Inquery about production carryover

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 Inquery about production carryover

This topic contains 120 replies, has 28 voices, and was last updated by  shangrila1040 6 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 121 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #170724

    I know a ticket about unused production carrying over was in the suggestion thing at one time, but i couldn’t find the dev response to it. So just asking if anyone knows if this is gonna end up being a thing or if it was decided to not be done.

    #170764

    Fenraellis
    Member

    Take this with a grain of salt, but it was decided that it would be such a major balancing change that it would be best left for a nebulous “AoW4”, or at the very least a future expansion instead of this current upcoming one.

    #170766

    That sucks since so often it means those hammers give absolutely zero bonus. Puts them in a weird place where you really want production until you don’t anymore and then it becomes useless. Worse than useless if you’re using something like mana batteries to drain your income and provide zero benefit.

    There are a variety of ways to make the feared use of that production to spam cheap units not a terribly bleak issue. First is to realize that why the heck should a player with good production *not* be able to make more things? That is in fact the entire point, in fact the only point, of production. Those hammers come at a cost, too: it means you aren’t getting another mana node or gold mine in place of that magma forge. It would mean you could have production center focused cities that are relatively bad at generating resources but relatively good at putting them to work. This is not a bad thing, it makes cities feel different and important.

    Buuuut if the idea that actually using those hammers is still super scary you could do things like have hammers carry over only once a turn, or only have half the extra hammers carry over, or have those extra hammers convert into gold. There are lots of ways to make hammers better than the necessary-but-extremely-unintuitive new player trap that they are now.

    Research works the same way too potentially wasting lots of candles and screwing new players, even though scrolls and breakthrough events exist in the game and let you carry research over anyway further adding to the sense of bewilderment that the system doesn’t work that way naturally because of course it should.

    #170769

    Weltenreiter
    Member

    With production carryover it would basically stop being Age of Wonders.
    What do you want next, not having to actually pay gold for your production? 😛

    #170774

    How, exactly, would it stop being age of wonders? The only difference would be that the game would function in a way that makes obvious logical sense. Most people don’t even know production doesn’t roll over. The usual response when new players hear about it is “what” and “are you sure” followed by “why”.

    Production serves the exact same function as casting points, limiting how much you can spend per turn. Casting points do carry over though! If you finish one spell you can start another right away and you will get to use any remaining points to help it.

    In a game like civ where building projects take 57839 turns, losing the rest of one turn’s production when you finish something doesn’t mean much. In a fast paced game like this though, where you’ll routinely finish things in one turn, lots of hammers can go to waste unless you are building a big expensive project in your productive towns every turn. It means you can end up with weird unintuitive situations where building production buildings or using enchantments gives you zero gain for your investment.

    The game already has set prices for things and they are balanced for that. Production rollover doesn’t change that at all, you still have to pay for what you get and put just as many hammers into it. It just means that a city with hammers can actually use them, and buffs/buildings that give hammers are useful 100% of the time in the same way every other resource building already is.

    #170779

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    That is just not right on so many levels.
    Also, there is an inherent quasi production rollover which is called “hurry production”.

    #171229

    I just…no? When someone says “production rollover” they are talking about unused extra hammers being assigned to the next project in a city build queue after you finish a project, so you get to use your hammers you earned instead of throwing them away.

    Hurry production lets you pay extra resources and put a debuff on the city to finish something next turn.

    They have nothing to do with each other at all.

    #171245

    Hieronymous
    Member

    This always bugged me. Maybe Production and Research could give a chance of random occurrences, like happiness does, some being dependent on certain buildings.

    10% of your hammers could be added as extra HP to your settlers and builders (but not other machines, that’d be too cheap with Dreadnoughts and trebuchets), walls and gates. Bonus increases to 20%, with a Master’s Guild.

    Hammers could increase gold income of a city (% of the city’s hammers)

    With an Arcane Forge, hammers could give you a chance to instantly get forge-made items with like 1 property. Might pop up as an offer to instantly produce it, at part or all of its regular forging cost. Nothing too powerful.

