Personal tools

Talk:Building Charts

From Arcanum Illyria

Jump to: navigation, search



Building level upgrade costs get incorrectly reported by the game interface while upgrades are queued. (For example, while upgrading the Infantry Quarters from 0→1, the values stated for 1→2 are actually for 2→3). Only use values shown when the build queue for that structure is empty.

It is not necessary to create the associated building page before creating the /Chart subpage.

Final note: do not copy build times from the live timer of an active build. Only use the reported "Original Time" values for an available and as-yet uninitiated upgrade. Many times listed are off by a few seconds, presumably because of this. Any build time with seconds listed as anything other than :00 is probably wrong (including those on the charts which have already been reformatted and relocated).

Possible unit build times formula

(<level 1 build time>/(1 + (level of consulate *5)/100))*(1 + (sov bonus %/100))

Racial differences

The unit build times for barracks and consulate I have are the same as listed but I have a building level 1 higher. Don't know if this is a racial difference or a bug (i.e. unit build times aren't decreasing with higher level buildings.)

I'm playing as Human and my unit names are different. I would also guess there are many other racial differences. Elves are supposed to favor magic so I would guess mana production rates are different as well. We'll have to figure out a way to track all these and validate them. --Callous 15:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Until we get it all straight, I think we should just add new columns for everything we encounter (such as different unit names). The units themselves may be actually different for everyone, or if they're only different for one race, we can note that in the combined page for the actual unit, which would receive redirects from the various race-specific names.

I'm not certian if the building costs/production values actually differ. I altered the format to wiki syntax for readability which was quite a tedious job, and I could have messed up the details trying to extract all the numbers from the html tags. If anyone posts corrections, they should also note their race. That way a pattern should quickly emerge and indicate clearly whether racial bonuses are the problem. --HonoredMule 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about the HTML, wasn't familiar with the wiki syntax. I'm not sure that the game is listing unit build times correctly. I just queued 2 agents and it said it should be 10 minutes each, but the reported time was 14 minutes something. --Callous 21:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Other bonuses could be at play. I've noticed that resource gather rates are consistent regardless of other factors (prestige, season, tax, etc.) so similar factors could be altering unit production time as well. And, at this point, there's no telling how much is in the process of being tweaked under the hood or what bugs are affecting results.

There's such a steady stream of changes going on that I've given up submitting bug reports. The staff is very responsive, but usually the answer is that they know something isn't great in general and are working on an overhaul that would bulldoze the specific details I voice.

For now I think the best we can do is record what the interface claims and then expand that with specific contradictions in the actual pages. Anything nonspecific can be noted in discussion pages, and once we've got a decent body of information maybe we can start making sense of it all. Data quality will come if we supply data in volume first.--HonoredMule 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I rearanged the elve units, the type they were attributed were quite screwed up. I also had to modify 2 training time which were 1 second early. --Bartimeus 21:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous names

Reguarding the carpentry building, I think we should change it's name to Carpenter's yard, to avoid mixing it up with the carpentry research. Carpenter's yard is actually mentionned once in the research description (But I know the game usually calls Carpentry both the research and the building). Bartimeus 19:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up that issue by making Carpentry a disambiguation page. Though I dislike ambiguous names, they are in the game and we can't truly avoid them. If we tried to rename things, some people would get confused when the name leads to the wrong thing and frustrated when they cannot correctly guess what new name we concocted for what they really want.

You can now add the research page at Carpentry (research).--HonoredMule 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


I decided against eventually splitting buildings off into their own pages, and so I've started linking building references directly to subsections here. I think that makes more sense than breaking it all up.--HonoredMule 19:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Return on investiment on resource gathering structures

I've been thinking about having a table that summarizes the time needed to recover the resources needed to upgrade the resource gathering structures by one level. The following is an example of such table.

I like this and think it may prove useful somewhere, though I'm not sure where. For newbies starting their first city, the most important thing to know is that the investment always does pay off, and the sooner the better. So if you have resources, spend them, and if you're keeping up on research and food (and don't have other useful upgrades whose cost is trivial), spend the resources on resource plots. However, perhaps this will lead to some insight into the much more complicated issue of balancing resource gathering at unbalanced (i.e. non-human starter) locations.

I would suggest also adding a column defining the value of instabuild in the form of additional resources gained if instabuild is used. For example on row one, instabuild saves time to the next build if you can already afford it...but doesn't gain any resources. Level 6 only gains 24 units each resource from the early level-up, but instabuilding a level 15 structure earns 3,995 of its resource.

