• 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.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

Adjust spire set goods output

Adjust spire set goods output


  • Total voters
    61
  • Poll closed .

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.

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?

Added Poll 7/6/20
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AtaguS

Well-Known Member
Yes please. This feels like a no-brainer. Every day I go to the trader trying to offload my scrolls and steel. Looking under the "Demand" tab...I rarely rarely see anyone asking for these goods. I am constantly lower on silk and crystal since my scroll trades linger longer in the trader. And I do offer them at 3 stars. I could drop some scroll factories I suppose, but then what is the point of being boosted in a good if I'm penalized for producing it??
 

LisaMV

Well-Known Member
YES YES YES!!! This also seems to be not at all in keeping with their generally fair & balanced methods for goods. I think the "T2+1" etc method is brilliant, especially as all relic requirements in MA are based on that, as are many other things. Who decided that a fixed good is better than the eternally flexible & fluid one?

I noticed also that some of the buildings in the current 'Airbag' event [lol - that's the name my AM calls it] do a similar thing with crystal.

Thank you @Kekune for posting this suggestion in such a clear way! @AtaguS = I am also scroll boosted in 2 of my cities, no one ever needs it! This cannot be what they wanted.

 

Yogi Dave

Well-Known Member
This sounds very good, but as it solves one problem, it produces another. Changing the goods produced by an existing buildings does not sound very fair to me to those who have utilized them in their city design or FS balance.

I've seen a chapter 15 city boosted in scrolls but doesn't have any scroll factories. When I looked closer, they had 6 moonstone libraries and a bunch of endless scrolls with the appropriate other set pieces to maximize scroll generation. That produces a lot of scrolls with no cost in population or culture or of coins and supplies to keep production going. It that changed to silk for them, it would take quite a while for them to recover. Their city would be dysfunctional for probably over a month. Yes, it's an unorthodox setup, but is it fair to do that to them? I can see someone reducing their need to produce scrolls allowing them to produce more of their other boosted goods. So, this is an example that contradicts your 2nd pro of it penalizes someone boosted in scrolls.

I have a fairly large moonstone set specifically for the scrolls. It makes me a scroll provider. My T2 is crystal, so making it become T2+1 wouldn't create a change for me. If I was boosted in silk getting crystal instead of scrolls doesn't sound so bad, unless I'm in an FS that is overloaded in crystal production and has too little scroll production. This would exacerbate the problem of too much crystal and too little scrolls until people leave the FS and new ones are brought in. In this case it penalizes an FS that has found a way to adapt to the member load it has established.

It's not hard to imagine a decent number of people using the sets in this manner. Would this change be fair to them? Would you want this change if you were in those shoes?

I'd prefer to leave the Moonstone set as it is, but replace the set given by the spire to something new which is adjusted according to your boost. Although, I'd like to see it be boost -1 instead of +1. There are so many buildings already that are +1, let's go the other way for a change. I think that would give a better balance to the individual. I've got several things that produce scrolls. I'd like some silk, please. There have been discussions of changing what buildings are produced in the spire but they have seemed to devolve into trying to totally rebalance the goods. Just change the set to a different one every now and then. Eventually you end up with too many of any type of set from the spire, even if they are boost +1 or -1. The spire set needs to change every now and then if you want people to become more engaged in it. ... but that's another idea for another thread.
 

Steelhail

Member
I wholeheartedly support this.
Regarding cons, there might be some subsequent balancing issues to consider. Right now, upgrading the main hall levels 36-37 costs 2700K scrolls but no other tier 2: I suspect there are some spots where developers made tier2 requirements scroll heavy because they were trying to mitigiate the library's effects. So fixing those effects might create some other necessary quick fixes, like changing the main hall upgrade from 2500K scrolls to splitting it among all three tier 2 rather than just scrolls.
 

Yogi Dave

Well-Known Member
I suspect there are some spots where developers made tier2 requirements scroll heavy because they were trying to mitigiate the library's effects.
Since you have to be in chapter 16 for this, it doesn't seem like an effective way to mitigate the library's effects and I don't see them going back into earlier chapters to make adjustments due to the moonstone set.
 

Steelhail

Member
Since you have to be in chapter 16 for this, it doesn't seem like an effective way to mitigate the library's effects and I don't see them going back into earlier chapters to make adjustments due to the moonstone set.

I totally agree. Just saying that if there's a con to consider for the proposal, it's that the designers might have to spend a little extra time tweaking other elements of chapter 16 (and maybe future planned chapters?) if there's not going to be the scrolls surplus. I definitely support the proposal.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
This sounds very good, but as it solves one problem, it produces another. Changing the goods produced by an existing buildings does not sound very fair to me to those who have utilized them in their city design or FS balance.
A perfectly valid point, but it wouldn't be the first time devs had to back-track to correct an error they introduced. Perhaps they could mitigate by leaving existing buildings as is and replacing future Spire Libraries with an identical-footprint building that has a different production. or alternatively, mix it up, with three different buldings you can win in equal proportions. "Spire Library" "Spire Museum" and "Spire Gallery" each producing a different good.
 

