Balance is out of wack - Devs please stop the pay 2 win DLCs

[seperamos]

This game will never be perfectly balanced. Gameplay of each cultures are so differents. I play again reavers recently. I only agree to tell there is cultures that work, other doesn't work. So eventually my list.

Optimal play and decent play are two differents. So lets go for a list of decent play (Acceptable) VS problematic cultures.

DECENT Cultures

- Feudal. Frankly, now, it is a pure pleasure to play. Early is solid. Very good work of devs.
- Mystic. A lot of choice, more specialized play but efficient.
- Barbarian. Extremely efficient since day 1 ? Exceptionnal sunderer, exceptionnal T3, heal on command.
- Industrious. The best in economical early domain. No match with the rest of the cast, and perhaps the best culture for that.

- Primal. I don't like how work this culture but the totem animal make the early ok. That said, borderline (to me)
- Oathsworn. Honor blade is crazy good but the concept is very... specific for the three declinations. I prefer the Righteousness, but not a big fan. I don't like it, but globally playable.

PROBLEMATIC Cultures
- Reavers. Horrible early. I like this culture, I try to make that work. But when you play the new version of feudal, the fall is... hard. Whisperstone : when gain the first, all is already finish. With High threat of world, sometimes not really possible to be in war with everything. The worst in this story is that devs will probably never upgrade this culture, due to the fact it is DLC one.
- Dark. Each time I try to play it, I must play with ranged and melee and I don't like to be forced to do that. It is not optimal. Problem now, cultures are more complex (feudal has at least three sides : free one stack with leader + king of stability building + auto promote units) Here not really as much.
- High. They need a spell or specifics unit to shine. The rest is meh with their weird (temporary) bonuses.

Interesting perspective.

I still think asymmetric balance is a great framework for the game to have, and a reasonable state of that balance can be achieved. But it first requires a comparison of rulers and determining what each one can do best and what builds are available to them. At least 3 builds for each, and possibly sub-builds, can be possible.

For champs, if they wish to be heroic/unit duelist, they focus on a combat build. If they want to go army or economic support, focus on those skills within those builds. Each ruler type can have 3 variable builds that expand the strategies they can use. Combat builds should have rankings of power that make sense, like GIant=dragon, champ, wk, ES for melee/range. For magic, ES, dragon, WK, giant, Champ. For economic bonuses, Giant>dragon>wk>champ>ES.

These rankings establish a framework where combat and economic builds compliment individual player strategies. Some players prefer strong rulers to gain early game advantage, while economic builds create more units, more buildings, and more strategic opportunities. These are clear examples of asymmetric balance applied to rulers. They do not clearly overpower each other.

 

[Codyksp]

You do realize you don't have omniscience when it comes to the whole aow4 playerbase, right? I've seen plenty of players downvote your ideas before, you cant claim to speak for everyone without the facts behind you. Multiplayer games don't give you absolute knowledge of every line of data needed to make these claims. You've provided no polls, no surveys, no chorus of multiplayers presenting facts and data that can change hearts and win minds to your way of thinking. You haven't presented any evidence except claiming that you're bored because certain form traits do this and certain rulers do that. You cant balance a game based on personal feelings and claiming to be a spokesperson for the multiplayer community that has yet to back YOU up with the facts we're asking for.

It's because the people downvoting are anti multiplayer and anti change, I can see who they are. They're always the same ones.

What purpose would it serve if I told 20-30 people from my multiplayer community to come upvote me like a bunch of bots?
Would you be happy if I made all my posts have 30+ green checkmarks? Would I become the omnipotent god of AoW 4?

No. Because you need to actually vet the players who participate in such feedback. You need to make sure they know their stuff.
Basically there has to be a "council" if you will. Which is most likely what Triumph does internally before pushing changes.
And, well, I can tell you right now that no such thing will be created for the community. No platforms will become available.

If you personally want to experience feedback and talk to people, then come play some games or just spectate them with us.
But don't sit there and say that a lack of green checkboxes on a forum proves how everything I, or others, say is simply wrong.

