Civ 5 Design Challenge II - Mechanics

[Sgtwolf00]

Well the challenge was released on 27 Jan, so the deadline is probably in 2-3 days

So it's been 8 days since the challenge started, do we want to start the vote now?

 

[inthesomeday]

I vote for Kul

 

[kul]

Lets do the obligatory recap post

"May Annex City States with Faith"

Inthesomeday's Papal States
Natan's Kingdom of Nri
Sgtwolf's Aztec Triple Alliance
kul's Kolona Fat/Raja Ampat Kingdoms
Scapegrace's Taiping
NiaoMeow's Anishinaabe​

I hope I didnt miss out anyone.
For me, I vote for Sgtwolf's Aztec. I had fond memories of with them, and I like the implementation of the mechanic through actual war with city states.
my second fav would be the Papal States tho. The castle might be a bit OP, but I like the Bishop

 

[Sgtwolf00]

Lets do the obligatory recap post


I hope I didnt miss out anyone.
For me, I vote for Sgtwolf's Aztec. I had fond memories of with them, and I like the implementation of the mechanic through actual war with city states.
my second fav would be the Papal States tho. The castle might be a bit OP, but I like the Bishop

No you didn't miss any, also when you say fond memories? Do you mean fond memories playing as the Aztecs? Also my vote goes to Scapegrace! I like that Heavenly Kingdom!

 

[Scapegrace]

I'm voting for Natan's Kingdom of Nri because Africatnip. Predictable Scapegrace is predictable, I suppose.

Also, it's worth mentioning that I clarified a minor point in my design: I forgot to enter the Longhair's bonuses for being wounded. Whoops. =]

 

[Natan35]

I vote for Sgtwolf's triple alliance.

(FWIW, I think that many designs posted this time were OP, which is really unfortunate... )

 

[kul]

Thats the case if been noticing as well. Each designs are trying their darnest to top the previous ideas in past games and original Civilizations civs in general. I think its because we dont have to be held responsible for the designs posted, as in we dont have to worry about coding limitation and all, thus we can make anything as we please.
Maybe the next challange mechanic is, that the civs uniques needs to be explained in fewer than x amount of characters or something. You know, to keep everythinh KISS

 

[inthesomeday]

I agree with Kul about a character limit, there's been a steady saturation of effects in a lot of the uniques in these challenges that tend to add up to something that actually sounds kind of impractical, or even boring. It's like the Kris swordsman, fun to play about once and then pretty much irrelevant or impractical. If we put it to a vote, I'm in favor of a character limit.

 

[kul]

well it was the winner's right to choose the next challenge, so I guess we'll leave it at that.

 

[Sgtwolf00]

I vote for Sgtwolf's triple alliance.

(FWIW, I think that many designs posted this time were OP, which is really unfortunate... )

Was my design OP? Just so I know for future designs.

Thats the case if been noticing as well. Each designs are trying their darnest to top the previous ideas in past games and original Civilizations civs in general. I think its because we dont have to be held responsible for the designs posted, as in we dont have to worry about coding limitation and all, thus we can make anything as we please.
Maybe the next challange mechanic is, that the civs uniques needs to be explained in fewer than x amount of characters or something. You know, to keep everythinh KISS

I agree with Kul about a character limit, there's been a steady saturation of effects in a lot of the uniques in these challenges that tend to add up to something that actually sounds kind of impractical, or even boring. It's like the Kris swordsman, fun to play about once and then pretty much irrelevant or impractical. If we put it to a vote, I'm in favor of a character limit.

I think the problem is that we're trying to make the uniques fell, unique. Unlike Firaxis who's vanilla uniques are simple. We also have the issue on choosing not well known people or people who didn't document a lot, unlike say Rome who documented everything. So it's hard for us to formulate what little information we have into a design. And as a result we over compensate for what uniques we decide to go for.

For me the reason my post are usally big is because I have trouble writing short sentences, I all ways feel like it's too short and needs more information. I kinda like the word count, but I feel like a 'make designs that are simple and/or practical' rule would be better. That way we can still express our selves and have our designs be plausible. So what do you think?

 

[Tarmont]

We also have the issue on choosing not well known people or people who didn't document a lot, unlike say Rome who documented everything. So it's hard for us to formulate what little information we have into a design. And as a result we over compensate for what uniques we decide to go for.

I don't think that's the issue, people who usually make convoluted designs tend to do so for any civ, obscurity notwithstanding. At least for me I'm 100% sure that the two aren't related.

On the subject of the design's lenght, I always write my civs directly into my infobox template so I don't have problem with that, and always aiming to fill only 3 lines. It's actually fun to find a way to butcher lenghty effects into short ones with as little real change as possible.

 

[NiaoMeow]

I really don't like the idea of censoring more complicated designs, but I think we should all strive to make very interesting and unique components that are also simple. For example, Sumer or Norway's UA.

 

[Sgtwolf00]

I don't think that's the issue, people who usually make convoluted designs tend to do so for any civ, obscurity notwithstanding. At least for me I'm 100% sure that the two aren't related.

On the subject of the design's lenght, I always write my civs directly into my infobox template so I don't have problem with that, and always aiming to fill only 3 lines. It's actually fun to find a way to butcher lenghty effects into short ones with as little real change as possible.

True, but I'm sure there would some sort of connection between the two. So you write your responses into the little box and the bottom of the page all the time?

I really don't like the idea of censoring more complicated designs, but I think we should all strive to make very interesting and unique components that are also simple. For example, Sumer or Norway's UA.

Yes I agree with this, but we have to realise that we cannot do this all the time for all civs that we design. Some will be complicated, but as long as it's not overly complicated or convoluted it should be fine. Like my Aztec UA; bit long to explain, but everyone can understand it! All though I have to give props to @Kerfuffle for shortening my original UA.

 

[inthesomeday]

SgtWolf's Aztec Triple Alliance winning by one over three other designs

 

[Scapegrace]

See, the "interesting and simple" design spec seems to me like a contradiction in terms. If you can describe a Civ design as "like Vanilla/Prominent Modded Civ but", then as far as I'm concerned it's a substandard design. It's something I try hard to avoid, and that tends to mean I over-design Civs because I'm not actually very good at this. =]

 

[Sgtwolf00]

See, the "interesting and simple" design spec seems to me like a contradiction in terms. If you can describe a Civ design as "like Vanilla/Prominent Modded Civ but", then as far as I'm concerned it's a substandard design. It's something I try hard to avoid, and that tends to mean I over-design Civs because I'm not actually very good at this. =]

Well I used the word vanilla to describe how the UA's and to that extent the rest of the UC's in vanilla Civ 5 are laid out, and that is one or two 'simple' parts and that forms the UA.

But Scapegrace, you've identified what you do that makes you over compensate when you design a civ, so from now on out when designing civs you aim and putting what you think is necessary into the design and leave the rest out, even if others would call it 'vanilla like.' Unless you do what I did with my Golden Horde design.

Also since it's been four days from vote day, should we end this and declare myself winner? (that sounds egotistical and it makes me sick, not gonna change it though. )

 

[inthesomeday]

+cc Sgtwolf

 

[kul]

Just go for it and post the challenge. The last time this happened, the winner also swooce in and told us the new objectives

 

[Sgtwolf00]

+cc Sgtwolf

Wha?

Just go for it and post the challenge. The last time this happened, the winner also swooce in and told us the new objectives

So go and post the next challenge?

 

[Natan35]

Yes..