Algorithmic Balance Through Realm Traits

[NINJEW]

Is this people complaining about how it takes 8 hours to get to the big decisive fight and then those 8 hours of build up are over after 1 battle? Because I think that is a different problem than what is being presented here. Reducing the 8 hours of build up would help that particular problem, by making it less painful to see everything end so abruptly.

 

[seperamos]

People are complaining about the game being too fast????

Thats dumb, games should be faster. Especially for MP, where they also need to consider the practical reality of getting multiple other people to participate in an 8 hour experience.

That is another difference the SP crowd has with the MP community. We want to play with a variety of objectives possible, not just fast games in fast paced formats. We want the full experience the developers gave us to build our factions and conquer our realms either by conquest, diplomacy, magic or terrain objectives, and time to EXPLORE large setting maps with all the shops, wonders, and opponents that can be encountered.

You want an esports game that can be picked up and put down in a few hours. You want smaller maps with less distracting objectives in order to better serve the PVP experience, and that's not what this game was designed for. Again, multi-player was not the focus of this game, there's no ladder rankings or official support for competitive tournaments and rewards to play multi-player except for discord based bragging rights. Multi-player should not be trying to fundamentally change the game for the sake of pvp, but have its own separate system designed for it specifically. That system won't need access to hybrid affinity tome paths or interesting SRPG experiences with wonder, intrigues, or random map events. It won't need access to all SP enchants or transformations either.

 

[NINJEW]

I think that is for the developers to decide, MP players are just as permitted to provide feedback on the experience they are having with the game as you are. If you believe triumph is being bullied by the MP crowd into making changes against their will perhaps i can see the concern there, if I disagree with the absurd premise, but assuming you do not hold that belief what exactly are you rallying against here? What change has actually occurred that has you so frightened of MP feedback?

Anyways MP wants to do all of the same things you say you want to do too. It's just more desirable if less time passes while doing so. Im not even sure MP broadly agrees with me that games should be faster. To be clear, that was my personal opinion on the game.

"""Esports""" is also a pretty annoying and reductive way of describing what MP wants. No one is expecting the game to be starcraft, if they wanted that they'd be rallying harder to have features implemented to handle the stuff they have to house rule for. For as long as "the declaration rule" needs to exist, i don't think anyone has esports expectations of the game. Thats not the same as asking for some balance changes, or even (gasp) suggesting alterations to core game mechanics. They aren't asking for those features to be implemented, for the most part, because even the sweatiest and tryhardiest of them is still playing this game relatively casually compared to what's happening in actual esports, and they understand that that's not what the game is.

The most important point on the "SP vs MP experience" is that anything an MP player does, an SP player can do as well. SP players don't have to play that optimally because theyre fighting an ai instead of a human, but there is no MP imbalance that is unique to them, because ultimately SP is playing the same game. Same map settings, even. Balance issues just get obfuscated from SP because they don't run into them as directly (even though what choices are stronger than others - the balance of the game - still fundamentally governs the experience they have with it). But an SP player, if they are so inclined, can just as well load up a default settings map and get really really into optimizing clearing routes. In fact, I believe quite a few do! It's  fun to try hard and to optimize your play, thats why people do it. And thats not in some way an invalid experience with the game or something that needs to be siloed off.

Please remember that most MP players start as SP. Some of the best MP players had thousands of hours in SP before entering MP. They are playing this particular game, because they really like this particular game, and they found out that they liked it by being an SP player for a while just like everyone else.

 

[Nerdfish]

I read @Codyksp 's idea.

Flip one default and your plan becomes mine.
Your model = “3-enchant competitive rules as baseline, SP can opt out.”
Change exactly one thing—leave those competitive rules OFF by default for SP/new players—and you now have sandbox baseline + one dev-owned Competitive Preset + Experimental rule toggle for development and testing. That’s my proposal plus one additional rule to test hard Enchantment caps.
The only difference is in the baseline:

As for “what baseline keeps players around,” the observable (not speculative) data point is that Age of Wonders 4 had the fastest start in series history — 250k copies in four days. That outpaced Planetfall’s prior “best launch month” mark from 2019. Does that prove “sandbox caused sales”? No — causation’s tricky. But the marketing/review framing around AoW4 was very much customizable, player-driven fantasy — i.e., a welcoming sandbox — and it clearly resonated.

 

[Risuzu]

I don't want any of the ideas in this thread, from either side, implemented. Please stop trying to actively make the game worse for your own ideal of what the game should be.

