BattleMaster > Development

Rebalancing regions

(1/2) > >>

Constantine:
So, this suggestion was sparked by a discord conversation pertaining to OI.

The idea would be to decrease difference in value between regions across the board, not just OI.
In other words, I suggest that we avoid having regions that are basically uninhabitable. Because what's the point?

Zakky:
I believe this was denied multiple times.

Constantine:
After the discussion an admin specifically asked me to start this topic. Perhaps a time has come to rethink the policy?
Your comment is totally non-constructive, Zakky! Let's discuss this in earnest.

Lefanis:


Agree that there are indeed some regions that would be well served with a rebalance of some sort. These are roughly the 15 trashiest regions you can get on EC. For a lot of the other regions, there is a fair balance between the food/gold value. Rurals may be gold poor, but food rich- with notable exceptions like Skezard and Zamor. Mountains offer the option to build palisades, and a lot are pretty rich- exceptions being Bursa, Ar Raqqah, and Bastad. Cities, gold rich, food poor. Woodlands seems pretty middle of the road. Badlands on EC, on the other hand, seem to catch the worst of all worlds, with the notable exception of Perdan Mines.

I guess the balancing for the OI regions and other regions like Dayr happened during Bad Tidings. However, particularly in the current state of the game, this creates a situation where those regions are simply not attractive anymore, and consequently don't generate much conflict and player interactions. Short of these regions not existing or changes to the map, it would be great if the gold/food values could be tweaked for some of them on a case by case basis. The OI badlands, for instance, are in a volcanic weather area. Why not a multiplier for the food production here? They should be highly fertile. This makes that area suddenly valuable, and a realm there an important player. I know that hinterlands will take away from the need to abandon such regions to rogues in order to meet density limits. However, a rebalance will make these sorts of choices far more interesting, and in my view create more interaction.

Constantine:
I think the most important concern here is not region wealth per se but relevance. We don't want to have regions in the game which people simply shun because of the tweaked realm size rules. Or entire swaths of land in the middle of the map when a realm is supposed to flourish but we actually see wasteland.
The "players should know when to kill the realm" does not solve anything because those lands will still sit there as a prop instead of being a part of the game.

OI regions do need an economic boost to be relevant again. But Bursa, for example, is a strategic region and people want to own it.
Then again Dayr and Caqueta are so poor and so poorly situated that they will normally be ignored even though they are coreland regions for their respective realms.
I think the logic here should be not just to balance resource production but to make the map make sense as if we were playing a war board game.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page