New patch 1.10 - no more mega city :-(

LOL I rarely use the tactic and if i use it its also late game. Ive noticed that the computer still hold archers and pikemen at around 1800 AD?? If you roll up with tanks at that point than civ its self is broken. This strat actually brought a real late game. No one here has a real point why it should be gimped. All I see is a bunch of people complaing that they want the old 10 hour civ back. THIS IS THE CONSOLE CIV its meant to be fast paced.

They never did this to star craft.........
 
LOL I rarely use the tactic and if i use it its also late game. Ive noticed that the computer still hold archers and pikemen at around 1800 AD?? If you roll up with tanks at that point than civ its self is broken. This strat actually brought a real late game. No one here has a real point why it should be gimped. All I see is a bunch of people complaing that they want the old 10 hour civ back. THIS IS THE CONSOLE CIV its meant to be fast paced.

They never did this to star craft.........

They never did what to Starcraft? Change things in the game to nerf an annoying strategy? Hmmm. I seem to remember that almost every patch after launch was about adapting the game to gimp the popular strategies that people came up with. Maybe you never connected to B.Net and updated your game. You should check out the changelog thoughout the versions.

As to the MegaCity strat, I think you do have it backwards. It's an exploit that was never meant to be the lynchpin of your strategic plan. It seems you're the one whining about it's removal. Personally, I couldn't care less if it's there or not as it doesn't effect me, but if the designers feel that it should not be there, then I'll go with what they decide.
 
They never did this to star craft.........

Then you never played Starcraft.

Blizzard frequently makes changes to its game, both announced and unannounced (if you don't believe me, go look at the starcraft, or WoW patch notes).

You seem like your defending a strategy awfully hard for one that you claim to never use.

The game is undergoing something called Balancing. I know that's a difficult concept for many people to understand, but it happens. It's impossible for alpha and beta testing to catch/think of everything people might come up with once the game goes live. Obviously the developers feel that the mega-city strategy needs to be toned down. If you disagree so strongly, simply stop playing, or go get a job as a developer with Firaxis where you can have input into the games design and developmet. You've already made your point, everyone here knows your against nerfing it, and now your just being whinny.
 
when did they nerf such a big concept in star craft? Especially a concept where every different civ you pick can do it at a pretty even level? How is 3-4 settlers reasonable to waste for one pop?
 
BS! the mega city needs no gimping this is straight nub driven. What a community when a bunch of nubs actually change a game... pathetic If you guys want the good ol civ go back to the computer.

Whos going to waste 3-4 settlers to get 1 pop????? Like I said the Mega City strat has the biggest flaws There is just to many nubs who dont know how to play.

Heres my suggestion just ban the strat in ladders. If you guys cant handle it LOL

In regards to your derogatory comments against nubs, it is my understanding the whole concept of CIV REV was introducing CIV to a whole new audience (i.e. console playing nubs). Most of these nubs (myself included) have never played a CIV game on a computer, and would thus not be able to go back to one.

I believe EXPERIENCED CIV players realized they could exploit the lack of "starvation" and created the mega-city strat. (Several experienced Civ players posted on this site about using the strat in the XBOX live demo.) Once word got out everyone was using the mega-city strat to beat the demo before the 1250 AD cut off! I believe this development caused Firaxis to realize the need for the nerf (hence why the nerf was ready by the time the game was released in the USA.)

Blaming a game's target audience for a strategy that was created by experienced CIV players doesn't really make sense to me.
 
when did they nerf such a big concept in star craft? Especially a concept where every different civ you pick can do it at a pretty even level? How is 3-4 settlers reasonable to waste for one pop?

A. Check the patch notes available here: http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?articleId=21150&rhtml=true There's plenty of instances in which Blizzard changed something to nerf an exploit or balanced a unit statistic to gimp a particular strategy. It happens with almost any game in which people play against one another. Heck, real life sports do it as well.

B. Apparently, it's a reasonable trade-off since you (and quite a few others) are using it in the game. :rolleyes:
 
when did they nerf such a big concept in star craft? Especially a concept where every different civ you pick can do it at a pretty even level? How is 3-4 settlers reasonable to waste for one pop?

Such a big concept?

