Discussion All cities look the same

[joperb]

I still think it's an idea. I've defined problems and proposed solutions to them (as I see them). A major part of posts that followed came down to a thought "don't touch our current metagame" and so were unnecessary (and strange considering that I've posted on a subforum intended to discuss possible changes in the game).
Major part of discussion that followed came down to objections against my proposal "to remove special buildings from the game". But it wasn't my idea.

Event buildings should still be desirable and more efficient than everyday ones, but they shouldn't be spammable.

I've expected for events to turn this way. So I'm ok with a decision to move this thread.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

So, what you propose to solve the "spamming" of special buildings? Setup a limit of how many special buildings of each type a city can have? Like GBs, only one Arc per city?

How many Shrines of Knowledge per city? 10 max?
How many Terrace Farms allowed? 2?
How many Pirate Ships? just one?
If I have a Pirate Ship built, can I build a Royal Ship? Or since both are final version of the same starting special buildings (The Ship Level 1) it would be against the rule?

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

I wrote " Simply, the beauty of my city (or lack of it ) is my business, not of others players. " You replied:

It's a MMOG, your gameplay affects other players.
You're also focusing on prettyness, even though I've stated that, IMO, ugliness and building spam are a consequence of a lack of variety and builds that
might be a sign of a game design in need of improvement.

My minimal amount of cultural buildings and decorations built may affect other players trying to complete a quest asking to polish n number of buildings, sorry for that one. Players would have to visit other friends, guild mates or neighbors to complete that quest. My Alcatraz, roads, and selected other buildings cover the happiness needs of my city.

Shall a player build things in his/her cities for the benefit of other players? Yes, if playing in a guild (as most players do) then some guild related buildings should be at the city for the benefits of the guild, and if those buildings also provide benefits to the city owner then much better.

Focussed on Prettyness? Yes, while not my top goal, I do like some beauty in my city. An old wise saying says: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Higher Variety = Higher Beauty? Maybe, if that is in your eye. In mine simetry and order are more important than variety for beauty. For me two parallel columns of Little Wishing Wells aligned in front of Town Hall look much better than a mix of different buildings (higher variety) filling the same space.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

A major part of posts that followed came down to a thought "don't touch our current metagame" and so were unnecessary (and strange considering that I've posted on a subforum intended to discuss possible changes in the game).

I'm not opposed to changes and improvements. But strongly disagree with a change that would force me to use 28 tiles of space (almost two additional expansions !!!) in road pieces to completely sourround an Arc (7x5) while in current design I only need to connect the Arc to the road system by just one square, or maybe just by one side if the Arc is in the middle of a column. That change almost duplicates city space required to build a 7x5 building.

What is the benefit from that? How exactly that will improve the game? More happiness?

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

I have a theory about those city images that Marketing use in their ads. Not that Marketing people are not good at playing FOE; I think they use those not efficient images on purpose. Probably they think potential new players will see those and think "Look at all that waste of space, I'm sure I can easily design a city better than that.. I can play/beat this game."

 

[Thunderdome]

I have a theory about those city images that Marketing use in their ads. Not that Marketing people are not good at playing FOE; I think they use those not efficient images on purpose. Probably they think potential new players will see those and think "Look at all that waste of space, I'm sure I can easily design a city better than that.. I can play/beat this game."

Like those "FAIL" video advertisements that is shown on Facebook that had nothing to do with the games themselves. Although, I do get a kick out of those each time I see them.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

Problem 2: Developed cities are spammed by the same GBs and almost the same event buildings. This's efficient but ugly.

People select GBs to build at their cities for the rewards they provide, and if smart they select GBs aligned to their play style. There are different play styles, but the number is not infinite. Smart playuers that have the same play style will end up with same or very similar combination of GBs.

Among play styles are for one example the Attacker, players who like to battle. Those players will build GBs providing them higher attack %, and GBs that give them other military related advantages like Statue of Zeus, Cathedral of Aachen, Castle Del Monte, Terracota Army, Alcatraz, The Kraken, Artic Orangery...

