This topic contains 54 replies, has 20 voices, and was last updated by toquerific 6 years, 4 months ago.
May 21, 2013 at 2:13 am #9908
Just started a new game, and some notes:
– Small factories are basically useless at increasing value from base goods, as noted above.
– Miser factories no longer reduce cost of goods, so are worthwhile.
– I note miser factories increase in price as you build more. Should they do that if they are to be the default factory?
– I have only 4 miser factories, and it is a right pain they take up one of the custom slots.
Hopefully the release today will sort those issues out.
That all said it looks like it is easier to work with them, although I hope you reinstate the old small and large factories for more advanced crafting in future :-)May 21, 2013 at 10:22 am #9954
These changes have really ruined the game for me and my friends.May 21, 2013 at 11:09 am #9959
Can I make a suggestion for the miser factory. If this is to become the default factory, could we have a way to position the output slot (i.e decide which side of the output the blank space is.) Or alternatively have one large output slot, so that the gooda can be picked up from either side. Hope this makes sense! :)May 21, 2013 at 11:20 am #9964
I am realy realy realy sad right now…
I made a very long and detailed post to explain why i don’t like stacking items and why they are not fun… You made a big change to the game and what ???
Now nothing can compete against fine lumber… It is not even close !!! You just put 4 misere factory in a straight line with railroad between them, 16 wood at the entrance of the first one and you get 1200 income in 5 minute… Youhou !
Now, i am sorry but i am going to hang myself :(May 21, 2013 at 11:22 am #9966
With the changes to the recipies, there could be some interesting things done with large factories.
One idea would be to make them dual factories, with the input from one side outputting on the other, or some variation like that.
Here is how it might look and work:
0 0 B
– – –
A 0 0
0 = input slot
A = output taken from input on opposite side
B = output taken from input on opposite side
So with this setup, flans would input goods on the top and/or bottom, and the goods could be made either when everything is filled, or when the input for one output is filled.
May 21, 2013 at 2:43 pm #9978
- This reply was modified 6 years, 5 months ago by jamesdenem.
- This reply was modified 6 years, 5 months ago by jamesdenem.
Less than 4 hour after the beginning of the game 3645 income from a wood bust.
Yeah, i know this is really sad… :(May 21, 2013 at 2:50 pm #9980
I also feel that stacked items are too strong and cheap/easy to build. I wonder about having a lower multiplier for recipes that accept two of the same input, and/or slightly higher for different-input recipes. Right now a statue has a final multiplier of 11.4x (1.5 ^ 6) which is really high for just stacking 64 things. Even a reduction to just 1.4x per tier would knock that down to 7.5x which is still rewarding.
I think the shift to 2-input recipes and factories is helpful for new players. As an experienced player, they are a novelty to play with now, but I will soon crave harder challenges again. If 3-input factories perform (A+B)+C with existing recipes, it would be a straight-forward extension of 2-input crafting. In fact, a second tab could be added to the recipedia for 3-input factories to make this obvious. For example, glass could be displayed on that tab as water + wood + stone. If carried out to 5-inputs, fine brandy could be crafted by water + water + food + wood + stone. The progression would be understandable to new players, and more efficient factories would be entirely optional. By this I mean new players could use 2-input factories as long as they like, and step up to larger factories only when they are comfortable with trading simplicity for efficiency. Previously I worried that factories that combine multiple transformations would be overpowered, but now I don’t think it would be the case. Glass is 83 gold, which is similar to what 3-input factories did before. Even at the 5-input level fine brandy is 159 gold, which is less than mana was while being more specific.
P.S. Yes, some recipes would need to appear in the recipedia multiple times. For example fine brandy could be = water + food + glass OR water + ore + spirits. That does not seem too bad. High-level items could have many possible 5-input breakdowns, though.May 24, 2013 at 11:18 am #10370
The above two posts are essentially bringing up the same concern I had on page one of this thread. Be it via large factory or under the new 2-slot factory ruleset, the statue path has and remains the most efficient way of generating income. My original suggestion was to shift the value of multipliers off the lower tiers and onto the top end (ie. reduce multiplier on black oak & fine lumber while raising the multiplier on the statue itself to retain the same final value). While I still believe backloading the value is likely the best solution, I would now also lean towards lowering the final value of all statues.
I assume the reason statues were originally given high values was due to the presumed difficulty in gathering vast quantities of a given resource. The problem with that rationale is that all one need do to get more wood/stone/etc is wait for gold to build up and plunk down additional towers (whereas the difficulty in making other high values items was typically related to finding a viable layout). With the resource requirement cut in half, the one nominal hurdle related to statue production is largely removed.May 24, 2013 at 1:15 pm #10387
@delha : in fact statue has been nerfed a lot yesterday (yeah ^^) the multiplier of each step is now 1.2 except for blac oak (and others of same tier) which is 1.5. I don’t really understand this last point. As i stated it in another post, i think the 1.5 multiplier should be given for oak and not for black oak. But it is not that important :)May 25, 2013 at 10:21 pm #10532
Okay, I just have to ask, even at the risk of sounding like an ungrateful jerk:
Why was the multiplier for goods I provide that get crafted into higher goods removed?
Isn’t that completely counterintuitive when you want to incentivize sharing/trading?
It used to be the case, for example, when the dull armor was still worth it, that you could make it so all three players providing gems for it would get full value out of it. Player A would craft all the components and ship them to player B, who would assemble them into the armor and ship to player C, who sold it. Very nice and happiness all around.
Now player A would only get the raw value of the components, even though he did 90% of the work. So to get full value, he would have to craft the entire armor – no big deal, one extra factory among all the others. Then he could ship to player B, who, when shipping on to player C, would get zilch out of it (since transport has never been recognized as a contribution anyway), or sell, which cuts player C out. Unfair on all accounts, imo.
Different example: I provide a gem for rings. My trading partner doesn’t have any moolah, so he just makes plain rings. Later, he upgrades to fire rings. Later, he upgrades to sundials. Later, we may see we have ended up in an extraordinarily cooperative group and with everyone’s contribution, he makes some sparky pants. My income rises as well each time, so I’m having fun discussing upgrades and helping implement them.
Now I just get the bare gem value, no matter what my trading partner makes of it. So why should I care what the heck he makes of it? Why shouldn’t I just sell the gem at my palace instead, since that gives me the same value? (I’d still share the gem, but maybe you can see what I’m getting at.)May 27, 2013 at 6:50 am #10616
Cake of Pain
@Silverthorn- This was an oversight on our part. We should have it fixed up later today.May 27, 2013 at 8:30 am #10622
Opps… thanks, and sorry for the raeg rant then :( I presumed it was definitely intentional.May 27, 2013 at 9:30 am #10638
Cake of Pain
No worries! You should always feel you can give us your honest take on the game as it is.May 27, 2013 at 5:19 pm #10676
Don’t let Flan off that easy. He doesn’t even know which way is north! (Of course it is C!)May 27, 2013 at 10:16 pm #10684
Oh no! Et tu, Q! D: I am disappoint.
The forum ‘LD – General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.