Gold/Food re-balance

[Velax]

From what everyone is saying, it seems the new re-balance is undoing what the last re-balance did.

Did this re-balance increase gold/food for other region types other than city?

Yes, some, but in Arcaea, at least, many regions lose gold and food.

[Indirik]

Did this re-balance increase gold/food for other region types other than city?

In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. It's simply most obvious in cities.

[Telrunya]

90,000? is the wiki page wrong?

Maybe the 90000 was before a population rebalance else then.

[Indirik]

The wiki region pages list the max possible population of a region, not the current population. They are always up-to-date, as the information displayed is pulled directly from the game database, via a publicly accessible API.

[LilWolf]

I can't say I like the numbers I'm seeing in any way. On Beluaterra the trend seems to be less gold and less food produced for rurals. On the other end Rines makes almost 5k gold. That means it can support 40 nobles easily, 30 with very good income. What are the rural regions around it going to do? Just go on without any hope for knights? The same really applies to almost all the major cities as there are a lot more of them in the 2-3k gold range.

Then there are regions like Kif, Pellan, Coness, Affkat, Desert of Silhouettes, Palm Sea and many more that turn completely useless space wasters.

The previous re-balance had it right. Cities did not need to make that much gold. Rurals and other regions making more made the regions worth it and getting a lords position in even a rural region somewhat desirable(why be a lord when you can make more gold from your city estate? Just so you get to deal with selling food? Hah.). This change pretty much wrecks that and I don't see that being good for the game.

[trying]

Seriously, there should never be regions with single digit food production.
Bursa
Perdan, duchy of Castle Ubent

Type:   Mountains
Location:   midland
Local Lord:   Jackson Stormclaw
Population:   857
Land Area:   2579 sq.miles
Economy:   Mining, Stoneworks
Gold:   320 gold
Food:   18 bushels
Post-Rebalance Gold:   166 gold (-48%)
Post-Rebalance Food:   6 bushels (-67%)

[Dante Silverfire]

I can't say I like the numbers I'm seeing in any way. On Beluaterra the trend seems to be less gold and less food produced for rurals. On the other end Rines makes almost 5k gold. That means it can support 40 nobles easily, 30 with very good income.

The max number of nobles any region can support is 20. You can't have more than that number of estates in a region.

Also, I believe one of the points is to make there be a larger diversity in regions. That way there are a few cities which are above and beyond better than others, but there are also other cities which are worse than a lot of cities. The same goes for every different type of region.

Another key point is that under this change, there is an actual formula which is determining the values of the regions, not just random arbitrary values chosen out of thin air.

[vonGenf]

I agree with LilWolf. One of the great advantage of the previous rebalance combined with the new estate system is that ruling a city is no longer the ultimate position to hold. Being a Margrave is still better than ruling a rural region but reasonably so.

This new rebalance gives once again all the power to cities. They not only get more gold, they also get more food, which means they will need less from the rurals and food prices will go down.

I think the previous rebalance was good for the game. This one seems to revert some of the gains.

Other changes are good to neutral. My characters are hurt by the reduction in profit from badlands for example, but to get back to Dante's point, diversity in region value is a good thing. Moving income from badlands towards coastal regions creates diversity without upsetting the power equilibrium in realms, but increasing the power of cities without any downside does.

[Dante Silverfire]

I'm not sure that there is such a huge problem with the disproportionate amount of gold in cities. Cities SHOULD have much more gold than a rural region. A rural region lord shouldn't be making the same amount of gold after food sales as a city region lord after food purchases. (Which was very common before this change). There should be a distinct advantage of being a region lord of a city.

I think that you'll find that if you take a median range city and compare it to a median range townslands, there will be a slight advantage which there should be. There will likely be a slightly bigger advantage from townsland to rural. This should also be present.

You can't compare extremes. Cities like Darfix with 3.8k gold can't be used as the metric for comparison. They are intentionally an exception which represents the very best of the best that one can possibly find. The point of such regions is that they ARE to be cherished and valued. Realms should be so jealous of such a city that they will make war in order to take it for themselves because their city is just mediocre.