    Likewise, 10% of your candles could go toward mana income, or extra strength to Disjunction attempts (maybe just to those made in your domain), or grant Magic Resistance to your cities – some % chance to resist spells targeted at them.

    Population is also slightly wasted at a certain point – though it certainly helps recover from building settlers, hurrying production, and recovering from pop-draining spells, so it might not need anything; but it could give a chance to spawn militia units – either as an offer at the start of your turn to convert X population into free militia units (at higher pop cost than warlord’s summon), or maybe just a chance for militia conscripts to spawn (limit it to once, successfully, per turn) when the city is attacked.

    High population could give a chance to inflict some sort of attrition effect on enemy armies in your domain, maybe draining a little movement or happiness, or – again – spawning one or a handful of free militia units during any conflict in the city domain, and limited, again, to once per turn.

    Etc.

    #171298

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I just…no? When someone says “production rollover” they are talking about unused extra hammers being assigned to the next project in a city build queue after you finish a project, so you get to use your hammers you earned instead of throwing them away.

    Hurry production lets you pay extra resources and put a debuff on the city to finish something next turn.

    They have nothing to do with each other at all.

    They have to do with each other alright, because you have ways to accelerate production, which is what would production rollover mean.
    Anyway – production is just a capacity. There is nothing wrong with saying that you cannot finish a product on the same day you start a new one. It’s a rule, and it makes sense. Or better: it’s neither illogical nor does it hurt, and it has a couple of advantages.

    #171301

    Wintersend
    Member

    Rollover doesn’t mean to accelerate it. It means that extra leftover goes to use as opposed to being wasted.

    Also, I don’t understand why it’s illogical to not be able to do two productions at once or to finish one all the way and start doing some work on another. It does hurt in that it means that at a certain point production boosts become worthless unless they subtract exactly a turn from a project that you want to work on.

    #171316

    hlsmith
    Member

    I’m not sure if either way would be better than the other, but the fact still remains that it would require a fair bit of reworking to change. It would speed up the game a fair bit too. Personally I don’t think that would be a good thing. Also I think the way it is now requires a bit more strategical thinking and planning. Can’t say it’s bothered me the way it is. Actually what I can get annoyed at is those 6 casting points left on a hero that only has a minimum 7 casting point spell/ability available. That can really grind my gears 😛 but I understand that also comes down to strategy and balancing.

    #171359

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Rollover doesn’t mean to accelerate it. It means that extra leftover goes to use as opposed to being wasted.

    Also, I don’t understand why it’s illogical to not be able to do two productions at once or to finish one all the way and start doing some work on another. It does hurt in that it means that at a certain point production boosts become worthless unless they subtract exactly a turn from a project that you want to work on.

    Look, it’s not illogical, and it doesn’t hurt. It just means, that you can’t put things on mechanical. If we have production overspill, we have to answer the question whether w can procuce more than 1 unit per turn. More than 1 unit per turn would be bad, though, because it would dramatically change the whole game. You could produce nearly two Irregs for each Archer PER TURN!, for example.
    So, just 1 unit – making production overspill strange when you COULD produce more than 1 unit. Still, if you COULD – say you had 65 prod – awkward, when you want Archers. Currently you need 2 turns for EACH archer – which makes Irregs or Infantry or Pikes (or some Class units) a very good option.
    With overspill, only the first archer takes 2 turs; after that they roll in. Does that make for a better game? No, not in my book, because it dumps things down to closing your eyes and simply produce things.
    Logical/illogical – who cares? It’s just more fun the way it is, because it’s more interesting.

    #171394

    You realize you still have to pay for those two irregulars, right? Their upkeep, too. There are also not very many units you would be able to build two of in a single turn, either. You aren’t going to see a tidal wave of change here. The only difference is that it functions in the way sane people would assume it worked from the start.