Maybe if we're lucky, some data analysts will offer deeper insight. --HonoredMule 20:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea, that'll help to identify the situations in which using prestige is most useful. --Taliesin444 20:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Investment period of resource gathering structure upgrades

This table summarizes the time needed to regain the resources used to upgrade every resource gathering building one level.

Level Cost Resource Break-even Point Resources Gained (each)
with Instabuild
Natural resource
Natural resource
Natural resource
Natural resource
Measured span of time
either expressed as components ([Ad] [Bh] [Cm] [Ds])
or one to three ordinals ([[hhh:]mm:]ss).
Times are always exact to the second.
Waiting on Builds Using Instabuild

Level 0

Level 0 costs and capabilities should not be present for any building charts. In most cases they have no meaning at all, and in others they are misleading. I.e. 500 units storage for level 0 storehouse suggests that the storehouse is like the castle, paddock, and common ground in that it exists even when not built at all. But this is not the case, and the 500 units of storage always available are more aptly attributed to the castle. --HonoredMule 14:09, 20 April 2011 (ADT)

Update to timespan formats

I've added some documentation on how timespans should be formatted. The conventions in use are still correct, except that--when using ordinal format such as with these charts--time spans of one day or longer should have a tooltip showing the time in component format for alternate readability. (The ordinal format is still best for base view since it provides much better visual comparability along the column of timespans.

More precise details and examples of all formats and when to use them is here.

--HonoredMule 09:08, 25 April 2011 (ADT)

Merging some tables?

Some tables (e.g. the four military housing tables) appear to be identical. Should we merge them? --Arthurian 13:16, 26 November 2011 (AST)

  • This is not likely to happen, because the actual table contents are getting transitioned to individual building pages. Eventually this page will just be an aggregation of those elsewhere-located tables.--HonoredMule 19:29, 26 November 2011 (AST)

Protected page?

Why can't we edit the article's page? Numbers are still missing but I can't add them as it is. --Kabu 16:50, 6 February 2012 (AST)

  • Please read the top of the page itself. This has already been explained there. --HonoredMule 17:26, 6 February 2012 (AST)
    • Sorry, I had only read the first line. Got it, I'll edit the individual pages then. --Kabu 08:08, 13 February 2012 (AST)

Question mark behind some building times

They're mostly found behind times with some random amount of seconds, although all the building times seem to be rounded to the minute in my browser (apart from a few with 1s missing, but I'm guessing it's a bug). Are we supposed to confirm those times in some way? If so, it looks like I would only have to set seconds to 0 in my case. --Kabu 08:37, 13 February 2012 (AST)

  • Some other editors have entered faulty information, and in many cases we could see that it was faulty because there was a seconds component. In some cases the error margin is just in the seconds component, but it could be off in minutes as well (or even hours in some extreme cases). Basically, any number followed by a question mark is probably wrong--it needs verification but very likely that means correction. The numbers were only left in the charts because they are at least ballpark figures and better than nothing for most readers.--HonoredMule 03:42, 14 February 2012 (AST)

Adding Marketplace?

The chart is missing from the list and is now relatively complete. --Crozno

  • Quite right. Fixed now. --HonoredMule 10:16, 4 March 2012 (AST)

Missing edit links

The various section titles such as Runemasters' Grounding should be linked to the corresponding page Runemasters' Grounding, where folks can find more info not covered by the transcluded chart. Ideally they'd also find an edit link to the chart there, for quick updates (confirmations of dubious, corrections of erroneous, or additions of missing values). –Dunnoob 03:10, 28 June 2012 (ADT)

  • It's not a bad idea, but I'm not keen to encourage editing until I've blasted away all uses of the old table format. Once that's done, I'll unlock the page anyway. Headers, however, should not be links (it's gaudy). Instead we can include a normal-sized link below the table. --HonoredMule 00:08, 29 June 2012 (ADT)
    So far you've blasted a plausible step in this direction, the two copies from the protected page to corresponding chart pages, where I was able to confirm eight dubious and add one missing values. With the deletion you also lost the edit history showing my earlier failure to create the new format manually.
    I'm mostly interested in correct data here, not in presentational or implementation details, let alone what you consider as frivolous template: If you prefer to edit 12+15 spell pages instead of 1+1 templates for consistency it's okay. Ditto if you like Template:Main constructs or similar solutions better than a simple link as section title approach. If I recall correctly links as section titles work fine in MediaWiki since about seven years, no more ToC corruption or fragment confusion, but I'm too lazy to check it... –Dunnoob 07:09, 29 June 2012 (ADT)