Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Kekune
Well-Known Member
Problem:
The moonstone library set produces fixed good types for all players by chapter. This greatly increases the prevalence of certain goods, which penalizes players boosted in those goods (scrolls, magic dust, moonstone, tree gum, and cosmic bismuth) who experience lowered demand for their trades. This creates a significant game imbalance and undermines the value of the library set as a prize.
Proposal:
Change the moonstone library set output to be relative to a player's boost, such as boost +1, rather than a fixed good for all players. This proposal applies to all moonstone library set pieces that produce tradeable goods and to all moonstone library sets, including those already in use. No other benefits of the set (mana, seeds, spell fragments, combining catalysts, population, and culture) are affected.
Why (Pros):
(1) More balanced distribution of goods added to the economy supports healthy trade
(2) Avoids penalizing players based on boosts, which they did not choose and cannot change
(3) Boost +1 output has been used in past event buildings, so is familiar to many players
(4) Boost +1 output is more desirable, on average, for players, who generally benefit from producing non-boosted goods in high volume
(5) Modifying an existing set to already existing mechanics should be a fairly easy solution, taking little extra dev time compared to alternatives
(6) Increasing the library's appeal (see #1 and 4) could increase the spire's appeal, which seems important to Inno
Cons:
(1) Some developer time is always required for any change
(2) Players/groups relying on current output will need to adapt to new output
(3) Changing an existing building could cause dissatisfaction among players who specifically want the original output
(4) Building names would no longer be consistent with their production. For example, endless scrolls would produce crystal or silk. However, that is already the case: moonstone gate produces bismuth at higher levels; gum tree produces dust at lower levels, etc. This does not seem to be a critical problem.
Other Considerations:
Techs and upgrades in ch 16, and somewhat in ch15, appear to rely more heavily on scrolls than other t2 goods. It is unclear if this is intended to offset the current scrolls surplus, but it is not sufficient. However, if the set output is changed, devs may wish to consider the impact on balancing in the late game.
Added Poll 7/6/20
The moonstone library set produces fixed good types for all players by chapter. This greatly increases the prevalence of certain goods, which penalizes players boosted in those goods (scrolls, magic dust, moonstone, tree gum, and cosmic bismuth) who experience lowered demand for their trades. This creates a significant game imbalance and undermines the value of the library set as a prize.
Proposal:
Change the moonstone library set output to be relative to a player's boost, such as boost +1, rather than a fixed good for all players. This proposal applies to all moonstone library set pieces that produce tradeable goods and to all moonstone library sets, including those already in use. No other benefits of the set (mana, seeds, spell fragments, combining catalysts, population, and culture) are affected.
Why (Pros):
(1) More balanced distribution of goods added to the economy supports healthy trade
(2) Avoids penalizing players based on boosts, which they did not choose and cannot change
(3) Boost +1 output has been used in past event buildings, so is familiar to many players
(4) Boost +1 output is more desirable, on average, for players, who generally benefit from producing non-boosted goods in high volume
(5) Modifying an existing set to already existing mechanics should be a fairly easy solution, taking little extra dev time compared to alternatives
(6) Increasing the library's appeal (see #1 and 4) could increase the spire's appeal, which seems important to Inno
Cons:
(1) Some developer time is always required for any change
(2) Players/groups relying on current output will need to adapt to new output
(3) Changing an existing building could cause dissatisfaction among players who specifically want the original output
(4) Building names would no longer be consistent with their production. For example, endless scrolls would produce crystal or silk. However, that is already the case: moonstone gate produces bismuth at higher levels; gum tree produces dust at lower levels, etc. This does not seem to be a critical problem.
Other Considerations:
Techs and upgrades in ch 16, and somewhat in ch15, appear to rely more heavily on scrolls than other t2 goods. It is unclear if this is intended to offset the current scrolls surplus, but it is not sufficient. However, if the set output is changed, devs may wish to consider the impact on balancing in the late game.
This has been often discussed, but I couldn't find a formal suggestion so I hope this isn't a duplicate.
The spire's moonstone library set should be adjusted to provide a player's boost +1 rather than a fixed good for all players. The current system greatly increases the prevalence of certain goods, at least in fellowships that play the spire heavily. This undermines the value of the library set as a prize and penalizes players boosted in those goods who experience less demand for their trades.
Pros:
(1) better distribution of goods added to the economy
(2) more fair to players than the current system, which penalizes players boosted in steel, scrolls, or dust especially
(3) more desirable, on average, for players, who generally benefit from producing non-boosted goods in high volume
(4) increasing the library's appeal could increase the spire's appeal
(5) I assume this is a relatively low-effort change, since many other set buildings have provided boost +1 goods
Cons:
(1) whatever developer time is required
(2) building names would no longer be consistent with their production. For example, endless scrolls would produce crystal or silk. However, that is already the case: moonstone gate produces bismuth at higher levels; gum tree produces dust at lower levels, etc. This does not seem to be a critical problem.
Are there other pros or cons? Better ways to implement this?
The spire's moonstone library set should be adjusted to provide a player's boost +1 rather than a fixed good for all players. The current system greatly increases the prevalence of certain goods, at least in fellowships that play the spire heavily. This undermines the value of the library set as a prize and penalizes players boosted in those goods who experience less demand for their trades.
Pros:
(1) better distribution of goods added to the economy
(2) more fair to players than the current system, which penalizes players boosted in steel, scrolls, or dust especially
(3) more desirable, on average, for players, who generally benefit from producing non-boosted goods in high volume
(4) increasing the library's appeal could increase the spire's appeal
(5) I assume this is a relatively low-effort change, since many other set buildings have provided boost +1 goods
Cons:
(1) whatever developer time is required
(2) building names would no longer be consistent with their production. For example, endless scrolls would produce crystal or silk. However, that is already the case: moonstone gate produces bismuth at higher levels; gum tree produces dust at lower levels, etc. This does not seem to be a critical problem.
Are there other pros or cons? Better ways to implement this?
Added Poll 7/6/20
Last edited by a moderator:
