Investment

[Chenier]

I think that Chénier is actually advocating a "research" element to the game, where an investment leads to a permanent increase in productivity.

That would be neat, but would mainly help regions that are well-sheltered from invading armies. My region of Raviel, for example.

Not really, I don't think permanent boosts would be in any way balanced (unless they work like other buildings and can be looted and have upkeep? could work too I guess...)

I just had in my mind stuff like paying to have massive irrigation pipelines built, or new fancy mills and the like, which would deteriorate because of use and production would therefore return to normal after a short time like it does now. Mind you, agricultural infrastructure sounds like a good way to go ahead with this too, and could be rather interesting. Right now, building warehouses are our only options.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

So I'm going to say something possibly more controversial than usual.

With this talk about more agriculture detail, or religion refinements, I think this is distracting to the game. I think it harms it more than bring good. There is a certain balance for features, and I think we're going to an extreme.

If these features help people find this game more interesting. The current atmosphere feels a lot like we're trying to cram too many things into a single game. It may not necessarily work as a whole.

Don't believe me? Well, how many new players stay on now? Why do they stay? Now, for the veterans, why did you stay?

For me, it was interaction. It had nothing to do with features and I couldn't have cared less how realistic the religions or battles were. It was all about talking to other people. It was unique for its setting and lore. The features were a nice embellishment, but by no means did they make the game for me.

I think I am far from alone in thinking this.

[Sacha]

Indeed. If I want to micromanage my food supply, I'll go play some other game. I stuck around in BM because it was relatively simple at the time I started playing. I don't want to play a game that semi-forces me to whip up spreadsheets to keep up with others.

[Shizzle]

I must say I like the complexity! Every day I can learn something new.

Besides, if you don't care about food, don't be a banker. If you don't care about food and you're a Lord, appoint a steward.

[Sacha]

I /do/ care about food. I've used it as a weapon with great success. I just don't care about this game's growing tendency to make the food game an exclusive game for the accountants and bean counters amongst us.

[Anaris]

I /do/ care about food. I've used it as a weapon with great success. I just don't care about this game's growing tendency to make the food game an exclusive game for the accountants and bean counters amongst us.

We're honestly not trying to. We just need to get some more defaults, automatic stuff, and helpful abstractions in place, and not all of that is easy 

[Chenier]

So I'm going to say something possibly more controversial than usual.

With this talk about more agriculture detail, or religion refinements, I think this is distracting to the game. I think it harms it more than bring good. There is a certain balance for features, and I think we're going to an extreme.

If these features help people find this game more interesting. The current atmosphere feels a lot like we're trying to cram too many things into a single game. It may not necessarily work as a whole.

Don't believe me? Well, how many new players stay on now? Why do they stay? Now, for the veterans, why did you stay?

For me, it was interaction. It had nothing to do with features and I couldn't have cared less how realistic the religions or battles were. It was all about talking to other people. It was unique for its setting and lore. The features were a nice embellishment, but by no means did they make the game for me.

I think I am far from alone in thinking this.

What drives people away is forced micro-management, like the estates.

What I propose is optional micro-management. I don't hear anyone quit because bureaucrats allow region stats to be higher than they otherwise would be. Or because of how one can increase scout or caravan production by building more of their buildings, or how finding the right numbers to host a successful and profitable tournament can be tricky. This is because these things aren't required to continue playing the game. Lords aren't forced to build RCs, why would they be forced to build better agricultural infrastructure? The way I see it, they grant more opportunities to people, while not penalizing those who couldn't care less for them. This is not the type of feature that drives people away, those are rather along the lines of estates and treaty friction.

[Sacha]

We're honestly not trying to. We just need to get some more defaults, automatic stuff, and helpful abstractions in place, and not all of that is easy 

I ended up phrasing that a little differently than intended. Wasn't aimed at the developers as much as it was at the people who keep asking for more and more options to be piled onto the already quite complex food game.

[Anaris]

What drives people away is forced micro-management, like the estates.

What I propose is optional micro-management.

This is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to move towards.

However, there's a problem with it.

What you and I and the game consider "optional micro-management," many rulers will consider necessary, and they'll then force their subordinates to do it, because, naturally, they have to have their regions' stats as high as possible all the time!

So even if the game doesn't make it "forced micro-management," the players are likely to.   

[Chenier]

This is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to move towards.

However, there's a problem with it.

What you and I and the game consider "optional micro-management," many rulers will consider necessary, and they'll then force their subordinates to do it, because, naturally, they have to have their regions' stats as high as possible all the time!

So even if the game doesn't make it "forced micro-management," the players are likely to.   

I understand the fear for this fully. But I don't believe we need to concern ourselves all that much with it, as I don't believe people are that insane on micro-management. I often see incentives to do the little things, but I don't see punishment for neglecting to do them. As such, I don't see punishments for not having one's estates enlarged to a maximum (while I do see incentives for it), I don't see lords punished for not having enough RCs or big enough walls (though I do see support to build them), I don't see people being punished for not switching to courtier class if there are some stat problems (mind you, it's an IR, but I occasionally do see some courtiers being rewarded because of the tasks they accomplish), etc.

The micro-management problems are more related as to what people do, and not what they build, from my experience. Would you agree with this observation? As long as the boosts are balanced (with an upkeep that requires the region lord to actually sell food to not have the new infrastructure act as a big drain on his gold), in other words that they require a little work to actually be worth it, I don't think it'll be a huge concern. Dukes who want their rurals to produce more will simply send the lords the compensations for it and take care of all the planning themselves.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Chenier, lead by example then. Let's say we integrate this. Are you really willing to prove a point that even you, who championed this feature, would in fact show everyone how optional it is by exercising the option not to use it?

