nathanebht wrote:
The game could certainly be more balanced. Some paths are obviously optimal.



When researching, buildings that produce more Industry are of primary importance, then Science, and then Food. Since you must have the Industry to build other buildings and units, you always improve this first.



Since it doesn't make sense to have heroes dual purpose, who to buy to staff in your cities is obvious. The heroes that add industry to wooded hexes.



Which hero type is best for scouting? The one with 2 extra move points and 1 more sight range.



Currently, choices are presented but seldom hard to make.

Nope, this is for you only. I play considerably differently, and differently for each faction. Quite frankly, it sounds as if you have only played WW exclusively.



Try playing a few different research builds, and you'll notice you can have different (but absolutely viable) strats with the different priorities.



Thanks devs, will have a look at the spreadsheets!

Would you guys consider consolidating the 6 eras in to maybe 4 or 5 and just add more to them and flesh them out a bit more?



Less fluff and more substance for each era?



Also, in regards to the minor factions, when will all 16 be in game? It's hard to really talk about balance when there are still 8 not in game.

DevildogFF wrote:
Would you guys consider consolidating the 6 eras in to maybe 4 or 5 and just add more to them and flesh them out a bit more?

This might indeed be 'the' way to go, because I don't think many games would last till the 6th era. (at least, those against the Ai I played never did, can't comment on MP, have not been able to fully complete a mp game)

Thank you so very much for putting this thread together!

It is nice to have a place to give feedback where we know it is going to be seen and considered regardless of the number of views one of our posts might receive.

The fact that you have given out common google docs really shows your faith in and commitment to your community.



EDIT: I think before tossing in an opinion on reducing the number of eras I would like to:

1) see the devs' vision of era 5 and 6

2) play some games with nerfs to researched weapons/armor: maybe games would last longer than.



Are all the tooltips listed in these docs current? I feel like some stuff (especially Science) differs in the game from what's listed in them.

Hello,



Regarding the 5 and 6 eras, here is what I can say for now:

• the 5th Era will be mostly like the others.
• the 6th Era is going to have just a few tech (mostly 8 or so) but very expensive and powerful. The idea is to to tie each of those technologies to a victory condition.
• we plan to add a few improvements in the current era, depending on the feedback we'll collect.
  
  

Cheers

Could we get a separate doc for discussions involving building balance?

Grouping that in with the discussion of Science makes feedback regarding the related unlock kinda lengthy for a single table cell.

Unless you would prefer all that information in one place for ease of access.

BadgerTemplar wrote:
Could we get a separate doc for discussions involving building balance?

Grouping that in with the discussion of Science makes feedback regarding the related unlock kinda lengthy for a single table cell.

Unless you would prefer all that information in one place for ease of access.

HGow would you separate them? All techs have the same research cost, so the only difference is what they produce (the buildings, unit of effects). What would the science discussion look like without the buildings?

Meedoc wrote:

• How often do you take them?
• Do you have pre-made orders for certain Eras?
• Do you unlock this technology before unlocking the next era?
• Do you unlock this technology after unlocking a more advanced one?
• Have you ever taken this technology?
• What do you think about the related unlock?
• Is the cost increase enough / too high?
  
  

The buildings do need to be included in the Science Discussion.



I interpret "What do you think about the related unlock?" as "Is the IND/resource cost and bonus it supplies balanced (as far as buildings are concerned)."

The Science discussion is comparing research options to research options.

Units are also a part of the Science discussion, but we have been supplied with a separate doc in which to discuss the balance of a unit's stats compared with other units' stats.

A new doc specifically designed to compare buildings to other buildings for balance purposes could be helpful.

In the end though, it's all up to how the Devs want to receive feedback.

The game could certainly be more balanced. Some paths are obviously optimal.



When researching, buildings that produce more Industry are of primary importance, then Science, and then Food. Since you must have the Industry to build other buildings and units, you always improve this first.



