MAKE GB'S GREAT AGAIN

[LB2021]

Is it time for INNO to revisit GB's, now that they've rebalanced the Cultural Settlements reward buildings (and new event buildings, and buildings from GBG, QI, etc. become more and more powerful)? It seems like everything has gotten more powerful accept for GBs. They used to be "great", but now everyone seems to be deleting them like crazy, even ones like the Traz, CoA and Cape, that used to be must haves. I thought of a very easy way INNO could fix GBs without putting much work into it at all. If they don't want to mess around with changing the bonuses they give out, the number of FPs to level them or the prizes they give out (i.e. sort of redesign them to be more like the SAT GBs, which are more valuable), a very simple, and straightforward fix they could do is simply shrink the size of all current GBs. That would make them more valuable simply based on the value per city/square that they provide. I'm thinking nothing should be bigger than the SAT GBs (which are all 4x4). I went through the list of all of the GBs, by age, and came up with what I thought would make sense for the size of each of them (mostly based on how good they are, but I also factored in current size, to a lessor extent). This is just one man's take on how they could do this... but they could easily come up with something along these lines. They'd have to address a few things, such as do they make players pay to shrink them (with goods, medals, etc.), or just automatically shrink them (or give out shrink kits to all players for all GBs and let them use them at will). And what about players that have deleted GBs, do they give them back at the level they were deleted (or at least all of the BPs they spent which is what they do if somebody accidentally deletes one and then contacts support to request help). But I'm sure those issues could easily be worked out, and they could possible add a "store GB" item, while they are at it. Anyways, here's my proposal for what size to make each GB (I list current size in parenthesis first, and then what I think would be a good size for each of them to be shrunk to):

BA
Zeus(2x3)=2x2
ToB(4x4)=2x3
IA
LoA(4x4)=2x3
Colo(6x7)=2x3
EMA
CoA(4x6)=2x4
Hagia(6x7)=3x3
HMA
SMB(6x6)=2x4
ND(4x6)=2x3
LMA
CdM(5x5)=3x4
SBC(5x5)=3x3
CA
Deal(7x7)=3x3
FoD(5x5)=2x3
IA
RAH(6x7)=2x4
Cap(5x7)=2x3
PE
Traz(7x10)=3x5
CF(5x6)=3x4
ME
Atom(6x7)=3x3
SN(5x6)=2x3
PME
Cape(4x5)=3x3
Habit(6x7)=2x3
CE
Inno(6x6)=3x3
Lotus(6x6)=2x3
TE
Truce(5x6)=3x3
Voyager(4x7)=2x4
FE
Arc(5x7)=4x4
RFP(6x6)=3x3
AF
AO(7x7)=4x4
SV(5x6)=3x3
GS(4x6)=2x3
OF
Krak(5x5)=3x4
BG(5x7)=3x4
AM(6x7)=3x3
VF
TA(4x6)=2x4
HC(6x6)=3x3
SAM
Virgo(5x5)=2x3
SG(5x5)=2x3
SAAB
SC(4x7)=2x4
SAV
FI(4x6)=2x3
SAJM
AI(5x5)=3x3
SAT
HYDRA(4x4)=4x4
CENT(4x4)=4x4
PEGA(4x4)=4x4
OTHER
OBS(3x3)=2x3
ToR(6x6)=3x3
Oracle(3x3)=2x2

Let me know what you think?

LB

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I think that you went to a lot of trouble to craft an idea that is certainly DNSL material. As a general rule, I am in favor of changes to the game that (1) improve QOL (e.g. the "aid all feature") or (2) make the game more challenging (e.g. GE Level 5, GBG elimination of zero attrition). Your suggestion does neither but it would exacerbate power creep. In my main city, your suggestions would result in a "gift" of free space equivalent to 17 expansions. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

I also think a smaller footprint would be good... But not as extreme as the Op here, but definitely some shrinkage would be fun.

But i also think the gift of the Settlement buildings has opened Pandora's Box of desires for endless other 'free' gifts. And Inno might be wiser to just close the box...

 

[Ironrooster]

Beefing up the settlements made them worth pursuing - adding game play.

The SAT GB's are more reasonable in size and have better rewards - allbeit at a higher cost.

The early age GB's are good for new cities, but like so much else in the game, need to be replaced as you build up your city. The challenge now is how high do you raise them and when do you drop them. I am dropping buildings that used to be must haves like Alcatraz.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Beefing up the settlements made them worth pursuing - adding game play.

The SAT GB's are more reasonable in size and have better rewards - allbeit at a higher cost.

The early age GB's are good for new cities, but like so much else in the game, need to be replaced as you build up your city. The challenge now is how high do you raise them and when do you drop them. I am dropping buildings that used to be must haves like Alcatraz.

I just looked at my Trinity (Zeus and CdM @ L101, CoA @ L102). It provides a combined total of 228% red A/D on 55 squares. Then, I compared this with my L70 Centaurus with 280% red A/D on only 16 squares. I agree that a time comes when some of the "must have" GBs might just have to go.

