Join me, Anthony Salter (aka Viridian) as I talk about what it's like being a new employee at Stardock and detail what I'm doing to help Elemental be the best strategy game ever.
What we're shooting for and why.
Published on February 18, 2010 By AnthonySalter In Elemental Dev Journals

Hi!  I'm Viridian, also known as Anthony Salter, and I just finished a major revamp of the citybuilding system.  I'd like to talk today about our design goals for citybuilding and how the system currently works.

First, let's look at how our major inspirations, Civilization and Master of Magic, handled cities.  In both games, cities were fairly abstract.  They consisted of a single icon on the map and a screen full of sprites and numbers.



And you would end up with dozens of the things as the game progressed; to the point where you'd probably end up ignoring some because they were too small or unproductive to help you win the game.  (Didn't prevent them from falling into civil disorder and bringing your whole empire to a grinding halt...grr...)

 

As strategy games developed, a genre of incredibly detailed citybuilding games emerged, including the Caesar series, the Settlers series, and the Anno series.

 

 

In these games, everything is simulated practically down to the atomic level.  These are the kinds of games where you need to mine ore to make tools to cut down trees to gather lumber to take to the sawmill to make planks to build new buildings.

Now, there's no doubt this can be fun.  I've enjoyed both the Settlers and the Anno series of games myself.  The only problem is that citybuilding, while important, isn't the only thing you do in Elemental, and thus we can't allow it to dominate the game the way it does in Anno-style games.  (I can hear certain people weeping on the forums already but it's true.)  So what we've tried to do is create a happy medium.

I've spent all this time telling you how citybuilding won't work; it might be a good idea to tell you how it will.

What exactly did we want when we set out to create our citybuilding system?

Well, first, we didn't want city spam.  Thus, we created a system where building a smaller number of larger, older cities is rewarded.

As you probably know, Sovereigns can create cities, thus creating a town hub.  There are five levels a hub can go through - they start as outposts, then upgrade to hamlets, villages, towns, and cities.  At each upgrade point you'll get eight new tiles to build improvements on - and your city will be able to support more efficient improvements that it couldn't before.

Another feature of cities is that they are (mostly) auto-upgrading.  If you expand your city to a village and you have the Housing technology researched, then all your huts will upgrade to houses - instantly, and for free.  Your city needs to be at the proper level and you must have the technology researched in order for this to happen.  Again, I can hear the cries of some forum-goers who think that this will negatively impact the game, but we're facing facts here.  Ninety percent of the time when we get a new housing tech we simply demolish our old houses and build new ones right where the old ones were.  Because of the hard forty-tile limit you can't just throw more out there - non-optimal improvements will literally be a detriment to your city.

Indeed, crafting a good city is going to be a continual series of trade-offs rather than a forever-growing list of improvements.  And as the city grows and the game progresses, you will find yourself continually repurposing your cities rather than building new ones.

An early city in Elemental.

 

Our goal is to strike a balance, so that we aren't overwhelming the player with city management, but we still provide a robust enough experience that you don't just think of your city as numbers and sprites.  When someone attacks your city and your little people start running around screaming, we want you thinking, "Hey!  Stop picking on them!  How 'bout a little FIRE, Scarecrow?!"

 

EDIT:  I originally stated that Sovereigns needed to expend essence to create cities.  This is incorrect; they expend essence to bring the land back to life so the city can be built.  I have fixed the error in the article.


Comments (Page 3)
11 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Feb 18, 2010

Sounds good to me!

on Feb 18, 2010

Scoutdog
why not just add in a logarythmically/exponentially-growing cost (in production, efiicicency, population, gold, whatever... I'm thinking population getting tied up in logistical jobs and thus becoming unavailable) for each tile expanded onto over the city level?

I 100% support this idea.

on Feb 18, 2010

We'll be tweaking things up until gold to ensure the systems in place don't feel 'gamey' (read: artificial) yet can't be 'gamed' (read: manipulated for easy gains).

We've talked internally about the idea of 'equation-driven buildable tiles' but we always came to the conclusion that...
1. No matter how much balancing goes into it, a system like that would get 'gamed'.
and...
2. If we DID balance it, it'd be to the point where the players get around X sub-tiles per turn.
thus...
3. Why convolute things with some abstract equation if, at the end, we'd jsut end up wanting the same thing as Level X = Y tiles to build on.

