Suggestions after only 8 days?

[Jatta Pake]

Should Firaxis take any gameplay suggestions seriously from players after only 192 max. hours of play?

While some recommendations for game improvement might exist, I don't see how any recommendations could be substantive this early after release given the massive amount of changes in the game.

Do you agree? I think there should be an honorary moratorium on game change suggestions for the first month.

 

[VainoValkea]

I disagree completely. "Only 192 hours of play", anyway? That's two dozen games, for pete's sake.

 

[Teholb]

I've completed two games. Idk if I could give statistically meaningful advice, but I can supply plenty of anecdotes, as I'm sure many others can (and are). The devs/modders can look at all of these anecdotes and aggregate opinions from the many.

So, no, I don't think what you're suggesting is a good idea, though I understand where you're coming from. No launch is smooth, though, and the devs (or, again, modders looking to fix it) need feedback to even see if anything seems off.

 

[MikHolmes]

I agree with this. Suggestions are great and all, but give the community enough time to fully explore the new possibilities and come up with new strategies and builds. Even if the developers were to make patches for every forum suggestion, too many balance patches make the game too homogenized. Back seat developers should focus on the things they DO like about the game, get better at it, and further the community, rather than sitting and complaining about what they would change if they were king.

Now, I'm certain there ARE legitimate concerns that need to be ironed out, and discussion about those could be the first step, but I find most suggestions posts aren't really legitimate balance changes.

 

[Jatta Pake]

I disagree completely. "Only 192 hours of play", anyway? That's two dozen games, for pete's sake.

If you don't eat, drink, go to the bathroom, or sleep. 8 * 24 = 192. Honestly, I can't see anyone completing more than four full (all eras) games since launch.

 

[VainoValkea]

I'm European, I work and enjoy a variety of other hobbies apart from Civ. Three standard speed games done. Someone who got the game a week ago instead of last Friday could've easily done five or even six if they were devout CivFanatics enough.

And I still would like to know what makes my criticism invalid, having played "only" three full games. As a software developer myself I know that you get some of your best feedback from the new users, because their opinions won't be distorted by getting used to weirdness that shouldn't exist.

 

[Jatta Pake]

I've completed two games. Idk if I could give statistically meaningful advice, but I can supply plenty of anecdotes, as I'm sure many others can (and are). The devs/modders can look at all of these anecdotes and aggregate opinions from the many.

So, no, I don't think what you're suggesting is a good idea, though I understand where you're coming from. No launch is smooth, though, and the devs (or, again, modders looking to fix it) need feedback to even see if anything seems off.

Yes, but there can be erroneous perceptions that develop from a vocal minority. For example, there is a growing contingent claiming that the AI is too passive. I don't think there is any solid evidence only eight days after launch. For example, confronted with a lot of new mechanics they don't yet fully understand, some players may be playing more "passively" thus resulting in a more "passive" experience for those said players.

My argument is that a month from now, the player community will have a better idea of what is broken and what needs fixing. It would be a waste of modder and developer time to try to fix any perceived "problems" this early after release.

 

[Jatta Pake]

I'm European, I work and enjoy a variety of other hobbies apart from Civ. Three standard speed games done. Someone who got the game a week ago instead of last Friday could've easily done five or even six if they were devout CivFanatics enough.

And I still would like to know what makes my criticism invalid, having played "only" three full games. As a software developer myself I know that you get some of your best feedback from the new users, because their opinions won't be distorted by getting used to weirdness that shouldn't exist.

New users shouldn't have any opinions that can be distorted. They are new to the game. I agree that their opinions are important, but more along the lines of a "newb" needing guidance from an experienced player. Developers can use this feedback to make the mechanics better understood. But you can't take mechanics change suggestions from newbs.

Most players here *think* they are experienced Civ players because they've played Civ before. But in reality, they are all newbs to BNW. It takes time to fully come to terms with the new reality of BNW.

