Has Firaxis finally learned to balance the game?

[Polobo]

I agree a truly balanced game would be balanced independent of SP or MP play; but that does not mean a truly balanced game would be desirable for SP. But, as I have not played any kind of MP balanced mod in SP mode I cannot honestly say that it would not be fun.

Given that such a balance is "fairly easy" and Firaxis has had not implemented such a system leads me to believe it is an intentional design decision - since I do not take them to be incompetent and they could implement true balance if they so desired.

Thus, for SP, what benefits would be gained from designing to "true balance" and what would be lost (both good and bad) from the current imbalanced design?

 

[Jamuka]

Why does everyone like the russian ability that much? +1 production on a handful of tiles doesn't seem that good. The extra recourses seems like the important part of the ability, and is only situationally useful at that.

 

[ShaqFu]

Why does everyone like the russian ability that much? +1 production on a handful of tiles doesn't seem that good. The extra recourses seems like the important part of the ability, and is only situationally useful at that.

Doubles the usefulness of resource-reliant buildings (Mints!), allows for the fielding of a larger army, allows for trading of resources while still having enough to support yourself.

+1 production/mine is good when it starts on turn one. All that production adds up, so over the game I'd estimate it as a 20-25% increase in hammers. It's not very good at any given moment (maybe pushing out a unit one turn faster?), but it makes a difference from 4000 BC - 2050 AD.

 

[bjbrains]

Doubles the usefulness of resource-reliant buildings (Mints!), allows for the fielding of a larger army, allows for trading of resources while still having enough to support yourself.

+1 production/mine is good when it starts on turn one. All that production adds up, so over the game I'd estimate it as a 20-25% increase in hammers. It's not very good at any given moment (maybe pushing out a unit one turn faster?), but it makes a difference from 4000 BC - 2050 AD.

20-25? You're really overestimating the production bonus. I mean, you'll get 1/2 hammers extra max, and many cities won't have any bonus at all. Also, mints don't work like you think they do, they require the resource in the radius. All the Russian ability really does is allow you to build more resource-reliant units. That's good, but since it gives you no real economic benefit, you're going to have to be aggressive with said resource-based units.

 

[Jamuka]

20-25? You're really overestimating the production bonus. I mean, you'll get 1/2 hammers extra max, and many cities won't have any bonus at all. Also, mints don't work like you think they do, they require the resource in the radius. All the Russian ability really does is allow you to build more resource-reliant units. That's good, but since it gives you no real economic benefit, you're going to have to be aggressive with said resource-based units.

I typed that out but you beat me to it . I think people liking the Russian ability so much comes down to them not reading it correctly.

 

[ShaqFu]

20-25? You're really overestimating the production bonus. I mean, you'll get 1/2 hammers extra max, and many cities won't have any bonus at all. Also, mints don't work like you think they do, they require the resource in the radius. All the Russian ability really does is allow you to build more resource-reliant units. That's good, but since it gives you no real economic benefit, you're going to have to be aggressive with said resource-based units.

Well, I actually did totally misread it - for some reason I thought it was +1 production from mines, not strategic resources. So, yeah, it's a lot less remarkable than I made it out to be at first.

On top of that, you only get double strategic resources and not luxuries, so no double-power Mints anyway.

 

[seasnake]

20-25? You're really overestimating the production bonus. I mean, you'll get 1/2 hammers extra max, and many cities won't have any bonus at all. Also, mints don't work like you think they do, they require the resource in the radius. All the Russian ability really does is allow you to build more resource-reliant units. That's good, but since it gives you no real economic benefit, you're going to have to be aggressive with said resource-based units.

Except you can field a larger army with less resources, and you trade valuable strategic resources to other civs for a variety of benefits (Strategic Resources always generate a ton of income from AI) if you don't want to build as many units as you can. And don't underestimate the value of +4 hammers on one tile vs. +3, one extra hammer per turn over the entire game is very useful.

 

[bjbrains]

So you're going to utilize your bonus that gives you effectively more resources than your opponents by... selling them to your opponents? It seems risky, and I doubt the AI will have tons of excess gold to give.

 

[ShaqFu]

So you're going to utilize your bonus that gives you effectively more resources than your opponents by... selling them to your opponents? It seems risky, and I doubt the AI will have tons of excess gold to give.

