Affinities are (still) a nonsensical wash.

[Ryika]

The multiplayer-scene in BE is basically nonexistent, so what's your reasoning behind balancing improvements towards an unobtainable standard?

 

[nimling]

Because exploiting bad AI is not a particularly worthwhile game, and the developers haven't brought the AI to a level where it can play the game or understand what players are doing; plus, the game was designed to exploit bad AI, which is just bad game design.

Academy spam would be far less effective if the AI played the way a human player would and actually try to win, and is overrated even in SP - much moreso in RT with the increase in build time, but even in the base game the results are not significantly better with Academies than without, and if going that route I'd rather use a different path than the "correct" one you try to browbeat everyone into using every game.

Part of the problem is that the way trade routes are designed makes them nonsensical, and constant micromanagement is necessary to optimize them. Nonsensical and just plain bad game design is a large barrier for the AI playing a fundamentally broken game, and sadly Firaxis doesn't put effort into fixing fundamentally broken things. And of course, 1UPT destroys the game, whether with AI or human players, because 1UPT is dumb.

re: what affinities are "supposed" to do; I don't see any reason why Harmony players have to love the planet or the bugs on it. If you're close to bugs and need to kill them, then I'd kill them no matter how planet-conscious I am. I suppose the biggest contrast is that Supremacy and Purity aren't strong enough at countering the bugs, and there is too much to gain from killing bugs rather than making peace with them. If Harmony had some bonuses for maintaining good relations with the native life then it would give Harmony players incentive to do so, without forcing them into a narrow path of saving the termites.

Quest rewards are suppposed to be a significant source of affinity and guide affinity path by something besides tech, but they're way too random and too easy to fulfill.

What use is there for extra culture? After the +3 expeditions and +30 science for explorers, I don't really need any other virtue.

There's a wide wide tree to pick from.

It's sad really. BE tries to use some subtlety in its design and got it fairly right at points, but the fan base considers that the problem; but BE also has so many fundamentally broken things like 1UPT that the fan base goes out of their way to defend. I wish RT spent time fixing the things that were broken instead of patching over broken systems with more broken systems. Until Firaxis releases a patch to implement useful MUPT I can't bother with the game, but that would be the start to making BE worthwhile as a strategy game.

 

[Westwall]

It is a bit presumptuous of you to think that players must share your expectations and if they do enjoy the game that there is something wrong with them.

It's better to settle with more than with less. There's no such things as designers putting too much effort, and as we've seen with BE, the effort has fallen far short of sufficient, let alone too much.

 

[nimling]

If people believe bad game design is good then there is definitely something wrong with them.
I don't know how anyone can enjoy 1UPT when it isn't necessary, adds nothing and affects the game in so many adverse ways.

Moderator Action: Feel free to criticize 1 UPT, but not those who do not share your views.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Galgus]

1UPT is only an issue on extremely constrained terrain...which is practically the opposite of Rising Tide's oceans.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

The problem with Affinities in the tech web is not only that it's unhealthy for the tech selection. On top of that a lot of the assingments make little sense. You can clearly feel that they desperatly had to attach these points *somewhere* to make it work.

 

[Westwall]

The problem with Affinities in the tech web is not only that it's unhealthy for the tech selection. On top of that a lot of the assingments make little sense. You can clearly feel that they desperatly had to attach these points *somewhere* to make it work.

Meanwhile, several are completely devoid of affinity progression points for... reasons.

And apparently computing and artifical intelligence don't lead to robotics.

Haha.

 

[sugerdady87]

Because exploiting bad AI is not a particularly worthwhile game, and the developers haven't brought the AI to a level where it can play the game or understand what players are doing; plus, the game was designed to exploit bad AI, which is just bad game design.

Academy spam would be far less effective if the AI played the way a human player would and actually try to win, and is overrated even in SP - much moreso in RT with the increase in build time, but even in the base game the results are not significantly better with Academies than without, and if going that route I'd rather use a different path than the "correct" one you try to browbeat everyone into using every game.

