An update from Firaxis Games regarding Beyond Earth feedback

[Haggbart]

I never specified my opinions were specifically at the Apollo setting before I tried it. Indeed, they're more generally applicable for the reason that I formed them out of experiences at multiple difficulty settings in the game. Arguably, if your opinion is formed only from a small segment of the settings, then there is an onus to specify so.

Too many Apollo-only players presume that the difficulty levels below Apollo are "the same, only easier." This betrays an arrogance and an ignorance about game mechanics onto which I've been at pains to throw light. Apollo isn't necessarily harder just because the game says so. You don't necessarily know how the game is at different settings just because you're playing on Apollo.

Honestly? Apollo is at Emperor level. I could tell that just by counting up from Sputnik and counting off normal Civ levels. It's not that hard. Playing at it gives you no special insight, other than conditions specific to that setting.

I think adding penalties to negative health will probably fix the expansion problem, presumptively because health is the governing mechanic for controlling expansion. I'm not sure how that's a far-fetched idea.

To be fair, one should be forgiven for thinking the main difference between difficulty levels is....the difficulty.

I've played on Soyuz and Gemini also, and I didn't find it to be any more interesting. I don't think I need to specify diff level in a general discussion about game concepts, however when arguing with people who specifically talks about a certain diff. level, I would make sure I tried it first.

Also, when the tooltip for apollo says "nearly impossible" one should expect a deity level, not an emporer level. When the number of levels are reduced, there could be a bigger gap between levels, indeed that was the intended design (as the devs specifically claimed Apollo would be equal to Deity).

Health in its current form does not punish expansion enough, even when self imposing a rule where -0 is not allowed.

 

[JokerJace]

Too many Apollo-only players presume that the difficulty levels below Apollo are "the same, only easier." This betrays an arrogance and an ignorance about game mechanics onto which I've been at pains to throw light. Apollo isn't necessarily harder just because the game says so. You don't necessarily know how the game is at different settings just because you're playing on Apollo.

I think after that comment I'll stop paying attention to your posts in general. ^^

 

[Roxlimn]

Haggbart:

Actually, most people who talk here don't specify which setting they're playing on, and even when they do, a more general discussion isn't predicated on any specific setting only. A mechanic changes when the setting is changed. It's incumbent on people only talking about a specific setting to have insight as to whether their settings are queering their experience, no?

Health in its current form does not punish expansion enough, even when self imposing a rule where -0 is not allowed.

Which is why the problem is with Health, not TRs.

The odd thing is that when Happiness was new and there was an issue with lax expansion limitations, people didn't suddenly blame tile outputs or the ability to make Settlers. Now, Health isn't doing enough to limit expansion, and suddenly it's Trade Routes. The only reason I can see that making any kind of sense is if you're on the warpath against TRs and just blame them for everything.

 

[Senethro]

Haggbart:

Actually, most people who talk here don't specify which setting they're playing on, and even when they do, a more general discussion isn't predicated on any specific setting only. A mechanic changes when the setting is changed. It's incumbent on people only talking about a specific setting to have insight as to whether their settings are queering their experience, no?



Which is why the problem is with Health, not TRs.

The odd thing is that when Happiness was new and there was an issue with lax expansion limitations, people didn't suddenly blame tile outputs or the ability to make Settlers. Now, Health isn't doing enough to limit expansion, and suddenly it's Trade Routes. The only reason I can see that making any kind of sense is if you're on the warpath against TRs and just blame them for everything.

Really, no, its just very few other people get their jollies from creating differentials.

 

[omniclast]

Pretty much. If you're thinking anything other than that the Developer's expectations are to turn a profit vs. development costs, the odds are that you're wrong.

Er, what? Where, in any of my previous comments, did I say I believed developers care about something other than profit? My point was that most of us angry about Civ, Halo or AC Unity certainly understand what developers/publishers' expectations are -- we just don't really give a crap, because it's the expectations themselves that are broken, and they're what has led to a series of unsustainably poor quality game releases. Defending game companies based on their own success metrics is like saying Congress is doing a good job because they keep getting elected.

