late game is hell with no tome limit

[Dreepa]

All the game needs are gameplay customization options when creating a custom game.

If done properly, it would serve all the differnt players.

On this particular case: Tome research cost setting1: "Linear" / "Exponential", Setting2: Cost Factor

 

[evilcat]

Flexibility for taking almost any tome combination is possitive, so do not take it away.
More elegant solution would be cost multiplier by some value. Just pick what suitable from range 1.00-2.00 for each tome you unlock. Example x1.2
So you still can pick many tomes from tier I, but in the end it will make your tier 4 anf 5 like more expensive.

Some other idea:
Mystery Boxes:
Once you completed tier V tome instead of next tome you can pick 5 tiers of mystery boxes.
They work as tome but instead of new tech you pick one of 3 rewards in world map. The tier defines cost and power of reward. And every 4 pick you can change it.
It could be anything from gold to unit or food boost. And you have 3 choices.
So even when you are done with tomes you can get something from your knowledge.
You can still pick tomes, but you have a choice now.

 

[Pro]

All the game needs are gameplay customization options when creating a custom game.

If done properly, it would serve all the differnt players.

On this particular case: Tome research cost setting1: "Linear" / "Exponential", Setting2: Cost Factor

This is probably not a good idea because it would require the developers to think about two entirely different possible gameplay when they develop content.

 

[Dreepa]

This is probably not a good idea because it would require the developers to think about two entirely different possible gameplay when they develop content.

But it's just sandbox gameplay.
Games that have done it are numerous. Just look at Endless Space series, Humankind, Civilization, Gladius, etc. In Civ you can even randomize the techtree order which completely messes up the game but in a positive way.

 

[DevWolf]

Let's start with another question, should we.
In MoM you establish your library from the start of the game, bar optional fights in high-level dwellings, with 11 picks, part of them being spellbooks, and part of them being perks that gives other bonuses; all elemental books are non-specific (meaning, for example, that there is no such a thing as "book of roots" against "book of beasts". If we're to implement this system here, in AoW4, how do we solve it? Are we just remove the whole idea of themed, relatively small books and replace it with general "Life Affinity", with books giving it, and research being effectively locked for the affinity established on the start of the game, or what?
(also, I somehow suspect that Triumph have a closer implementation of the same system, a bit younger then 1994; called

Or we're replacing the system of MoM to the system where you have limited picks of small tomes for the duration of the game, to be selected in-game, because it's completely different system?

I've not played MoM, so thank you for informing me about it. It sounds interesting, at the same time I'm not quite sure what you're asking me. I don't think this issue is as simple as just taking elements from a different game and trying to implement them here. My questions directed at Kevin Ross were just trying to understand what he was suggesting and raising potential issues with that kind of system. Just out of curiosity for how it might work if adapted to this game. With the information you've shared I've gained a limited insight into MoM and don't think I can really comment on how well it would work. I'd be interested in hearing more.

As for me I do like AoW4's current system. I like the small themed tomes, I like that we can freely pick them with few restrictions. I also understand that some people desire soft or hard caps and locks To give more meaning to the choices they make and to prevent AI from winding up with similar configurations. Like how one person mentioned all the AI ended up taking the Scion's of Flame transformation. If people wanted those kinds of caps and locks how would it be implemented? I made some suggestions, like having limited picks. Which I now see as a poor solution. I'm leaning more towards my higher affinity requirements suggestion. Given how easy it is to get affinity points in game, it seems like a decent design choice. Rather than imposing a hard cap on the number of picks. People would just have to start at the bottom and work their way up another line of tomes if they lack the required affinity points to get a higher tier tome. I joined this discussion to see what people have to say and think about this issue and share my thoughts. Presenting some suggestions on how it could be potentially be addressed.

(I'm generally curious about MoM and how it handles things.)

 

[Erath Vael]

My first long game had awesome progression until I unlocked my tier V tome. I was going arcane, so I had unlocked every astral tome.

So, with my main development line complete, I started poking around.

