New patch 1.10 - no more mega city :-(

2K Elizabeth · Jul 18, 2008

shadowplay said:
Just to clarify, the exploit I'm referring to is being able to switch production from another wonder to the World Bank or United Nations, neither of which can be rushed directly, unless you exploit this loophole.

I don't know why you'd be building catapult armies that late in the game. You must be worse than I am.

oh no! not that late in the game. i use it with someone like hanging gardens or stonehenge. start em really early and so when i get mathematics first, i only need 2 more to make myself an army.

bonafide11 · Jul 18, 2008

shadowplay said:
Just to clarify, the exploit I'm referring to is being able to switch production from another wonder to the World Bank or United Nations, neither of which can be rushed directly, unless you exploit this loophole.

I don't know why you'd be building catapult armies that late in the game. You must be worse than I am.

I'm sure she understands the problem, I think she's just joking around.

goofyballer · Jul 18, 2008

shadowplay said:
Just to clarify, the exploit I'm referring to is being able to switch production from another wonder to the World Bank or United Nations, neither of which can be rushed directly, unless you exploit this loophole.

Having the UN/WB be the only buildings in the game which cause you to lose (waste) all resources invested in whatever you were building previously when you switch to them isn't a great solution either though.

A better solution might be to do a check of some sort like "if a wonder has already been rushed in one city, then you can't rush the same wonder in another city" - that'll stop the World Bank exploit, since with 20k+ gold you can easily rush Manhattan Project or w/e in two cities and then switch one to World Bank the next turn.

lol @ catapult armies:

"Catapult (x34) available next turn."

2K Elizabeth · Jul 18, 2008

goofyballer said:
lol @ catapult armies:

"Catapult (x34) available next turn."

mwahahaha.

i can't say it's useful in the UN era, but if you do it with ancient wonders it can be.

...but trying to go to town with 34 catapults in the 1900s would be hilarious.

frank_littleff · Jul 20, 2008

2K Elizabeth said:
i think you guys have this all sorted out, but to clarify, the 1.10 patch for PS3 only has the settler change in the European territories. it will be coming to 360 and PS3 with 1.20 which we are hard at work on.

UPDATE: here's my latest on the 1.20 patch, and what will be in it: http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19757

And again Elizabeth, how about mentioning the 1.10 patch for the PS3 breaks the multiplayer game and the only way to play Civ Rev MP is to buy an XBox 360.

Incredible repeated ommission of a rather important little fact about that great 1.10 patch.

ps: who at 2k do i send my ps3 civ rev back to to get a full refund? (and no, i won't be taking it back to woolies, they didn't write the 1.10 patch)

NikNak · Jul 21, 2008

1.20 Patch Notes said:
Instant Upgrades thanks to Retreating in MP Games
Previously, whenever a player retreated from combat, their opponent's unit automatically received an upgrade. To prevent exploits, this feature has been removed from multiplayer. Now when a player retreats from combat in a multiplayer game, his opponent's unit receives nothing. Retreating still provides an upgrade to the defending player in single player.

What exploit is this for? How does your opponent getting an upgrade because you retreated constitute an exploit? I thought that was how it was supposed to work.

Reed · Jul 21, 2008

Because friends would level each other up. Ex: I attack and retreat from you and you do the same for me. Seems like a waste of time to me, but someone apparently likes it.

MKElderGod · Jul 21, 2008

I dont think the mega city strat should be gimped, its just another strat. I like to play all ways from a-z. If they dumb this strat I think im going to quit. I like playing as the romans and i like vsing them. My main civs are the Greeks Chinese Arabs zulu aztec with the romans being last.

Reed · Jul 21, 2008

Well, most cities on the coast can get to 31 on their own with aquaducts, harbors, and time anyhow.

MKElderGod · Jul 21, 2008

If you gimp the mega city you gimp the game, i refuse to play if you take this away. This is a great edition to the game. Im not going to sit and play one game for 2-5 hours because people feel this is an unfair concept. This is probably the best concept that has come out on civ. dont ruin the game.

NikNak · Jul 21, 2008

Reed said:
Because friends would level each other up. Ex: I attack and retreat from you and you do the same for me. Seems like a waste of time to me, but someone apparently likes it.

I still don't understand. I get what's happening between the conspirators, but don't they eventually have to fight each other to the death anyway? It's a Free For All game, right? Don't they just have to deal with each other's pumped armies in the endgame? :confused:

MKElderGod · Jul 21, 2008

exactly thats why they dont understand what they are doing is ******ed. The mega city concept should stay in every civ game from here on. I dont even use it and im fighting for it.

NikNak · Jul 21, 2008

MKElderGod said:
exactly thats why they dont understand what they are doing is ******ed. The mega city concept should stay in every civ game from here on. I dont even use it and im fighting for it.

Isn't the MegaCity strategy a different issue?

I get why the MegaCity strategy has to be nerfed. Obviously, they want to discourage everyone from playing as the Romans and pumping one huge city up at the expense of a bunch of "assembly line" cities that just pump out Settlers to gain the +1 population each time. From the patch notes, it sounds like what they've decided on is a good idea.

