Improving Land Type Importance

[Jaradakar]

Personally I'd like to see EOS decreased.  Currently I believe it's bonus is 1, I'd like to try 0.5.

Why you ask?

Currently it's more important to pick plots of land that are adjacent to one another than it is to care what type of land a plot is -- okay it's a minor importance but only at the beginning of the game when you don't have many adjacent plots.

I'd like to see specific land types become more important and stay that way throughout the game is my reasoning.  So there is more of a choice, "Do I get this plot right next to my current plots" or do I get X land type that's across the grid.

Of course I don't want to remove the concept that almost any plot can produce any good or that having plots together do in fact provide a bonus.

Anyway, I'd be curious to see what others thoughts are...

[Soldier Ant]

I agree. We should put some effort to reduce no-brainers, so I think your idea is a good way to expand the decision tree. What about different land types having different EOS and/or LCT values for each resource? For example a 2-mountain plot could have .75 bonus on smithore, .25 on food and energy.

[data2008]

If we use hexes, we could award certain structures:
(Think of Orson Scott Cards "Enders Game", where the bugs do all in patterns - like Galaga sort of):

Have two adjanced hexes gives you only 0.25 probability per plot, then having 3 next to each other gives you 0.5, having 4 = 0.75 and 7 (1 middle + 6 in a ring) gives you 1 per plot, if all produce the same.

Of course all would have to be converted to the same good, so the other players would have to stop one player getting 7 plots connected by taking away the final plot...

[tartarus.guard]

An alternative but similar idea to hex plots.

How about reducing the EOS bonus but allowing plots diagonally connected to factor in to EOS?

This would reduce the dominance of EOS while still leaving just enough bite that your opponents have to consider breaking things up in the land grab.

[Jaradakar]

If we use hexes, we could award certain structures:
(Think of Orson Scott Cards "Enders Game", where the bugs do all in patterns - like Galaga sort of):

Have two adjanced hexes gives you only 0.25 probability per plot, then having 3 next to each other gives you 0.5, having 4 = 0.75 and 7 (1 middle + 6 in a ring) gives you 1 per plot, if all produce the same.

Of course all would have to be converted to the same good, so the other players would have to stop one player getting 7 plots connected by taking away the final plot...

In a multiplayer environment, it's almost always better to improve your own position than it is to screw a single player. 

Hence why I think EOS is just a little too good, as most of the time you're better off letting players gain what ever EOS they want while you work on your own EOS.

Often you only care about land type for the first 1-5 plots, after that you just keep getting adjacent for late game EOS.  I'd personally rather see people fighting over the different terrain plots.  So if I wanted to go Smithore it would actually be in my best interest to try to pick up multiple mountain plots Vs just getting everything close by.

I think by doing this you'd see people break away from EOS and maybe even screw other players, not on purpose but because the best move for my own personal gain just happens to be picking up X land type.

[data2008]

Since the free plain plots are the most in current mule, I would value them differently for Energy:

If it is not sourrounded by any moutain or colony, it yields 4 energy.
If one mountain/shop next to it yields 3, two mountain/shop gives 2 and three or more gives 1.

That would make free plots not sourrounded by anything much more valuable.

[Jaradakar]

Since the free plain plots are the most in current mule, I would value them differently for Energy:

If it is not surrounded by any mountain or colony, it yields 4 energy.
If one mountain/shop next to it yields 3, two mountain/shop gives 2 and three or more gives 1.

That would make free plots not surrounded by anything much more valuable.

How do you teach a player how those rules work?  That would be the hardest part with a system like that I think.

In some ways adding back in the desert I think would be cleaner and more easily understood and their by reducing the number of plains locations.

[Soldier Ant]

Wait a minute, you say that EOS is preferred over land type, but I actually think LTC is overpowered.
Think about it: EOS doesn't stack: each factory would receive the bonus only once. Now since LTC stacks, it makes land type and EOS a second choice strategy: if you are going to specialize you want to have many factories of the same type.
My solution: reduce the LCT bonus to +1 in total (not for each factory), or don't make it stack.

[rommager]

Personally, I like the EOS rule as it is.  It's simpler concept for the more casual players to grasp.  It's not as easy to grasp when you start talking about fractional units of production.  EOS is also not too overpowered, as it only allows a bonus of 1 extra production per plot.  Even in later rounds, EOS doesn't really increase total production except by maybe 9-10 units, and that's only if all the plots are utilizing EOS.  This of course is looking at the aspect of pure production.