If the AI is on another continent, then you can likely trade with them with minimal risk of getting cut down by your own Iron. Similarly, if another civ is on extremely good terms with you, I doubt they'll throw fine Magnitogorsk swords down your throat. You could also sell to city-states for cheap/easy influence.

Gold seems a lot easier to come by than in Civ4, so I'm sure there will be a fair amount on hand for buying resources.

 

[Seven05]

And as for MP being a minority, that is only because Firaxis has never made MP an equal priority when developing their games. Which is sad really, MP takes nothing away from the already successful SP game, but could add so many people to the genre, not to mention a tonne of cash in 2K's pockets....

The biggest problem with MP games in Civ is that you have to over simplify the game to play it in MP games with anything beyond a group of close friends. The MP community forces you to play fast games on small maps with features disabled. They do this because they actually want to finish a game in one sitting and most players don't like sitting around waiting on somebody else. PBEM games for people who like longer games is all the way at the far end of the spectrum with games that span weeks or even months- one... turn... at... a... time.

I have a feeling that a much larger number of players fall in between those two groups based on the discussions you'll see here and at other Civ sites.

So while your intention may not be to break the game for SP players you likely would because of the nature of the game. Civ is not star craft, it isn't a game where all things were intended to be equal and making that happen will remove a big part of the charm that the Civ games have. If the Civ SP games ended playing like Civ MP games I'd never play them again. Perhaps the marketing people at 2K are aware of just how many people feel the same way, or perhaps they have just come to realize there there is nothing else out there quite like Civ although there are hundreds of MP focused strategy games (and most generally suck in SP, unlike Civ).

 

[King Jason]

I think city-states may find a place in competitive MP since they necessitate player interaction. Unlike barbarians, which do w/e they want (are programmed to do).

City-states don't do anything except take up the few surrounding tiles of their city. Anything else they do in a game is in response to a players input; not randomness.

Their rewards are entirely a response to one's effort to achieve those rewards. Like building a wonder. Player A or B compete over a wonder in terms of who has higher production, who researched the tech first, etc. But the competition is otherwise contained to themselves.

However, to gain the benefits of a city-state, you must compete against eachother directly. Who has higher gold outputs, etc. Furthermore, like wonder building (or anything else) you can choose to take part or not. Two people might want to build a wonder, or one person might build a wonder while another continues to build their military. Likewise; a player may be investing in the benefits of a city-state, while another is using the gold to invest directly in other areas of their empire.

Lastly, the matter of response; the benefits of city-states can be dealt with directly in a competitive MP game, where there is usually a lot of warring, by simply capturing or razing the city-state. This affect is further integrated with the design nicely because... if you capture the city-state, but your opponent takes it back ~ they can choose to reinstate the city-state and regain their bonus.

Honestly, I don't think city-states are random at all. The only "random" thing about them is what their military might do when you go to war against a player who has city-state allies: Neither side will control the additional forces that the city-state will offer. Other than that, city-states require player input.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The MP community forces you to play fast games on small maps with features disabled.

Small maps - yes, but why disable, for example, barbarians (well, not meaning barbarian upraising in BtS).

 

[King Jason]

Small maps - yes, but why disable, for example, barbarians (well, not meaning barbarian upraising in BtS).

cause under otherwise equal circumstances a barbarian could appear and affect one player, as opposed to affecting both players. If the effect is negative, than whichever player got the barbarian is now at a loss because of bad luck. Hardcore competitors try to remove as much luck and chance from the game as possible.

 

[generalwar]

I'm really hoping that MP is imprvoed. I tried to play only few times MP. Everybody has 30 sec and at the begining I would clik enter because I had to move my warrior to explore one tile, while some other people were slowing game so I went out after 1 hour(We were in classical age at that time- AFTER 1 HOUR!). And, besides, I almost never have 6-7 hours to play MP.

 

[stealth_nsk]

cause under otherwise equal circumstances a barbarian could appear and affect one player, as opposed to affecting both players. If the effect is negative, than whichever player got the barbarian is now at a loss because of bad luck. Hardcore competitors try to remove as much luck and chance from the game as possible.

Barbarians aren't that much threat now.

