Balance of hostility for small vs dangerous glades

[InvoAngelus]

Is there an ongoing discussion or consideration for changing the hostility gained from opening small vs dangerous (inc. forbidden) glades?

Currently, the optimal behaviour is only opening dangerous glades and completely avoiding small glades to maximize resources per hostility, barring specific situations.

An argument I've seen is that small glades lack game-ending events and thus provide a safer option for new players, which skews the risk/reward ratio against them in resources, and is the most logical argument I have so far.

My opinion is that the "new player" phase will last for somewhere between 2-5 runs, after which most players should be familiar with glade events and fall in with the only dangerous glades strategy, and small glades become an obsolete feature, being detrimental to a run.

I suggest that hostility gained be more in line with resources expected, perhaps 10 instead of 15 hostility which I've seen raised commonly. Rather than balancing the lack of dangerous glade events to lesser resources, perhaps another limitation can be used. For example, number of different resources per glade can be lowered to increase the risk of not getting what is needed.

I'm not much on discord or other platforms so let me know if this is already being discussed somewhere and I'll go join in.

[Stübi Senpai]

Small Glades being suboptimal has been a discussion pretty much constantly throughout the games lifecycle, and there have been multiple attempts to make them more worthwhile. I would assume the current implementation is here to stay, not to put a damp on your enthusiasm, but I would assume we would've seen another adjustment by the devs if one was planned.

As for the actual discussion: Dangerous Glades being the "correct" type of glade to open has been a minor issue of mine ever since I've started playing. Small Glades only being worthwhile if paired with a glade opening order isn't the worst thing by itself, but it also contributes to a sameyness in regards to your initial choices in the game. When I watch other people play I near universally see them just open a dangerous glade ASAP as part of their opening move and then picking your initial BPs depending on what you get. The fact that opening 1-3 small glades isn't an equally valid choice in terms of optimization is very much a shame.

On the other end of the spectrum, I'm also somewhat iffy on the way Forbidden Glades are implemented. I'd be interested to see how others see them in terms of useability, but I personally haven't opened a forbidden glade since reaching Prestige 5, as they just seem too far away and a bit too swingy to be worth it.

[mtgninja]

I'm not going to judge the merits of the imbalance of small glades vs large glades, cuz I Ain't a game designer. I will say that there *is* good stuff in small glades, like fertile soil and Stags. However, you also might get completely shafted so it's not generally worth the risk unless you have info about their contents.

I don't usually open Forbidden either, except on the Marsh. Giant nodes are both fun and powerful.

[RamboRusina]

Small glades are basically only worth opening if they are on your way to something while you're on timer or you know what's in them. Besides that they are just quick way for orders that might be timed or you see really good reward to jumpstart the map. I always felt mixed about them because they feel like weird fillers after you learn the game that you don't really open for their own sake.

[arjensmit79]

There are cornerstones that will push you into a strategy around opening many (small) glades. However while the small glades have been improved in some ways, they also have been made worse in others. They used to be good if you were looking to spent tools on caches. Small caches are more tool efficient and they used to be found in small glades quite a lot. All the new stuff thats in there pushed out the small caches. That is something i find really unfortunate because that was one of the ways you could have a strategy revolving around small glades.

Even though i have 800 hours in this game and think it's pretty darn awesome, i also have to admit i see it as a game which has enormously more potential than what it is now. And this whole topic is why.

The essence of the problem is imo the amount of corner stones that don't drastically alter the game play. There are maybe 2 or 3 that make you want to open a lot of small glades. There is one that would make you want to open forbidden glades if the game were not normally won in less time than it takes to even properly get ready to deal with forbidden glades. There are also a few other corner stones that drastically alter gameplay and mostly people complain about them being too OP.

Mostly however, they are drowned in a sea of rather meaningless cornerstones and any of these very influential ones come around only once in while. On top of that, only your 1 and 2 cornerstones really are in a position to truly alter your grand strategy completely.