You cant just nerf one thing and buff another and then claim it's balanced.

Actually you can. A simple example is you could give the Fury +2 base damage.
The unit will feel better/stronger, but it won't be overpowered whatsoever.
Why not? Because it will not dominate over other choices within this unit type.

This might be a small change, but it will improve the game nonetheless.
Stop thinking exclusively about grand reworks. Small things matter just as much.

You have to make changes within a reasonable framework. That framework provides the ceiling where the most optimizing stat notating multiplayers can reach within the boundaries that the devs have set for the game, down to the floor where casual players and role players have freedom and creativity without worrying about competition from other players. You have to enact your updates and changes to work within that box and appease both types of fans.

What is that framework, Cody? What type of "balance" are you trying to achieve here? I genuinely want to know what your ideal vision of the end state is without having personal feelings attached to it. I want that vision to encompass a certain amount of creativity that's possible even within competitive scenarios.

I am not a developer. I don't get paid to spend 40 hours per week on this game and draw plans.
I have to manage my own life and use my spare time to try and help out the multiplayer community.

You'll have to forgive me if I am not going to draw up all these things you demand in my spare time.

I'm jaded, cody. Jaded, cynical, and distrustful of most gaming companies and Triumph managed to bring back a small spark of hope after the disastrous total warhammer 3 launch.

I cannot change how you feel. But I do believe that such an influence has no place in this conversation.

I dont consider what im doing as throwing shade at you, i respect your experience, your skills, and most of your ideas. But I've observed some things in the game change strangely over the course of season 2, and your advocacy had some part to play in it.

Not a single change has been created purely because of me. Everything originates from the community as a whole.
Have some changes been for topics I personally brought up? Yes. Some even directly match what my own mod does.
But is it impossible for the devs to have discussed this and arrived at the same conclusion? Absolutely not.

The devs are aware of all feedback and I know this because I have spoken to them in various occasions.
If you think me or the MP players have some kind of monopoly then you are really misinformed on this topic.

You advocated for nerfs to the +2 def and +2 res form traits, and when that happened, did any of the other traits get reworked to be more useful? I can't recall any other traits that can still tempt me against adding more res or defense. So you have been responsible for advocating for some nerfs before, and I'm right to be wary that your zealousness of your vision might degrade other choices, options and strategies in the future.

That's just a lack of understanding from your end then. The new Tough and Resistant are mediocre at best.
I agree that all Form Traits needs to be looked at. What do you want me to do? Hold a gun to the dev's heads?

These are still vague assertions that only you are claiming in such dramatic fashion.

Quite honestly, anyone with a pair of eyes who has been with the game since launch can compare and find proof.
I am not going to go through the effort of teaching you why Snow Spirit is OP or why Tome of Prosperity is insane.
Just open the database and compare these two examples to other T3 units and T4 tomes, tell me what you see.

I see something that I would want in every single match 100% of the time whenever humanly possible.

The game should be improved, not changed because somebody lost a multiplayer match to a new ruler type. Some people don't want to fix whats not broken, and their wishes should be considered and countered with factual data that point to clear flaws and imbalance.

Who said anything about someone losing a match and asking for change?
Furthermore, how does Casual Bob know what's broken when playing vs AI?

Again. You need to be a part of the community and play multiplayer to get this information.
Nobody is going to convince you with words, only actions and feelings will be able to do it.

The hero rework started that trend by destroying player hero crafting and replacing the old system with a constrained and restricted new system that has only 7 defined classes. No paladins, no arcane archers, no seige empowering classes, no cavalry classes no bards, no class evoltion or advancement, and no way of choosing different affinity AOE spells for mages or spellblades. The old system, even with its flaws, was a unique herocrafting system within a 4x. I miss it very much.

This is your personal opinion and not relevant to this topic. Don't blame other people for the developer's choices.