Part of the problem is that the way trade routes are designed makes them nonsensical, and constant micromanagement is necessary to optimize them. Nonsensical and just plain bad game design is a large barrier for the AI playing a fundamentally broken game, and sadly Firaxis doesn't put effort into fixing fundamentally broken things. And of course, 1UPT destroys the game, whether with AI or human players, because 1UPT is dumb.

re: what affinities are "supposed" to do; I don't see any reason why Harmony players have to love the planet or the bugs on it. If you're close to bugs and need to kill them, then I'd kill them no matter how planet-conscious I am. I suppose the biggest contrast is that Supremacy and Purity aren't strong enough at countering the bugs, and there is too much to gain from killing bugs rather than making peace with them. If Harmony had some bonuses for maintaining good relations with the native life then it would give Harmony players incentive to do so, without forcing them into a narrow path of saving the termites.

Quest rewards are suppposed to be a significant source of affinity and guide affinity path by something besides tech, but they're way too random and too easy to fulfill.



There's a wide wide tree to pick from.

It's sad really. BE tries to use some subtlety in its design and got it fairly right at points, but the fan base considers that the problem; but BE also has so many fundamentally broken things like 1UPT that the fan base goes out of their way to defend. I wish RT spent time fixing the things that were broken instead of patching over broken systems with more broken systems. Until Firaxis releases a patch to implement useful MUPT I can't bother with the game, but that would be the start to making BE worthwhile as a strategy game.

Are you saying that the virtues offer subtle benefits? Your statement in the last sentence was to vague.

 

[Amrunril]

The ONLY group that has inherent affinity-uniqueness in this system is the group that cares just enough about efficiency to value the synergy in getting Supremacy Improvements from Supremacy Technologies, but not enough to value farms over other improvements.

This may be true, but you seem to be implying this is a small group of players, and I don't think that's the case. You're describing anyone who cares enough about strategy to look for synergies in the tech tree and affinity wheel but who hasn't played enough to be sure of which strategy is optimal (this included all of us at one point and probably still includes the majority of non-forum players). You're also describing anyone who's willing to forgo one or two optimal strategies in order to experiment with others but who still wants to play these slightly sub-optimal strategies as efficiently as possible (this includes me, as well as the forum goers who have been experimenting with domes and terrascapes).

I agree that farms, trade routes and other readily available affinity-agnostic options are currently too strong, and I agree that the different affinities should be distinguished gameplay-wise by more than tile improvements, units and victory conditions. However, to say that there's no differentiation between the affinities is clearly an exaggeration.

 

[Ryika]

This may be true, but you seem to be implying this is a small group of players, and I don't think that's the case. You're describing anyone who cares enough about strategy to look for synergies in the tech tree and affinity wheel but who hasn't played enough to be sure of which strategy is optimal (this included all of us at one point and probably still includes the majority of non-forum players). You're also describing anyone who's willing to forgo one or two optimal strategies in order to experiment with others but who still wants to play these slightly sub-optimal strategies as efficiently as possible (this includes me, as well as the forum goers who have been experimenting with domes and terrascapes).

No, that's not what I'm saying, or at least that's not what I meant to say. I know many players prefer to have an easy synergy when they can have it, but that is a connection the player makes, not the game. There is no "inherent" connection between the two, the whole system relies on the player being willing to be in a certain spot of the scale.

I mean, that's once again the very foundation of the issue - the system relies on the player to care just enough but not too much, instead of just being strong enough that it is not a question about how much you care - if you care at all, the ideal strategy should be a strategy that brings in as many Affinity-Specific Elements as possible. It is just completely unnecessary to be forced to decide between somewhat optimal gameplay with farms and somewhat cool gameplay with for example biowells. The synergy just has to be a bit stronger and improvements being shaped by affinity becomes something that is optimal, not just something that you can play if you don't care to getting closer to playing optimally.

 

[Gorbles]

@Gorb

Uh, no, the Terrascape is plainly an Earth environment, and one could only argue otherwise with mental backflips.

I didn't say it wasn't an Earth-like environment.

I said Purity aren't the only Affinity that could make such an improvement. Less putting down of peoples' positions, please.

 

[Galgus]

But they don't have to be to be localised ecosystems that mirror ancient Terra.