What is the proposal? Be an Attacker but to avoid ugliness:

• be an unique attacker, do not build Castle Del Monte as many other Attackers have built,
• Also, avoid Alcatraz, that old penitentiary building looks terrible too; should have been demolished in RL long time ago.
• Stick just to Statue of Zeus (a recognized art masterpiece), Aachen (beautiful architecture) and Artic Orangery (nice building to look at)???

(Oh, wait, if your friend also have Zeus , Aachen and Artic Orangery; then be unique and demolish Aachen. Avoid spamming GBs !!! ).

 

[Thunderdome]

Next, they will propose that we can "paint" the buildings (GB, event, regular) within our cities a different color.

(Hey, can I get a neon road while we're at it?)

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

(Hey, can I get a neon road while we're at it?)

Only at Virtual Future Era.

 

[DeletedUser10121]

this is my city:

https://prnt.sc/sxbq31

I like it, why u wanna make me ruin it?

 

[Rakshas]

Inno's answer to this problem is the colonies for the space ages. The inherent problem with the main city is that they are now balancing the game around event buildings and hyper leveled GB's. I really only see one solution for the main city, which is to start giving different skins for each age for every event building, which is unreasonable. The solution for the player? Age up to the space ages and you'll have your age specific little city.

 

[Markus Stormrider]

maybe an idea would be giving your city hall a production bonus of some kind if you have a certain amount of residential, supplies production, military or goods production buildings in your city (and NOT just or mostly special or event buildings). this could e.g. be a goods production multiplier for goods buildings, some extra fp production, or some military bonus. if the bonus given has enough weight compared to what the event buildings give instead, then maybe people might consider building those normal buildings instead

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

maybe an idea would be giving your city hall a production bonus of some kind if you have a certain amount of residential, supplies production, military or goods production buildings in your city (and NOT just or mostly special or event buildings). this could e.g. be a goods production multiplier for goods buildings, some extra fp production, or some military bonus. if the bonus given has enough weight compared to what the event buildings give instead, then maybe people might consider building those normal buildings instead

I can agree with that solution, but not with the one suggesting "to start giving different skins for each age for every event building". There is a recent idea on that one with detailed reasons for why not should be implemented. Refer to:

https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/future-events-buildings-designs-according-to-your-era.13129/

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

ust a small announcement for those that are interested, since this is technically a discussion now.

I've started doing this in my city here in Beta; I've also been posting updates in a thread of the Dunarsund subforum. Check out my city if you will (no Event Buildings on purpose), and feel free to leave any suggestions.

What is the result so far? Is your city competitive vs other cities at your neighborhood?

How compare your progress with this city vs other cities you have built? Specify how to measure progress:

• Coin/supplies production?
• Goods production?
• FP production?
• Space dedicated/required to keep happiness at 120%?

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

"Nothing stops you from playing chess moving only pawns. ... I decided long ago to do so and designed my playstyle around that goal."
It occured to me that my phrase might look like I'm picking on you. I'm not trying to do it. But you wrote a funny thing.

In chess you start with 8 pawns already at the table... in FOE you dont start with goods buildings at the city. Big difference.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

- Event buildings could be made more efficient when "building high", not "wide" (i.e. a 1 building at lvl 2 could be preferable to 2 buildings of lvl 1). It's already done, partially, but it's not enough, because now event buildings get spammed high AND wide. It also couldn't be enough in itself, because GBs are, basically an extreme example of the "build high" strategy. They're still spammed.

This has not been discussed.

Agree to expand HIGH, I would love to have all my Cherry Garden set buildings at Level 2, however, upgrades are very rare to find, and not always can win the auctions when they are offered. This is being done gradually as upgrades are obtained. In my top city I think my level 2 Cherry Garden buildings are 40% of total, this includes one complete set, all the additional Sakura Rocks, some Emperor Entrances and N Ponds.

However, while level 2 buildings are better than level 1, they are never designed as two (2) times better than a level 1, seems overpowered to developers.