The good: it was fun to collect battle mages from other tomes. Those synergized well with my development path. I could have done the same thing with summons of magical origins. I didn't pick up any transformations because I wasn't sure if they were mutually exclusive with the full astral path that I loved (I think everything shy of the major ones is fine, and there's no limit on minor ones?)

The bad: After researching a tier V tome with a late-game empire, I could pick up a low tier tome of a different affinity and research half of its technologies in one turn. Research stopped feeling fun as the long and specialized build-up was followed by just a slew of other concepts I didn't really care about or want to embrace.

So, what can be done?

You could just ignore other tomes after you finish. A hard limit may work, but there is some attraction there; I liked collecting battle-mages to round out my astral - mystic culture, and I'm sure I could have done more picking up additions that didn't directly interfere with the playstyle I liked. There's the possibility to find neat late-game synergies there, so a tome cap shouldn't be limited to just one branch.

I could see a tome limit option you could select in the scenario build-up. Alternatively, there are plans to add more tomes, and just having more tomes for each broad path would do a lot for this. If each affinity had an extra line of tomes for tiers 1-4, and maybe an alternative at tier 5, that would solve the problem until the super, super late game.

 

[aono]

It sounds interesting, at the same time I'm not quite sure what you're asking me.

I'm pointing to you (as, indeed, it seemed you don't know the issue), that, before asking questions you asked, it worth asking more fundamental questions. The whole system of MoM is based on very different approach to tech system as it is.
By the way, another game that was using MoM's system is, well, Age of Wonders, previous installments.

I'm leaning more towards my higher affinity requirements suggestion.

By the way, another idea to consider: place affinity limitation onto all tomes, in 2/4/6/8/10 progression, and then add basic research allowing to add a point of affinity as a repeatable research sink. So, if you want to get a tome from the school you have no affinity in, you'll need to research affinity repeatable tech from Basic tome, which also is a subject of general rotation (meaning that you can't just casually research it, you need to get it in the roulette).

 

[CyberianK]

If each affinity had an extra line of tomes for tiers 1-4, and maybe an alternative at tier 5, that would solve the problem until the super, super late game.

I don't think it fixes the main issue where going for cheap tomes is just plain better.

I think my current Horde game is close to optimal

T1 Horde starter
T1 Zeal (cheap dmg buff and Workforce Eco helper)
T2 Beacon (Meek and +5 Imperium Vassals)
T2 Inquisition (Zeal for Houndmasters and insane research building)
T1 Faith (Research Building)

then ALL OTHER T1 tomes transformations and enchants first

If they add more tomes it probably does not change I will just research more T1s before I go to the rest

 

[DevWolf]

I'm pointing to you (as, indeed, it seemed you don't know the issue), that, before asking questions you asked, it worth asking more fundamental questions. The whole system of MoM is based on very different approach to tech system as it is.
By the way, another game that was using MoM's system is, well, Age of Wonders, previous installments.

It was someone else who brought up MoM's system as a suggestion for implementing into AoW4, not me. I was asking him questions about it. I might be wrong but the way you've phrased this seems to imply that it was me who brought it up and suggested it be used? I wanted to get a better understanding of his idea which is why I asked those questions.

 

[oatbear]

I feel the issues can be fixed with a single line of code in the formulas calculating research cost.

Yeah, I currently feel like research is going quite fast, even without putting too much effort. Maybe especially for the larger worlds, there should be an option to modify research speed, either through lower income or higher overall cost. Maybe, depending on the map size, the realm creator can suggest a certain setting.

- Maximum minor race transformations (3) and maybe some restrictions on what enchantments you can combine. Again, to prevent every faction from turning into the same mess.

This I would also like, even if you have a whole bunch of the transformations researched, you should only have a bunch of them active at any one time. Or, if not a max, there could be an more than linear increase in upkeep cost if you have multiple enabled.

I don't quite understand why a lot of people are so against putting caps on things. This is also what happens to hero abilities (max 20), number of armies you can bring to a combat, number of units in a stack, number of swords your hero can equip, etc.

