Taxation tweak suggestion

Llyorn is pretty much correct regarding the thrust of my post.  All I'm suggesting is that taxation hurt equipment production rather than basic resource production.

All the subsequent points are just exploration of how that single simple change would affect gameplay and surrounding mechanics.  With specific regard to the larger armies bit, I understand how that can immediately be seen as scary.  But really, it's not going to mean more powerful players/alliances so much as more incentive for concentration of a player's/alliance's power into military-focused centers.  After all, the increased ability to keep an army comes at a cost of decreased ability to produce an army.  City A's military power increase comes at the cost of city B's military power decrease so that B can produce the volume of equipment that A no longer can.  Furthermore, the nature of the tradeoff means more focus on standing armies due to comparatively reduced capacity to replenish troops.  Peaceful-but-prepared players should theoretically have the upper hand, which means new actors in any field will be more likely to produce a tipping point and bring wars to result.  Such a distance between "reserve" capacity vs "production" capacity would have produced a more diverse and variable dynamic with the month-long tournament, for example.

And ultimately, it is what it is--one of several minor shifts that are believed (at least by myself) to offer an overall improvement in the diversity (and thus fun factor) of gameplay.  I do not believe any of the individual points will be very pronounced in effect on their own anyway.

To stay fair, the second post of LH was not even derailed, I think he got the idea of HM now.

To add my few thoughts on that:
1. The basic idea of HM to separate the different ways of playing is a step in the right direction. Perhaps there would some way of including magic as the third one somewhere in there?

2. another pro would be the need for players to interact (if they specialize with ALL towns).

3. The only fear I got with "Larger cities could support larger standing armies"; seems to prefer big players even more in building out there militaric strength...

4. LH's suggestion of separating the ways completely by building in fix town classes wouldn't  fit on the sandbox character of this game (in my opinion).
Further, it depends on prestige to much for my liking

Going in further details before a statement of the GM's would be a waste of time, as only they can grasp all the influences it has on the mechanics (at least I hope so)

Hora

So, HM wants maxed out resources to go along with a maxed out military?

A player can also have maxed out resources with an exceptional increase for advanced resources...

A military city is unable to produce advanced resources at a good rate...

So a player will either have to have a town produce military units or advanced resources?

Is this what HM is saying?

Still I would like HM to add more detail.

Edited by Lionz Heartz - 28 Feb 2011 at 02:49

HonoredMule wrote: I have in mind something that should be more logical than the current taxation tradeoff while trading old restrictions for new ones that better represent balance alongside specialization.Every city produces basic/natural resources at the same general rate, and needs them for, well, everything else.  Currently, taxation is generated according to population and causes a detriment to resource production.  But population mostly comes from the production of advanced resources, which also carries the true weight of wealth and trade, as well as importance to military operations.  So, I think it would be more appropriate for taxation to affect the rate of production of advanced resources (equipment) instead of natural ones.The consequences of such a tradeoff would include: High-population cities would struggle less with food, but still be unable to reach full size unless aided by trade or exceptional sovereignty bonus/plot balance/etc. Large cities could support larger standing armies more easily, but would be less easily able to equip/replace them as quickly as they do now. Cities of all sizes would have to choose whether to trade for goods or produce them, as maintaining a balance of both would be trickier and likely sub-optimal (promotes trade). Military-focused cities would be more dependent on support as they produce both gold and equipment at reduced rates. Gold would increase value because it represents greater "opportunity cost" in relation to the reduced production of all 12 kinds of equipment (gold quantities are currently just a little ridiculous, numerically speaking--1 gold seems to be like roughly 1 penny, where 1 dollar would be more appropriate just in terms of having decently sized numbers to parlay). Basic resources would not be so overloaded with sinks (development, equipment production, sovereignty, and taxation). On average, individual cities would be able to exert a little more influence on their surroundings--mostly by being able to handle higher sovereignty claims. The error factor on equipment production queues (where changing production rates also changes the amount left to produce) would be triggered more frequently, so addressing that issue would become more important. Small, developing cities could produce greater wealth with essentially no tradeoff, helping them reach a mature state more quickly--that is, up until the point where equipment production becomes important to continued development. People will be more tempted to run under-protected cities which potentially encourages more attacks of opportunity--because maximizing equipment production with focus on trade means generating too little auto-flowing wealth to reliably support larger armies. Thoughts?  Are the devs open to considering such a balance shift?

I respect your opinion in terms of improvements in games because, like me, you are able to naturally think of ways that will make the game better. Your add-on and suggestion to improve tournaments is proof of that. Some players are good at politics etc, but you are pretty good at coming up with ways to improve the game.

What you are suggesting are classes to this game. I like that idea. To use an analogy from Darkfallonline, there is only one class in that game. Which means everyone in that game levels up everything to have the best advantage in game. The same can be said in this game more or less. Most of the players in this game have the same type of building at maxed out levels. There are a few that also have only a resource build and have a building with no troops at max tax level to earn max gold per hour for faction trade in the future. So there are really 3 class builds right there...