Releasing a buggy, half-finished game is not a mistake if past successes are any indication.

And yet here we have a usage statistic suggesting that even based on publishers' own narrow definition of success, CivBE is quickly becoming a failure. Perhaps we live in a different and much more competitive environment than when Civ3 was published, and fans aren't as willing to accept crappy products. Imagine that!

When somebody posts usage statistics in order to tell a business what they're doing wrong, I don't wonder why I'm the one on a forum that is meant to discuss a game, not business development and modeling.

For someone who's offended by talk of business strategy and success metrics in a gaming forum, you sure seem to have a lot to wisdom to impart about what makes a gaming business succeed. I'm really not understanding what your objection is -- that we shouldn't be discussing whether the game is performing? Or that I shouldn't use stats to argue Firaxis is doing something wrong, because your profound gaming experience says otherwise?

If it is true that I am hiding my head in the sand (which is itself an odd accusation -- apparently bringing up bugs on the bug report forum and making suggestions for improvement on the suggestion forum qualify as hiding my head in the sand?), I don't mind too much. The view is clearer and the odor haler than a lot of what gets slung around on the forums.

I didn't say you were hiding your head in the sand; I said that would be a better use of your time than condescending to lesser gamers who weren't around for the launch of Atari and who don't enjoy having your words thrust in their mouths. If you have a problem with other people expecting a better quality product for their money, you don't have to read our comments or reply to them. You can go file your bug reports and enjoy the hale odor, content in the knowledge that forum posters who are still discussing whether the game was finished or not just don't get the gaming business like you do. Frankly I think we'll all benefit from your lack of input.

 

[Haggbart]

Haggbart:

Actually, most people who talk here don't specify which setting they're playing on, and even when they do, a more general discussion isn't predicated on any specific setting only. A mechanic changes when the setting is changed. It's incumbent on people only talking about a specific setting to have insight as to whether their settings are queering their experience, no?



Which is why the problem is with Health, not TRs.

The odd thing is that when Happiness was new and there was an issue with lax expansion limitations, people didn't suddenly blame tile outputs or the ability to make Settlers. Now, Health isn't doing enough to limit expansion, and suddenly it's Trade Routes. The only reason I can see that making any kind of sense is if you're on the warpath against TRs and just blame them for everything.

Funny you should say that, because if I remember correctly it was pretty oblivious to you what apollo difficulty did to TR output. It didn't stop you from expressing your view.

On the expansion it would not really be a problem if there was a fixed max number of TRs (preferably tied to different techs), not pr city. I maintain that to be my preferred sollution. Call it a crusade against TRs, I call it a crusade against boredom and elbow tendinitis.

 

[Roxlimn]

It's comments like that that make me think that it's really the UI that's the main issue. You wouldn't get tendinitis if the renewal mechanics and the UI were cleaned up and redone in a much better fashion.

Recalling it back to per Civ TRs would roll it back to Civ 5. Lots of people have already gone back to that. You can, too. I'm assuming you already own that game. I don't see why this game has to be the exact same game with a different skin. It'd be better if it were different, no? Civ IV would not have been improved if Cottages were rolled back to Roads like some players wanted.

Senethro:

It's really more of economic management. The current TR scheme involves more tinkering, active tile management, and empire-wide coordination between cities than any prior economic system the franchise has ever attempted. The ITR/ETR mix also means that growth and production are more fungible than before. This represents a major step forward for the franchise, IMO.

It's an even more involved mix of Civ IV's City specialization, MOO2's universal empire-wide unified economy, and SMAC's Crawler system, with a dash of ye olde Tax slider.

When we said "niche" in Civ 4, we meant only the output of the city. In CivBE, it involves food sourcing, hammer sourcing, and trade relationships - where the city fits into the internal/external trade network. That's not just differentials. Of course, I'm a particularly buildy sort of Civ player, so this is right in my wheelhouse.