 

[seperamos]

It is possible to have a reasonable consensus between MP and SP. I completely disagree with the 3 enchants/transformations max on each faction, but if Cody is actually pushing for 3 enchants max on unit roles, for EACH ONE, that is a more feasible and flexible framework. Although I would be more comfortable with 6 enchants and 6 minor transformations being allowed, which could potentially allow players to pick from different affinities. IMHO, 2 to 4 minor transformations would be reasonable for each supported affinity tome paths like Crusaders, Mages, Dreadnoughts, Pyromancers, Druids, and Necromancers.

We still don't have a clear grouping of enchants and transformations that outline their buffs and bonuses to factions that equip them, and what the apex power of factions should look like. We don't even have clear archetypal tome paths for each affinity. If asymmetric balance is going to be taken seriously moving forward, you need factions and strategies taking place between a ceiling of powerful and competitive strategies, and a floor of basic and casual strategies. MP players WILL be banging their heads against this proposed power ceiling trying to scour every bit of power and advantage possible. They'll even break it if the ceiling of restriction is not strong enough.

But it would seem to offer less work involved for the devs if MP specific maps and realm settings which provide these restrictions were to be implemented, at least for the short-term. Infestations would be easier to turn off, MP maps get less wonders or distractions like intrigues and random map events, and there is more built in focus for PVP.

 

[Badok]

I don't want any of the ideas in this thread, from either side, implemented. Please stop trying to actively make the game worse for your own ideal of what the game should be.

Finally, a sane take.

 

[Badok]

You think the toggle has bad side effects? Great—specify them, propose a competing variant, and let it face the same metrics. Data > duels of adjectives.

No. I'm not going to play your game. You refuse to apply the tiniest degree of due diligence and consider the effects of your proposal on gameplay, I'm not going to do that for you. I've presented my case, your proposals are poorly thought out with zero consideration and negative understanding of what actual goals and wants PvP players have in the game. Not to mention laughably costly to maintain - while you have the gall to claim that it wouldn't put any extra maintenance burden on devs.

Let's impose an exponential cost to units!
This will "break" monostack but will also break strategic gameplay and prevent having multiple reserve stacks.
But you don't need them! And if you really do, let's add a strategic resource requirement!
That would screw up the balance in horrible ways and create must pick tomes.
Let's nerf these tomes specifically by breaking their core mechanic!
...
We could do it forever. But I'm tired of handholding you, try putting your own ideas under criticism for once.

 

[Codyksp]

It is possible to have a reasonable consensus between MP and SP. I completely disagree with the 3 enchants/transformations max on each faction, but if Cody is actually pushing for 3 enchants max on unit roles, for EACH ONE, that is a more feasible and flexible framework.

That is what I have been pushing for since the very first post of my 1 year old thread, wtf man. Do you not read?
I never once, ever, in the entire history of posting here, said that we should have 3 enchantments per faction lol.

 

[Badok]

Well, we do say "3 enchantment limit" a lot, implicitly meaning 3 enchantments *per unit*, not *per player*. I can see that being misunderstood (and spawning ten pages of arguments) when we're being presented as evil fun hating gamestroyers.

 

[seperamos]

That is what I have been pushing for since the very first post of my 1 year old thread, wtf man. Do you not read?
I never once, ever, in the entire history of posting here, said that we should have 3 enchantments per faction lol.

You can try being a little less condescending and explain your points clearer. Calling everyone else an idiot for disagreeing with you doesn't win them over to your side.

We still dont have enchants and transformations organized by what they can do, their stat buffs, and ability allowances. If that happens, then we can start cutting into the fat and removing redundant enchant overstacking or moving them into different levels of tome research or gameplay. Imperium and research may have to be added to the upkeep costs for stronger and later enchants to prevent insane overstacking. Players have to choose wisely between empowering their armies and expanding their availability, or expanding their heroes and their equipment, or increasing their cities and control of the real map, OR getting faster research on tome and imperial affinity related upgrades. Casual gameplay would eventually gather the apex of each strategy, while PVP should have to pick one or mix and match a few.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Was that in fact what your Caldera test was supposed to be assessing? Because I think we already knew that.

The fundamental problem for competitive players is that they're trying to turn a semi-RPG strategy game into an esports game. And then they pretend that the resulting problems because they've disabled a significant percentage of the actual game are problems WITH the actual game.

