Jon Shafer leaves Firaxis!

[Androrc the Orc]

lol

he left because he is like a smart guy- does the job- moves on

an entreprenuer -they do that

No, they don't. Entrepreneurs keep taking care of the businesses they created for a long time.

 

[zuraffo]

In case you haven't yet, you should read Sulla's review of post-patch Civ5.

This is powerful stuff. You may have read it before, but I hadn't. Given his argument, I think that 1UPT was a mistake, and that a limited stack might have been the way to go. Since 1UPT was Jon's thing, and it seems to be the root cause of many problems, then the departure of Jon might be good for Civ5.

I feel kind of depressed now...

But now we know why we shouldn't attempt a tactical game mechanism in an empire building game! We should honestly thank the failed attempt and subsequent thoughtful analysis.

If there is no CiV, I doubt people would grasp why a tactical mechanism like 1upt doesn't work in empire building game like Civ.

 

[DaviddesJ]

If there is no CiV, I doubt people would grasp why a tactical mechanism like 1upt doesn't work in empire building game like Civ.

While I think large stacks of units with offensive and defensive unit types, unit type bonuses, etc., were a brilliant approach and probably a much better solution, I don't think it's true that 1upt is inherently flawed and couldn't work. It is just that it requires vastly more effort and design skills than the current team could muster. It's really like building two games in one, and in this case the team didn't have the resources or ability or inclination to properly design that second game.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Ahhh, but you misunderstood the value of speculation! Speculation is simply a form of entertainment. It's like speculating the next episode of a popular drama. I don't care what is the result of my speculation as long as I get to speculate!

Well, I suppose it is entirely consistent that you speculate without regard to the truth, and you also don't care what other people think. It seems rather pointless though. It seems to me there is a fine line, at most, between "making wild speculations without regard for facts or evidence, just for the fun of it", and "trolling".

 

[zuraffo]

Why don't you just call me trolling? It's fine. I am not fazed by labelling.

In Sulla's article he quoted someone who made a brilliant argument on why 1upt doesn't work with the scale of Civ. and after reading it I concurred. Simply put, in my own words, if the unit/tile ratio cannot be kept below certain threshold, then the 1upt system will blow up. Tactical game usually have very low unit/tile ratio, i.e. less unit, a lot more tiles.

 

[DaviddesJ]

In Sulla's article he quoted someone who made a brilliant argument on why 1upt doesn't work with the scale of Civ. and after reading it I concurred. Simply put, in my own words, if the unit/tile ratio cannot be kept below certain threshold, then the 1upt system will blow up.

That's not a reason why 1upt can't work with Civ. It's just a reason that the military system needs to be carefully designed to work with Civ. Individual units need to be powerful and expensive enough (and probably have some kind of step losses rather than all-or-nothing) that the ratio stays reasonably low throughout the game. I do not think this is an infeasible design challenge. If you like, you could even think of Civ 4 in the "1upt model", but the "units" in that game are stacks. If you created a system where units are assembled into stacks which function and fight as atomic entities, you could pretty easily turn Civ 4 into a 1upt system.

 

[zuraffo]

That's not a reason why 1upt can't work with Civ. It's just a reason that the military system needs to be carefully designed to work with Civ. Individual units need to be powerful and expensive enough (and probably have some kind of step losses rather than all-or-nothing) that the ratio stays reasonably low throughout the game. I do not think this is an infeasible design challenge. If you like, you could even think of Civ 4 in the "1upt model", but the "units" in that game are stacks. If you created a system where units are assembled into stacks which function and fight as atomic entities, you could pretty easily turn Civ 4 into a 1upt system.

Yes, well, it IS possible to keep the ratio low on paper. Like, I don't know, making military unit cost happiness, which will force players to keep unit number reasonable. We just don't know how it'll work out in the real game.

And I am not really concerned with the gameplay issue. With enough inputs, it can be fixed. What really ires me is the attitude of the game studio. As of now, I feel taken for granted by the publisher/developer, especially feel insulted by various comments that "mod will fix the game", and now I am disinclined to do anything to help this franchise. I am not yet at the stage where I make it a personal agenda to see this franchise fail, but I am close.