 

[Esperr]

Or. You can just do what we all do, spam citys, make routes, send them to highest science. All of that micro is unnecesary, even in the apollo challenge people are getting t 200ish wins without even paying attention. The system may be super deep and complex, but nobody cares, because its completely.unnecesary, and shaving off five to ten turns a game isnt worth all the tedium of managing outputs.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Haggbart:...

Which is why the problem is with Health, not TRs.

The odd thing is that when Happiness was new and there was an issue with lax expansion limitations, people didn't suddenly blame tile outputs or the ability to make Settlers. Now, Health isn't doing enough to limit expansion, and suddenly it's Trade Routes. The only reason I can see that making any kind of sense is if you're on the warpath against TRs and just blame them for everything.

I wrote a thing about how bad health is:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13571094&postcount=1
Spoiler: You can have unlimited size 33 cities

However while trade routes aren't the problem they do have a problem. I wrote this before but I'm reposting it here.

If you could have a city that produces no yields, even from the city square and this city sent a trade route out to a highly productive city, it would now be giving the big city a large amount of food and production and returning some for themselves. What are they contributing if their land is barren? If we are assuming they are actually sending people to add to the workforce of the bigger city, then that is a contribution, but it doesn't make sense what comes out of it. Any job these commuters could do in the big city you'd have to assume they could also do if they lived in the city, however having one more population in the big city wouldn't contribute nearly as much as building a 1 population city out in the snow would by sending in a trade route. And it can do this three times with three different cities.

I have warmed to trade routes, as I do like the idea of highly specializing cities and using them as part of a network, but having food appear out of nowhere just because I built a truck is too much for me conceptually.

Now on the topic of what is or isn't problems. Remember when people were freaked out over purity level 1? Explorer immunity to alien attacks? Remember how people were going to build walls of explorers to heard aliens around? Did anyone actually do that? People made it a big deal before but I don't think one person actually executed that plan.

 

[Ari Rahikkala]

I would like to see the ability to refuse a station. I just had two in a row plop themselves down right where I wanted to send a settler.

If nothing else, someone should mod that if it's possible. I use a mod for trade routes now so they don't bother me.

Grab Ryoga's affinity quests fix. Stations will still spawn, but the worst of the spam will go away, since it was caused by buggy quests given to AIs plopping the station near you instead.

 

[whoward69]

I would like to see the ability to refuse a station.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=336089354

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13572495&postcount=36

 

[JosEPh_II]

I havn't read thru this whole thread so I will ask those that are here, Is there any indication that Firaxis is moving towards a patch or DLC to improve BE?

I can't seem to motivate myself to play it any more and I pre-ordered because it was supposed to be Civ in Space not another version of CiV. And if BE is a re-skin of CiV (which I will probably never buy now) I quess as a long, long time Civ'er the series ended with IV and BtS, for me. Too bad really as Sid Had a good thing going too. As they say, all good things come to an end eventually and maybe BE is the Civ series death knell?

JosEPh

 

[Ryoga]

I havn't read thru this whole thread so I will ask those that are here, Is there any indication that Firaxis is moving towards a patch or DLC to improve BE?

I can't seem to motivate myself to play it any more and I pre-ordered because it was supposed to be Civ in Space not another version of CiV. And if BE is a re-skin of CiV (which I will probably never buy now) I quess as a long, long time Civ'er the series ended with IV and BtS, for me. Too bad really as Sid Had a good thing going too. As they say, all good things come to an end eventually and maybe BE is the Civ series death knell?

JosEPh

A patch has been announced for a while.

And I don't really hear many complains that the game is a "reskin" of Civ V by those who actually played the game. Those who complain are mainly displeased because the game is bugged, it isn't balanced and it's too easy\boring.

 

[JosEPh_II]

A patch has been announced for a while.

And I don't really hear many complains that the game is a "reskin" of Civ V by those who actually played the game. Those who complain are mainly displeased because the game is bugged, it isn't balanced and it's too easy\boring.

Then you've missed some of the earlier threads if you havn't heard players calling it a Reskinned CiV.