The content of small glades also doesn't add to a victory condition or basic strategy. They are just really small bonusses that might or might not be worth the hostility cost, that isn't even truly interesting. The point is they don't influence your game.

I think a very harsh rebalancing could get the true potential out of this game. That would include:
-Scrapping 3/4 of the cornerstones
-Adding in a few new cornerstones that really are influential. (the total number really doesn't need to be nearly as big as is though)
-Increasing the average game length so there is more time for different strategy planes to work out. (like one based on the secure perimiter cornerstones)

I repeat. The game is awesome. I hope it is not taken as harsh criticism, especially not by potential new players. Maybe the reason i look at it like this is because i have 800 hours into it and that makes me want more diversity. Maybe that led me to optimize too much into the existing meta playstyle. But still, i do believe it could be better. The diversity with the cornerstones is exactly what could prevent such an existing singular playstyle. And it does, sometimes, but just rarely once in a bluemoon when you get those few odd cornerstones out of that ocean of bland ones.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally posted by arjensmit79:

The content of small glades also doesn't add to a victory condition or basic strategy.

This really feels like the central issue. Almost everything steers the player towards Dangerous/Forbidden glades, with only a few things incentivizing Small glades. Meanwhile players are disincentivized from opening that many glades per settlement due to the Hostility cost, and while you could open two Small glades per Dangerous/Forbidden glade, the rewards you get from the glade events makes it better to go for one Dangerous/Forbidden vs 2 Small.

Making sure that every Small glade has either coal/copper, fertile soil or a geyser could make them worth the gamble.

[mostly willing]

Originally posted by InvoAngelus:

Currently, the optimal behaviour is only opening dangerous glades and completely avoiding small glades to maximize resources per hostility, barring specific situations.

there are people who disagree. this is not the consensus. experienced folks on discord are split on this. I myself don't have a strong opinion
people who think smalls are in a good place think "don't open small glades" is outdated & they've been buffed enough to open them on a regular basis
one thing ppl miss I think is that the geysers in small glades are heavily weighted towards drizzle water. got no drizzle water for your food production building? open a small glade or two

[el Darkness]

Small glades being not worth it may be outdated. Recently I watched a vid of RonEmpire (I think he is among top players if not the top player) and he started by opening 2 small ones. On a fresh profile with only few upgrades on Viceroy. I think this was a series to introduce new players to the game and he is keen on playing on highest available difficulty, without much upgrades. I am not sure what is the meta here, but they are certainly viable now.

[mtgninja]

Originally posted by arjensmit79:

I think a very harsh rebalancing could get the true potential out of this game. That would include:
-Scrapping 3/4 of the cornerstones
-Adding in a few new cornerstones that really are influential. (the total number really doesn't need to be nearly as big as is though)
-Increasing the average game length so there is more time for different strategy planes to work out. (like one based on the secure perimiter cornerstones)

Ah, hate to say it, but removing 3/4 of the cornerstones is well above the amount of developer time and effort to be worth it and practical. Adding new cornerstones is always good, though there's always the problem of bloat looming around. Just look at Binding of Isaac, with so many items you literally need to have a wiki open to play the game for a new player.

Also, games are like, 1-2 hrs each. That seems like a pretty good length to me, but that's super subjective so I would suggest a compromise: modifers that play with game length, increasing and decreasing reputation and impatience thresholds. There's modifiers that just increase impatience, but none which plays with reputation.

[arjensmit79]

I know it wont happen. There is a good game now and it obviously would feel way too risky for the devs to make take such drastic measuresat this point. It would need months of play testing and balance fine tuning again.

But i as said, i do think there is a lot more potential in the already great game that could come out if that were done. Maybe it can be an idea for if there ever is going to be a AtS 2 or an major expansion or something.

Bloat, thats exactly the problem why a good chunk of them need to be removed.

I am not talking about game length in hour, but in game years. As it is, a games just don't last long enough to make forbidden glades and some other game plans / strategies really a sensible option.

