Do Not Suggest [Suggestion] Changes for Notre Dame, etc.

[Andi47]

I have a Suggestion for Notre Dame:
This GB is one of the poorest LGs in the game - it is severely underpowerd:

It needs an area of 4*6 = 24, and gives a few supplies (ridiculous) and some Happiness (even more ridiculous). At level 9 you get 3300 Happiness (note: can't be polished) - compared to two Trading Companies of the Colonial Age (area: 2*3*4 = 24), which gives 3600 Happiness when polished, Notre Dame is already outdated in Colonial Age. And HOW high do you need to bring Notre Dame to match a polished Personal Rapid Transport of Arctic future (talking about Happiness per Square)? Is Level 45 enough??

My suggestion is, that Notre Dame should boost the Happiness of Cultural and Decoration building (as St. Mark boosts the output of Supply Buildings) instead of just giving some (far too little) Happiness.


And another suggestion comes into my mind: Since the introduction of the AID button, almost nobody wants to build decorations in their city, because they steal polivating actions and therefore small decorations (and also small Culturals like the Tube Entrance) effectively give negative happiness (compared to a city without small decoration buildings).

Suggestions to alleviate this problem:
* either add the bonus "1x1, 2*1 and 1*2 Decorations are always polished" to one of the early era GBs (for example to the Temple of Relics), so that Decorations would not steal aid actions from the larger cultural buildings. (note: the restriction to the small decos is to avoid abuse by building a large number of (always polished) playgrounds (2*3), Monster Statues (2*2) or Flower Arbors (2*2).)
* or change the polishing order: As far as I know, when someone clicks the Aid button, an algorithm decides whether it will motivate or polish something. If the decision is for "polish", it should go for cultural buildings first, and polish decorations only if all cultural buildings are already polished.

 

[Pafton]

We'd feel awkward if Notre Dame actually becomes useful.

Seriously speaking, they won't do it. Its been around for far too long and we know Inno's customer feedback policy. Pretty sure their reply would be: Its been there for quite some time. Get used to it now or don't build it.

 

[Sl8yer]

There are more GB's than Notre Dame that are underpowered. If you believe this to be the case, do not built them. Problem solved.

 

[DeletedUser6705]

Even though many strategy elements have been eroded from the game over time in favour of sheer luck / gambling, I feel we should keep a few seriously underpowered GBs as well as a whole lot of less than ideal standard buildings.

It's entirely up to you what you build (and what you don't build), and if you decide that you cannot find a better use for 24 tiles and umpteen FPs, then build ND live with the decision! If on the other hand you think before you build, then fill that space with more productive buildings, and you will have a better town in return. Where's the strategy if each and every building is as good as any other?

 

[DeletedUser7957]

there are a list of really poor GB, that no one should build. But if you change their rewards, people that chose the wise way (not to build them) will be penalised!!! Not fair!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

there are a list of really poor GB, that no one should build. But if you change their rewards, people that chose the wise way (not to build them) will be penalised!!! Not fair!!!

only the stupid ones

the smart players would simply build them

 

[DeletedUser5955]

I once suggested on my main world
and AGE BONUS to all GBs

it mechanics is simple
each GB has an age it is from.
Ageless GBs wont count toward this bonus.

so if a player is in iron age and puts LOA GB the bonus is as this GB states.
but if a player moves to EMA, then LOA is 1 age behind, so it gets a bonus of +X% to its current bonus.
if a player moves to MMA then LOA is is 2 ages behind and get Bonus of Y% where Y is bigger then X.
and so on and so on.

This way all GB with weak bonus gets stronger one.

but thre are GBs that this idea would make extremly OP (and in my opinion those GB are
- Zeus and other military buildings exept Deal Castle.
- AO and PC which give FP equal to its level Level 40 gives 40 FP etc.

and those GBs should either get weaker bonus or none at all.