Feel free to convince us otherwise though   I'm all for systems and reward skilled players, and perhaps we're missing something vital that you guys can come up with.

on Feb 18, 2010

Scoutdog
I actually find the eight-tiles-per-upgrade rule a bit silly and very restrictive at the same time. Instead of a hard cap that doesn't really make much sense from a realistic point of view, why not just add in a logarythmically/exponentially-growing cost (in production, efiicicency, population, gold, whatever... I'm thinking population getting tied up in logistical jobs and thus becoming unavailable) for each tile expanded onto over the city level? Needs refinement, sure, but it would create a point where it is no longer economical to expand beyond a certain point, but if you did so (say your sov is too far away to found something and you really need a new watchtower, you built all Tax Offices or something else you don't wanna have to demolish but need more housing to reach the next level, or have a lot of resources really close together that you can only really get at with a single ubermining town) you can push the envelope.

 

A couple reasons.  First, no matter what kind of disincentive we put on "overdoing stuff" (from a design perspective), you players always seem to break it.  (You should see some of the completely broken GalCiv2 saves we got.)  This really isn't a bad thing in and of itself but...

We have to take something into account we haven't had to before: multiplayer.  Balancing this game for multiplayer requires us to make it absolutely impossible for players to do certain things...and one of those things that we specifically knew would happen if we didn't stop it was someone hiding in a corner, building tons of cheap schools, and then burning through the tech tree like it's nothing and winning.

on Feb 18, 2010

In the end I am not sure if it is all that bad if the system got 'gamed'... If you do not want that then that is fine, but I love microing in Civ IV because this sets the men apart from the boys for sure.

Instead of artificial levels of a city, why not have a sliding scale where the town would slowly grow rather than increase 8 tiles per time? Under the surface in the equations, the game could still have 5 levels, but in those levels the new tiles would be fed to you one or maybe two at a time, depending on the need of the citizens.

For example, at level 2 - or hamlet if you prefer - you would get 2 new tiles. If you build an alchemist, it would need people to supply it with ingredients. this would allow the player to generate two more tiles with which you may build a market or more housing for the people drawn to the alchemist.

After a few turns or maybe after producing X of product Y with the alchemist, you would get more tiles available...

Ok so maybe I do not really know how to proceed or how to work it out, but I feel like this system should get a bit of exploring, even if it would only get thearetical exploring.

on Feb 18, 2010

If some one could hide in the corner and burn through the tech tree without being detected or stopped, does he not deserve a win for his gamble? He would be pretty weak otherwise and people would come and look for him if a player seems to be missing. If he can still pull off a tech victory, he deserves it in my book.

Then again, I am unsure if the 'more buildings = more research' approachs is desirable. If there are no more people willing to learn new skills, then more schools will do nothing. My late brother in law was in the army and he was never really encouraged be either his friends or his family to make something of his life. People like that will never study for anything, no matter how many schools there are available.

in the end I feel like buildings should facilitate some commodity that is naturally available rather then producing something new. There should be research no matter what, buildings should boost it, but two buildings should not give twice the boost. This way you would naturally mimic reality where some people just are not bright enough minds for technological breakthroughs, and it would discourage the 'spam building X' approach.

on Feb 18, 2010

Hmmmmmm....... Is that a Metroid logo of some kind under your name?(New SD fellow, not Shurdus).......... I can smell 'em out pretty well.......

The problem with the system now is that since it's tied to levels (and there are only five of those) the X=Y breaks down with relative ease once you get to a certain point, at which time it becomes X=0,=0,=0,=0,=0. In short, you wind up hitting the cielling with no place else to go. Any system can be gamed, but somethung like this is going to be pretty difficult to get around when you tweak the math so that, say, ten extra tiles will handicap the city into complete dysfunction. Something like this:The population/output penalty is the Y axis. The number of tiles OVER the regular level limit is displayed along the X axis. The green line is the "safe" overbuild limit, I have no idea why I even DREW the pink line, the blue is the maximum output of, say a city filled with nothing but houses (or tax offices or scribe schools or whatever), and the yellow line is the "maximum" limit after which the city is no longer of much use: when the amount of effort needed to make a new tile buildable (i.e. protected by walls, secured by the constabulary, exorcised of demon spirits, and whatnot) along with all the others you've overbuilt is worth less than what you get out of the tile, and it's of more use to build a new city. Eventually the city will have to bud off or collapse under its own weight.