One of the nice things about AoW I always thought was the fact that creating army stacks itself really feels like making a build. Changing out a single unit feels meaningful, and will allow you to have different strategies on the battlefield. If a stack were 50 units, they'd all feel expendable.

 

[Erath Vael]

One of the nice things about AoW I always thought was the fact that creating army stacks itself really feels like making a build. Changing out a single unit feels meaningful, and will allow you to have different strategies on the battlefield. If a stack were 50 units, they'd all feel expendable.

Credit where it's due, the army stacks feel really good right now. AoW 3 always felt too small and constrained to me. Here, even low tier units remain useful and powerful into the late game, and it feels like roster choices for those six slots are meaningful and impactful.

But, more broadly speaking, yeah

I don't quite understand why a lot of people are so against putting caps on things. This is also what happens to hero abilities (max 20), number of armies you can bring to a combat, number of units in a stack, number of swords your hero can equip, etc.

The big divide in the community on these forums seems to be between absolute choice and meaningful choice. One camp thinks more options is strictly better and dislikes anything that could constrain or limit it. The other thinks that sacrificing some options for more meaningful or impactful choices is ideal. Width versus depth, if you will.

 

[Cybersbe]

The big divide in the community on these forums seems to be between absolute choice and meaningful choice. One camp thinks more options is strictly better and dislikes anything that could constrain or limit it. The other thinks that sacrificing some options for more meaningful or impactful choices is ideal. Width versus depth, if you will.

The best solution is probably some options you can use when setting up a game. Those who like the current system can freely leave it alone, while those who want more restrictions can set them up.

 

[Newbee53]

Escalating research cost would be a good choice as far as I can tell.

The most fun I've had so far, however, is mixing weird affinity combinations, and anything that punishes that, make researching opposing affinities harder, is something I'd be 100% against. Har locks as well. I still want to take the hoard group I've got going on as far as Possible with all the tier 1 units and what not. So, anything that would make that impossible would seem like a major issue.

From what I've gathered the goal of the game is to maximize choice, so I doubt hard locks on tomes will happen at all. And having 'opposing affinities' much harder would be extreamly bad for long term game design. Order and Chaos go togather so well. Shadow and nature have a lot of fun mixing potental as well.

 

[evilcat]

Played for 100 turns. It was fine, however i reach 500 knowledge and also did the tier V tome. And after that was blasting throught tomes, since they took like 2 turns each, even tier III.
Generally early game there is lack of everything (gold, mana, food...) but at some point there is enought, and then my knowledge just explodes.

So the cost multiplier with each tome could be a solution. The problem occures only late game, so it is not early game complain.

 

[oatbear]

One camp thinks more options is strictly better and dislikes anything that could constrain or limit it.

And in principle I agree that more options are better, but being able to choose everything essentially limits your options down to one. What if there was no cap on hero level, and you could unlock every single hero ability at turn 150. And give your hero a backpack in which they can carry infinite items that they can swap out during combat at will. Then you're really left with just a single option. So I'm still not sure why the two camps are opposing.

The most fun I've had so far, however, is mixing weird affinity combinations, and anything that punishes that, make researching opposing affinities harder, is something I'd be 100% against.

Totally agree, mixing unlikely combinations is great, but it actually gets better when you have to also leave out some things. Like a limited number of race transformations that can be active at once, or a limit on the total number of tomes, etc., either by hard cap or soft cap. If there are 100 things to pick from, but you can only pick 20, then you have the same number of options (e.g., subsets) as when you are able to pick 80. But the big difference is that when you look at all possible subsets of 20, on average, the venn diagram of two builds would have much less overlap, making the choices a lot more interesting.

The problem occures only late game, so it is not early game complain.

Exactly! I personally mostly play smaller maps, effectively giving me a soft cap on everything and allowing me to finish the game before the tome issue arises. The drawback is that this way I never get to experience the high level stuff.