Before these things can be changed, we need to see the data on why and how. We need consensus, and as of today this post has 7 downvote and only 3 maybes. It's not enough to require a change. More people need to provide data backed input before we can start agreeing on further changes.

This isn't some kind of popularity contest for getting checkmarks and X's. I am not running for president.
There are plenty of people who have read and replied to this topic without giving their little emoji reactions.

Did you know that people who are spiteful against a person or community are more likely to respond?
Just like how bad things are always remembered far more than good things. Your measurement is flawed.

This is your quote from page one, these are the things you said you wanted to change or remove:

So where in this list did I say anything should be removed? Actually, where did I even say they should be nerfed?
I stated they were too powerful or cheesy. I never stated any kind of solution or advocated for any specific change.

Because I leave that up to the developers. I inform them of the community's feelings and let them decide.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. Unless I explicitly said nerf or remove, it wasn't talked about.

 

[Arcantos_the_Storyteller]

Well. I think that these two are not easily comparable, because one - Great Builders - can be calculated EXACTLY (you know excactly what you get) while the other - Wonder Architects - completely depends on a) the Wonder and b) How far away it is. I would say, that WA is a gamble while GB is a safe bet. So WA is more "interesting/flashy", whereas GB is the stuff you'd pick in a game you hope to win because you are the better player - if there wasn't any better skills to have .

... Huh, you actually did it. Its complete BS, but you said it. Well done.

Yes, some society traits are way better than others and in this case I think Great Builders should be buffed instead of nerfing Wonder Architects. Maybe making Great Bulders have everything costing 50% less would be a start?
But, again, Triumph needs to tell what their plan is and then make a beta for people to test it and evaluate there. Also, it doesn’t help for their data gathering if basically everyone and their mother is playing multiplayer with mods.

I'm not sure having EVERYTHING cost 50% less would be balanced. At all. But yes, Great Builders applying a reduction to non-SPIs might help? In general I agree though, more stuff needs to be buffed than others need to be nerfed.

This game will never be perfectly balanced. Gameplays of each cultures are so differents. I play again reavers recently. I only agree to tell there is cultures that work, other doesn't work. So eventually my list.

Optimal play and decent play are two differents things. So lets go for a list of decent play (Acceptable) VS problematic cultures.
This is the only discussion that worth IMO. Cultures playable more than optimal play.

Why does it have to be Cultures? Why can't it be Empire Trees, or Social Traits, or early tomes?

Rainbow Archer was nerfed, we've seen Tomes be changed in placement due to how strong they are, and the Tome of Horde was also nerfed... so why can't we point stuff like that out? Or have other stuff buffed?

 

[Legemeton]

You don't need to play multiplayer to notice that some strategies work better than others. Especially ones related to economy, to which the AI has little saying on your pace of development (unless your economic plan is Chosen Destroyers).

For instance, it doesn't take long to realize that research posts are overall better than conduits. Which is part of why the Wizard King's +2 mana to conduits is so weak; if you're annexing a mana node or magic material, you're not going to pick a conduit over a research post. This doesn't change based on whether you're playing vs AI or with other players.

I don't see why single player and multiplayer balancing is so contentious. Anyone who enjoys planning builds or theorycrafting in single player will come to similar conclusions to those competing in multiplayer.

 

[Balthazar69]

I never say to stop nerfs or boosts personnally. But there is a limit IMO.

This limit is what I explained earlier. If a culture for example is playable and enjoyable, without things overpower or crappy, it is good and situation is acceptable ? Devs has a lot of works so must focus on the essential.

But it is not the same thing to CHASE all little suspicions of power differences because at this game, it is unending. And scoop : barbarian and industrious will always win at this game because how they work early (And devs already know that I presume). But in my list, feudal mystics and other are perfectly decent to play (in the decent category)... That the limit.

It is not because 3-4 dudes scream that something is overpowered that he is, it can be : the strengh of the culture, or a thing powerful but not overpower, etc etc.

