r_rolo1
King of myself
That is actually a good argument for being conservative and not shake too much the boat , not for being radical and try too implement too much new stuff at one time
Dislike the direction CIV5 is taking? Tell us how you'd do it!
- Thread starter Bibor
- Start date
Hail
Satan's minion
i would sell my soul to Bobby Kotick for a nice, large quantity of WoW PvP points
biased polls are biased
i would have voted for a "keep complexity the same, but add 1UPT, mystical diplo, global happiness, 20 turn build times, useless national wonders" option, but alas! it's not on the list! wtf?
Edit: Never mind, I don't have an argument since we don't have real sales figures.
My point was going to be: CivRev sold more because consoles are less prone to piracy, and the market as a total is larger. PC games get pirated a lot, that's why sales of Civ5 are lower, while there are actually probably twice as many players. So it's hard to compare CivRev and Civ5.
Anyway, the poll is biased obviously, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say, what's your point?
My point was going to be: CivRev sold more because consoles are less prone to piracy, and the market as a total is larger. PC games get pirated a lot, that's why sales of Civ5 are lower, while there are actually probably twice as many players. So it's hard to compare CivRev and Civ5.
Anyway, the poll is biased obviously, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say, what's your point?
SpearMan153
Prince
That is actually a good argument for being conservative and not shake too much the boat , not for being radical and try too implement too much new stuff at one time
yes
less is more
if its not broken don't fix it
keep it simple stupid
are all principles that should be kept in mind
However this must be balanced against an approach that is too conservative. Markets shift, new ideas, new approaches, paradigms change, new technologies emerge that allow for new approaches previously not possible. A system that becomes too tied to past ways of doing things can stagnate, fall by the way side and ultimately fail.
In the context of a sequel to a game title there is more scope for innovation then say for a business application. There must be a certain amount of innovation or it may as well just be another expansion pack and not a new version - its a difficult balancing act.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
Frankly, in this case I'm not happy with any of those choices.
Complexity is not necessarily the same thing as depth. Many things can be needlessly complex while add little, if anything, to gameplay (I would maintain that Espionage falls in here; It was a horribly broken mechanic).
In my opinion, while Civ4 had quite a bit of complexity, it had very little true depth.
Were it in my hands, I would scrap mechanics which we cannot add depth to. I would not implement 1upt, I would instead implement Armies; Each tile may contain one army, one army is made up of up to 6 units. Why not just 6upt? You choose where a unit is positioned in the army, and it fights as one; Same tactical gains of 1upt, but it becomes simpler to move armies, and a whole new level (army composition, which is almost important in Civ4, but never got there due to the SoD).
In short... I would add Depth. Not complexity. If complexity comes as a result of depth, so be it, the players will appreciate it regardless.
Complexity is not necessarily the same thing as depth. Many things can be needlessly complex while add little, if anything, to gameplay (I would maintain that Espionage falls in here; It was a horribly broken mechanic).
In my opinion, while Civ4 had quite a bit of complexity, it had very little true depth.
- Religion? Essentially pointless. A "Love me now!" button to manipulate the AI with. Could it be made better? Not as it was in civ4; The need to remain politically correct negates any possibility of religion being a meaningful mechanic. Look at the DUCKS mod for a way to do it right.
- Espionage? Don't get me started. An entirely forced mechanic that penalizes you if you attempt to make use of it...
- Stacks? No depth whatsoever.
- etc
Were it in my hands, I would scrap mechanics which we cannot add depth to. I would not implement 1upt, I would instead implement Armies; Each tile may contain one army, one army is made up of up to 6 units. Why not just 6upt? You choose where a unit is positioned in the army, and it fights as one; Same tactical gains of 1upt, but it becomes simpler to move armies, and a whole new level (army composition, which is almost important in Civ4, but never got there due to the SoD).
In short... I would add Depth. Not complexity. If complexity comes as a result of depth, so be it, the players will appreciate it regardless.
For me the point of religion was that if you wanted to use super-powerful religion civics (Organized Religion, Pacifism, Theocracy) you had to appoint a state religion, and it had diplomatic consequences. Perhaps it wasn't super deep itself, but it certainly added some depth to the game.
I'm not sure what you mean. There were at least three really powerful uses for espionage: stealing techs, starting a city revolt to put cultural defenses down and destroying enemy space ship parts. There are even deity games won by using essentially espionage.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
At that level, it is simply unnecessary bloat. Any and all religion qualified you for those civics; Why should there be more than one religion if all are the same? Why should religion exist at all rather than simply as those civics?