The collusion between players in a multiplayer FFA game to pump each others' armies by retreating over and over just seems pointless. Eventually, you have to fight each other anyway.

The way I would nerf that would be to make the retreat upgrade only benefit the victor once per unit (single unit or army) and only the first three times it happens per side. This way, there's still a big penalty to retreating from an enemy, but not so much of an advantage that it's worth cheating to get. By the way, this could apply to both single and multiplayer games, so there's no confusion.

Killer Moogle · Jul 21, 2008

MKElderGod said:
exactly thats why they dont understand what they are doing is ******ed. The mega city concept should stay in every civ game from here on. I dont even use it and im fighting for it.

The mega-city strat still works, it will just take a lot longer getting to 31 pop. They aren't removing the concept from the game (per se) just limiting the effect of that one strat.

MKElderGod · Jul 21, 2008

Let people play with Romans who cares. its about the challenge. If people wanna be a nub and play with the romans than thats their problem. Deal with real probelms in this game like the freezing.

MKElderGod · Jul 21, 2008

Killer Moogle said:
The mega-city strat still works, it will just take a lot longer getting to 31 pop. They aren't removing the concept from the game (per se) just limiting the effect of that one strat.

From what i read its going to take like 100 settlers to make one mega city THATS ******ED. There is no reason to even have the strat now. They should just throw the roman civ out the window because all of their benefits are only benefical to mega city strat.

bonafide11 · Jul 21, 2008

MKElderGod said:
If you gimp the mega city you gimp the game, i refuse to play if you take this away. This is a great edition to the game. Im not going to sit and play one game for 2-5 hours because people feel this is an unfair concept. This is probably the best concept that has come out on civ. dont ruin the game.

-- deleted --

MKElderGod · Jul 21, 2008

lol bonafide your right. But look at it this way, every game has a top tier where something is better than everything else.
Example
1 Mortal Kombat armageddon Sereena is a god character in the game but do the creators gimp the character?
2 Call of duty 4 m16a4 best gun Do they gimp the gun?
3 Forza motorsport 2 Ferrari 40 gt Best U class car Do they gimp the car?

Every game has a concept, strat etc where its more powerful than what else is offered. I know for a fact that this game is going to get boring after this strat is destroyed. Think about other civs who are going to get over powered because of this. Leave the Mega city alone its probably the best idea Civ has ever come up with and it works so well with the console especially when you dont wanna play ONE game for 5 HOURS. I know if this gets gimped im going back to call of duty 4.

Killer Moogle · Jul 21, 2008

MKElderGod said:
From what i read its going to take like 100 settlers to make one mega city THATS ******ED. There is no reason to even have the strat now. They should just throw the roman civ out the window because all of their benefits are only benefical to mega city strat.

I have to disagree with your post. The mega-city strat is simply being made less-powerful. The Romans still start with a republic, they still have half-price wonders and half-price roads as the ancient and medeival bonuses. None of the ACTUAL bonuses of the Roman civ have been taken away so I'm not sure how the Romans are completely handicapped by this development.

Besides, you can rush other civs to get access to republic so they can run mega-city themselves. They are nerfing the mega-city for THE WHOLE GAME and FOR ALL CIVS. This is not only going to affect the Romans.

This may, indeed, make matches last longer, but you can always run a handicap to speed things along.

MKElderGod · Jul 21, 2008

NikNak said:
Isn't the MegaCity strategy a different issue?

I get why the MegaCity strategy has to be nerfed. Obviously, they want to discourage everyone from playing as the Romans and pumping one huge city up at the expense of a bunch of "assembly line" cities that just pump out Settlers to gain the +1 population each time. From the patch notes, it sounds like what they've decided on is a good idea.

The collusion between players in a multiplayer FFA game to pump each others' armies by retreating over and over just seems pointless. Eventually, you have to fight each other anyway.

The way I would nerf that would be to make the retreat upgrade only benefit the victor once per unit (single unit or army) and only the first three times it happens per side. This way, there's still a big penalty to retreating from an enemy, but not so much of an advantage that it's worth cheating to get. By the way, this could apply to both single and multiplayer games, so there's no confusion.

If you check the leaderboards most top players dont even use Romans, and when i really think about it I rarely played against a roman civ maybe 3 times and only 2 knew really how to use them(one being mr game theory go figure). I beat 2 out of 3. My point being your fixing a problem that needs no fixing. If your going to gimp the romans gimp the greeks for having a defense that lasts up until you get riflemen and democracy which gives greeks a very strong tech lead WITHOUT even using the mega city strat. Also how about the Aztecs? Send in 5 tank armies and one general Aztec riflemen behind walls still wont fall.

I blame nubs for crying about it being unbalanced when really they just dont know how to deal with the situation and 2k for actually listening to nubs. SAD really....

New patch 1.10 - no more mega city :-(

<span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration: un

Worker

Chieftain

<span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration: un

Chieftain

Warlord

Chieftain

Warlord

Chieftain

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Warlord

Chieftain

Warlord

Warlord

Worker

Warlord

Chieftain

Warlord

Similar threads