on Feb 18, 2010

Scoutdog, what you propose is decent enough - or at least it's face value is - but why would a city become counterproductive? I can see where buildings would remain empty due to overbuilding so these buildings would be a very bad investment. It is unclear to me why these buildings would drag the entire city down. 

on Feb 18, 2010

They probably would drag the city down if you tried to overextend your centralized resources to try and control too much territory (A crude analogy would be that if you hooked too many city blocks up to a power station and blew out the grid) but perhaps "collapse under its own weight" was a bad choice of words..... buildings standing empty and falling into disreapir is a better way of putting it. The unfeasibility comes from spending a butt-load of production to build your pretty new scolar's retreat and watch it produce...... .00625 research.

EDIT: The above example would only apply when the player was abusing the system. I would leave it to the devs to decide what constitutes "abuse" and tweak the numbers accordingly.

on Feb 18, 2010

The unfeasibility comes from spending a butt-load of production to build your pretty new scolar's retreat and watch it produce...... .00625 research.
  See, I would get frustrated with soemthing like this. If I'm used to X building producing Y, I don't want to have to figure out "now why am I now getting Z instead of Y from X"...mostly where Z is a MUCH lower number than Y.

Perhaps that's just me though

on Feb 18, 2010

Not so much you as a bad hypothetical UI that doesn't say "overexpansion penalty: -90%" on the building card.

on Feb 18, 2010

Thanks for the post Anthony.

 

I have three points though, first one is to make houses techs restricted to certain tiers of cities development, for example an outpost couldn't build better housing than huts, they still get auto upgraded when you upggrade the city to the next level.

Second point is that building such as schools and such should have a minimal number of citizens needed for them to be 100% operational, so an outpost with 8 schools will not be worth much since you need 50 citizans per school to get it's full effect.

Third point is that certain houses would give bonuses to certains buildings, for exeample lower tier houses (tier 1 and tier 2) will give bonus to gathering buildings (mines farms etc) higher tier houses will give bonuses to manufacturing buildings (blacksmiths and schools etc).

 

Just my 2 cents

 

Warder

on Feb 18, 2010

I personally wouldn't mind not to have to read numbers (or percentages) but to read words. Something like in the Fudge RPG: Terrible, Poor, Mediocre, Fair, Good, Great, and Superb. Add to them some bars to indicate their actual "level" and how much until the next word. Not a popular idea, I know. But sometimes it'd be more precise that some % to describe me how well I'm doing. I can have my accountant doing all the numbers, which I could check any time, but getting only a general feeling of those numbers.

Random thoughts sponsored by the need for sleep.

on Feb 18, 2010

BoogieBac, that is where a clear tooltip would come in handy. the game could use a 'civilopedia' where the mechanics are explained and where the ins and outs of building X are explained, and if you mouse-over building X in the city itself it should tell you in advance what it will do. Building X may be efficient in one town but not in another because of the mechanic. Where would the frustration creep in then? If you can tell in advance what a building does because the mouse-over tooltip explains how much building X would generate then you do not have to guess what building X does in this city.

Also it would be useful to have tooltips for completed buildings where whatever the buildin does is broken down into easy to follow steps. Think Civ IV here for inspiration, where the total hammers - for example - can be seen by mousing over them. Then you can see where all the hammers are coming from so you will never have to guess or go into minute details because everything you need to know is right there. On the game map you should be able to get some mouse for building X and such where you see this card popping up explaining how much this building generates.

 

on Feb 18, 2010

I'm a big lover of all things city-building, and this sounds promising. I fully support the hard-cap of forty tiles because, as you say, if you used an algorithm-based system it would only be a matter of days before the playerbase found out the ideal cap for that system and you would have put in extra work and balancing for nought.


Focus your efforts on making the choices for the use of those forty tiles difficult and most people will be happy

 

I did see one question that I haven't seen answered unless I missed it... what kind of system is in place to stop city spamming for the purpose of claiming resources or extending territory?

11 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last