Right now they just make too much money, especially seeing as they make you more money the worse you are doing in the campaign.

I do like the idea of being able to use them to support a "Helm's Deep" situation, but the fact is that unless you expand at an average rate of 1 settlement per turn, these things are going to be doubling, tripling, quadrupling your income.

Perhaps increase the % reduction for each settlement you have to 10%, just to reduce the snowball effect on a campaign.

I think its perfect as it, if youre taking more than 2 settlements per turn, which i am most of the time, its not not worth it

Taking more than 1 settlement a turn is very easy unless you are playing tall. So no, there is no need to nerf that.

The fact that it makes Dwarfs more resilient when they lose settlements is interesting to note and actually very much in character.

What needs to be nerfed is the upkeep reduction chain of the Guild Foundries.

Ok fair, it is possible to be taking more than 1 settlement per turn.

I do think Jarms' point still stands though. The rubberband effect of making you more money the worse you are doing makes losing as the dwarves almost impossible.

Perhaps instead of increasing the negative effects they need to reduce the positive per turn percentage.

Please don't nerf it!

Best way to play is expand aggresively, this building is already useless in that scenario.

So if it is not designed for best way of playing, it's not OP - there is no need to nerf something that you should never build because it's not optimal.

It supports role-playing players focusing on tall dwarf empire. The game does not support tall builds enough, let players have valid options for various playstyles.

And if a player has 5 settlements at turn 50 the building is still not OP - it is catch-up mechanic. Without it you should consider restarting the game, now it allows you to enjoy the game more.

​

pether#9857 wrote:

Please don't nerf it!

Best way to play is expand aggresively, this building is already useless in that scenario.

So if it is not designed for best way of playing, it's not OP - there is no need to nerf something that you should never build because it's not optimal.

It supports role-playing players focusing on tall dwarf empire. The game does not support tall builds enough, let players have valid options for various playstyles.

And if a player has 5 settlements at turn 50 the building is still not OP - it is catch-up mechanic. Without it you should consider restarting the game, now it allows you to enjoy the game more.

Of course it suppots tall builds. It also supports wide builds. That's the problem, you can go tall and wide with no problem of any kind.

Guild Foundries have of course to be nerfed. Dwarfs should never be a spammy faction that can churn out armies like Skaven breeders pop out litters.

In fact, there should be nothing that allows pushing costs to tiny fractions or straight to zero. How does that even make sense? Are the Dwarfs magicing all their gear and supplies up out of thin air and pay for their expenses with beer burps?

Yep. No faction should have the ability to push recruitment costs down to zero. No faction should have the ability to push recruitment costs down to zero even if that effect is "late game". No faction should rubber band losing. 

People are vetoing Dwarves in multiplayer campaigns now. There's no challenge if you play Dwarves anymore. 

​

Jarms48#7854 wrote:

Yep. No faction should have the ability to push recruitment costs down to zero. No faction should have the ability to push recruitment costs down to zero even if that effect is "late game". No faction should rubber band losing. 

People are vetoing Dwarves in multiplayer campaigns now. There's no challenge if you play Dwarves anymore. 

Like whos vetoing dwarfs in MP campaigns? Like who? Dont make up random BS... coz no one is... coz this doesnt change anything at all.

Its a none issue and sitting with no land means you lose  you simply cant compete with bigger empires. 

You can’t pretend multiplayer campaigns don’t exist simply because you don’t play them. 

You also can’t pretend multiplayer campaign communities don’t exist because you’re not in them. 

There’s competitive multiplayer battle communities that ban OP units from play. There’s competitive multiplayer campaign communities that ban entire factions from campaigns because CA over tune them or make them impossible to lose with. 

* * * * *

There’s also the single player people who want a fair and balanced campaign. Not being given the victory on a silver platter the moment they hit the start button. CA needs to pull back on the power fantasy. 

​

hurricane501#1568 wrote:

​

Its a none issue and sitting with no land means you lose  you simply cant compete with bigger empires. 

So there'd be no change when it's effect is nerfed or removed then? It's always funny when people go "this doesn't matter and won't affect me but I'll object anyway".

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

​

hurricane501#1568 wrote:

​

Its a none issue and sitting with no land means you lose  you simply cant compete with bigger empires. 

So there'd be no change when it's effect is nerfed or removed then? It's always funny when people go "this doesn't matter and won't affect me but I'll object anyway".

No because anyone whos any good at this game will tell u its a none issue... the guy above banging on about made up crap  is full of it... NO ONE IS VETOING dwarfs... no one... not anyone at all. Hes making some weird scenario up.

If you play any MP campaign youll see it doesnt do anything.

But yeah ill let you have 5 people moan about it while the rest of the planet plays the game.

​

Player#658906 wrote:

Ok fair, it is possible to be taking more than 1 settlement per turn.

I do think Jarms' point still stands though. The rubberband effect of making you more money the worse you are doing makes losing as the dwarves almost impossible.

Perhaps instead of increasing the negative effects they need to reduce the positive per turn percentage.

If you're at least a decent player, losing as any faction is almost impossible, with exception maybe of Legendary and its new spammy AI. 

Most players won't experience this rubberband effect in any meaningful way, since people don't lose settlements that often. It's the kind of thing that even if it isn't balanced, it won't cause any real issue or impact negatively the experience of most people, so it isn't really a problem.   

Yeah I do play Legendary difficulty, I like the challenge. I like when I'm struggling to hold off hordes of enemies. But guild foundries make it too easy.

​

Jarms48#7854 wrote:

You can’t pretend multiplayer campaigns don’t exist simply because you don’t play them. 

You also can’t pretend multiplayer campaign communities don’t exist because you’re not in them. 

There’s competitive multiplayer battle communities that ban OP units from play. There’s competitive multiplayer campaign communities that ban entire factions from campaigns because CA over tune them or make them impossible to lose with. 

* * * * *

There’s also the single player people who want a fair and balanced campaign. Not being given the victory on a silver platter the moment they hit the start button. CA needs to pull back on the power fantasy. 

The balance of multiplayer games is not something that CA really puts any effort into. There are certain factions that are just massively stronger than anything else out there. Ikit Claw's faction is one such example. Another is Gelt's faction.

They have easy access to incredibly powerful abilities that can decimate entire armies. Nothing else can really compete with that. So MP campaigns are not a balance concern.

How about they have the 5% per turn only available with a max ~5 settlements, like they do with the defensive deeps buildings.