    #171397

    vyolin
    Member

    This would not be dumbing down, though, but rather de-obfuscating a questionable design decision.
    Absence of production spillover does not present meaningful gameplay choices. None. It either dicks you over or it does not. There is neither fun nor thought involved in the process.
    On the flipside there are actually two entire races that are being/have been outright mocked by this mechanic: The humans with their +5 bonus, which most of the time could just as well not have existed for all the effect it had. Why do you think that has been increased by 100%, to make it even be felt? And the goblins, whose cheap to produce units are in terms of production pretty meaningless since you cannot reliably make use of the discounts you get.

    So tell me again, how this mechanic provides superior gameplay, when even the changes made to related mechanics point to the contrary. What is so bad about mechanics being consistent?

    #171401

    Some people fear change no matter what the source or purpose.

    #171515

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    This would not be dumbing down, though, but rather de-obfuscating a questionable design decision.<br>
    Absence of production spillover does not present meaningful gameplay choices. None. It either dicks you over or it does not. There is neither fun nor thought involved in the process.<br>
    On the flipside there are actually two entire races that are being/have been outright mocked by this mechanic: The humans with their +5 bonus, which most of the time could just as well not have existed for all the effect it had. Why do you think that has been increased by 100%, to make it even be felt? And the goblins, whose cheap to produce units are in terms of production pretty meaningless since you cannot reliably make use of the discounts you get.

    So tell me again, how this mechanic provides superior gameplay, when even the changes made to related mechanics point to the contrary. What is so bad about mechanics being consistent?

    It’s you who should ask the question: why are related mechanics changed to mitigate an unwished for side-effect of the mechanic, when you could just change spillover?
    When you ask the question that way round, it makes a lot more sense.

    The thing is, that this elusive “balance” would change dramatically. With production overspill, things must be balanced to the point, because production is exact. However, the way it is now, it doesn’t really matter much whether a T3 costs 150 or 160. In most cases, both will take 2 turns to produce, and you will be rather unhapy when said town has 120 hammers, because you “lose” so many (of course you don’t lose them in reality, since your economy probably couldn’t support the higher gold costs that would come with production overspill).
    So the balance effect is, that SMALLER units profit from this: your 120 hammer town can easily produce 1 T2 each turn, which makes them a very valid alternative (more valid than with overspill), because flexibility is a good thing, and nothing is more flexible than 1-turn projects.
    Lastly, overspill IS a down-dumbing, and obviously so, since without it you get an additional “task”: you must THINK of how to produce a maximum bang for the buck; in the above example, your town has a production capacity of 120 per turn or 240 in two; you would TEND to say that if you can either produce a T3 in two turns, using 150 of that 240 (and forgoing 90) or 2 T2 Cavs using 200 of that 240, the latter produces more bang (it costs more) – however, it’s two units and less CONCENTRATED power; it’s not clear.
    With overspill? Produce 2 T3s in 3 turns! No problem.

    So, currently you simply have another parameter, which is “occupancy rate”, that works great insofar that it works somewhat like an “uncertainty relation factor” when it comes to unit balance.

    The same is true for Research, mind you! Works exactly the same way. If there was research overspill, you could just make a task line. But with the parameter “occupancy rate”, you may research things simply because a tech has a perfect occupancy rate.

    #171736

    SiaFu
    Member

    How about this, if we take precedent into account: the final knowledge points (KP) spillover could be converted into mana (MP) like in AoW1. Analogue to that, excess production could go into gold (GP).

    There would be no need to allow production of more units or research of multiple skills per turn since only the final turn spillover would be converted at a prohibitive rate (worse than merchandise, just 10% or so). Like a palliative to remove the perception of wasting resources – the conversion rate could be used to balance things out.
    Late game, MP spillover from having researched all skills would be limited by your mana vault capacity. Cities producing merch would still bring more GP than using spillover.