The idea is that this region diversity balances the continent as a whole, not individual realms by which some will be clear losers and winners, but realms weren't used as measures for success in this balance. The idea is that overall the continents reflect a reasonable level of both food output as well as a slight shift in resources.

[vonGenf]

Cities SHOULD have much more gold than a rural region.

I agree, but they already do. Even without the change the richest rural on Dwilight was Zhonguyan with 447 gold, and the poorest city was Chateau Saffalore with double the gold even though it has 30% less population.

However, looking at the stats to prove my point, I realized it doesn't. With the new change, the richest rural will be Shomrak with 724 gold, richer than the poorest city being Gaston with only 573 gold. I was looking at the extremes, but in the middle it actually mixes things up.

I have to think about it a little more. It may be that the move to powerful City Lords will only be true for the realms with very large cities. That wouldn't be a bad thing, this creates diversity in realms. I was afraid it was a blanket move.

A rural region lord shouldn't be making the same amount of gold after food sales as a city region lord after food purchases. (Which was very common before this change).

It is only common because it is common for city to have many estates and rural regions to have zero or one knight. I am certain that you cannot find a single example where that is true with the same tax rate and estate distribution.

[Dante Silverfire]

However, looking at the stats to prove my point, I realized it doesn't. With the new change, the richest rural will be Shomrak with 724 gold, richer than the poorest city being Gaston with only 573 gold. I was looking at the extremes, but in the middle it actually mixes things up.

I have to think about it a little more. It may be that the move to powerful City Lords will only be true for the realms with very large cities. That wouldn't be a bad thing, this creates diversity in realms. I was afraid it was a blanket move.

I think this is what you'll find if you really look through it. When I looked at just a few regions in my realm on AT, I assumed that my realm was getting absolutely shafted in terms of food production. However, when I added up all the values for my realm, we actually turn out to break almost exactly even. Also, we have some cities which increased in gold by a lot, but we also have some cities that lost gold. We have some townslands that increased in both gold and food, and some townslands that lost both gold and food. We have the same sort of thing for rurals. Some rurals went UP in gold, while others went down.

The key is that this system is easily adjustable because it is no longer arbitrary. Which is very nice.

[Chenier]

I just did some maths, and it looks like Swordfell actually gains from the change. If my calculations are correct +1308 gold and
+345 food.

I'm surprised, but most of that gain is from Flowrestown <Post-Rebalance Gold:3475 gold (+85%)Post-Rebalance Food:142 bushels (+163%)>. The Divides took a deep hit, but they are depopulated and we can't hold them anyhow....so I guess cool beans. The flow penninsula did pretty well and the rural/woodlands above the Divides seem to have only switched gold and food around some.

Huh, forgot about Flow.

[Anaris]

What are the rural regions around it going to do? Just go on without any hope for knights?

Guess what: until the playerbase increases significantly, they have no hope for knights.

And if we balanced the game for the playerbase we want, instead of the playerbase we have, we would soon find that we're going even further in the wrong direction.

[Astinus]

What bother me is that Margraves will be getting even more powerful and other lords less meaningful, and it seems a huge step back considering that so far the BM politics seemed to be oriented to lesser centralized realm, so why you are making everything more dependent on the handful of players who rules over cities? It could bring more fun in realm such Luria Nova, but the average BM realm isn't LN and basically this change is just an increase of the "eliteness" required to be able to fully play the intra-realm strife game.


Why a rebalance was needed in the first place?

[dustole]

more food needed to be added.  If you add more food that adds power to the rurals.  It was counterbalanced with more gold to the cities.

Without adding gold to cities then regions like Shomrak, a rural would be more desirable.  It will have over 700 gold and over 500 food.  That would be more desirable than several of the cities and many townslands.  In fact it will still be more desirable than some of the cities and townslands. 

Everything can't be vanilla.  There has to be some chocolate chips in there.