Where EOS actually is useful in the game is in power and food production.  Power and food are typically less valuable, and getting better production from fewer plots allows players to concentrate on the big commodities.

IMHO, if we start messing with EOS or LCT, it makes the game less rewarding (and in turn less fun).  People want to play a game because it's fun to be a powerhouse, not because they have to work at it like it's a real job. 

[Jaradakar]

Wait a minute, you say that EOS is preferred over land type, but I actually think LTC is overpowered.
Think about it: EOS doesn't stack: each factory would receive the bonus only once. Now since LTC stacks, it makes land type and EOS a second choice strategy: if you are going to specialize you want to have many factories of the same type.
My solution: reduce the LCT bonus to +1 in total (not for each factory), or don't make it stack.

LTC?  Not sure what that is, can you clarify?

Just so we're all on the same page:

Economics of scale: If two factories of the same kind are adjacent they both produce one more unit.

[Jaradakar]

Personally, I like the EOS rule as it is.  It's simpler concept for the more casual players to grasp.  It's not as easy to grasp when you start talking about fractional units of production.  EOS is also not too overpowered, as it only allows a bonus of 1 extra production per plot.  Even in later rounds, EOS doesn't really increase total production except by maybe 9-10 units, and that's only if all the plots are utilizing EOS.  This of course is looking at the aspect of pure production.

Where EOS actually is useful in the game is in power and food production.  Power and food are typically less valuable, and getting better production from fewer plots allows players to concentrate on the big commodities.

IMHO, if we start messing with EOS or LCT, it makes the game less rewarding (and in turn less fun).  People want to play a game because it's fun to be a powerhouse, not because they have to work at it like it's a real job. 

I don't know 9-10 units is quite a bit of a difference! 

It might be that EOS is not adjusted, but you just increase the bonus that the specific land types produce.  Granted, if you do that then you might need to increase the cost of resources (mule cost, energy cost, food cost, etc).

So maybe Soldier Ant is on to something with just removing the stacking option.  I'm not against same type factories getting a bonus.  I'm just wondering if reducing the bonus would increase Land type importance.

Also imo that bonus could use some user feedback/visual input to show that it's actually happening.  Currently the only way you know is by how much is produced, which is not that intuitive imo.

-Chad

[Soldier Ant]

LTC: Learning Curve Theory.
If you have 3 factories of the same kind you have +1 on all your factories of that kind. In addiction, it stacks, so if you have 6 factories of the same kind, you have +2 on all factories, and so on.
You can see how this is the factor that makes the big production. If you have 9 crystite factories, the bonus would be 3 * factories = 3*9 = 27 LTC bonus. If all your factories were adjacent you would have +9 EOS bonus.
So tell me which one is overpowered 

[rommager]

One thing to remember is that LCT may be powerful, but there is still a max cap of up to 8 production per plot.

[Jaradakar]

One thing to remember is that LCT may be powerful, but there is still a max cap of up to 8 production per plot.

Don't see how that really is much a factor.  Someone else who is not building everything the same is just relying on the base production and a bonus from the land.  Maybe they have 2-3 production bonus for EOS due to having a few plots together, but not all of them.

Overall I'd love to test out reducing the LCT/EOS bonus to see the effects, my hunch is that land type will become more important and I think that makes more sense -- especially to newer players.

Granted, part of that could be the lack of visual feedback of EOS bonus

[Pescado]

I think that the LCT/EOS thing is important because it drives end-game behavior. If the effect of LCT is reduced significantly, then the benefits of specialization similarly drop, and you lose the cooperative/competitive dynamic. While self-sufficiency is a "safe" way to play, you are sacrificing a significant amount in LCT losses. The three factors of production come into play at different points in the game: In the beginning of the game, terrain type is the first factor. As the early game passes, EOS becomes the next concern. Finally, at the end game, you want to gain LCT. If any of these factors were reduced or removed, the "progression" would be lost, along with the benefits and risks of commitment and specialization. And this weakens that entire cooperative/competitive dynamic, where inter-player competition becomes harmful to the colony as a whole, which is what makes Mule interesting.