done with every race and class, except maybe necro. humans and tigrans and warlords are simply the best at it.

    #225294

    NINJEW
    Member

    the clincher is that even without getting the empire quests, it still leads to a ridiculous amount of economic power very quickly. so even sub optimal combos for city spam will still do it, it’s just that powerful. the empire quests just take what is already a very powerful strategy and turn it into something totally dominating.

Viewing 14 posts - 121 through 134 (of 134 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.