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

- Another option is to make all buildings that generate FP and/or goods require significant amount of population. At least it would make common residential buildings relevant again.

It would make special/event residential building more popular since they provide more population / coins per square than regular residential buildings. If not why call them "special"?

 

[Darrth Eugene Vader3]

If one building (or several) makes a whole aspect of the game (i.e. goods' production chains) useless, it might be a sign of a game design in need of improvement.

On the contrary, using GBs to produce goods IS the improvement over using Goods Buildings to produce Goods.

 

[Umbrathor]

First of all, I agree with the observations that the event building inflation leads to similar cities and to cities that no longer reflect the age in which the player currently plays. Neither for me is a strong enough reason to warrant major changes. However, I do like some of the creative ideas proposed. I will get to each of those points below.

Similarity: the inflation is now leading up to a point where end-game players (can) have so many event buildings that they run ourt of space and need to choose. Which is bound to lead to more diversity.

Age distortion: first of all this is not a major problem. It happens mostly for players who have played a longer time, since new players won't have many anachronistic buildings. If you want to build an age-conform city, you already can. You will miss out of the benefits that event buildings bring, but it is entirely possible.

So neither is truly needed. However, some of the suggestions are very creative and fun and deserve some support, and I will add some:

1. City planning benefits (roads, space): I like the idea of making roads more beneficial. Roads in game do not reflect the usefulness of mobility and visibility for many types of buildings. In real cities, you place special buildings and public amenities in prominent locations and more easily accessibly locations than you would industrial or military buildings. It might be an idea to have road sections give a small, stackable bonus to specific types of buildings - so having a lot of roads around that type building would reflect its greater prominence and effectiveness. This would make sense especially for cultural buildings, so a bonus to happiness seems the most logical option. Buildings that don't provide happiness are not affected by the amount of road they are attached to. So Colosseum, Alcatraz (does not make sense to surround by roads, by the way), event buildings that provide happiness and cultural buildings. Probably a pain to code, and the bonus would probably not make it worthwhile to add a lot of roads, so I doubt this suggestion is worth following up on. But is fun to toy around with.
2. Bonuses for age-appropriate buildings: I like the idea of set-bonuses for buildings that belong to the correct age, and considered that other types of buildings would logically be more benificial when grouped together as well: see city zoning below. For instance, having x buildings of your current age gives you a bonus, having x buildings of the previous age gives you a bonus, having x buildings from 2 ages below actually gives you a malus. Bonuses could be Happiness, a coin bonus, city defense bonuses.
3. Requirements for age-appropriate buildings: one of the commenters mentioned this. If it were offset by extra space (expansions) reflecting that, it might be an option. Otherwise no one would be in favor it, I think. So you need to have x buildings of the current and/or previous era, in order to:
   • advance to the next era
   • be able to build certain barracks or GB's
   • get abonus or avoid a malus
4. City planning zones: it makes zero sense to have a lighthouse (crow's nest), ship or train in the middle of the cities (without a canal or train track leading out of it). It makes much more sense to place lighthouses and ships close to or adjacent to the coast, and trains at the edge of a city (unless train tracks are introduced) and bonuses or maluses could be introduced for that. Or even specific zones, where only a specific type of building can be placed. Cities often work with zoning, after all. It would make the game more realistic, but also a major pain to puzzle it out. Zones would have to be (at least partially) player-determined and not game-determined. That said: once a zone is applied, that zone could provide a bonus to buildings of the correct type. Or in reverse: having the zone provides a potential bonus, that is realized only if buildings of that type are built in that zone. The more squares are filled with buildings of the correct type, the bigger the bonus. Military zones would provide attack bonuses, nautical / harbor zones would provide defense bonuses, cultural zones would provide happiness, residency zones inhabitants, industrial zones goods, commercial zones supplies ....
5. Satellite cities / colonies for beauty or bonuses: it might be an idea to indulge the desire to build beautiful cities, or age-appropriate cities in colonies, that provide limited or no actual game benefits.

None of this is really needed, it adds a fun factor though. And fun is what games are about.