What you describe is not depth, it is purely unnecessary complexity. There is no tradeoff, no weighing of options, no depth. Just a few extra clicks, hurdles to jump through.
Notice that religion still exists in the Piety social policy branch, much as you describe with civics; Same principle, minus the bloat.
Edit: For an example of real depth in a religion mechanic, check FfH or any of it's modmods; Each religion has significant effects on how you play the game, and choice of religion is a very important part of playing. And this STILL isn't as much depth as I would like in the mechanic.
You were forced to devote commerce to accumulating espionage, or your opponents would have a significant advantage. At the same time, making use of it yourself lowers your ratio with the enemy, leaving you, again, vulnerable to enemy attacks.
Forced to put into it, penalized for using it. Horrible mechanic. Rather than go too far into it, just check this old design doc out; Outlines many of my issues with the system and how I would change it. Never happened, likely never will, but oh well.
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AdALd3TwFjopZGhqdzVrajZfMjFoZnI3NjJmcQ&hl=en
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
Every poll is biased. Who's interested in non-biased polls? I mean, really. 
The point of these two polls is not the polls themselves, but to steer the forum stampedo onto a pasture, rather than a chasm where it was heading to.
The point of these two polls is not the polls themselves, but to steer the forum stampedo onto a pasture, rather than a chasm where it was heading to.
Jolly Rogerer
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 402
At that level, it is simply unnecessary bloat. Any and all religion qualified you for those civics; Why should there be more than one religion if all are the same? Why should religion exist at all rather than simply as those civics?
What you describe is not depth, it is purely unnecessary complexity. There is no tradeoff, no weighing of options, no depth. Just a few extra clicks, hurdles to jump through.
Notice that religion still exists in the Piety social policy branch, much as you describe with civics; Same principle, minus the bloat.
Edit: For an example of real depth in a religion mechanic, check FfH or any of it's modmods; Each religion has significant effects on how you play the game, and choice of religion is a very important part of playing. And this STILL isn't as much depth as I would like in the mechanic.
You were forced to devote commerce to accumulating espionage, or your opponents would have a significant advantage. At the same time, making use of it yourself lowers your ratio with the enemy, leaving you, again, vulnerable to enemy attacks.
Forced to put into it, penalized for using it. Horrible mechanic. Rather than go too far into it, just check this old design doc out; Outlines many of my issues with the system and how I would change it. Never happened, likely never will, but oh well.
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AdALd3TwFjopZGhqdzVrajZfMjFoZnI3NjJmcQ&hl=en
I was never pleased with either Espionage or Corporations as implemented in Civ4, but I disagree with you about Religion, I think it added much more than it detracted. I enjoyed playing the Religion path for cultural victories, and as for using Religion to make everyone my friend, I simply didn't bother.
That's the beauty of playing single player and making no attempt to impress others with your skills, it becomes essentially an RPG (with your character being an immortal emperor). I was also able to ignore corporations and only use espionage in a defensive mode. While I could have played a level or two higher by maximizing every available advantage, it wouldn't have been as fun for me. Thankfully Civ4 was forgiving enough with a lot of elements that I was able to play my own game with it while finding enough depth with the elements I did enjoy to keep my interest.
I didn't like corps that much either. They were a powerful but bit shallow feature. They weren't nearly as shallow as City States in CiV though. CSs are supposed to be one of the major aspects in the game while corps were just one minor addition included in an expansion pack. It tells something about the difference between two games.
There were a trade off - adopting a religion annoyed civs that had other religion as their state religion.
No doubt it could have been more deep and complex. I was never that keen on mods btw. Most of them just seemed to add things and complexity without much balancing. Jon Shafer was a modder too.
It's the same thing than with cash or military power, or mana in RPGs - you use it once and then you can't use it anymore. I don't see a problem here.
uhm, which religion(if any) to choose as state religion certainly had trade offs. Sometimes the choice was obvious, but not always. As MkLh said, it had diplo consequences and the choice "Am I going to risk a war with Zara to get the +25% bonus from organized religion?" certainly is weighing of options.
There needs to be more than one religion to create religious hatred.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
It added flavor... Not depth. Absolutely everything that "required" religion, required any religion; There was no differentiation and no depth.
The exact same culture buildings exist in Civ5. Just trimmed the bloat that is religion.