 

[Xenosaur]

@Ironrooster - agree.

I'm re-incentivized to play Vikings again to finish my YGG tree. As well, after the "re-purposing" of the Observatory to remove Support Pool and add Blue Defense, there was a marketed increase in adoption, and further lifting. The OBS is a power house now - for the guild and for the player. In 9 squares, it's delivers the same value for DEFENSE (City defense) as a 25 square SBC, or even bigger DC - in addition to goods. It's a nice "sweetening" of an already popular/(game required??) building.

Your analysis of the early era GBs (the educational ones), are like your tricycle was when you learned how to ride a bike. YOu eventually gave it up and learned how to ride a 2 wheeler, or maybe first, a 2 wheeler with training wheels

Again fully agree. Why lift a Zeus 2 levels for 5000 FP cost total, when the "DNA" of the Zeus (CoA, CdM, TCA, etc) is you get 1% more A/D for each 2 levels? Especially costly/painful when you have 2000/2000 already? Makes no sense. The Zeus is so small that it's NOT worth razing for it's value, but it certainly has practical "top".

And on the other side of the equation - buildings we DO want to continue to lift are capped. BG, for example. No matter how high you lift it, you're "stuck" with 15 charges max, and 75% probability as it's lifetime max/day.

So yes, many need to be extended into new domains, it it really could be easily done if embraced by Inno. It's entirely possible to have any GB change it's math and curve at a specific level, to make it more costly, but also make it more relevant for deliverables.
For example:

A classic Zeus to 120 plays as it does today, but @ 121 becomes a Super-Zeus and the user would get more expensive costing/level and better reward/level. Possibly using similar math to what the SAT GBs have done.

 

[Emberguard]

I wouldn't mind the buildings being shrunk just to free up a bit of space.

I don't expect merely shrinking them to make them "great" though.

You could make Alcatraz 1x1 and I'd still never build it: I don't need units or happiness stat. The Happiness stat would never be high enough to be of use in Space Ages, and Units would require placing the standard military building VS placing an Event building

Same sort of thing with Arctic Orangery. The x1.5 modifier scales with your stats. I have it because that x1.5 means something. It's far more efficient than placing more stats. If my stats ever get to a point where removing the x1.5 doesn't change the outcome then it won't matter what size you make the building


Edit:
An alternative I've seen brought up is to take them off the city grid altogether. I haven't liked that idea in the past, but we're at a point now where it'd make some sense to consider it. If they're not taking up space then it wouldn't be an issue to invest Forge Points into them aside from choosing which order to build them up.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

I wouldn't mind the buildings being shrunk just to free up a bit of space.

I don't expect merely shrinking them to make them "great" though.

You could make Alcatraz 1x1 and I'd still never build it: I don't need units or happiness stat. The Happiness stat would never be high enough to be of use in Space Ages, and Units would require placing the standard military building VS placing an Event building

Same sort of thing with Arctic Orangery. The x1.5 modifier scales with your stats. I have it because that x1.5 means something. It's far more efficient than placing more stats. If my stats ever get to a point where removing the x1.5 doesn't change the outcome then it won't matter what size you make the building

The Alcatraz gets the same as the AO but blue stat chance of hitting back at 1.5 damage if attacked . The Traz would become popular again

 

[Emberguard]

The Alcatraz gets the same as the AO but blue stat chance of hitting back at 1.5 damage if attacked . The Traz would become popular again

Are you suggesting the AO and Alca would both activate on blue battles? Or are you suggesting split the Arctic Orangery bonus with Alcatraz so one works on Red and the other on Blue?

Aside from PvP Arena and Settlements/QI where nothing works aside from pure stats, Arctic Orangery currently works on defending army battles.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Are you suggesting the AO and Alca would both activate on blue battles? Or are you suggesting split the Arctic Orangery bonus with Alcatraz so one works on Red and the other on Blue?

Aside from PvP Arena and Settlements/QI where nothing works aside from pure stats, Arctic Orangery currently works on defending army battles.

Split it up so it makes sense and give relevance back to the Traz.

 

[Dursland]

There was reasoning for beefing up the Settlement buildings - to incentivize people to play them and possibly generate profit in the process.

It was also a way to add a small amount of QI boosts to players without going overboard, like in an event where you can get 20 of that building. And a great way to reward players who have been doing settlements all along.

There is no such reasoning behind a GB buff. Not saying it won't happen - players want it so Inno might do it, but there's no good reason to like there was with settlements.

 

[LB2021]

I think that you went to a lot of trouble to craft an idea that is certainly DNSL material. As a general rule, I am in favor of changes to the game that (1) improve QOL (e.g. the "aid all feature") or (2) make the game more challenging (e.g. GE Level 5, GBG elimination of zero attrition). Your suggestion does neither but it would exacerbate power creep. In my main city, your suggestions would result in a "gift" of free space equivalent to 17 expansions. Thanks, but no thanks.