Since it doesn't make sense to have heroes dual purpose, who to buy to staff in your cities is obvious. The heroes that add industry to wooded hexes.



Which hero type is best for scouting? The one with 2 extra move points and 1 more sight range.



Currently, choices are presented but seldom hard to make.

I'd like to see the following changes in next patch:



Broken lords:

Vanguard HP to 47 from 44.

Ryder HP to 47 from 44.

Dust Bishop healing like... halved, if not more.

Hero talent tree bonus resources reduced to 1.5 from 3.0

Dust per population reduced 15%.



Wandering Clans:

HP bonus on mercenaries reduced to 50% from 100%.



Necrophage:

Necrodrone damage -5, DEF +1.

Forager: HP +8.

Borough bonus reduced to -40% from -50%.



Minor Factions:

Sisters of Mercy HP to 40, DEF +1.

Delvers HP increased to... not be so useless.

Jotun HP and DEF increased by a little bit to make up for weak bonus and only 2 range.

Haunts and Daemons both get HP increased to 50, but damage reduced by 3-4.



Special research equipment:

Stats reduced substantitally. Instead of 15 bonus initiative try 1 or 2. Instead of 250% more damage than steel try 50%. Right now glassteel equipped soldiers (especially since it's so free to get from quests) are wrecking everyone else.

Hello dear players!



I hope you're having fun with the latest build. Seeing that we're drowning under your feedback, I suspect you are

A lot of threads on several balancing subjects popped up in the last few days. Still, it's quite a time consuming task to build a synthesis of so much content. And that's why I'm here, to offer you a new support which is going to help us to be more efficient to deals with your feedback on specific subjects.



For now, I'd like to gather feedback on 3 main topics: Science, Units and Minor Factions. More will come later!



You'll find below the different open spreadsheet to edit. To give your feedback, add your name in a column on the right and list the feedback for each element you want to comment on.





SCIENCE



Link to document: [Science]



We're currently preparing the last eras and we've planned some refinement which may evolve depending on your opinions.

In this spreadsheet, you'll find 1 sheet per Era. What I'd like is to read what you think about the different technology:

• How often do you take them?
• Do you have pre-made orders for certain Eras?
• Do you unlock this technology before unlocking the next era?
• Do you unlock this technology after unlocking a more advanced one?
• Have you ever taken this technology?
• What do you think about the related unlock?
• Is the cost increase enough / too high?
  
  

UNITS



Link to document: [Unit]



We already have some changes in mind and your feedback is going to allow us to validate and refine our thoughts.

In this spreadsheet, you'll find 1 sheet per Faction. What I'd like to read is what you think about each unit:

• Is it strong enough?
• Do the different units of the faction have enough synergy?
• Is the cost / power ratio fair enough?
• How often do you use the unit?
• Which minor do you use to complete the major factions units?
• Which major faction do you avoid / use with this minor unit?
  
  

MINOR FACTIONS



Link to document: [Minorfaction]



Regarding the minor faction, we're not satisfied with the current diversity and we'd like to improve it.

In this spreadsheet, you'll find 1 lonely sheet with the list of the faction describing the assimilation bonus and pointing to the Unit Sheet to their unit. What I'd like to read is what you think about:

• Their assimilation bonus
• The unit strength, cost, etc.
• For which reason will you assimilate them? (unit, assimilation bonus, both)
• Once assimilated, would you switch the faction for another?
  
  

Quick Survey



Only twelve mouse clicks in order to rate the balance of the races.





If you'd like to discuss other subject, or any feedback on the spreadsheet (how I could improve them), please discuss them below. Finally, keep in mind that we'll still read the thread on the forum, this tool is meant to be complementary.



Cheers,

EzekielMoerdyk wrote:
Nope, this is for you only. I play considerably differently, and differently for each faction. Quite frankly, it sounds as if you have only played WW exclusively.



Try playing a few different research builds, and you'll notice you can have different (but absolutely viable) strats with the different priorities.



