A lot of things in Civ V have been nerfed after several patches. FActories, GAs, RAs, numerous wonders, and etc. I think this is a really bad idea since it makes all these things have a smaller and smaller impact, making games less and less different. Having stuff give only 10% bonuses makes it hardly matter if you get them. For example in terms of tech it might mean you finish the game with 2 more techs than usual. This makes games more and more similar to each other. I think it'll be much better to start up a game and have my decisions in terms of wonders/policies drastically change the way the game plays out. Any opinions?
Buffs instead of nerfs
- Thread starter civIII
- Start date
Steelyglint
Warlord
Agreed. You can make games more different if you want to on your own, but for me I dislike buildings getting nerfed because it means having a tech advantage means less in the game.
Having things be more equal in the game means the game will be more challenging. Instead of one wonder or a few RAs give a civ such a boost that the others can't catch up, it gives them a small boost to help them out but doesn't make that one civ overpowered.
The things that were nerfed needed nerfing, a lot of things also got buffed.
Social policies were rebalanced and many individual policies are really nice now, rather than aimlessly unlocking entire trees just for culture wins, the stats have a purpose now and there's a reward for completing them all.
Buildings like stables, monuments, temples, also got buffed. And defensive buildings, which started out costing maintenance are now free.
I can't imagine buffing RA as being a good idea lol.
Social policies were rebalanced and many individual policies are really nice now, rather than aimlessly unlocking entire trees just for culture wins, the stats have a purpose now and there's a reward for completing them all.
Buildings like stables, monuments, temples, also got buffed. And defensive buildings, which started out costing maintenance are now free.
I can't imagine buffing RA as being a good idea lol.
eazyseeker
Warlord
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 216
Nerfing means making most games alike one another, indeed.
However, buffing might not always be very effective either. In my opinion, for example, they OVER-buffed the PT (GS + Gs points + 25% more RA?). This does not necessarily make it OP, but it's usually a must-get for science victories. This is good and all, rewarding players for building specific stuff, but there's a certain threshold.
Look at the HS, for example. The sole fact that it gives a free GP makes it MUST-BUILD for most playstyles - and thus it is a 'hit or miss' situation. But is this good as a whole? The answer is no. Making a specific wonder really useful for each and every playstyle is NOT the way to go, since it means players will target that and that building only. Wonders need diversity, but not so much that they're useless expect for maybe 1 playstyle (Great Lighthouse, Collosus)
Therefore there needs to exist a certain balance of usefulness - and that leads to the buff/nerf discussion.
However, buffing might not always be very effective either. In my opinion, for example, they OVER-buffed the PT (GS + Gs points + 25% more RA?). This does not necessarily make it OP, but it's usually a must-get for science victories. This is good and all, rewarding players for building specific stuff, but there's a certain threshold.
Look at the HS, for example. The sole fact that it gives a free GP makes it MUST-BUILD for most playstyles - and thus it is a 'hit or miss' situation. But is this good as a whole? The answer is no. Making a specific wonder really useful for each and every playstyle is NOT the way to go, since it means players will target that and that building only. Wonders need diversity, but not so much that they're useless expect for maybe 1 playstyle (Great Lighthouse, Collosus)
Therefore there needs to exist a certain balance of usefulness - and that leads to the buff/nerf discussion.
turingmachine
Emperor
- Joined
- May 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,438
One thing I'm not a fan off is how they are buffing some things. If you look at the social policies and wonders, a lot of them used to give one specific bonus. Now a lot give one mediocre version of their former bonus and a bunch of unrelated small bonuses to make it strong. Like, hey this gives +15% more production and also 2 apples for the heck of it. I think diluting the focus of something is the wrong way to balance, and they should focus more on taking the original effect to a balanced level than adding several small bonuses.
I believe they have a name for that, it's called balancing 
They've buffed more things than they've nerfed however. Especially wonders that now give secondary stats/more culture which makes building them all together worthwhile for a massive culture city.
Civ is one of those games where when something is really broken, they can become a crutch of sorts, and people rely on them to 'win' and when it gets adjusted even a little bit, the game is 'broken irrepably' for them.
RA's allowing you to plow deep into the tech tree is one of those things that needed fixing.
They've buffed more things than they've nerfed however. Especially wonders that now give secondary stats/more culture which makes building them all together worthwhile for a massive culture city.
Civ is one of those games where when something is really broken, they can become a crutch of sorts, and people rely on them to 'win' and when it gets adjusted even a little bit, the game is 'broken irrepably' for them.
RA's allowing you to plow deep into the tech tree is one of those things that needed fixing.
Gort
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,518
There is no such social policy. You're thinking of the tradition finisher, which is actually +15% city growth and +2 food, which is very focused indeed.
Perhaps you can think of other examples?