    Currently, high happiness has a small chance of completing an additional queued production per turn (if you’re lucky and you have the funds: Two Gold dragons at once, Yippee!).
    Likewise, syncing your raids on Ancient ruins, Knowledge vaults etc, or getting a Festival of knowledge can give you a buffer of KP so you can pick and choose several low-KP skills to research in a single turn.

    If it’s slated for a future expansion, I’d be happy to wait.
    XP waste was more of a pet peeve for me, ever since I first saw the Champion levels in Wesnoth. I’m perfectly happy to settle with that improvement, since the focus of AoW has always been combat, not economy.

    #171738

    It won’t be introduced any time sdoon because it would require repricing pretty much everything and retooling the balance. That Human + 10 Hammers would become incredibly powerful, etc.etc.

    Not because of any illogicality. Just too much work at the moment.

    #171770

    Yeah, the devs are working hard on the expansion. I think people are just posting about it because it is a bit baffling that it is set up this way, rather than because they expect anything to change anytime soon. As people have said, even the older games did something with unused hammers. Pretty sure even MoM did. Even within aow3 itself resources carry across from one project to the next (casting points, research bonus from pickups/events) so it isn’t even consistent within itself, not to mention completely backwards from what a new player expects.

    #171794

    vyolin
    Member

    It won’t be introduced any time sdoon because it would require repricing pretty much everything and retooling the balance. That Human + 10 Hammers would become incredibly powerful, etc.etc.

    Not because of any illogicality. Just too much work at the moment.

    I am totally there with you, it would require some major passes on balance – whether much would change is another question, but it’s a lot of ‘unnecessary’ work right.
    So no hard feelings.
    Still doesn’t do anything for gameplay right now, and I will stand by that opinion.

    #171798

    Doubtful that it would even need tremendous balance work since you still have to pay for everything to be honest. Gameplay wouldn’t really change, you still have to balance income with output, it would just mean you aren’t being arbitrarily punished. Also the whole “you should always build whatever uses the most hammers so they aren’t wasted” idea is inherently silly, a smart player may need to build a variety of things at any given time based on the game state. Maybe you need to invest in infrastructure, or need scouts, or really want pikes. You can’t just pick your building projects based on how expensive they are as if all projects result in the same thing. They don’t. Even units within the same tier can have drastically different roles and costs.

    This is the sort of thing that is probably beyond the scope of your average modder/mod tools too, although there are lots of things modders could tweak and fix and playtest. Naval stuff for instance – it is fantastic now in the beta, but it took a whole year to change two number values, the movement and sight on transports, that a modder could have done in ten minutes. The dev team is tiny and getting free work and playtesting would be a pretty amazing way to multiply their ability to create content without adding overhead cost to them.

    #171810

    Teehon
    Member

    With production carryover it would basically stop being Age of Wonders.<br>
    What do you want next, not having to actually pay gold for your production? :P

    I played SM with carryover for an year and it was amazing.

    Take this with a grain of salt, but it was decided that it would be such a major balancing change that it would be best left for a nebulous “AoW4″, or at the very least a future expansion instead of this current upcoming one.

    And that I can’t understand. Why shouldn’t you be able to produce two tier 1 units in one turn if you are industrial enough? The way game works now you will NEVER be able to produce more than 2 tier 1 units in one turn, and that with top-tier city. And if you get top-tier city, you will most likely NOT produce tier 1s there anyway.

    #171857

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Same thing as with racial T4s – don’t fix it if it’s not broken.
    And it isn’t broken.

    Is there any GOOD reason to start changing stuff? Come on!

    “The way game works now you will NEVER be able to produce more than 2 tier 1 units in one turn, and that with top-tier city”
    I don’t know what you’ve been playing, but 160 production is easily possible, which is 4 Irregs.

    #171870

    Possible, but hardly easy. You’d need a bunch of hammers from buffs, forges, or somewhere, as well as high morale and city size. All of those things either take investment that could be going elsewhere (and right now should definitely since there is no production spillover) or they take the place of other resources. Even buffs like mana batteries require research and a trade of another resource. If you have put that much focus into nothing but production on a city then it SHOULD be useful for PRODUCTION.