It's not like the mega-city strat is the end all be all of civ-rev. It's not like when they tone it down that the sky will fall (like someone reading your ranting might come to believe).

It's one strategy in a game that has many many different strategies that are viable. Go look at starcrafts patch notes. You'll see they make changes that affect various strategies all the time. And yes, people will always complain, but in the end, you have a better game (usually) for the change.
 
Listen im sorry that im coming off as an annoyance but 3-4 settlers is not balancing. Now that I think about it, wouldnt this change make the Romans stronger? Really your only nerfing other civs. Romans are still going to have the ability to set up the strat before anyone which is going to balance out with the nerfing. So instead of having tanks around 500-800 ad the romans will have em at 1000-1200ad. Other civs wont have a chance with the nerfing.
 
The point of this change is to make it impractical or at least up the cost for using settlers to create mega-cities to pursue different strategies. Even though the Romans can start off with "cheaper" settlers (costing only 1 pop point), it'll gonna require a lot more time and work (with opportunity costs), to create that city. Might be more worth it to explore, build up an economy, rush some harbors/granaries/aqueducts instead.

If anything this reduces the advantage that the Romans may have had early on - because they were so quick to produce settlers since the beginning of the game, they were able to create a fairly huge city before most civ's were able to get Code of Laws. This'll slow them down more and force them to do more with their cities than be settler farms.

No one will really know how effective this patch will be until it's out. For all we know there can be another loophole that happens, but I for one am glad to see that they're responding to the players and trying to keep this game fun and interesting.
 
This is tiresome. This "strategy" is clearly an exploit that they are toning down to balance the game. If you use this exclusively, you are not very good at Civ and you need more practice.
 
This is tiresome. This "strategy" is clearly an exploit that they are toning down to balance the game. If you use this exclusively, you are not very good at Civ and you need more practice.

O yea??? I challenge you I play xbox 360 GT= naa spec forces

No mega city strat allowed Ill show you who needs practice.
 
o wow mr bigger man, that was the most pathetic comment ive seen. No wonder your for the patch. nubbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
 
BS! the mega city needs no gimping this is straight nub driven. What a community when a bunch of nubs actually change a game... pathetic

LOL @ the idea that Sid totally planned the mega-city strategy himself but then gave in because "nubs got owned."

How is 3-4 settlers reasonable to waste for one pop?

Where do you even come up with these arguments? If the game shipped this way you wouldn't be writing a million posts on the forums like "HOW COME ONE SETTLER DOESN'T EQUAL ONE POPULATION POINT?! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!" You'd think it's perfectly reasonable because you never knew of a different way.

It's reasonable because SETTLERS WERE NEVER INTENDED TO BE A VEHICLE TO JACK UP CITY POPULATION. That's it. I guarantee you that the feature was more intended to give you something to do w/ settlers that you didn't want to create new cities with.

Funny, I'd think exact the opposite. I mean, I've definitely taken advantage of the mega-city tactic, but at the end, it's really a loophole (unplanned) that gave the player (esp. in easier level-ed single play) a huge boost over the computer. I'd be rolling tanks over the computer's warriors and archers all thanks to my mega-city. If anything, sounds more like it's the "nub" that are crying over the loss of an exploit/easy win.

This is another reason why it needs to go. It unbalances the single player game and it's bad for game rules to be different between SP and MP.
 
o wow mr bigger man, that was the most pathetic comment ive seen. No wonder your for the patch. nubbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Seriously, no need for name calling. If he doesn't want to play with you, that is his perogative.

I would also urge you, MKElderGod, to see my previous comment (copied here for your convenience):

"In regards to your derogatory comments against nubs, it is my understanding the whole concept of CIV REV was introducing CIV to a whole new audience (i.e. console playing nubs). Most of these nubs (myself included) have never played a CIV game on a computer, and would thus not be able to go back to one.

I believe EXPERIENCED CIV players realized they could exploit the lack of "starvation" and created the mega-city strat. (Several experienced Civ players posted on this site about using the strat in the XBOX live demo.) Once word got out everyone was using the mega-city strat to beat the demo before the 1250 AD cut off! I believe this development caused Firaxis to realize the need for the nerf (hence why the nerf was ready by the time the game was released in the USA.)