I Pre-ordered and activated as soon as I got my hard copy (what a joke that was, I'm Not a fan of Steam or the direction game industry is moving where you only get a License to play) I started 5 games and have not finished any. The longest is at turn 450+. The TR s do not bother me at all. The lack of depth does. And yes it does become boring because it has no real depth. I've not really encountered any gamebreaking bugs just poorly implemented objectives. I can find deeper Mods for Civ IV BtS that entertain for years vs BE. Maniac's Planetfall for BtS beats this game hands down for example.

JosEPh

 

[Ryoga]

Then you've missed some of the earlier threads if you havn't heard players calling it a Reskinned CiV.

I've said from people that actually played the game. The reskinned complains where common before the game was released.

As someone who has 1000+ hours on Civ V I can tell you that except for the diplomacy aspect it doesn't really feel like playing the same game... at all.

 

[Hinkle2K]

The patch is almost ready, you guys. Firaxis has passed along this update, new additions are in bold:

We’d like to thank all our fans for the feedback and reports they have been posting and sending in. The team has been working hard on bug fixing and balancing, and as you’ll see in the change list below, we’re close to locking down this patch. We’ll share more specifics for the gameplay changes shortly while the build is making its way through the approval process.


[GAMEPLAY]
• Implementing additional bug fixes for quests.
• Implementing modified quest rewards based on game speed and which turn they were received in.
• Revisiting difficulty level scaling. Increasing difficulty when playing on Apollo.
• Implementing balance pass on Health system (penalties, bonuses).
• Adjusting certain Virtues for balance.
• Implementing overall unit balance pass (strength, production and strategic resource cost, affinity level requirements, location on tech web).
• Implementing leader/sponsor trait balance pass (Kozlov, Barre, Rejinaldo, and Elodie), as well as some seeded start option adjustments.
• Implementing Covert Ops updates and exploit fixes.
• Implementing Trade Route balance and adjustments, including simpler UI.
• Implementing gameplay bug fixes as reported in the community (Quests, etc.).
• Implementing general AI improvements.
• Adjusting Affinity reward ramping when earning Affinity from Quests.
• Adjusting Station distribution, and arrival timing.
• Improving AI, including energy management, tactical management, tech and victory approaches, etc.

[ENGINE]
• Fixing a memory leak that could potentially crash the game (mostly affected MP)
• Correcting screen resolution problems, particularly related to the 144hz refresh rate full-screen (or lack of full-screen) issue.
• Investigating a start-up problem where the game shuts down with an error immediately following the opening movie.
• Investigating crash issues submitted by users, and through Steam crash reporting.
• Adding an in-game option to disable depth of field effect for players that prefer the game without this.

[UI]
• Ongoing updates to in-game text, tool-tips, etc.
• Correcting an issue where actions could be missing from embarked workers (like repairing a pillaged water improvement)
• Adding "Completed" section to city production menu so players know what they just finished.
• Adding advanced touch controls, gesture support, pen support.
• Adding color icons to the tech web (categorized) with an option to disable.
• Better inform players of approaching AI victory, and updated victory/defeat screen with additional information.

[ACHIEVEMENTS]
• Achievements not firing if Max Turns was set in previous games. Also investigating some other possible causes.

[MODDING]
• Fixing quest mod support.
• Fixing 2D leader fall-back image support for all graphics quality settings.

[MULTIPLAYER]
• Fixing an issue that led to disconnects in cases of content mismatch.
• Fixing an issue that was causing available/researched technologies after a re-sync.
• Correcting multiple desyncs.
• Ongoing multiplayer improvements.
• Increasing geographic range of server browser distance filter.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The patch is almost ready, you guys. Firaxis has passed along this update, new additions are in bold:

Thanks for the update. Glad to hear that the patch is almost done. Looks like a really big patch that will address a lot of issues.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

No! This is too early. I was going to play a game and get insane health levels and now they're going to fix it...

 

[Ryoga]

Fixing quest mod support.

Well I certainly welcome this addition.

 

[spider1]

Cool deal. when the patch arrives, I'll have to turn off all my mods and play a game without them to see the effects.