    That is the entire and only point.

    Right now you would be better served in almost all situations if you had gotten basic resources instead of hammers. Also, with a combination of the excellent new vassal system and nerf to inns it is easier than ever for players to have income that far outpaces their ability to spend it. This just means players want hammers even more, and are that much more sad when they realize that the magama forge or whatnot that they got means absolutely zero nine times out of ten.

    Also, making three civic guards instead of the equivalent in higher tier units in a late game city you have carefully handcrafted to be an industrial juggernaut when you obviously have the resources to afford better units is beyond silly. The only time anyone would even consider doing that is if they just lost a massive amount of armies and desperately needed something, anything, just to man their walls.

    #171878

    Not to mention that the player rarely has much control over the hammer output of a city. The theoretical super hammer city just…doesn’t happen. Only the dread has a hammer buff, everyone else has to rely on pure luck to get forges and such. Morale and city size are both functions of time assuming the player isn’t already losing, so again not something the player can really change.

    Having hammers spill over would actually add player choice and thought, not take it away as joker weirdly seems to think. As someone else already mentioned right now there is no choice involved. If hammers were conserved then there actually would be a choice: building or buffing production, population, and morale and leaving yourself vulnerable now for a better output later. Right now hammers are just so bad they aren’t worth pursuing since they can not give a reliable return on investment.

    As it stands now I’ve seen plenty of new players try to invest in infrastructure early only to end up far behind even the AI. They very reasonably tend to think that building and capturing sources of production will give them an edge in – guess what – production. When this doesn’t happen their entire gameplan falls apart as they have spent time and resources for zero effect.

    #171882

    quo
    Member

    Well firstly I don’t think they are actually going to fix this. But I think we need a math moment here.

    What the current mechanic does is reward you for building units and structures that are evenly divisible by the number of hammers you have. The number of hammers it takes to build something always rounds up.

    Where this becomes especially noticeable is the HUGE difference between being able to produce a unit in 1 turn versus 2 turns.

    City A has 45 production. It can produce a unit that costs 50 hammers at a rate of 1 unit/2 turns.
    City B has 50 production. It can produce a unit that costs 50 hammers at a rate of 1 unit a turn.

    Even though 50 hammers is only 10% better than 45 hammers, when that increase puts you over the hump and 1/turn versus 2/turn, it’s a 50% difference. If it doesn’t get you over the hump at all, it’s a 0% increase, which is equally bizarre.

    This is why many games allow hammers to roll over. It’s actually more broken and prone to abuse not to have them roll over because it means its hard to predict how much of a bonus +10 or +5 hammers or whatever actually is.

    FWIW the main time you actually have to worry about hammer roll over as problematic is when it lets players start hammers on a structure/unit they haven’t actually researched yet. (That is, intentionally build something small the previous turn so on the next the hammers roll into the next project, which you couldn’t have started until you did the research). But I really don’t see that as a serious problem for this game.

    #171886

    Well firstly I don’t think they are actually going to fix this. But I think we need a math moment here.

    What the current mechanic does is reward you for building units and structures that are evenly divisible by the number of hammers you have. The number of hammers it takes to build something always rounds up.

    Where this becomes especially noticeable is the HUGE difference between being able to produce a unit in 1 turn versus 2 turns.

    City A has 45 production. It can produce a unit that costs 50 hammers at a rate of 1 unit/2 turns.<br>
    City B has 50 production. It can produce a unit that costs 50 hammers at a rate of 1 unit a turn.

    Even though 50 hammers is only 10% better than 45 hammers, when that increase puts you over the hump and 1/turn versus 2/turn, it’s a 50% difference. If it doesn’t get you over the hump at all, it’s a 0% increase, which is equally bizarre.

    This is why many games allow hammers to roll over. It’s actually more broken and prone to abuse not to have them roll over because it means its hard to predict how much of a bonus +10 or +5 hammers or whatever actually is.