 

[Svest]

I would say it depends on the suggestions. If people are saying something is too difficult and needs to be made easier after only 8 days then yes, the devs should give people more time to develop new strategies. However, it doesn't take more than a game or two to tell when something is not working or makes the game too easy (at least vs the AI, multiplayer is a bit different).

 

[VainoValkea]

Most players here *think* they are experienced Civ players because they've played Civ before. But in reality, they are all newbs to BNW. It takes time to fully come to terms with the new reality of BNW.

This statement is very confusing. "Coming to terms" with changes is not what people are supposed to do, they're supposed to judge them based on their experiences. For example, I'm not going to come to terms with the inclusion of Merchant of Venice that can snatch CS allies from me without me being able to defend against them. Or with the AI practically letting me win by never declaring war at my weakly defended tourism factory.

 

[Jatta Pake]

This statement is very confusing. "Coming to terms" with changes is not what people are supposed to do, they're supposed to judge them based on their experiences. For example, I'm not going to come to terms with the inclusion of Merchant of Venice that can snatch CS allies from me without me being able to defend against them. Or with the AI practically letting me win by never declaring war at my weakly defended tourism factory.

Coming to terms = developing new strategies, etc. The game changes with BNW require fundamentally new strategies. There aren't any "experienced" players yet.

However, I do agree that there may be issues you experience that ultimately need to be fixed. I just think it is far too early to pass judgement.

 

[Jatta Pake]

I would say it depends on the suggestions. If people are saying something is too difficult and needs to be made easier after only 8 days then yes, the devs should give people more time to develop new strategies. However, it doesn't take more than a game or two to tell when something is not working or makes the game too easy (at least vs the AI, multiplayer is a bit different).

Ok, I agree here. Broken AI or obvious exploits will probably bubble up first.

 

[Matthew.]

Umm... people can offer up all the suggestions they want. What you are actually asking is whether the Civ5 team should listen to any of the suggestions or not. That's up to them and you have no control over what they want to do.

I'm sure they appreciate your concern over their use of payroll. Maybe. Probably not.

 

[VainoValkea]

I've already developed a strategy that has won me two games on difficulties above what I consistently won before BNW without breaking a sweat. So I don't think it's too early to pass judgement. The strategy could be hindered easily, but the AI doesn't do anything even when it could - and this is rather disappointing. The AI really is too passive when it hands easy victories to the player. They could attack unprotected City-States when I'm trying to solicit them for delegates or plunder my trade routes to prevent them from yielding me extra influence - but instead even the resident warmonger Assyria just denounces me a few times and doesn't crush me or a remote CS ally with that army five times larger than mine.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

It's certainly not too early to make suggestions for an expansion pack's gameplay. It's not like this is some totally brand new game. Most of the concepts are similar to what we've been playing for the last few years.

And we ALSO have a basis for comparison to how the game plays now compared to before the expansion. That helps a lot when making suggestions because it's easier to see what you like and dislike now compared to what it was playing a few weeks ago.

In any case, whether it's 8 days or 18 day or 80 days, it won't make much difference for me since I'm already fairly bored with the game after 4 games (3 easy wins, one close but lost to a cultural win).

And it should have nothing to do with the difficulty level because it's the same that I used in G&K and was challenged enough to enjoy the game. There should be no reason to have to artificially inflate the AIs to be competitive with the new mechanics when it's very clear WHY I can just sit back and out-econ/out-tech the AIs...they are wasting production/upkeep cash on armies that I don't need.

So the 'guns or butter' classic decision for Civ (and almost ever 4x) is GREATLY diminished. And since it's such an integral part of 4x gameplay, it's absence leaves the game bland and not very dynamic.

In the end, no, it's definitely not to early to voice dissatisfaction with the current state of the game (or on the other hand, to provide feedback for things people would like and would like to see developed further).

 

[Teholb]

I agree with Uncle Joe. The fact that the AIs STILL (since vanilla) stand around with massive armies, endlessly patrolling around X or Y city, is wrong. It was bearable for the AI when trade routes weren't king, but now, it's just a massive hindrance and the AI could really fly if it wasn't chained down with such massive debt.