Logo Platform
logo amplifiers simplified

Pacing feels much worse now

Reply
Copied to clipboard!
3 years ago
Nov 5, 2021, 4:42:20 PM

Slow game. Nation Difficulty. Turn 425. Contemporary Era. When it takes 20 turns for your biggest and best city to finish making a Robotics district, you get to benefit from it for about 5 turns before the game ends. This anti-snowball change is not the right path, the production capability of cities needs to stay ramped up in late game not slow down to worse than the start of the game. I should note that as the game ended, not a single AI was in Contemporary. Even though this game I spent most of my resources focusing on tech, I am miles ahead of my opponents but not even close to getting Space tech before the turn limit. Its just such a jarring change of pacing and doesn't seem right.


There are far far too many turns spent just spamming "End Turn" waiting for things to happen. It's better to have cities that have built everything and then use the many ways to redirect that production instead of barely being able to produce their emblemic districts before you are into another Era.








Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 5, 2021, 6:31:42 PM

Before, I couldn't play because the "end turn" pending bug.

Now, the patch seem to have resolve this bug, but I still can't play.

Because, I can't buy so much expensive quarters.

Damn, it's like I'm playing my real life.

I can't buy so much expensive things!

My endless speed last game was the same as your.

I was the first in tech, and at turn 600 nobody was really getting tech of last eras.

My cities was miserables. 20 turns to build the harbor I forgot to build before.

2 or 3 turns to build a natural reserve. A queue of 15 natural reserve taking 40 turns to build..................

Funny thing is on normal speed, I also manage to get a 20 turns harbor to builld, a far before.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 6, 2021, 9:49:12 AM

Is it possible, that the intention of the devs was to penalize megacities? 


It'd make sense in my opinion, as a few megacities can snowball out of control. Maybe the idea behind of this penalization is that as the game progresses, you need to distribute your administration: instead of a few megacity you need to have more small / mid-size cities to stay competitive? 


I kinda like this idea, but not sure if it's the good direction or even it is their intention in the first place. I haven't played in a while so this all just a theory, I'll try to experiment with it soon(ish).

0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 6, 2021, 10:11:29 AM

Intention or not, this has not been tested adequately. Hamlets and harbours take an insane amount of time to build even for the most advanced cities, as described above. Buying these things is not feasible and hence it destroys any sort of use case for these things. This is a re-occuring problem of the game - there are plenty of districts, units, technologies, resources, etc that the game has but the player has not enough room (aka time) to engage with in a meaningful manner to make this satisfactory. 

0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 6, 2021, 10:21:29 AM
Reicha wrote:

Intention or not, this has not been tested adequately. Hamlets and harbours take an insane amount of time to build even for the most advanced cities, as described above. Buying these things is not feasible and hence it destroys any sort of use case for these things. This is a re-occuring problem of the game - there are plenty of districts, units, technologies, resources, etc that the game has but the player has not enough room (aka time) to engage with in a meaningful manner to make this satisfactory. 

Ahh okay so it's really that bad, that doesn't sound good! I'll try to experiment with territories and such.


Yes, I kinda agree with that.

Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 6, 2021, 10:46:06 AM
Yeah, I'm not really feeling it, the building is just so sluggish and as other threads put it, gave even more power to Makers Quarter and its variations, while nerfing everything else. Stuff like Triumphal Arch was already quite pitiful, currently you'd just build it for aesthetics.

I know that in past discussions I was explicitly against it, and I still fear it will lead to creation of homogeneous cities, but if they want to go with quarters cost penalty like that, then breaking it into separate cost increases for every individual quarter/quarter type (so that every consecutive Makers Quarter will be more expensive, but it won't influence industry cost of Quarters you haven't built yet/have less of) would be a way to go.

I've tried a single city run and I've reached the point at which only feasible way to have a harbor was to buy it with influence at outpost and attach the territory - and the influence cost was spare change comparing to what I'd have to do to actually build it, which is not ideal.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 6, 2021, 11:29:56 AM
Reicha wrote:

Intention or not, this has not been tested adequately. Hamlets and harbours take an insane amount of time to build even for the most advanced cities, as described above. Buying these things is not feasible and hence it destroys any sort of use case for these things. This is a re-occuring problem of the game - there are plenty of districts, units, technologies, resources, etc that the game has but the player has not enough room (aka time) to engage with in a meaningful manner to make this satisfactory. 

Yes, new industry cost was not tested properly in my opinion. I still think that the industry cost scaling itself is ok, but the fact that luxury and resource deposits are affecting on the industry cost is wrong. Luxury and resource deposits cost is contstant (100 industry at normal speed), but if you'll build 5 deposits, your maker quarter (for example) industry cost will increase like you have built 5 maker quarters before. Luxury and resource deposits shouldn't affect on quarters industry cost IMO.

Also the pacing problems are connected with new expansionist stars, they are too easy to achieve now. In my games with this update I allways have a gold expansionist star at least first 3 eras without any difficulties, which feels a bit wrong. So the fame and stars progress is pacing faster than industry and science now.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 6, 2021, 12:44:06 PM
Light_Spectrum wrote:
Reicha wrote:

Intention or not, this has not been tested adequately. Hamlets and harbours take an insane amount of time to build even for the most advanced cities, as described above. Buying these things is not feasible and hence it destroys any sort of use case for these things. This is a re-occuring problem of the game - there are plenty of districts, units, technologies, resources, etc that the game has but the player has not enough room (aka time) to engage with in a meaningful manner to make this satisfactory. 