Thanks devs, will have a look at the spreadsheets!

Actually, I've done well with all the factions except Necrophage. Necro's may have some shifted priorities but the other factions needed Industry -> Science -> Food.



Please provide examples, I'd be happy to learn that there is some depth to the game that I missed.

Industry is clearly the best. I would probably ignore that guy as everyone who seems to know what they're doing is in agreement that industry > all.

things are a little tricky for Broken Lords Population,YES, Broken Lords rely on dust to buy population

but when price is increasing for each total population, Buying them will eventually become very very expensive, it is kind of unfair, since other factions using food for increasing population

eventually it will outmatch Broken Lords in greater income



also I don't think building 4 or 5 districts around town center is a good way, could lower the district need for level up Town Center.

I feel that the dust armor and weapons you get for moving into the 4th and 5th Eras are greater than the researched armor techs on a pure stat basis. Extra armor point + HP pool is really powerful, and in most cases seems better than either less armor + crit or even worse, less armor and initiative.



Given the limits on available tier 3 and 4 resources per turn relative to the volume needed to produce troops with tier 3 and 4 equipment, not spending anything besides gold for upgraded troops feels broken when those stats appear superior.



Initiative appears to be a terrible stat, I place my army near the back, the AI charges, can't reach me/attack round 1, and then I smash them into pieces on my turn because they moved into range.

Nodor wrote:
Initiative appears to be a terrible stat, I place my army near the back, the AI charges, can't reach me/attack round 1, and then I smash them into pieces on my turn because they moved into range.

I see what you mean, but do not forget that sometime you just dont have enough space to place your army out of reach of the fast cavalry / high initiative foes, and this is during such moment that you would like to have some initiative to smash them in first.

I will happily give my opponent + 50 initiative if I have an extra 100 HP and 10 armor.

Meedoc wrote:
Hello,



Regarding the 5 and 6 eras, here is what I can say for now:

• the 5th Era will be mostly like the others.
• the 6th Era is going to have just a few tech (mostly 8 or so) but very expensive and powerful. The idea is to to tie each of those technologies to a victory condition.
• we plan to add a few improvements in the current era, depending on the feedback we'll collect.
  
  

Cheers

I don't think we need another era that's "mostly like the others." The first four eras already feel a little repetitive. In this, I agree with DevildogFF - rather than more of the same, the end result would be better if we instead did away with the 5th era, and had a more interesting variety of techs in the first 4 eras (techs that grant new abilities, and qualitatively change gameplay).



However, I do like the idea of an uber-era, with techs related to either victory conditions or super-powerful abilities (e.g. terraforming). That sounds like fun.

TimBur wrote:
I don't think we need another era that's "mostly like the others." The first four eras already feel a little repetitive. In this, I agree with DevildogFF - rather than more of the same, the end result would be better if we instead did away with the 5th era, and had a more interesting variety of techs in the first 4 eras (techs that grant new abilities, and qualitatively change gameplay).



However, I do like the idea of an uber-era, with techs related to either victory conditions or super-powerful abilities (e.g. terraforming). That sounds like fun.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at. I'm really sorry to hear that Era 5 will be more of the same. Why?



Consolidating them and really making them much more unique and deep is where we should go. I like TimBur's idea of new abilities and gameplay changers.

I feel like since the techs that let you build tier one titanium and glasssteel items are rarely worth getting compared to the one that lets you get tier 2, same with the other strategic resources, you really have no incentive to get the first tier unless your are already at war or planning an early war, since you're basically just wasting science to get an item that will be obsolete soon after, especially in a science heavy civ like the Vaulters or a civ that can just use mercs instead like the Roving Merchants.



I feel that the earlier tiers of equipment building should be dramatically cheaper once you unlock the next era, and/or even required research, so in order to get to tier 2 you must have tier 1 researched first. Make the tech less irrelevant if you decide to wait until late game to go to war.