 

[Codyksp]

- Feudal. Frankly, now, it is a pure pleasure to play. Early is solid. Very good work of devs. Auto-promotion, T4, strong and useful bonus.

Yes, they are fine. But Monarchy is worse than Aristocracy. It just doesn't come together as well.
Archer/Longbow with 0 frontline (Shield/Polearm) is not fun to play. Tomes offer nothing good.

- Mystic. A lot of choice, more specialized play but efficient for medals, world spells (crazy with eldritch) and offensive play.

Yes, they are all strong. Attunement is in my personal opinion still too strong. Infinite CP is problematic.

- Barbarian. Extremely efficient since day 1 ? Exceptionnal sunderer, exceptionnal T3, heal and run on command. One of the best culture building.

I disagree that their T3 is a good unit. But the culture itself is fine yes.

- Industrious. The best in economical early domain. No match with the rest of the cast, and perhaps the best culture for that.

Possibly the best culture in the entire game actually, especially when combined with a Giant King ruler.

- Primal. I don't like how work this culture but the totem animal make the early ok. That said, borderline (to me)

Some are good, some are bad. They are generally speaking okay.

- Oathsworn. Honor blade is crazy good but the concept is very... specific for the three declinations. I prefer the Righteousness, but not a big fan despite everything. I don't like it, but globally playable.

Honor Blade and Vowkeeper are both insane. The T3 units are strong as well, all having a bonus ability.

- Reavers. Horrible early. I like this culture, I try to make that work. But when you play the new version of feudal, the fall is... hard. Whisperstone : when the first come, all is already finished. With High threat of world, sometimes not really possible to be in war with everything. The worst in this story is that devs will probably never upgrade this culture, due to the fact it is DLC one. T2/T3 Units are great, T1 far less. But early is the most important part of the game and quality of units don't do everything...

Their units are all fine in my opinion. The problem with them is that they are built for single player vs AI.
Their combat mechanic isn't good (just like Dark). But War Spoils are just useless for most of the game.
Especially if you try to play them vs human players and without manual combat (for capturing units).

- Dark. Each time I try to play it, I must play with ranged and melee and I don't like to be forced to do that. It is not optimal. Problem now, cultures are more complex (feudal has at least three sides : free one stack with leader + king of stability building + auto promote units) Here not really as much. What is specific to this culture, other than the Weak(ranged) to damage boost (Melee) association?

Same problem as Reaver. Their combat passive is again very unimpressive and not fun.
But they also have absolutely no economy. The capturing heroes angle is really not it.

- High. They need a spell or specifics unit to shine. The rest is meh with their weird (temporary) bonuses. Dusk hunter have a better range but without accuracy this is now problematic. Daylight spear rely on awakening if not, he has nothing specific... Awakener is a mage and generally even after a boost of devs, always a bad invest.

High is still one of the strongest cultures in the game. Sun Priest is a bad unit though.
You are forced to play them with Neutral alignment, that's the only problem they have.

This is the only discussion that worth IMO. Cultures playable more than optimal play.

No. This discussion needs to be had about literally every element in the game.
Cultures, Form Traits, Society Traits, Governors, Item Forge, Tomes, Rulers, Heroes, etc.

And to be clear, to all the people who keep saying "don't nerf 5% of things, buff the other 95%".
Please, take a minute and think. Do you think Triumph has the time budget to actually do this?

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Do we really need an entire PowerPoint presentation and an Open Beta to buff it from +2 Gold to +4-5 Gold?
Do you really have to drag mods through the mud when you don't even know what they actually change?

Drop your bias, and then we can engage in a proper and honest conversation about changes.

For the love of the Allfather, dude.
I am not dragging mods through the mud. I am saying that mods change the data and we can't have an argument in good faith if claims made by the MP community are dependent on the 300 mods they might be playing at one time or not.

Drop your attitude and then we can have an honest conversation about changes.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

You don't need to play multiplayer to notice that some strategies work better than others. Especially ones related to economy, to which the AI has little saying on your pace of development (unless your economic plan is Chosen Destroyers).