Well, it only took me about 20 minutes to come up with this - so I'm not sure what you mean by "a lot of trouble". And while I absolutely agree with you that I wish INNO didn't push power creep so much like they've started doing over the past year or two, but why should we support a system where they continue to aggressively push the value of event buildings (and now cultural settlement buildings, as well), while GBs basically become irrelevant and worthless? Especially when so much of the game, for so long, used to be about Forge Points and Great Buildings, while now you don't really need either...

 

[LB2021]

I wouldn't mind the buildings being shrunk just to free up a bit of space.

I don't expect merely shrinking them to make them "great" though.

You could make Alcatraz 1x1 and I'd still never build it: I don't need units or happiness stat. The Happiness stat would never be high enough to be of use in Space Ages, and Units would require placing the standard military building VS placing an Event building

Same sort of thing with Arctic Orangery. The x1.5 modifier scales with your stats. I have it because that x1.5 means something. It's far more efficient than placing more stats. If my stats ever get to a point where removing the x1.5 doesn't change the outcome then it won't matter what size you make the building


Edit:
An alternative I've seen brought up is to take them off the city grid altogether. I haven't liked that idea in the past, but we're at a point now where it'd make some sense to consider it. If they're not taking up space then it wouldn't be an issue to invest Forge Points into them aside from choosing which order to build them up.

I do agree, shrinking them wouldn't necessarily make them great (or at least not most of them), but it would make them relevant at least (and free up city space for other things). But I actually came up with this thought more from the stand-point of - what is something that INNO could easily & quickly do to address a clear problem... that wouldn't take them a lot of time or money to implement (and thus increase the odds that they might consider it).

But ultimately, if they really wanted to improve GBs - they'd also need to address the bonuses, FP's required to level and the size.

 

[LB2021]

There was reasoning for beefing up the Settlement buildings - to incentivize people to play them and possibly generate profit in the process.

It was also a way to add a small amount of QI boosts to players without going overboard, like in an event where you can get 20 of that building. And a great way to reward players who have been doing settlements all along.

There is no such reasoning behind a GB buff. Not saying it won't happen - players want it so Inno might do it, but there's no good reason to like there was with settlements.

There is absolutely a profit reason... if INNO freed up city space by shrinking GBs - that space could be used to place more event buildings, (which is the #1 profit generator for INNO right now), or buildings from the QI (which can also generate income).

 

[Emberguard]

what is something that INNO could easily & quickly do to address a clear problem... that wouldn't take them a lot of time or money to implement (and thus increase the odds that they might consider it).

As a hobby artist, I’m fairly confident that would be a lot of work to implement.

You’re not just reducing image size, you’re redesigning the entire building design to make sure it’s not going to look super weird in the environment once it’s shrunk

It’d be less work than overhauling the rewards system, but I wouldn’t expect that to be a small task when there’s so many Great Buildings involved and you’re requesting to change aspect ratios

 

[Dominator - X]

It seems like everything has gotten more powerful accept for GBs..

The new GB's are very powerful and I suspect the SASH GB's will be more so. Just like the EB's, they will get more powerful as the game advances. I think most of us remember how powerful the Carousel used to be. Some had a few dozen of them in their cities. Now, not so much. The newer EB's offer so much more. As the game advances, new, more powerful GB's will come to life and out-date the older ones. Or, at least they should. Just like many already have. Then, we will have to make decisions as to whether we keep the old or level up the new. Such is life.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

The new GB's are very powerful and I suspect the SASH GB's will be more so. Just like the EB's, they will get more powerful as the game advances. I think most of us remember how powerful the Carousel used to be. Some had a few dozen of them in their cities. Now, not so much. The newer EB's offer so much more. As the game advances, new, more powerful GB's will come to life and out-date the older ones. Or, at least they should. Just like many already have. Then, we will have to make decisions as to whether we keep the old or level up the new. Such is life.

There was even a push to get a "level 2"Carousel after SoK level 2 was released. Never happened of course and the Caros are relegated to a newbie building at best.

 

[PJS299]

There was even a push to get a "level 2"Carousel after SoK level 2 was released. Never happened of course and the Caros are relegated to a newbie building at best.

 

[Graviton]

Just like the EB's, they will get more powerful as the game advances.

This is a vital point that it seems a lot of people overlook. In a game of ages, GBs are going to be much more valuable in early ages than they are in the later stages of the game. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Inno to hand out free upgrades to GBs that become less effective in higher ages. The expectation should be that if a building no longer suits your needs, you get rid of it and/or replace it with something else. How many of us have planted GBs and then deleted them after awhile when we decide they're no longer worth the space? It's a city building game, after all, and building selection is part of the strategy. We don't have room for every building and that's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Why change the GBs at all ? They match the history of the game , the newest GBs get stronger and harder to get and life goes on. Were you upset that your dealership didn't give you a new car after ten years as a free upgrade ?