[Chenier]

Chenier, lead by example then. Let's say we integrate this. Are you really willing to prove a point that even you, who championed this feature, would in fact show everyone how optional it is by exercising the option not to use it?

Uh, no? I said balanced in a way that people who don't care for it won't need it. I clearly care for food production, and already am spending significant effort on the issue and dumping a good share of my city's gold on it. Could you imagine that if the lords' caravans were still a feature request, I'd show my support for having them and proving lords won't be forced to use them by promising not to use them myself? No, caravans are a huge support, and hell yes I use them, even if it means I'm dumping a lot of gold on risky ventures that take a very long time to pay off, and as such have to frequently pay attention to make sure I have enough of them on the field all the time. Same applies for means to boost food production, I'll spend the time and effort to maximize the use whatever's available. In D'Hara, at least, I probably wouldn't bother on BT if the new feature is well balanced, because there ain't much trade on BT to make any such investment really worth it.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Alright, here's a more clearer point:

Just how far do you want it to go before you're satisfied?

Sure, let's say we add in stuff like canals, and harvesting machines (as in simple machines, non-electrical. I hope the word "machine" hasn't been too distorted in our minds), and maybe let's even put in a husbandry program to teach the farmers how Mendelian genetics work many centuries before Mendel comes around. Ah, but wait! We have to consider that some regions have more than just plain old farming as its industry. Why should agriculture have all the attention! I say that logging, and hunting, and fishing, and mining, and stoneworking, and jewel crafting, all are just as worthy of attention!

Especially for places like mountains. What're you investing in when you make the investment then? The two sqaure meter patch of "farmland" in your estate's backyard? No, I say we invest in a mine!

Now let's make sure our mining is as well thought out as our farming, because we wouldn't like to be too heavily favoring a certain region type, would we? That would unbalance the game! So for mines, we can say we develop better drills, stabler shafts, better freight transport, among other things.

Then for forest regions, we can't forget logging! We need to have better woodcutting devices, better ways of transporting felled trees, methods to prevent insects and disease from killing them, more efficient processing of wood to remove leaves and bark, etc.

Fishing? It's not like farming at all! We need to allow the lord to have the option for better nets, or bigger boats, or more ports.

And you know what? All the aforementioned options should be different choices, with different effects on the production, and all decay at different rates due to different factors.

You probably think this is an extreme illustration, but I consider it a fair treatment of the other potential resource sectors. You can't just go on to invest and improve only agriculture, because the fact is, it's not just agriculture that is being affected when you invest. Food is only half of the picture. The other half has to do with the non-sustenance industries. Treat them with attention too, but how much are you willing to go such that first you would have features that you think are useful, and second, have balance in how much detail you have?

[Chenier]

Alright, here's a more clearer point:

Just how far do you want it to go before you're satisfied?

Sure, let's say we add in stuff like canals, and harvesting machines (as in simple machines, non-electrical. I hope the word "machine" hasn't been too distorted in our minds), and maybe let's even put in a husbandry program to teach the farmers how Mendelian genetics work many centuries before Mendel comes around. Ah, but wait! We have to consider that some regions have more than just plain old farming as its industry. Why should agriculture have all the attention! I say that logging, and hunting, and fishing, and mining, and stoneworking, and jewel crafting, all are just as worthy of attention!

Especially for places like mountains. What're you investing in when you make the investment then? The two sqaure meter patch of "farmland" in your estate's backyard? No, I say we invest in a mine!

Now let's make sure our mining is as well thought out as our farming, because we wouldn't like to be too heavily favoring a certain region type, would we? That would unbalance the game! So for mines, we can say we develop better drills, stabler shafts, better freight transport, among other things.

Then for forest regions, we can't forget logging! We need to have better woodcutting devices, better ways of transporting felled trees, methods to prevent insects and disease from killing them, more efficient processing of wood to remove leaves and bark, etc.

Fishing? It's not like farming at all! We need to allow the lord to have the option for better nets, or bigger boats, or more ports.

And you know what? All the aforementioned options should be different choices, with different effects on the production, and all decay at different rates due to different factors.

You probably think this is an extreme illustration, but I consider it a fair treatment of the other potential resource sectors. You can't just go on to invest and improve only agriculture, because the fact is, it's not just agriculture that is being affected when you invest. Food is only half of the picture. The other half has to do with the non-sustenance industries. Treat them with attention too, but how much are you willing to go such that first you would have features that you think are useful, and second, have balance in how much detail you have?

Hence why my main suggestion was just to make generic investments increase production in rurals by lesser amounts, but to have the food production cap removed. That way, to each his interpretation of what that investment actually is.

The complexity level is up to the devs. Removing the food production cap is of relatively little complexity. But there are desires to make the trading game generally more complex, by adding all kinds of resources: metal, wood, etc. It was also suggested to implement fishing as functioning differently than harvesting. Honestly, I like the trading game. It makes people interact with each other. It promotes cooperation and conflict all at the same time. And the more complex it becomes, the more opportunities there can be. And so I wouldn't mind specialized buildings to help farmlands, fishing, mining, and lumber, as long as their cost and upkeep make it balanced. But to what point do we want this aspect of the game to be complex? I don't know. It's hard to say what the impacts of the planned new economy system will be, and complexification would best be done after we get to experience it a little, rather than have massive new complex changes applied overnight. I'm confident that if it were just for food, and that it was a single building that could only be built in rurals and townslands and that had no consideration over what type of food collection was done, it *could* be implemented in a balanced way that does not impose micro-management on those who aren't interested, simply because rurals and pretty much everywhere on every continent. The same can't yet be said for the new economy goods, but I just like the overall idea of being able to build infrastructure to improve production, just as we can build new RCs or improve existing ones to increase soldier output.