Blaming a game's target audience for a strategy that was created by experienced CIV players doesn't really make sense to me."
 
I am not sure why MkElderGod is complaining about the reduced effectiveness of the mega city gambit, if he claims he doesn't even use it. If he doesn't even use it anyway, it shouldn't even affect him. Why is he complaining?

His claims in the lines of "games being nerfed because of nubs" is just another sign of examples that clearly indicate that perhaps there needs to be a better understanding of what Civ game is in its foundation.

Every Civ game to date has emphasized resource management in food, trade, and hammers (used to be shields in the older versions). Among those 3 resources, food was the most important resource, because without it, you can't grow your cities. Food also was necessary to feed your population at 2 food per citizen, and without enough of it, cities would starve.

Obviously, in Civ Rev, there is no requirement to feed your citizens, so the game is made a bit easier.

With the mega city gambit, food becomes all but worthless. You don't need to set up your mega city site with good food source at all. Hell, even if you have ZERO food production, it is still good as long as there is plenty of trade and hammer. Why bother with food when your city can grow with settler pumps and you don't have to worry about starvation?

What about the feeder cities? Oh, the city placement isn't even that important anymore since the feeder cities are preferred to be at a population level of around 3 or 4, not more, to be at its most efficient to crank out settler pumps. You can plop these cities virtually anywhere with some food and hammers. No trade tiles necessary. Hell, even if they were all bunched up together, it really doesn't even matter. Since when did a Civ game NOT emphasize a careful city placement?

What about the Roman bonuses? They are still great bonuses, and I would rather have the mega city gambit eliminated or reduced in its effectiveness than to see changes with Rome.

1. Republic: Why do you think republic was given the bonus the way it is? It was to encourage horizontal growth, by allowing players to expand by placing new cities with less population loss on the supporting cities. Especially in late game when your cities are size 10+, that one extra population saved through republic is quite a bonus.

2. 1/2 Cost Roads: Why does MKElderGod think cheaper roads is useless? I certainly don't think so. Gold is pretty scarce in the beginning, and the Romans get this ability right off the bat. It makes everything easier by having roads be more affordable. Roads in Civ Rev weren't just made for the sole purpose of ferrying mega city pumping settlers to their destination. Roads have other purposes too.

3. 1/2 Cost Wonders: Wow... if anyone were to argue that this was useless... Do I even need to explain why this is useful? Or does someone think that wonders are only meant to be built in a mega city?

4. More Great People: If concept #3 is not understandable, then it is no surprise that this concept isn't understood. Great people aren't just there for the cultural victory count either. They serve many other useful purposes and give players options that better suit long-term goals or short-term goals.

5. +1 Population in New Cities: By this point in time, expansion shouldn't be as vital as it was in the early stages, so it is the least helpful of all the Roman bonuses in my opinion because it comes late. If it was like China where it was given at the start, it would have been very powerful. At any rate, this ability is nothing to be scuffed at either. More population means more production.

Of course, for someone who claims not using mega city to argue that this ability is useless, only indicates that perhaps he believes this ability is useless because this bonus doesn't apply to the mega city perhaps? Should I even believe his claims that he doesn't even use mega city gambit?

At any rate, if he claims that Civ Rev is made worse because of the changes with the mega city gambit, then obviously he has ZERO clue of what he is doing in Civ, nor does he have any adequate understanding of how Civ games have played up to this point.

I am sure 2K/Firaxis will do enough testing before patching 1.20. If anything, I am very happy with the change myself.
 
o wow mr bigger man, that was the most pathetic comment ive seen. No wonder your for the patch. nubbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

It is obvious that you lack respect towards other forum members by resorting to name calling like this. Because of this kind of behavior, I feel no remorse to correct your ignorance in Civ and call your complaints nothing more than an uneducated whining. I have seen plenty of forum posters like you that pretend like he is oh mighty god in an internet forum. Perhaps the outside world isn't too kind to you... which I am not too surprised by it.
 
Cool! There going to patch the mega city YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA finally omg I cant wait to play the old civ again.

Seriously I was playing as the Romans about 20 mins ago for the first time online. I see the gimping is needed. Its crazy how fast you can have a mega city with the Romans. But 3-4 settlers might be pushing it.
 
Top Bottom