 

[Bad Brett]

Call me crazy, but I think games that are too balanced have a tendancy to become boring. Discovering small exploits can be great fun as long they don't break the game. I actually think that Civ IV is too balanced in many aspects. For example, most UU's are crap. Giving them bigger bonuses might lead to exploits, but in my opinion it would still make the game more fun to play.

 

[Lyoncet]

Barbarians aren't that much threat now.

You have a quote for that? Because pretty much everything I've seen indicates the opposite.

 

[StStutter]

Call me crazy, but I think games that are too balanced have a tendancy to become boring. Discovering small exploits can be great fun as long they don't break the game. I actually think that Civ IV is too balanced in many aspects. For example, most UU's are crap. Giving them bigger bonuses might lead to exploits, but in my opinion it would still make the game more fun to play.

You're crazy

 

[Earthling]

So while your intention may not be to break the game for SP players you likely would because of the nature of the game. Civ is not star craft, it isn't a game where all things were intended to be equal and making that happen will remove a big part of the charm that the Civ games have. If the Civ SP games ended playing like Civ MP games I'd never play them again. Perhaps the marketing people at 2K are aware of just how many people feel the same way, or perhaps they have just come to realize there there is nothing else out there quite like Civ although there are hundreds of MP focused strategy games (and most generally suck in SP, unlike Civ).

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I can also say I don't really expect to ever play much regular multiplayer in the sense of what you find random people playing online, like with the old GameSpy lobbies in civ4. The simple answer is that civilization is just not the game someone should look at for that - or if they really enjoy it, they still can't expect the game to be balanced around it. If you like small maps, 3v3 axerushing everytime more power to you, hope modding works out all right too if things can be better modded for such a game. But it's going to be as impossible as always to play a real in-depth civ game with strangers (I do like Pitboss, and role-playing games over a few hours with friends who know what they are doing is great). So they simply can't focus on balancing things for the shallow half-games that will be played in multiplayer - if they do, it'll wreck the rest of the gameplay.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

The biggest problem with MP games in Civ is that you have to over simplify the game to play it in MP games with anything beyond a group of close friends. The MP community forces you to play fast games on small maps with features disabled. They do this because they actually want to finish a game in one sitting and most players don't like sitting around waiting on somebody else. PBEM games for people who like longer games is all the way at the far end of the spectrum with games that span weeks or even months- one... turn... at... a... time.

I have a feeling that a much larger number of players fall in between those two groups based on the discussions you'll see here and at other Civ sites.

So while your intention may not be to break the game for SP players you likely would because of the nature of the game. Civ is not star craft, it isn't a game where all things were intended to be equal and making that happen will remove a big part of the charm that the Civ games have. If the Civ SP games ended playing like Civ MP games I'd never play them again. Perhaps the marketing people at 2K are aware of just how many people feel the same way, or perhaps they have just come to realize there there is nothing else out there quite like Civ although there are hundreds of MP focused strategy games (and most generally suck in SP, unlike Civ).

Well I'm not sure I would call it "over simplified" but yes for random league lobby games we do design the settings for a 4-6 hour game that will finish definitively in that time frame.

However that is not the only games played in MP by far. Civplayers does support a active pitboss section for players that like league style MP games but played with lots of time between turns to think about your strategy.

Also the leagues general membership of players is the foundation for Clans to form and for the development of very exciting clan games and championish that have games that far exceed the standard 4-6 hour time frame and push the competitive spirit as far as it will go. This is considered the pinacle of competitive MP. Games like the Ironman Event that pit 8-12 players together in a game with no set time limit and the game must end in a victory condition, either conquest or sometimes even Spaceship are the end result after a 20 hour long battle for the world.

Other games run the gamit of what Civ4 offered, Anc 5v5, Ren and Ind 4v4, Med 3v3, OCC Ren and Anc etc. In Civ3 were mods are very popular, Future Era mods, UU mods, BWS mods etc have kept that game fresh for those players for 9 years now.

And in the end none of this effects how SP players play the game, the very same game that SP players are using to play a game for days, is used to play a 4 hour game in the lobby on a monday night. So there really is no arguement that MP will somehow "assimilate" the SP world :-/ Civ is such a flexable strategy game that it can give us all what we need.

So this fear of MP taking over the Civ world is really unfounded, Civ is a great SP game and always will be. But the potential to be a great MP game is still unrealized, and the fans and 2K's profit are both losing out because it this.


CS