I put it to you that if the game weren't meant to work as a competitive multiplayer experience, it wouldn't have a competitive multiplayer mode. All the MP guys do is try to make sure that every player has a roughly even chance of victory so their own choices are dispositive not situations they couldn't control.

The changes they suggest are born out of the fact that certain options are the best too frequently. This is called a "degenerate" situation because it removes choices in favour of "how optimally can you do the one good thing to do.

Their goal is to increase the number of viable strategies.

Good catch — I should’ve spelled this out.

What the Caldera test is (and isn’t)​

Goal: isolate how map obstacles/pressure affect clearing speed and snowball tempo.
Hypothesis: when you turn the map “on” (higher threat/pressure), even strong players clear much slower and take more real battles than in MP’s Normal/low-pressure lobbies. If that’s true, MP’s “clear in ~30 turns” is a settings artifact, not a universal baseline—so SP and MP need different defaults/presets.

See what you've done is confused a difference in degree with a difference in kind. Playing on higher world threat doesn't change the objectives, methods, or tools of play. No matter the world threat level the objective is always to get to the point where you can produce a stack which will fight indefinitely against the NPCs so you can churn as many battles as possible whilst getting as much research as possible. All high world threat does is constrain the number of ruler picks and early tome picks that can achieve that (because some hero and ruler types are much better at turning into clearing monsters than others).

This is another consideration where their changes increase the number of viable strategies, as well as allowing a game to complete before anyone dies of old age.

People are complaining about the game being too fast????

Thats dumb, games should be faster. Especially for MP, where they also need to consider the practical reality of getting multiple other people to participate in an 8 hour experience.

Not really. The one pace concern is how the compounding research advantages from magic materials and certain affinity trees blow up too hard making it too easy to amass silly amounts of tomes and therefore enchantments.

 

[Nerdfish]

I don't want any of the ideas in this thread, from either side, implemented. Please stop trying to actively make the game worse for your own ideal of what the game should be.

I am fine with that, SP is completely playable as it is

 

[Blanch Warren]

Let's impose an exponential cost to units!
This will "break" monostack but will also break strategic gameplay and prevent having multiple reserve stacks.

We could always reduce cost with a garrison system

 

[Dr Pippy]

You can try being a little less condescending and explain your points clearer. Calling everyone else an idiot for disagreeing with you doesn't win them over to your side.

Regardless of who has the better arguments, the multiplayer community is not coming across as particularly welcoming here. Maybe there's some backstory that explains all the drama, but it still seems like a Pyrrhic victory if you win the arguments on the merits but also chase off people who might want to try the jump from SP to MP.

 

[Badok]

Regardless of who has the better arguments, the multiplayer community is not coming across as particularly welcoming here. Maybe there's some backstory that explains all the drama, but it still seems like a Pyrrhic victory if you win the arguments on the merits but also chase off people who might want to try the jump from SP to MP.

The backstory is: This argument replays itself over and over again, with nobody ever yielding because everyone is absolutely convinced they're right. When people come in claiming obvious falsehoods (at least in your eyes), temperature raises and shitstorm begins.

I'm no saint, but I can at least say that I'm open to discussion with people who want to discuss in good faith. OP is not one of those people.

What does this thread say about the SP community, though?

 

[Nerdfish]

The backstory is: This argument replays itself over and over again, with nobody ever yielding because everyone is absolutely convinced they're right. When people come in claiming obvious falsehoods (at least in your eyes), temperature raises and shitstorm begins.

I'm no saint, but I can at least say that I'm open to discussion with people who want to discuss in good faith. OP is not one of those people.

What does this thread say about the SP community, though?

Appreciate @Dr Pippy post — totally fair point about being welcoming.

As for “good faith”: come on. Count the number of ad hominems directed at me. Nothing about this pile-on has been “good faith.” The MP brigade’s main contribution has been personals and dog-piling—NINJEW especially seems more interested in insult swings than discussing mechanics. Tell me how these posts contributed to the mechanics discussion plz:

lol

It's true

You wanna participate in a balance discussion nerd? Well to pass my gate you must first find the hidden treasure map, then follow it to the location of the secret citadel of statisticians. Only then may you obtain the forbidden evidence necessary to join the 0 people beyond me who can have meaningful and informed discussions about this game. Fail in your task and you are banished to the masses, incapable of making any claims about balance and forever a victim of the mighty sword of "prove that the majority of the player base agrees with you, somehow"