As I said again and again, if the developers/publisher want meaningful feedback, it is their job to make their presence felt and have the decency to ASK for it.

 

[DaviddesJ]

And I am not really concerned with the gameplay issue. With enough inputs, it can be fixed.

No, I don't think it can be fixed. Like I said, I think you really needed to design a much better combat system from the beginning. I guess you could design a whole new combat system, and the game is probably moddable enough to make that feasible, but I don't see it as remotely likely to happen.

As I said again and again, if the developers/publisher want meaningful feedback, it is their job to make their presence felt and have the decency to ASK for it.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but I think the developer and publisher have a very good idea of how the game has been received. They aren't lacking in feedback and they are perfectly able to log in to sites like this and see what people here think.

 

[IONDragonX]

No, they don't. Entrepreneurs keep taking care of the businesses they created for a long time.

An entrepreneur doesn't have to. If he's only interested in capitalism, he'll sell his business for what he can get even if it means that the business gets dismantled immediately. Its all about the cash, after all, not service.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Its all about the cash, after all, not service.

As a statement of fact about successful entrepreneurs and their motivations, you are wildly off base.

 

[IONDragonX]

As a statement of fact about successful entrepreneurs and their motivations, you are wildly off base.

Your statements aren't facts just because you say that they are. I can't go further on the subject anyway because it only leads to politics. Ironic how we can't discuss politics on a forum somehow connected to civilization.

 

[zuraffo]

No, I don't think it can be fixed. Like I said, I think you really needed to design a much better combat system from the beginning. I guess you could design a whole new combat system, and the game is probably moddable enough to make that feasible, but I don't see it as remotely likely to happen.

I am not sure what your disagreement is. Maybe simpler English? Barring 1UPT and hex tiles, there's nothing that started in the design phase that cannot be subsequently redesigned and fixed.

I'm not really sure what you mean here, but I think the developer and publisher have a very good idea of how the game has been received. They aren't lacking in feedback and they are perfectly able to log in to sites like this and see what people here think.

Well, I don't know about that. They might know, but we don't know that they know, so as far as I am concerned, they don't care. And as long as that is the way I "perceived" what they think, I will continue to be disgruntled. A public statement from either the publisher and/or developer like "we know the game is unsatisfactory, we are working to improve it, and we welcome players input to be sent to this email address blah blah" will be a nice way of notifying the fan base that they do take notice.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Your statements aren't facts just because you say that they are. I can't go further on the subject anyway because it only leads to politics. Ironic how we can't discuss politics on a forum somehow connected to civilization.

I don't think discussing the personal characteristics of entrepreneurs has any connection to politics. I know a lot of successful entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley, and they are mostly not very political at all. In any case, it is simply not correct that entrepreneurship is all about money. If you meet enough of the people who build successful enterprises, that becomes obvious.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I am not sure what your disagreement is. Maybe simpler English? Barring 1UPT and hex tiles, there's nothing that started in the design phase that cannot be subsequently redesigned and fixed.

Well, anything can be redesigned. They could throw out all of the code, write a new game completely from scratch, and call it "Civ V Gold Edition". I just think it's wildly unlikely. The issues that exist in Civ V can only be addressed with a much more dramatic redesign than we have ever seen in any previous computer game ever published. It's just not going to happen.

A public statement from either the publisher and/or developer like "we know the game is unsatisfactory, we are working to improve it, and we welcome players input to be sent to this email address blah blah" will be a nice way of notifying the fan base that they do take notice.

But this would not be the truth. From their point of view, the game is entirely satisfactory. Publicly, it has been well-received. Reviews have been relatively good. Sales have been relatively good. They know that you and people like you don't like it (you could count me and Sulla amongst that number as well), but they don't especially care, and maybe they are right not to care very much.

 

[Venereus]

I am not sure what your disagreement is. Maybe simpler English? Barring 1UPT and hex tiles, there's nothing that started in the design phase that cannot be subsequently redesigned and fixed.



Well, I don't know about that. They might know, but we don't know that they know, so as far as I am concerned, they don't care. And as long as that is the way I "perceived" what they think, I will continue to be disgruntled. A public statement from either the publisher and/or developer like "we know the game is unsatisfactory, we are working to improve it, and we welcome players input to be sent to this email address blah blah" will be a nice way of notifying the fan base that they do take notice.

