Tip: Template for reducing late game MM hell

[Meglobob]

I am not very comfortable with the ban this, ban that and ban the other mentality that this thread is now full of, happens all the time with these sort of discussions.

Seems to always come down to nerf everything, especially if its good or popular.

[Sombre]

The topic of taking away hammers in this thread is really about reducing micro, not rebalancing.

I also think your logic is a bit weird. Taking away hammers has the greatest impact on a nation that does a lot of forging and that would previously have used a lot of hammers. Since you say astral, death, nature and earth get the best gear, nations with access to these strong paths would arguably lose out more than others with no hammers, because they're the ones doing the most forging. This seems particularly true of earth powers, who can forge a bunch of hammers rather than having to trade for them or take the points hit on their pretender build.

I also don't really see how hammers help nations that need to diversify more than those who are already have access to the stronger paths. You say it allows lesser amounts of gems in those off paths to be used more effectively, but since it equally allows S/D/N/E to be used more efficiently when they're your main gem income, which in terms of raw gems is going to be far more of an impact,... I don't get it. Clearly it does help forge that N booster to try and bootstrap into nature, but it helps an equal amount (proportionately) with an N powerhouse forging the best N gear.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Sombre

The topic of taking away hammers in this thread is really about reducing micro, not rebalancing.

I also think your logic is a bit weird. Taking away hammers has the greatest impact on a nation that does a lot of forging and that would previously have used a lot of hammers. Since you say astral, death, nature and earth get the best gear, nations with access to these strong paths would arguably lose out more than others with no hammers, because they're the ones doing the most forging. This seems particularly true of earth powers, who can forge a bunch of hammers rather than having to trade for them or take the points hit on their pretender build.

I also don't really see how hammers help nations that need to diversify more than those who are already have access to the stronger paths. You say it allows lesser amounts of gems in those off paths to be used more effectively, but since it equally allows S/D/N/E to be used more efficiently when they're your main gem income, which in terms of raw gems is going to be far more of an impact,... I don't get it. Clearly it does help forge that N booster to try and bootstrap into nature, but it helps an equal amount (proportionately) with an N powerhouse forging the best N gear.

I'm assuming that, in general, the first instance of item X is more powerful/game changing/whatever than further instances of item X for your nation. Or to look at it another way, the improvement in performance of your nation improves at a decreasing rate with an increasing quantity of item X.

This is tautologically true sometimes - there can be only one of each artifact.

This is easily proveable other times. The first RoWizardry is amazing. The second one is still awesome, but not nearly as awesome because you can already pass the first around to cast the globals you need. I guarantee it is not the only item of that type.

I would argue it is true for every item though. Basically, the law of diminishing returns applies at some point, and that point isn't ridiculously far along. Ie, the first fully-equipped thug is better than the nth one for some n. He's better than the second because he gives you increased capability. The second lets you apply that capability multiple times or gives you new joint capability. But the third is more of the same, and so forth. Now, there are certainly benefits to having thugs work in parallel, but each additional one is less advantageous to you strategically than the one before it (especially since your opponent will probably develop a counter to whatever you're doing with it).

So taking hammers away from power nations has more impact in raw gems, but less strategic impact. (They can still do it, they just do it less... vs. they probably can't do it at all, or at all reasonably).

[Illuminated One]

Well, at least one thing is quite sure that banning hammers will negatively affect earth nations (Ulm, Marverni, Yomi, Agartha, Vanheim, Machaka, Atlantis, out of Memory there is only Hinnom where a nerf would be good).

Maybe it would be better to just note down exactly where the most time is spent.
Taking the dwarven hammers if I understand it correctly the reason why you are considering them MM nightmare is that you have to collect them from 300 mages in 100 provinces?
That's a fact, but if you blame that on the hammers that's only a perspective.
Why not blame it on having to have 300 mages or a too large map?
I mean seriously, you have zero problems with managing your dwarven hammers if you set up a couple of forging provinces into which all your dedicated forgers go (and they are not used for generally spamming mages). The only problem is that the gold could have been spent on additional research centers and you loose some research turns moving around. And this is - I repeat myself I know - the really broken mechanic imo. Virtually every strategy game encourages you to organize your empire (like building cities in sensible locations or choosing the right amount of research and industry centers) while dominions punishes you for it.

[Psycho]

Hammers are not a part of MM problem. On reasonably sized maps without gem generators you will have 10-15 of them at most. If you don't earn enormous amounts of gems, you can't spend them on forging.

[Zeldor]

They are a part of MM - simply because everyone must have then and everyone gets them and everyone uses them. You either screwed smth [trade? pretender design?] or are really pressed if you forge smth more expensive without hammer.

Micah is right though that removing hammers would spoil rituals-forging balance. And it would make some nations weaker for sure. Removing them would surely improve gameplay, but costs are too high.

[DonCorazon]

WraithLord asked for ways to reduce MM. Looking for, and transferring 10-15 hammers every turn is my definition of MM. In other words, it is not fun. My argument was not to ban them for balance. I just made a note that it might add some balance as a response to squirrelloids points. As for having forging centers, that doesn't usually work when you have variable paths and indies - certain path requirements will end up in remote locations etc.

I also don't like banning things, but the point of the game is to have fun, and i personally don't find swapping hammers every turn to be that enjoyable. Since usually everyone is doing the same thing, there is no relative advantage. Anyway, maybe w/o gem generators its not as bad.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by DonCorazon

As for having forging centers, that doesn't usually work when you have variable paths and indies - certain path requirements will end up in remote locations etc.

That's why I said a couple.
And sure you have to run around a bit, but that's my point it's not good to penalize players for moving their mages around.

I also don't like banning things, but the point of the game is to have fun, and i personally don't find swapping hammers every turn to be that enjoyable. Since usually everyone is doing the same thing, there is no relative advantage. Anyway, maybe w/o gem generators its not as bad.

True to a point, if they could just be accounted for and give you the forging bonus automatically...
Otoh hand it doesn't really take much time (<4min) if you go my route so I'd hardly find it justified to take them out.

[Calahan]

Gathering all your forgers in one or two places just to save on MM is a guaranteed way to get yourself in major trouble to stuff like lab fires or mass remote killing spells (flames from sky). With the former event putting the majority of your hammers and boosters out of commission for a turn, and the latter losing you said hammers and boosters. And domes won't help against a concentrated ritual attack, which is all the more likely to happen if you enemies notice your gathering all your important mages in one place.

Common sense says to have your forgers spread out more to avoid them becoming the lucrative target they become when gathered together. But the more spread out they are, the more MM increases. Hence the claim being made that banning Hammers will reduce MM. (and this is a thread about reducing MM after all)

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by Meglobob

I am not very comfortable with the ban this, ban that and ban the other mentality that this thread is now full of, happens all the time with these sort of discussions.

Seems to always come down to nerf everything, especially if its good or popular.

Old wisdom from admins of many online world projects. The people placed in authority over game balance tend to come in two types. The adders, and the subtractors. Those who fix by building up the low ones, and those who fix by taking down the high ones. As long as you dont let one group get too out of control you are usually ok. Of course nor should you allow both groups unlimited control or you end up with everything equal in the middle which is boring. I am again amazed at how well the two-man crew of Illwinter did with that basic problem altho if you look at the history file you can kindof see that they have one of each.

But Im with you. Id rather see more options than less. As long as there is an in-game strategic response then Id be afraid to nerf for fear of creating a new imbalance in some other nation needing a new nerf.

Altho.. as long as its all mods and game setting choices then its just more options. No problem there.


Gandalf Parker
--
Some people NEED menus.
All options open with no menu list appears to them to be no options at all.