• Eₓploration = X₁ Eₓpansion = X₂ Eₓploitation = X₃ Eₓtermination = X₄

FMP=X4∞X1+X2+X3F_{MP} = \frac{X_4^{∞}}{X_1 + X_2 + X_3}FMP=X1+X2+X3X4∞
X1⋅ka→0,X2⋅ka→0,X3⋅ka→0X_1 \cdot k_a \to 0,\quad X_2 \cdot k_a \to 0,\quad X_3 \cdot k_a \to 0X1⋅ka→0,X2⋅ka→0,X3⋅ka→0

Step 2: Substituting into FMPF_{MP}FMP:
FMP=X4∞0+0+0F_{MP} = \frac{X_4^{∞}}{0 + 0 + 0}FMP=0+0+0X4∞

Step 3: Division by zero produces an instantaneous gravitational collapse into pure combat mode, forcing the timeline to skip directly to X₄.

lol


lmao

Yeah man, go to hell.

i think a personal attack is pretty appropriate to that situation i must say

Fascinating how a simple proposal for optional balance tools triggered such an emotional response from the MP discord brigade.
I particularly enjoyed watching you coordinate your responses while simultaneously claiming there's no MP echo chamber. The timestamps are quite telling - almost like you're all in the same voice chat!
Since you're clearly passionate about "Balancing" the game so 95% of players subsidize balance patches for your Friday night lobbies, here's a thought: maybe actually engage with the math instead of the memes? Or is that too much 'explore' and 'expand' for players who skip straight to 'exterminate'?
But hey, I get it - change is scary when you've optimized the fun out of a sandbox game. Don't worry though, these would be optional settings. You'd still be free to play your spreadsheet simulator in peace.
Looking forward to more coordinated 'independent' responses!

 

[Nerdfish]

See what you've done is confused a difference in degree with a difference in kind. Playing on higher world threat doesn't change the objectives, methods, or tools of play. No matter the world threat level the objective is always to get to the point where you can produce a stack which will fight indefinitely against the NPCs so you can churn as many battles as possible whilst getting as much research as possible. All high world threat does is constrain the number of ruler picks and early tome picks that can achieve that (because some hero and ruler types are much better at turning into clearing monsters than others).

This is another consideration where their changes increase the number of viable strategies, as well as allowing a game to complete before anyone dies of old age.

1. “MP exists, therefore same balance” doesn’t follow.
   Competitive lobbies are a self-selected, degenerate environment: Normal threat, low map pressure, sprint pacing, late game by ~T30–40, one decisive clash. That skips most of the first 3 X’s (explore/expand/exploit) that define SP pacing. If you tune the whole game to that sprint, you break the marathon. Hence: separate competitive preset (dev-owned, server-enforced) and leave SP default alone.
2. We’re aligned on the goal (more viable strategies).
   That’s exactly what the proposal’s algorithmic tools do—negative-feedback to kill “one good thing” metas without global nerfs:

• Duplicate cost ramps → diminishing returns on pure mono.
• Strategic resource gating (with min-spawn guarantees) → “optimal” becomes map-dependent, not universal (the Civ/Endless/Stellaris play-to-the-map lesson).
• Enchant soft caps → stacking stays strong, just not infinitely linear.

So yes, increase viable builds—just do it in a competitive preset built for the sprint you actually play, instead of forcing SP to live under MP’s degenerate constraints.

 

[Nerdfish]

I put it to you that if the game weren't meant to work as a competitive multiplayer experience, it wouldn't have a competitive multiplayer mode. All the MP guys do is try to make sure that every player has a roughly even chance of victory so their own choices are dispositive not situations they couldn't control.

The changes they suggest are born out of the fact that certain options are the best too frequently. This is called a "degenerate" situation because it removes choices in favour of "how optimally can you do the one good thing to do.

Their goal is to increase the number of viable strategies.



See what you've done is confused a difference in degree with a difference in kind. Playing on higher world threat doesn't change the objectives, methods, or tools of play. No matter the world threat level the objective is always to get to the point where you can produce a stack which will fight indefinitely against the NPCs so you can churn as many battles as possible whilst getting as much research as possible. All high world threat does is constrain the number of ruler picks and early tome picks that can achieve that (because some hero and ruler types are much better at turning into clearing monsters than others).

This is another consideration where their changes increase the number of viable strategies, as well as allowing a game to complete before anyone dies of old age.