 

[Wushuki]

And in principle I agree that more options are better, but being able to choose everything essentially limits your options down to one. What if there was no cap on hero level, and you could unlock every single hero ability at turn 150. And give your hero a backpack in which they can carry infinite items that they can swap out during combat at will. Then you're really left with just a single option. So I'm still not sure why the two camps are opposing.

Exactly.

It strips every player of choices as you just take all race transformations. That is not fun. Below is what I ended up with in my last game. I had researched 2 more race transformations that I was about to cast: frostling transformation and vessels of chaos. So I ended up with 10 out of 14 possible race transformations. Note that this game wasn't extreme or strange in any way. Just a fairly straightforward magic victory around turn 100.

 

[Cybersbe]

During one of my musings, I came up with another idea: having EVERY Tome Tier (except tier 1, obviously) require affinity points.

Tier 2 would require 2 Affinity points.
Tier 3, 4 points.
Tiers 4 and 5 would require 6 and 8 as usual.

Bear in mind I'm still advocating for these being optional choices for game setup. In fact, while I'm at it, for those who want REALLY crazy, let's throw in the option for NONE of the tomes to require affinity points! Play as Chaotic the whole game and then pick the Tome of Supremacy when your opponents least expect it!

 

[rejndzer87]

i played a megacities game, and i COULDN'T do a magic victory (one victory building per city, so...) and i STILL just got swamped with all the tome unlocks. at some point i started begging the game to let me finish playing with the unlocked tomes before it started harassing me with new ones.

so, how about this for implementation:

- you can always build roads (why is that an unlock in the first place?!?!)
- you can have only two active tomes at a time. you have to research all (or all but one) skills from a tome in order to close it.
- opening a tome cost some small amount of mana. closing a tome without the last skill also cost some mana, perhaps, otherwise, closing a fully researched tome is free
- researching skills from tomes with your highest affinity costs base price
- researching skills from 2nd-, 3rd-, etc, -highest affinities increases the cost of research for those skills
- if you want to, you can later reopen a tome
- in place of road building, there's a general empire-trait-thing that lets you have an additional (3rd) tome open at the same time (if you REALLY wanna push three skill tomes in parallel).
- you CAN have an empty active tome slot, if you want to REALLY streamline your choices.
- you can (maybe) even leave all active tome slots empty, in which case you'd just stockpile research. (this is just so i never have to beg the game again to stop making me open new tomes)

benefits:
- picking an active tome is a short-term commitment. you can't just dip for that one skill, but you also won't forever more be pestered with all the other skills you just don't care for
- highest current affinity makes research costs dynamic. you can either game it to always have your target tome's affinity as highest (if you wanna micromanage and optimise), or you can just go along with it. you can even change your mind mid-way, and power through a few of another affinity's tomes at sub-optimal costs, and possibly have it be your highest current affinity by the time you're researching tier 5 tomes.
- you can choose "tall" research (specialisation), and just rush magic victory, this remains unchanged from the current system
- you can fool around with "wide" research, but researching your 6th highest affinity's tier 1 tome skills should probably cost the same as researching your highest affinity's tier 4 or 5 tome skills. this way, the power-fantasy of playing a true archmage who genuinely knows-it-all is a more impactful achievement, because closing your 6th highest affinity's tier 4 tome is an insane boast. hell, i'd change magic victory so it requires a seed of 1 affinity, a root of another, and a heart of a third.
- overall, researching becomes less of a gamble, and more strategic. they could maybe keep the lock/shuffle mechanics, if you REALLY wanna streamline things, but it wouldn't be strictly necessary.
- going with the last point from implementation, you could even run a magic-less empire. never open any tomes, earn no affinities but the starting ones, and try to beat the world with your plain culture-only units. how's that for a challenge

 

[Leylos]

I would not mind being a bit more limited in my tome choices (and have that be an ingame option).

Instead of handing me the whole library, why not do something similar to the way spells are picked where you are given a (large) selection to pick from and then have that be weighted based on your affinity.