Now, I hope they add it back... In a better form that actually adds some much needed depth to the game. If not, I will. (Rather, I'll incorporate the DUCKS mod; definitely religion done right!)
That was the only tradeoff, and falls under the "Love me now!" effect I mentioned.
Religion was for diplo effects. That role is now (more or less) taken by City States, which do indeed cause diplomatic effects when people compete for them, or attack protected CSs.
All other religion effects? They still exist, just no need to select a specific religion; It was unnecessary bloat.
No doubt it could have been more deep and complex. I was never that keen on mods btw. Most of them just seemed to add things and complexity without much balancing. Jon Shafer was a modder too.
Personally, mods are all that keep me coming back to Civ. Like I said, I didn't find much depth in Civ4 either; It bored me.
There is a supreme difference here; If you use espionage, not only can you not use it anymore, you become weaker to an opponents use of it!
Penalized for not accumulating it, and then penalized for using it. Terrible mechanic.
The only true religious effect was diplomacy. This role is now meant to be taken by City States. Given that, what is left for religions? Absolutely nothing.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Roleplaying, perhaps?
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
Roleplaying is not enough reason to keep a bad gameplay mechanic; Gameplay trumps lore. Every time.
It's reason to want to IMPROVE that mechanic, but that would have taken more time away from other features... Can you see a Civ5 with less time spent on core mechanics?
Bibor, sorry but you fail at statistics. 
Go back to the drawing board and add some necessary variations to the Ʃ curves while tracking linear positives under the usual least common denominator factors in a z'y'x' (looks familiar while you read it?) primary graph that compensates for excessive fractals diffused inside the Volutar (sp? blame my memory from a class attended in the mid 80's) model. Quantum mechanics is simpler, don't worry.
I took #3 for an answer - instinctively.
Go back to the drawing board and add some necessary variations to the Ʃ curves while tracking linear positives under the usual least common denominator factors in a z'y'x' (looks familiar while you read it?) primary graph that compensates for excessive fractals diffused inside the Volutar (sp? blame my memory from a class attended in the mid 80's) model. Quantum mechanics is simpler, don't worry.
I took #3 for an answer - instinctively.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
Bibor, sorry but you fail at statistics.
Go back to the drawing board and add some necessary variations to the Ʃ curves while tracking linear positives under the usual least common denominator factors in a z'y'x' (looks familiar while you read it?) primary graph that compensates for excessive fractals diffused inside the Volutar (sp? blame my memory from a class attended in the mid 80's) model. Quantum mechanics is simpler, don't worry.
I took #3 for an answer - instinctively.
Then you essentially support what the Civ5 devs did. Seems to be their choice as well.
No, i felt hook_line_and_sinker into yet another wisely devised Bibor's machiavelic trap instead of bothering to write about rational alternatives such as what i did in the "other" thread.
Assuming current scenario projections were meant as solid facts here too.
Small distinction.
Devs at Firaxis can do whatever they damn well please or think might work.
As long as my gameplay is satisfactory either by patches and replayability values (by Mods or otherwise) or within the features implemented -- i don't mind the experience since i paid for it.
Assuming current scenario projections were meant as solid facts here too.
Small distinction.
Devs at Firaxis can do whatever they damn well please or think might work.
As long as my gameplay is satisfactory either by patches and replayability values (by Mods or otherwise) or within the features implemented -- i don't mind the experience since i paid for it.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Oh, please , not another " must fight the haters " moment.Every poll is biased. Who's interested in non-biased polls? I mean, really.
The point of these two polls is not the polls themselves, but to steer the forum stampedo onto a pasture, rather than a chasm where it was heading to.
I was thinking you were talking half seriously, not that you were playing mini-politician and tossing your questions into the air just for avoiding others or making questions you don't want to ear.
This is how you can get bad rep
Pretty much.
Rusty Edge
Deity
Roleplaying is not enough reason to keep a bad gameplay mechanic; Gameplay trumps lore. Every time.
It's reason to want to IMPROVE that mechanic, but that would have taken more time away from other features... Can you see a Civ5 with less time spent on core mechanics?
Actually I can imagine V as a sort of Panzer General for all eras, because it seems to be a wargame rather than an empire building game. I can imagine a version where they saved a lot of time in art and programming by going the "always war" route and giving up on diplomacy altogether since a "diplomatic win" is really a matter of affordable cash payments to city states by whatever means.
Similar threads
- Locked