Yes, new industry cost was not tested properly in my opinion. I still think that the industry cost scaling itself is ok, but the fact that luxury and resource deposits are affecting on the industry cost is wrong. Luxury and resource deposits cost is contstant (100 industry at normal speed), but if you'll build 5 deposits, your maker quarter (for example) industry cost will increase like you have built 5 maker quarters before. Luxury and resource deposits shouldn't affect on quarters industry cost IMO.

Also the pacing problems are connected with new expansionist stars, they are too easy to achieve now. In my games with this update I allways have a gold expansionist star at least first 3 eras without any difficulties, which feels a bit wrong. So the fame and stars progress is pacing faster than industry and science now.

Yes, agree with all of it.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 6, 2021, 12:45:54 PM
DNLH wrote:
Yeah, I'm not really feeling it, the building is just so sluggish and as other threads put it, gave even more power to Makers Quarter and its variations, while nerfing everything else. Stuff like Triumphal Arch was already quite pitiful, currently you'd just build it for aesthetics.

I know that in past discussions I was explicitly against it, and I still fear it will lead to creation of homogeneous cities, but if they want to go with quarters cost penalty like that, then breaking it into separate cost increases for every individual quarter/quarter type (so that every consecutive Makers Quarter will be more expensive, but it won't influence industry cost of Quarters you haven't built yet/have less of) would be a way to go.

I've tried a single city run and I've reached the point at which only feasible way to have a harbor was to buy it with influence at outpost and attach the territory - and the influence cost was spare change comparing to what I'd have to do to actually build it, which is not ideal.

Yes, also agree that district cost should not be universally increasing, but seperately for each class of district. 

0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 7, 2021, 2:32:55 PM
Enchanteur wrote:

Before, I couldn't play because the "end turn" pending bug.

Now, the patch seem to have resolve this bug, but I still can't play.

Because, I can't buy so much expensive quarters.

Damn, it's like I'm playing my real life.

I can't buy so much expensive things!

My endless speed last game was the same as your.

I was the first in tech, and at turn 600 nobody was really getting tech of last eras.

My cities was miserables. 20 turns to build the harbor I forgot to build before.

2 or 3 turns to build a natural reserve. A queue of 15 natural reserve taking 40 turns to build..................

Funny thing is on normal speed, I also manage to get a 20 turns harbor to builld, a far before.

I had the same problem with cost. Someone told me about this mod that will reverse it back to the way it was: https://humankind.mod.io/NoExponentialQuarterCost 

0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 8, 2021, 5:52:01 PM

The solution they gave makes the game more boring. A proper solution to snowballing has to be tackled in other places and should involve making other strategies than to just bumrush production viable. Quarters costing way more than wonders and late game projects is just wrong, if anythign there should be diminishing returns for making more and more quarters of anything and maybe scaled with pop, to the point that it's never a bad idea to build more but it' just less effective than doing other things.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 9, 2021, 5:14:40 PM
DNLH wrote:
Yeah, I'm not really feeling it, the building is just so sluggish and as other threads put it, gave even more power to Makers Quarter and its variations, while nerfing everything else. Stuff like Triumphal Arch was already quite pitiful, currently you'd just build it for aesthetics.

I know that in past discussions I was explicitly against it, and I still fear it will lead to creation of homogeneous cities, but if they want to go with quarters cost penalty like that, then breaking it into separate cost increases for every individual quarter/quarter type (so that every consecutive Makers Quarter will be more expensive, but it won't influence industry cost of Quarters you haven't built yet/have less of) would be a way to go.

I've tried a single city run and I've reached the point at which only feasible way to have a harbor was to buy it with influence at outpost and attach the territory - and the influence cost was spare change comparing to what I'd have to do to actually build it, which is not ideal.

+1 for this.   
But the underlying problem is that you need production to accomplish any strategy; science, money, whatever.  Making production slower doesn't solve the problem, it just makes the only viable solution slower and boring.  

0Send private message
0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 11, 2021, 10:53:53 AM
frutamala wrote:
DNLH wrote:
Yeah, I'm not really feeling it, the building is just so sluggish and as other threads put it, gave even more power to Makers Quarter and its variations, while nerfing everything else. Stuff like Triumphal Arch was already quite pitiful, currently you'd just build it for aesthetics.

I know that in past discussions I was explicitly against it, and I still fear it will lead to creation of homogeneous cities, but if they want to go with quarters cost penalty like that, then breaking it into separate cost increases for every individual quarter/quarter type (so that every consecutive Makers Quarter will be more expensive, but it won't influence industry cost of Quarters you haven't built yet/have less of) would be a way to go.

I've tried a single city run and I've reached the point at which only feasible way to have a harbor was to buy it with influence at outpost and attach the territory - and the influence cost was spare change comparing to what I'd have to do to actually build it, which is not ideal.

+1 for this.   
But the underlying problem is that you need production to accomplish any strategy; science, money, whatever.  Making production slower doesn't solve the problem, it just makes the only viable solution slower and boring.  

!00% agree with all of this.  At a bear minimum they need to break the increased quarter cost into groups (building a quarter only increases the cost of the the construction of the the same quarter type).

0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 12, 2021, 12:30:25 PM

Try not attaching territories to your cities, and district costs will be much less. It's not communicated well by the game, but the cost of districts now explodes the more territories you attach.


I suggest attaching territories when proper production districts and infra are already built, so that you can continue building districts in reasonable timeframe after attaching.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Nov 12, 2021, 1:26:57 PM

# of territories doesn’t affect District cost.  However, the Administrative Centers and resource extractors add to the District count..that increases the cost.

0Send private message
?

Click here to login

Reply
Comment