Kekune

Well-Known Member
I've seen a chapter 15 city boosted in scrolls but doesn't have any scroll factories. When I looked closer, they had 6 moonstone libraries and a bunch of endless scrolls with the appropriate other set pieces to maximize scroll generation. That produces a lot of scrolls with no cost in population or culture or of coins and supplies to keep production going. It that changed to silk for them, it would take quite a while for them to recover. Their city would be dysfunctional for probably over a month. Yes, it's an unorthodox setup, but is it fair to do that to them? I can see someone reducing their need to produce scrolls allowing them to produce more of their other boosted goods. So, this is an example that contradicts your 2nd pro of it penalizes someone boosted in scrolls.
You'd see a city like this in my fellowship. The penalty isn't in the production, but in the ability to offer scrolls in trade. I don't see how a city that suddenly started producing a different good on the same tier would be "dysfunctional," so long as they could trade those goods for what they need. No city "needs" to produce a specific type of any tier. They just need volume and a functional trading market.

It's not hard to imagine a decent number of people using the sets in this manner. Would this change be fair to them? Would you want this change if you were in those shoes?
This is a choice they are making which they can undo. They could either use their boosted factories, or they could use this set to obtain a different type of t2. Either way, they can produce goods they can trade with. As it is, people who are boosted in scrolls are losing trade opportunities through no choice they made and with few alternatives.

Making it boost +1 gives all players a meaningful choice that is also sustainable: to use their boosted factories, or to shift to something else via the set. Sure, a scroll- boosted player can make scrolls cheaper this way, but they're still in worse shape than someone who can choose between making 2 types of goods.
 

Kekune

Well-Known Member
If I was boosted in silk getting crystal instead of scrolls doesn't sound so bad, unless I'm in an FS that is overloaded in crystal production and has too little scroll production. This would exacerbate the problem of too much crystal and too little scrolls until people leave the FS and new ones are brought in. In this case it penalizes an FS that has found a way to adapt to the member load it has established.
Actually, wouldn't it still give more choice? If you have too much crystal production, the group could adapt by having some of those crystal producers drop crystal factories and use the set to make scrolls.

The current building is useful to groups that want to increase their scroll production. However, a boost +1 offering would allow groups more flexibility to shift production away from whichever good they are heaviest on and into another. That has the potential to help any fellowship, and not just those short on scrolls.
 

LisaMV

Well-Known Member
A perfectly valid point, but it wouldn't be the first time devs had to back-track to correct an error they introduced. Perhaps they could mitigate by leaving existing buildings as is and replacing future Spire Libraries with an identical-footprint building that has a different production. or alternatively, mix it up, with three different buldings you can win in equal proportions. "Spire Library" "Spire Museum" and "Spire Gallery" each producing a different good.
oooo! I want this, what an absolutely grand idea! Spire Museum, Spire Gallery = fantastic!
@Yogi Dave = another brilliant observation, to have it used almost like an Ancient Wonder for scroll production. This, together with Ashrem's post has pretty much convinced me.
@Ashrem = maybe you could actually make a proposal for this! It would take care of the imbalance of goods, and the boredom factor for all you big cities that keep getting Moonstone Libraries. Oh, this is a very exciting idea.

Thanks, to both of you!
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
Hmmm. I kind of gave up on shepherding ideas of my own earlier this year, but won't be offended if someone else wants to work it up. If nothing happens, I will give it further consideration.
 

Yogi Dave

Well-Known Member
The penalty isn't in the production, but in the ability to offer scrolls in trade. I don't see how a city that suddenly started producing a different good on the same tier would be "dysfunctional," so long as they could trade those goods for what they need. No city "needs" to produce a specific type of any tier.
Dysfunctional is probably too strong and it is actually the same as my 2nd example. If this was a major scrolls producer and suddenly they are producing something else it could be a problem within the FS which was balanced with goods production.
As it is, people who are boosted in scrolls are losing trade opportunities through no choice they made and with few alternatives.
I absolutely agree with this sentiment. Other goods producing building have caused this same problem, especially when they are ones you could get a lot of. The spire set staying as it is could swamp the scrolls market, rendering that boost to be a negative. Perhaps, that is why the person adjusted their city.
Actually, wouldn't it still give more choice? If you have too much crystal production, the group could adapt by having some of those crystal producers drop crystal factories and use the set to make scrolls.
I just think it's better to come up with a different set or different pieces to them with different attributes. Changing the main purpose of the buildings it not a good idea in my opinion. I don't think you will change it.
"Spire Library" "Spire Museum" and "Spire Gallery" each producing a different good.
This sounds like a good way to do it, but it seems like the other buildings in the set would need other options. Of course, then we get into the number of buildings the spire can produce which opens an entirely different ball of wax. Which is way I mentioned another idea thread might be a good idea.
 

LisaMV

Well-Known Member
Hmmm. I kind of gave up on shepherding ideas of my own earlier this year, but won't be offended if someone else wants to work it up. If nothing happens, I will give it further consideration.
:) please please please please please please please....
 

PaNonymeB

Well-Known Member
I agree with @Yogi Dave there is a slight con in changing productions. You can imagine now a FS with e.g. 11 crystal-boosted, 11 silk-boosted and 3 scroll-boosted, the missing scrolls being produced by all the fellows' libraries. Such a FS would find itself suddenly overloaded of crystals.
But even with this slight con I'm still for this change.
 
Top