 

[DeletedUser5097]

I once suggested on my main world
and AGE BONUS to all GBs

it mechanics is simple
each GB has an age it is from.
Ageless GBs wont count toward this bonus.

so if a player is in iron age and puts LOA GB the bonus is as this GB states.
but if a player moves to EMA, then LOA is 1 age behind, so it gets a bonus of +X% to its current bonus.
if a player moves to MMA then LOA is is 2 ages behind and get Bonus of Y% where Y is bigger then X.
and so on and so on.

This way all GB with weak bonus gets stronger one.

but thre are GBs that this idea would make extremly OP (and in my opinion those GB are
- Zeus and other military buildings exept Deal Castle.
- AO and PC which give FP equal to its level Level 40 gives 40 FP etc.

and those GBs should either get weaker bonus or none at all.

I like this idea and it's realistic. The older a great buildings the better it is for history
and it got more thame. Annyways I think the LOA would become also OP when
it's bonus rise with extra % for each new age, also the another suplie/coin booster
GB's or any booster GB's how don't have a absolute amount of bonus. As you
pointed out the mil. GB's are a good example of GB's that should not be able to
been upgraded from this system, but another GB's would become better and makes
the ballance also more intressting.
I think for the defensive GB's it would be fine when they can reach together also
90% at some point. So each at the max. +15%, since this will make the ballance
between attacker and defender in bonus equel. However the attacker does have still
the advantage that the AI is stupid and gets dumper over time so it doesn't hurt the
attacker so long the bonusses are equel.

 

[DeletedUser]

the LOA bonus is already age dependent
- in later ages you don't get iron age goods anymore
- and supply boost also depends on the buildings you have:
100% of 100 supplies = 100 in iron age
100% of 20.000 = 20.000 in later age
so this GB sure doesn't need bonus if you are in higher age
also all other GB that have a percentage bonus.

only static values needs an age dependent adjustment
- 1000 coins from cathedral of aachen in early middle age are still 1000 coins in OZ
- 50 medals of the Colosseum in iron age but still 50 medals in OZ

an AGE BONUS to all GBs

no because many buildings are still great in OZ and don't need to be better

 

[Andi47]

Talking about Age bonus:

GBs which give goods already have an age bonus - they give goods of the current era respectively double amount of unrefined goods needed for the current era.

But there should be an age bonus for:

• coins
• supplies
• happiness

Reason: Each GB bonus, which is either coins, supplies or happiness is severely underpowered compared to a similar sized coins, happiness or supply building of even the era of the GB. I mean - who cares about 20k coins or supplies per day from a GB in Arctic or Oceanic future, when I can produce more in a Crystal flower store or a Self-supporting house? And who cares about a little bit of happiness from an Atomium? Level it up for guild goods until Future Era (Level 4 or 5 should be enough, anything more is wasting forgepoints), and tear it down as soon as you reach Arctic future.

 

[DeletedUser]

But there should be an age bonus for:

• coins
• supplies
• happiness

and
* medals

35 from Colosseum (level 10)
in OF one 1x1 Victory Tower gives more medals (280 per week = 40 per day)

 

[DeletedUser8204]

I see Great Building rewards as generally falling in one of 3 classes:

1) Fixed Rewards (changing by level, but not age) of things we can get elsewhere. Things like x coins, x supplies, x happiness, x medals, x population, x FP.

2) Advancing Rewards, these improve in some way as the player advances ages, Things like +x% coins/supplies, Combat bonus, Goods

3) Unique Abilities, things that you can't get anyway else (Unattached troops, aid rewards, relics, etc).

Buildings with a reward in the 3rd category will be seen as good if not necessary if the unique ability is something useful to you (plunder rewards may not be very useful if you don't plunder). Buildings with a reward in the 2nd category can be fairly useful. Buildings whose only reward is the first category tend to be low ranking, as when you get a few ages above the base of the building you can often do better with other means. x FP may be the exception, as Forge Point production doesn't scale with most buildings age, so not scaling doesn't put it behind other alternatives, so you might want to consider x FP to be category 2.

The list of the 'Really Poor Buildings' is basically a list of the Class 1 Reward only buildings, except perhaps some at higher age levels, where it becomes harder to get much above the building in age.

One way to improve these low ranking buildings would be to somehow scale their production to the players age.