Overall I feel what you suggested would be good, but you need to add more details to every suggestion. I am having a hard time putting all of this together under a certain size town.

So that is why I am coming up with these suggestions to add since I do not fully understand what you are talking about.

Perhaps there should be a prestige class options. A player will start out producing resources at 100 an hour and once they reach 100 population, the player will be forced to choose the "town build class". These suggestions will allow the pop of each town to be changed and balanced for these suggestions to work and have each build progress at the same town class build level.

A player must choose a town to be either of these classes, but not all of them. Overtime, they can add a new class build with a new town.

Military build

Trade/Gold build

Basic Resource build

Equipment build

Only one of these builds can be attained for one town, but a player that picks a certain build will not be allowed to make a barracks, if they are a trade or basic or advance build.

Every town can use a Mage tower.

Military
-Can make all diplomat units and all military units.
-There will be a cap on how many diplomat units and military units a town can make.
-20,000 units can be made once a player reaches 5000 pop for one town. This will be the max amount.
-5,000 units can be made once a player reaches 5000 pop for one town.
-A max amount of 100 diplomat units can be sent to other towns to defend against other diplomat attacks for 14 days. A player can stack 100 spies with burgulars together to help defend a town.
-This player will have a very slow production on basic resources and will not be able to make advanced resources.

Trade/Gold
-This player will be able to not make troops or diplomats because it can not make the building for it.
-Unable to make advanced resources and basic resources are produce at a very slow rate.
-This player can trade on the market because it can produce gold.

Basic Resource
-This player will be not be able make troops or diplomats because it can not make the building for it.
-This player can only sell basic resources on the market, but can not buy anything on the market.
-Unable to make advanced resources.
-Can produce basic resources at a max level at around 20k each at 5000 pop.

Equipment Build
-This player will be not be able make troops or diplomats because it can not make the building for it.
-This player can only sell advanced resources on the market.
-This player can not buy anything on the market.
-Can produce advanced resources at an exceptional rate.

Once a player chooses a certain town type, they will be stuck with that for six months and will have to use prestige to change to the other town classes.

Basically players will have to be more dependent on each other and will have towns unprotected due to the need for each class.

These classes will get rid of the one size fits all town that pretty much every player uses. More teamwork and strategy will have to be used in the game because of it.

Not sure if I am covering your idea right HM... But after I read your suggestion, I thought of this.

Clarify if I am way off.

Edited by Lionz Heartz - 28 Feb 2011 at 02:31

I have in mind something that should be more logical than the current taxation tradeoff while trading old restrictions for new ones that better represent balance alongside specialization.

Every city produces basic/natural resources at the same general rate, and needs them for, well, everything else.  Currently, taxation is generated according to population and causes a detriment to resource production.  But population mostly comes from the production of advanced resources, which also carries the true weight of wealth and trade, as well as importance to military operations.  So, I think it would be more appropriate for taxation to affect the rate of production of advanced resources (equipment) instead of natural ones.

The consequences of such a tradeoff would include:

• High-population cities would struggle less with food, but still be unable to reach full size unless aided by trade or exceptional sovereignty bonus/plot balance/etc.
• Large cities could support larger standing armies more easily, but would be less easily able to equip/replace them as quickly as they do now.
  
• Cities of all sizes would have to choose whether to trade for goods or produce them, as maintaining a balance of both would be trickier and likely sub-optimal (promotes trade).
  
• Military-focused cities would be more dependent on support as they produce both gold and equipment at reduced rates (taxation kills production, troop wages kill taxation).
• Gold would increase value because it represents greater "opportunity cost" in relation to the reduced production of all 12 kinds of equipment (gold quantities are currently just a little ridiculous, numerically speaking--1 gold seems to be like roughly 1 penny, where 1 dollar would be more appropriate just in terms of having decently sized numbers to parlay).
• Basic resources would not be so overloaded with sinks (development, equipment production, sovereignty, and taxation).
• On average, individual cities would be able to exert a little more influence on their surroundings--mostly by being able to handle higher sovereignty claims.
• The error factor on equipment production queues (where changing production rates also changes the amount left to produce) would be triggered more frequently, so addressing that issue would become more important.
• Small, developing cities could produce greater wealth with essentially no tradeoff, helping them reach a mature state more quickly--that is, up until the point where equipment production becomes important to continued development.
• People will be more tempted to run under-protected cities which potentially encourages more attacks of opportunity--because maximizing equipment production with focus on trade means generating too little auto-flowing wealth to reliably support larger armies.
• Overall army production would be more constrained and slowed, as the bottleneck equipment (like chain and saddles) would now be slowed by taxation, thus decreasing worldwide availability.  Constant unit production would become less common and more difficult to achieve at super-specialized military production facilities (yet still one of the most worthwhile specializations possible).
  

Thoughts?  Are the devs open to considering such a balance shift?


Edited by HonoredMule - 28 Feb 2011 at 05:33