[el Darkness]

One way will be to remove weak perks/cornerstones, but that may backfire and it will make games more similar to each other. Another way would be to buff those cornerstones. I am currently not up to date about which perks are good, but i.e. I heard (and think so too) that cornerstone which extends duration for fuel sacrifice based on Queens Impatience is not among top perks (to understate it's position), such a perk could receive a buff, in this example increasing bonus from 5% per Impatience point to 10% does not sound like a bad idea (will it become overpowered?). In second option the risk that future runs become the too similar is less of a concern. Though if perks will get too many buffs they may become to powerfull.

Unless having weak and strong perks is part of the design, in this case, perks will remain unchanged.

[Stübi Senpai]

Originally posted by el Darkness:

Small glades being not worth it may be outdated. Recently I watched a vid of RonEmpire (I think he is among top players if not the top player) and he started by opening 2 small ones. On a fresh profile with only few upgrades on Viceroy. I think this was a series to introduce new players to the game and he is keen on playing on highest available difficulty, without much upgrades. I am not sure what is the meta here, but they are certainly viable now.

After reading this, I might honestly just play a few dozen games with opening 2 smalls versus 1 dangerous in the year 0-2 cycle and see how I do. Maybe I'm too biased from the earlier days before they added all the other things to the glades.

[mtgninja]

Originally posted by Stübi Senpai:

Originally posted by el Darkness:

Small glades being not worth it may be outdated. Recently I watched a vid of RonEmpire (I think he is among top players if not the top player) and he started by opening 2 small ones. On a fresh profile with only few upgrades on Viceroy. I think this was a series to introduce new players to the game and he is keen on playing on highest available difficulty, without much upgrades. I am not sure what is the meta here, but they are certainly viable now.

After reading this, I might honestly just play a few dozen games with opening 2 smalls versus 1 dangerous in the year 0-2 cycle and see how I do. Maybe I'm too biased from the earlier days before they added all the other things to the glades.

Oh, I hate to say it, but you know what kills that strategy higher up? Prestige 19. You have to pay for each glade, and it's very likely you can't in time.

[kory]

Originally posted by mtgninja:

Originally posted by Stübi Senpai:

After reading this, I might honestly just play a few dozen games with opening 2 smalls versus 1 dangerous in the year 0-2 cycle and see how I do. Maybe I'm too biased from the earlier days before they added all the other things to the glades.

Oh, I hate to say it, but you know what kills that strategy higher up? Prestige 19. You have to pay for each glade, and it's very likely you can't in time.

They at least made it so that small glades are cheaper than large glades, before that change it just made small glades even more filled with regret.

[el Darkness]

Originally posted by Stübi Senpai:

After reading this, I might honestly just play a few dozen games with opening 2 smalls versus 1 dangerous in the year 0-2 cycle and see how I do. Maybe I'm too biased from the earlier days before they added all the other things to the glades.

Please let us know, I am currently not playing much but I would love to know how it goes. Also please let us know your difficulty if you do. I know not everyone care about it, but below Viceroy, almost any strategy is viable, so knowing the difficulty gives more info. :)

[arjensmit79]

Originally posted by el Darkness:

One way will be to remove weak perks/cornerstones, but that may backfire and it will make games more similar to each other. Another way would be to buff those cornerstones. I am currently not up to date about which perks are good, but i.e. I heard (and think so too) that cornerstone which extends duration for fuel sacrifice based on Queens Impatience is not among top perks (to understate it's position), such a perk could receive a buff, in this example increasing bonus from 5% per Impatience point to 10% does not sound like a bad idea (will it become overpowered?). In second option the risk that future runs become the too similar is less of a concern. Though if perks will get too many buffs they may become to powerfull.

Unless having weak and strong perks is part of the design, in this case, perks will remain unchanged.

It doesn't have to be about weak vs strong. They must be game changing. Of course the only way a player chooses a game changing cornerstone is if it is somewhat strong.
Or if there are only game changing options. :)

Same is not only true for cornerstones btw. The forest mysteries are similar. You start the game, you check the effects. The vast majority can be safely and entirely ignored, a small minority you need to take note of. Always makes me wonder why the other ones are even there.