For instance, it doesn't take long to realize that research posts are overall better than conduits. Which is part of why the Wizard King's +2 mana to conduits is so weak; if you're annexing a mana node or magic material, you're not going to pick a conduit over a research post. This doesn't change based on whether you're playing vs AI or with other players.

I don't see why single player and multiplayer balancing is so contentious. Anyone who enjoys planning builds or theorycrafting in single player will come to similar conclusions to those competing in multiplayer.

The only reason you MIGHT pick conduit is if you intend some SPI that improves with adjacent conduits and those usually also apply to research centers, so yes, research centers are overall better. (unless you are going through some negative mana output due to events, then you might temporarily build conduits).

 

[Balthazar69]

No. This discussion needs to be had about literally every element in the game.
Cultures, Form Traits, Society Traits, Governors, Item Forge, Tomes, Rulers, Heroes, etc.

Not what I want to tell. Discussions can be on everything. I was speaking on optimal / viable things. Discussions on optimal things are not really interresting with asymetric nature of the game. But make all options truly viable and enjoyable, yes, its a good meter.

 

[SunSpartan]

The only reason you MIGHT pick conduit is if you intend some SPI that improves with adjacent conduits and those usually also apply to research centers, so yes, research centers are overall better. (unless you are going through some negative mana output due to events, then you might temporarily build conduits).

How would you make conduits a more attractive pick?

 

[Astronlmo]

How would you make conduits a more attractive pick?

By applying upkeep to research posts. And upkeep for research in general.
Research needs to cost something to your economy. Right now research is a free bonus, you don't really sacrifice anything to get as much of it as possible.

 

[Thiend]

All the great work that you did on the siege rework and the giant lore was ruined by the overpoweredness of the new things, some examples:

- giant kings economy + forge + melee damage + summon + rock throw: who thought it was a good idea?

I don't understand the basis for half of this. Are you referring to their governor bonus, providing bonuses to production of quarries? I don't see that as exceptional. It's merely okay. Their region terrain bonuses are also just okay. As a unit, I'd say they're about on par with a dragon ruler - it's harder to compare to a wizard king or champion as they aren't inherently a large unit, but I don't think there's an especially clear best ruler type.

- special areas granting full dragon roster by just having 3 provinces adjacent?
- resonant blades passive applying freezing

Thats pretty strong when active, and also is conditional. Seems reasonable to have variable power level.

- the crystal dwelling rewards are way too much, infinite knowledge/6 points of affinity?

I don't understand this, unless there's some exploit that makes this a thing I just... don't think it even is.

Did not even play with dungeon yet. Plus food keeps being trash and nature keeps being tied to food, the nature rewards from the new events are laughable.

Dungeons are kinda neat. Not really as good for defenses as I thought it was supposed to be, but decent and it's a solid art style.

My biggest complaint is that I was really hoping item crafting alterations would include decoupling them from magic materials. I think it's quite lame that you need them, which mostly means you get a huge, unnatural-feeling incentive to take Tome of Transmutation and collect vassals for them. That's easily one of my largest general complaints with the game.

 

[EvilEyeSigma]

Many say that hardcore multiplayers optimize the fun out of the game, but i think that a game having its optimal play being unfun is the real issue, good thing Triumph is more receptive to feedback than the usual devs, AoW3 races and the hero rework are some examples of that.

The two things i agree here is that Giant kings are better than other rulers by pure economic might and that Reavers need a redesign.

I also find a bit weird how balancing discusions many times boild down to criticizing rebalancing suggestions as "making everything boring and monotone" when apparently everyone was on board on butchering races into forms doing just that.

 

[Dreepa]

Philosphical question:

SP viewpoint, NOT MP.

Assumption: Psychological bias through filters towards the need for balancing, because we just like to compare stuff. It's in our nature.

Reasoning: We have a difficulty setting. We can customize the AI ruler, the neutrals, the handicap. We can customize free cities, through map perks. We can set up so much stuff, it's really granular.