    FWIW the main time you actually have to worry about hammer roll over as problematic is when it lets players start hammers on a structure/unit they haven’t actually researched yet. (That is, intentionally build something small the previous turn so on the next the hammers roll into the next project, which you couldn’t have started until you did the research). But I really don’t see that as a serious problem for this game.

    Well said!

    The last point seems like an easy fix: don’t have rollover unless there is already another thing queued for those hammers to be assigned to. That stops players from “banking” hammers for something they can’t build yet while still maintaining all the other advantages.

    Alternatively just let players do this. As you said, not a big deal and provides actual decisions for the player when deciding what to build when.

    #171887

    Wuffy
    Member

    Well firstly I don’t think they are actually going to fix this. But I think we need a math moment here.

    What the current mechanic does is reward you for building units and structures that are evenly divisible by the number of hammers you have. The number of hammers it takes to build something always rounds up.

    Where this becomes especially noticeable is the HUGE difference between being able to produce a unit in 1 turn versus 2 turns.

    City A has 45 production. It can produce a unit that costs 50 hammers at a rate of 1 unit/2 turns.<br>
    City B has 50 production. It can produce a unit that costs 50 hammers at a rate of 1 unit a turn.

    Even though 50 hammers is only 10% better than 45 hammers, when that increase puts you over the hump and 1/turn versus 2/turn, it’s a 50% difference. If it doesn’t get you over the hump at all, it’s a 0% increase, which is equally bizarre.

    This is why many games allow hammers to roll over. It’s actually more broken and prone to abuse not to have them roll over because it means its hard to predict how much of a bonus +10 or +5 hammers or whatever actually is.

    FWIW the main time you actually have to worry about hammer roll over as problematic is when it lets players start hammers on a structure/unit they haven’t actually researched yet. (That is, intentionally build something small the previous turn so on the next the hammers roll into the next project, which you couldn’t have started until you did the research). But I really don’t see that as a serious problem for this game.

    Thank you.

    I was running through the game to use some in game examples but you cut through that incredibly easily.

    There is really nothing to say beyond that. Simple fact that production excess doesn’t in some way contribute to your city in one way or another.

    Unfortunately I found out the horrible truth behind Merchandise, learn, housing etc… So while we do a pass on doing something out of the excess production something needs to be looked at in this regard as well.

    Now something to be said is that even if All hammers that were put out in excess of production were turned into gold on a 1 for 1 basis, would not be much of an advantage because of how the cost of unit and production cost works out.

    #171889

    quo
    Member

    The last point seems like an easy fix: don’t have rollover unless there is already another thing queued for those hammers to be assigned to.

    I think that would be frustrating for players to work with.

    I would say store the number of hammers remaining as a variable at the city level. Every turn they are not used for a new project, deplete them by 1/3rd of the start value (so you get 100% on day 1, and its all gone if not used by day 3). That way you can’t stockpile them for a huge payoff later.

    This is all of course extremely unlikely to happen. It just wouldn’t be particularly broken if it did. You probably would build things faster, just no faster than people who are already min/maxing their city production to death.

    #171909

    Gloweye
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>TheInternetJanitor wrote:</div>
    The last point seems like an easy fix: don’t have rollover unless there is already another thing queued for those hammers to be assigned to.

    I think that would be frustrating for players to work with.

    I would say store the number of hammers remaining as a variable at the city level. Every turn they are not used for a new project, deplete them by 1/3rd of the start value (so you get 100% on day 1, and its all gone if not used by day 3). That way you can’t stockpile them for a huge payoff later.

    This is all of course extremely unlikely to happen. It just wouldn’t be particularly broken if it did. You probably would build things faster, just no faster than people who are already min/maxing their city production to death.

    The requirement of a queue sounds good to me though. The actual construction happens between the turns, and the workers need to know what to work on.

    However, adjust the queue to allow structures whose requirements are still being build. That means that you can queue the War Hall directly behind the Barracks if you want.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 121 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.