Except that's considered bad PR. Not that they haven't already commited franchise suicide, but whatever.

 

[zuraffo]

But this would not be the truth. From their point of view, the game is entirely satisfactory. Publicly, it has been well-received. Reviews have been relatively good. Sales have been relatively good. They know that you and people like you don't like it (you could count me and Sulla amongst that number as well), but they don't especially care, and maybe they are right not to care very much.

Can you speak for them? How do you know from their POV the game is satisfactory?

Regardless, you are right about they are right not to care very much. after all, the sales figure is satisfactory. Why care about a small bunch of naysayer? especially when those suckers already have paid to purchase the product. It's non-refundable anyway.

Why care, when no matter how much of a fan base we lose, we can always build new fan base?

And thus, no civ6 for me, and if anyone ask my opinion, it's a no to buy Civ5. Why, I will share my copy with anyone interested in playing it, since I am not playing it anymore.

End of story.

 

[bryanw1995]

Your statements aren't facts just because you say that they are. I can't go further on the subject anyway because it only leads to politics. Ironic how we can't discuss politics on a forum somehow connected to civilization.

as a small business owner I can verify that the typical entrepreneur doesn't start something, get it ok, then skip town. you are thinking of hedge funds or possibly venture capitalists.

 

[blind biker]

as a small business owner I can verify that the typical entrepreneur doesn't start something, get it ok, then skip town. you are thinking of hedge funds or possibly venture capitalists.

That's true. Unless your small business goes bust, like 95% of them, do. So did mine, I didn't take it personally


EDIT: and this post is totally, utterly OFF TOPIC, I apologize. Nothing whatsoever to do with Shafter leaving Firaxis, I admit.

 

[Greenlocke]

But now we know why we shouldn't attempt a tactical game mechanism in an empire building game! We should honestly thank the failed attempt and subsequent thoughtful analysis.

I think they could have acheved their tactical goals in a strategy game. Lots of games have done it before. When I first started playing civ3, I lamented the fact that battles were not resolved in a separate mode (a battle map). I think Civ would be be best if it followed this model:

- Unlimited units per tile, but having too many units on a tile would cause them to lose HP, based on overcrowding. More soldiers = more HP loss
- Units can be joined into an army to alleviate this somewhat. (It takes 1 turn to enter an army).
- Movement of opposing units onto a tile begins tactical layer (a battle map).
- The tactical layer (battle map) can be auto-resolved, just like current Civ combat results.
- Depending on the tile of battle, a battle map opens. In this 1UPT environment, there are far more tiles than in the strategic layer. (Hills would present a hilly map, forests a forest map, city a city map, and some tiles may have their own map)
- Building a wall/fort/castle would/could involve actually editing a battle map.
- Important battle sites could be fought on planned battle maps
- Often the same battle map could be used on several different tiles. The battle map represents a zoomed-in layer. It would have fewer tiles than a current "duel" map. So 1 battle map might be used to describe a battle taking place on 6-10 strategic tiles.
- Unit location on the tile would be determined by previous location. (If you were fortified then you place your units first. Unfortified units enter from one of several positions on the map. If a unit enters the tile from the north, that unit appears in the north on the tactical map)
- I imagine that many people (like Jon) would play set-piece tactical battles as a multiplayer mode.
- Empire builders may just auto-resolve all battles.
- I would auto-resolve simple conflicts - but I would control important battles.
- I would also like to be able to watch battles take place - and perhaps step in if the simulation is going poorly.

Overall Ideas:
The strategic mode and tactical mode would be separate. Tiles on the stategic map represent more of a region. A unit of archers on the strategic map might be 3 archers on the battle map. Perhaps HP on strategic map would result in units at the tactical level. It would be very easy to program strategic ai, because no combat would take place. Tactical AI would be set-piece. This is an easier alternative than our current system, and it is more historically accurate as well. (Archers can't fire across the english channel. In fact, they can't fire until they are in a battle map).

 

[troytheface]

lol

seen a guy start three banks- sold them all

what you are suggesting is that a head programmer of a video game co. stays around

yeah, that happens all the time

lol

no offense- i jus be older i suspect