Now why do we not see difficulty difference in tomes and cultures as part of that? Why do we need to see it as a level playing field?

We could just think of it in this way: "Culture X are harder to play and weaker in phase Y of the game" . They have inherently higher difficulty.
Why see difficulty independet of culture and tomes?
Maybe we should see them connected. And if you want to play a map with a hard culture/tome, then you need to accept it or change the map difficulty option to accomodate.

It's like back in the day with arcade racing games: "If you play the yellow car, it's really hard mode for you".
Or skyrim, with many options that are just worse than others for fighting, but fun.

I also know of the notion that some ppl just like to play "the underdog" and particularily gravitate towards these options in games, to show their skill, or to be, well, appreciated for doing the best with the underdog option.


My point is: Why do we see difficulty disconnected from gameplay choices and options.
With an open mind, and the premise that the counterpart to your choices, the world, is a fully customzable map/experience, there is no logical conclusion why difficulty must be sperate from faction/tome. In fact, I would argue that as long as videogames exist, it was part of the experience to figure these things out, and to find niches where the underdogs did something better than the other options, while overall harder to play or straight out hardcore mode.

(E.g. starting Fallout with only social skills and no combat skills).


As for MP: That's where housrules were made. Stuff that is banned, or certain things your were only allowed to do after certain amount of time etc.
Houserules don't work for a mainstream game with millions of sales and leaderboards, and auto matchmaking, etc.
But they certainly work for super niche small MP communities like this one.

And in those communities, it was often looked upon with respect when someone chose one of the "lesser optimal strats" just for the sake of being the underdog. And it wasn't rare that a certain build order or way to play the underdog was discovered months after release, when someone just experimented with it so much, while all others dismissed it early. If everyone only picks the most viable options, and you have low player count, how would you ever amass the experience and all the permutations to get to the point of finding those.

And most importantly, mods. It isn't rare that MP communities make certains mods mandatory, to compensate the design.
For example, the CIV6 CPL (CivsPlayersLeague) enforced the CPL balance mod while also having custom rules like ban on certain strategies (e.g., no early DoW, no levy abuse), bans/restrictions on certain leaders, no random events (disasters, for fairness).

This often goes along with BBS (better balanced starts) ensuring fairer spawn locations (vital for PvP), and even outside tools such as CDT (Civ Draft Tool) for fair bans and picks.


Also, the board game "Twilight Imperium 4" comes to mind, where a refined "Milty Draft" was introduced to balance strong picks, where a randomized pool of options was snake-picked against each other for balance.

If someone experienced in coding and webstuff would start to make a tool for AOW4, that would certainly boost the PvP community.
Which means, after all player used the tool to have balanced picks they then would go on to replicate the outcome of the choices manually ingame (faction, map, etc).
Even handicap could be part of such a process.

I think if AOW4 wants to push it's PvP community that's the route to take. A MP centric mod with a clear league ruleset that establishes something akin to the Civ6 CPL: https://cpl.gg/

 

[Arcantos_the_Storyteller]

Now why do we not see difficulty difference in tomes and cultures as part of that? Why do we need to see it as a level playing field?

We could just think of it in this way: "Culture X are harder to play and weaker in phase Y of the game" . They have inherently higher difficulty.
Why see difficulty independet of culture and tomes?

Because for everyone person who is like 'I'm going to play Culture/Tomes X today because they are weaker!' we have people going 'Uuuurgh, I really want to play Culture/Tomes X because they seem fun/really fit the flavour of this nation/I want to try them out, but they are just so damn weak!'

 

[Astronlmo]

Because for everyone person who is like 'I'm going to play Culture/Tomes X today because they are weaker!' we have people going 'Uuuurgh, I really want to play Culture/Tomes X because they seem fun/really fit the flavour of this nation/I want to try them out, but they are just so damn weak!'