Not really. The one pace concern is how the compounding research advantages from magic materials and certain affinity trees blow up too hard making it too easy to amass silly amounts of tomes and therefore enchantments.

​

“Difference in degree” vs “difference in kind” isn’t a gotcha here—when you change the constraints, you change the game. New constraints → different payoffs → different optimal play. That’s a qualitative shift, not just “more/less of the same.”
Here’s the detailed version:

Objectives (what “winning” means)​

• MP (sprint meta): Hit late tech fast, win one or two decisive fights, end lobby.
• High-threat SP: Survive multi-front pressure long enough for eco/tech to outscale the AI; you’ll fight many significant battles.
• Casual SP: Have an adventure. Win conditions vary (Unification/Magic/Score/story), but "have fun" rather than “end by T40.”

Methods (how you get there)​

• MP: Max cities/annexes early, chain-clear, snowball income, concentrate power for the decisive clash.
• High-threat SP: Secure vassals (infestations don’t siege them), opportunistic ruler snipes, defensive stacks.
• Casual SP: Theme-first builds, quests, play at your own pace —because the journey is part of the win.

Tools (what’s actually good)​

• MP: Hero rush + T1 carriers, mono-friendly enchants (because the goal is one perfect stack ASAP).
• High-threat SP: Diplomacy/trade (AI swims in mana), mixed comps you can actually field, exploiting AI behavior, farming enemy heroes for tempo.
• Casual SP: Whatever fits the fantasy, as well as beer and snacks—because you don’t need to optimize to have fun.

So no, it’s not “same objectives, same methods, same tools but bigger numbers.” In MP, the first 3 X’s are compressed into a speedrun segment; in high-threat SP they’re the core game loop (scouting, securing, stabilizing). That’s a difference in kind.

 

[Thiend]

1. “MP exists, therefore same balance” doesn’t follow.
   Competitive lobbies are a self-selected, degenerate environment: Normal threat, low map pressure, sprint pacing, late game by ~T30–40, one decisive clash. That skips most of the first 3 X’s (explore/expand/exploit) that define SP pacing. If you tune the whole game to that sprint, you break the marathon. Hence: separate competitive preset (dev-owned, server-enforced) and leave SP default alone.
2. We’re aligned on the goal (more viable strategies).
   That’s exactly what the proposal’s algorithmic tools do—negative-feedback to kill “one good thing” metas without global nerfs:

• Duplicate cost ramps → diminishing returns on pure mono.
• Strategic resource gating (with min-spawn guarantees) → “optimal” becomes map-dependent, not universal (the Civ/Endless/Stellaris play-to-the-map lesson).
• Enchant soft caps → stacking stays strong, just not infinitely linear.

So yes, increase viable builds—just do it in a competitive preset built for the sprint you actually play, instead of forcing SP to live under MP’s degenerate constraints.

It seems like you're too devoted to the idea of algorithms as balance, here.

There are many possible competitive setups the devs could make. To my knowledge, they've never expressed a desire to make one because this isn't primarily a competitive game. It's an extremely small subset, because a very small percentage of the playerbase is playing multiplayer at all and some of those aren't competitive.

If they do, though, there are many possible ways to design such a 'PvP World' setting. They could add hard or soft enchantment caps, or they could remove 100% of the simple stat increases on them (no unconditional defense/resistance/damage). They could do something with magic materials, or they could prevent their spawning in at all, or they could remove their global effects. They could add ramping costs to more of the same unit, or that might be resolved by reducing all incomes to make a game without map threats no longer have such an overabundance, in turn making stacking T4s and enchantments take far longer and a far larger percentage of income.

I won't pretend these specific ideas are infallible and immaculate and need no improvement. But my point is not that these specific ideas are better than your specific ideas, my point is that you'd probably get a better reception and it might also be more of a dev-actionable suggestion if, instead of pushing for your secondary suggestion, a specific list of fixes, you pushed for your core idea, a competitive-designed preset to address some genuine problems people trying to play that way have.

Then when we talk about general game balance, we will no longer be confused between competitive problems generated by their settings and noncompetitive problems generated by the base state of the game. Or the magnitude of those problems - as I have said, some problems competitive players have are problems in the game already that their pacing increase from no map threats has made worse. There are no balance issues in competitive that singleplayer doesn't have too, there are design issues because this game wasn't designed around competitive play and should not be changed to do so.