Thus my rebuttal that it is clearly and Earth environment.

 

[nimling]

Are you saying that the virtues offer subtle benefits? Your statement in the last sentence was to vague.

Two disconnected points.

Don't play enough RT to know what's good but culture is useful for the relatively early global health and production bonuses, depending on the path taken. If the virtue tree is as it was in the base game, Pathfinders is two virtues away from Nature's Bounty and close to most of the easy global health options. I'd probably want the remaining t1 in knowledge as well.

I really don't want to be picking Artists in RT, or even in the base game post-patch. There are better ways to get culture, and Domes are one of them. For the base game they're nice because they're on the path to an affinity tech that doubles as an economy tech, and push along culture during a phase of the game. The only problem is that I need to detour into Physics to avoid tripping a bug (or just say to hell with it and break the game). In RT Domes are also attached to Magrails and production boosts, which most players would want, which is something.

 

[Gorbles]

Thus my rebuttal that it is clearly and Earth environment.

There is a difference in the meaning between Earth-like and a mirror of ancient Earth. A "mirror" is a reflection, "like" introduces variables.

It is an Earth-like environment. Purity do not have a monopoly on this kind of thing. They just place the greatest emphasis on it.

 

[Ishea]

Going a little offtopic here, but what is 1UPT?

As for the affinities differences.. they are mostly in unit perks and different kinds of bonusses from the affinity itself.
Especially the unit perks make your strategies different, one of the reasons I'm a purity fan for instance is 30% defense on soldiers at affinity level 6. This makes soldiers very tough boys to put in front of thngs and they're cheap and easy to build, so having a bunch of them makes an inpenetrable wall ( especially if you also have a couple of those heal things behind them )
Then just add artillery and shoot everything that approaches them.

 

[Browd]

1 UPT = 1 unit per tile. As opposed to "stacking" multiple units on a tile.

 

[Roxlimn]

FWIW, right now, the "Farms are stronger than anything else!" comments are coming from people who only use Farms. That's not very convincing. If you want me to respect your opinion about which improvements are stronger, you have to actually make a effort to play all the improvements rather than theorycraft something and then never play anything else.

You can't really compare Domes and Farms by just mainly playing Farms.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Well, here it goes:

I am a Biowell user and I'd agree that farms are the best improvement out there. The reason is simple: Decent base yield, available from start, no upkeep, fast build time and powerful techs that boost their utility.

Considering that games last between 150-200 turns and that most of the relevant yields come from City Conversion, other stuff just takes way to long to pay off.

 

[Ryika]

FWIW, right now, the "Farms are stronger than anything else!" comments are coming from people who only use Farms.

And you have polled people to come to that inclusion? Because I certainly have played around with quite some improvements (Academies/Biowells and Arrays) before I came to the conclusion that the way I play all of them are just too slow to keep up with farms. The difference is not huge, but it certainly exists.

And.. do you think claiming that the people who have come to a different conclusion than you have no idea what they are talking about is enough to convince anyone? If you think people are wrong, then do your job at actually proving them wrong by creating and publishing a strategy that uses non-farms as the main improvement and is better at winning the game fast than Farms.

Until you do that what you're saying is:
"Ehhhhrr... yeah, the fastest peaceful victories that we know of have been done without advanced improvements and I have no idea how to win faster, but... but... but you guys have just not tried hard enough to find it!"

I mean I agree that in theory there could be a fancy, so far unknown Advanced Improvement strategy out there that somehow makes use of the "late"-game phase of the game so efficiently that it can out-perform Farms, but until you actually show such a strategy what you're saying is worthless hogwash. Prove us wrong, don't just claim that we didn't do "our job".

 

[Gorbles]

I'm confused, personally. On one hand we have "don't balance MP for a non-existent level of play" and now we have "your opinions on a lower level of play from mine are irrelevant because I'm better".

Why is your level of play important, but his is not? Certainly, given the amount of subjective levels of play available, nobody can be proven wrong here. Across a variety of difficulty thresholds there are a variety of optimal strategies.

That said, I still don't understand why optimal strategies are an argument but the MP scene isn't. Surely they're the same thing?