Weak is subjective though. One thing is when you get 10% more damage on unit A vs B, but the environment has it's own quirks, and another question is when unit B is 100% behind unit A.

Second case doesn't exist in the game. First case is what we have. Yes, some stuff should get a look, but even that stuff is totally playable against brutal AI.

Also, AI. Love how people like trashing it by abusing a specific logic it has. Like summon vines. And then they whine about game being boring. I tell them what, if you can't overcome minmaxing and exploiting, then you don't play the game at all. You play a visualized spreadsheet.

And in case if someone forgot, visualized spreadsheets don't sell well.

 

[seperamos]

Weak is subjective though. One thing is when you get 10% more damage on unit A vs B, but the environment has it's own quirks, and another question is when unit B is 100% behind unit A.

Second case doesn't exist in the game. First case is what we have. Yes, some stuff should get a look, but even that stuff is totally playable against brutal AI.

Also, AI. Love how people like trashing it by abusing a specific logic it has. Like summon vines. And then they whine about game being boring. I tell them what, if you can't overcome minmaxing and exploiting, then you don't play the game at all. You play a visualized spreadsheet.

And in case if someone forgot, visualized spreadsheets don't sell well.

Its the only thing keeping me from buying most of the other Paradox backed games, their combat features are severely underdeveloped in the graphics department. They have fantastic features everywhere else.

This niches allows total war and age of empires to take market share away from Paradox. Stellaris and Aow4 are doing better with graphics to back up the strategy maps, diplomacy, and politics.

 

[Arcantos_the_Storyteller]

Weak is subjective though. One thing is when you get 10% more damage on unit A vs B, but the environment has it's own quirks, and another question is when unit B is 100% behind unit A.

... Weak isn't subjective though? If something is bellow par or never picked, then its weak. No ifs or buts.

 

[Codyksp]

For the love of the Allfather, dude.
I am not dragging mods through the mud. I am saying that mods change the data and we can't have an argument in good faith if claims made by the MP community are dependent on the 300 mods they might be playing at one time or not.

Drop your attitude and then we can have an honest conversation about changes.

My friend, all you do is post negative replies and click "Haha" on every post. I don't exactly call that acting in good faith.
Sometimes the answer is simple and we don't need to spend 10 hours debating whether a change is required or not.

SPI A gives 10 Knowledge and +3 Mana per Conduit.
SPI B gives 10 Knowledge and +3 Knowledge per PI.

Do I really need to summon the Avengers for you to admit that the second one is stronger?

Great Builders works based on Quarries and has a very small starting bonus on top.
Each Quarry grants +2 Gold. You might build 4 of them in a single city on average.
So the very best income they will be granting you is a total of 8 Gold per turn.
This isn't even until later in the game because you don't rush out 4 Quarries immediately.

Imperialists as example grants you 20 Gold just for building a city basically on top of 20 Stability.

Wonder Architects gives +20% Production as well as free annexing of Wonders and a free Wonder.
The +20% alone will give you at least +10 Production in the early game and then scales further.
Throne = 20, Workshop = 10, Stonemason = 15, Quarry = 5 and Iron Deposit = 10 for example.
Just having an already cleared Bronze Wonder will provide you with around 20 of a certain income.

And here's the kicker. I made Great Builders give +5 Gold in my mod and people play with it now.
The consensus is that it is strong with Giant King but Wonder Architects remains good as well.
Which is precise why being able to mod and test out changes provides USEFUL data for the community.

 

[Astronlmo]

... Weak isn't subjective though? If something is bellow par or never picked, then its weak. No ifs or buts.

And this a very rare case. Even divine beacon has uses.
Also, never picked is, again, depends. It be might alright, but there might be other options. For example, Terramancy wasn't a bad tome before GK, but no enchantment or transformation made it a rarely picked tome because it was niche, instead of long term buff. Now there's a nice enchantment and a rock giant, pretty good for t3 tome.

My point is, that flat "it's bad" never works. The issue might not be with the unit/tome/spell , but rather with something that interacts with it.