Wonders shouldn't be part of a DLC

[Rex_Mundi]

I agree with the OP.

If a DLC alter the balance of the game, then that has to be balanced with the whole game, in it's current and any future itteration.

Let's say they chose to add a DLC that flesh out the classical era, a DLC that added 6 new naval units all across the tech tree, and a DLC that extended the future era.

The work to keep a balanced game would be enormous, considering the 4 DLC that now optionally add something to the game.
The game AI would have to be tuned to all of this.

So my oppinion is that DLC that alter the base features of the game is a bad idea, but DLC like extra civ that does not alter the base gameplay of all other civs are just fine.

Leave the other changes to the modders, or even better help the modders even more.

[killmontieasap]

simple solution:
play vanilla.
create vanilla LPs that hopefully other like-minded people will join.
it's rather hard to argue that the DLCs should not contain potentially game-changing content... which would leave the DLC content-less, and therefore not sell very well. the company would have little reason to make something that wouldn't sell.

of course, there are dlc that only change the look of the game, etc, but given the depth and breadth of the modding community, it'd be difficult to persuade users to open their wallets with relatively less dramatic content.

[apocalypse105]

@The_Quasar

I see you're point I don't have any good argument to say its not a good DLC.

BUt I just don't like the idea of it.


In my opinion you are more forced to buy the DLC because you miss game elements.

Instead of I don't buy this DLC because I don't want this civlizations.

Thats my thoughts about it

[ense7en]

DLC is very cheap when on sale thru Steam...i really have zero regrets about getting all the DLC, even though there's one i'll never even play.

If you only plan to play the game once, i can understand frustration with DLC, but for those of us who love the game and have hundreds and hundreds (or thousands) of hours invested, DLC for cheap really is just icing on the delicious cake.

[TheKingOfBigOz]

Originally Posted by Rex_Mundi

I agree with the OP.

If a DLC alter the balance of the game, then that has to be balanced with the whole game, in it's current and any future itteration.

Let's say they chose to add a DLC that flesh out the classical era, a DLC that added 6 new naval units all across the tech tree, and a DLC that extended the future era.

The work to keep a balanced game would be enormous, considering the 4 DLC that now optionally add something to the game.
The game AI would have to be tuned to all of this.

So my oppinion is that DLC that alter the base features of the game is a bad idea, but DLC like extra civ that does not alter the base gameplay of all other civs are just fine.

Leave the other changes to the modders, or even better help the modders even more.

I agree, but wonder's don't unbalance the game, To balance it you have to have something that counters that. So the Wonders of the Ancient World don't need to have something to balance them, they're fine as it is.

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by TheKingOfBigOz

I agree, but wonder's don't unbalance the game, To balance it you have to have something that counters that. So the Wonders of the Ancient World don't need to have something to balance them, they're fine as it is.

If you have more ancinet wonders more change of getting ancient wonders you'reself so greatl ibrary start becomes more easier

[eris]

Originally Posted by Rex_Mundi

Let's say they chose to add a DLC that flesh out the classical era, a DLC that added 6 new naval units all across the tech tree, and a DLC that extended the future era.

Great! When and where can I get them? As a single player player, that is the more pertinent question.

As a fully gullible and fanatic Civfanatic, I consider anything less than all available DLC and expansions to be less than canon for the game. If I were to play multiplayer, the people I would play with would have the same obsessive definitions and assumptions. That would be our answer to your objections and problem.

Your approach is to declare a maximum for compatibility. Mine is to declare a minimum.

The fun part is both ways work.

[BobDole]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

If you have more ancinet wonders more change of getting ancient wonders you'reself so greatl ibrary start becomes more easier

Not really, the AI usually still seems to make getting the Great Wall a priority above all else (they're seriously obsessed with that thing). I regularly see the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus take FOREVER to get built and the Temple of Artemis and Statue of Zeus take a moderate amount of time as well. 3 very early game wonders really doesn't affect balance that much...

[The_Quasar]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

@The_Quasar

I see you're point I don't have any good argument to say its not a good DLC.

BUt I just don't like the idea of it.


In my opinion you are more forced to buy the DLC because you miss game elements.

Instead of I don't buy this DLC because I don't want this civlizations.

Thats my thoughts about it

I understand you don't like the idea, and you are entitled to that opinion. We must agree to disagree on that (I too, can see your point, even though I disagree with you).

I believe it's personal choice whether to buy a DLC or not, and some like them, and some don't...

May I ask you whether you will buy G & K, as it's actually a large DLC and will add a lot of extra content?

[Gucumatz]

Speaking for Multiplayer here:

The Wonders of the DLC can be enabled but there is a problem with them.

Anyone can join play with the option on, even if they don't have the DLC. And if they don't have the DLC it AUTOMATICALLY turns off the Ancients Wonders on the start of the game. Ancient Wonders will only appear if everyone has the DLC (even with the option enabled). And there is no way you can tell if someone has or doesn't have the Wonders of the World unlike the other DLC

[KillingMeSoftly]

I don't understand why anyone is against DLC as a concept. Price for content amount is a different debate entirely and honestly applies to anything you spend money on. DLC extends the game, extra content in bite-sized morsels you can choose to pick up. It adds a little here and there but doesn't dramatically change the game nor is it required. It's honestly little different than expansion packs.

Release-day DLC is another topic entirely, and falls into the argument of whether you're getting enough content for your money. It's a whole can of worms seperate from the concept of DLC, itself. DLC is great, so long as the price is right and they aren't intentionally holding back.

[SmokeySiFy]

Well i got the game of the year edition on steam that came with all the dlc. So for me it is just Civ V.

[aatami]

Originally Posted by aatami

DLC is a small expansion.
So your statement, apocalypse, is that expansions shouldn't have wonders. Okay...

It seems everyone has plainly just ignored my statement.
Interesting.

[eris]

No, they just disagree.

From what I see, your post provokes this logic.

You seem to be against game changing DLC.
All wonders are game changers. (Some more than others)
Therefore you are against any new wonders.

Whether you mean it that way or not is more open to interpretation than you seem to realize, which is indeed interesting.

I think you just have a much lower threshold for what you would consider unacceptably game changing than I do. That there could be a difference in taste on that subject makes a lot of sense to me.

You have run into a decidedly large single player attitude bias though. I will give you that. I can't really comment on that since I am actually part of the problem, if it is a problem.

[Wezqu]

Originally Posted by smallfish

You lost me there. Patches are stuff that fix the game, occasionally add more game content too, but mainly fixing gameplay issues.

That depens on the game company in question. For example Paradox Interactive gives free content in all their major patches to their recent new game Crusader Kings II. They just recently added totally new crusading system for free. All of their DLC's are not anyway basic gameplay changing and totally optional. People can play using any DLC and it will not prevent other people without the DLC's to play with them. This far the DLC content has been music, new potraits, new unit sprites, historical dynastic shields and utility to design your own ruler. None of these will effect the main game anyway and all the major gameplay changes are free of charge. Still people should remind themselves that those patches will be funded by the sales of the DLC. So if people want their game to be updated buying the DLC's will support them.

[DeathGOD1235]

While i do prefer paying more for a big game-changing expansion (G&K for exemple, will change completely the way we play), i don't see any problem in paying $5 for a new civ and some wonders/units