Conflict between RPG players and numbercrunshers

[BSPollux]

I was thinking quite a lot about the diffrent wishes we players have for our Civ experience. It seems there are two main groups: One that wants a game that tries to tell an intresting story and one that wants the game to be a challenging story. And I ask myself if that conflict of intrest can be solved.

This is mainly visible when we discuss how an AI should act. One group wants it to to choose and follow one victory path very determined so it offers a challenge. While the other wants it to play a beleavable role as a part of the world the player act in.

Same goes for units and building: Theire historical importance and theire strategic usefullness are not allways playing well together. One side wants everything balance so it plays well together in terms of strategic challenges, while the other argues that it draws a strange picture of history.

The list of examples is nearly endless so I wont go into any more details right now.

SO, what do you think, is it possible for both goals to be fullfilled in a single game? Did Civ5 offer that? Should a game decide for one goal and try to be best at that, or should it mix both, while risking to fail at both? And are we working against each other because we have totaly diffrent plans for civ?

 

[Unresolved]

I think CiV is fine in this regard. The 'numbercrunchers' as you say get the challenge from higher difficulties. The RPG players get their enjoyment from playing lower difficulties where you can play however you like without repercussions.

 

[BSPollux]

I think CiV is fine in this regard. The 'numbercrunchers' as you say get the challenge from higher difficulties. The RPG players get their enjoyment from playing lower difficulties where you can play however you like without repercussions.

Maybe I didnt myself clear: I am aware of the existence of difficulty levels, but I was talking about the design goals.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Interesting and important thread. Thanks, BSPollux.

This is probably one of the hardest things to balance. Usually when a game tries to accomplish too many goals, nothing good comes out of it. Civ series manages to appeal to both groups which is a key component of its success.
There are definitely better empire building games and there are games with greater strategy depth and better AI, but as a mix, I think it's almost as balanced as it gets.

Can't say I'm happy about that, tbh. By OP's definition, I guess, I belong to number crunchers crowd (although I'm really not one) and I don't like the dumbing down tendency that makes Civ more approachable to players not necessarily interested in pure strategy, however, from marketing PoV it obviously pays off.

 

[BSPollux]

I am more of a RPG guy, and I hate it that some things are clearly designed in a strange way, just to avoid abuse. I wouldnt abuse it, so for me it feels like my playing experience is worse then it could be, just because other players play like maniacs.

But I hear those players when they say the game was bad because it doesnt offer a challenge to them, and that they want it to be harder.

Hard to say whats best for the series.

 

[Drakarska]

Ironically, and RPG'er has the best of both worlds. He/she get's a great story (depending on the GM), and he has plenty of numbers to crunch in order to achieve his/her goals.

 

[Glassmage]

a challenging story IS an interesting story

 

[whyidie]

I am more of a RPG guy, and I hate it that some things are clearly designed in a strange way, just to avoid abuse. I wouldnt abuse it, so for me it feels like my playing experience is worse then it could be, just because other players play like maniacs.

But I hear those players when they say the game was bad because it doesnt offer a challenge to them, and that they want it to be harder.

Hard to say whats best for the series.

I'm the same way, in that mechanics that can be abused (CS worker theft, pillaging trade routes, trade then DOW) don't bother me.

With that being said I'm having a hard time thinking of examples where my gaming experience has been directly harmed because of a mechanic implemented for a "numbercruncher" experience. I can see indirect impacts (where dev time is being spent) but for the sake of the discussion what are some examples ?

 

[Genghis.Khan]

An intersting discussion topic... Well, Modding can play a role on that...

Achieving balance between those two concepts is hard...

 

[zyk0001]

"While the other wants it to play a beleavable role as a part of the world the player act in."

The AI is specifically designed to be a player of the game, just like the human player, and not as the civilization. This makes for decisions by the AI that are often misunderstood and can work against the rpg aspects at times.

 

[BSPollux]

With that being said I'm having a hard time thinking of examples where my gaming experience has been directly harmed because of a mechanic implemented for a "numbercruncher" experience. I can see indirect impacts (where dev time is being spent) but for the sake of the discussion what are some examples ?

Ok I'll try to give some:

1) Ranged units cant melee attack leads to unreasonable situations
When a city is besieged by 10 crossbowmen and one longswordman all you need to do is kill the longswordman and your city cant beconquered. Leads to that "shoot as long as you want, im invincible" situation.

2) "They think you want to win the game the same way as they are" as diplomacy modifier

3) Some tile types have totaly strange yields, due to balancing reasons. For instance hills that are unable to produce food, while its obvious that food has and will be produced in hills in RL. But frozen ground (tundra) produces food, as well as desert.

4) It takes centuries to travel from point a to b.

5) Stoneage buildings are very usefull even in times of globalization, gentherapy, internet, masstransit etc. You still build monuments and granarys. Normaly you should be able to construct some basic industrial age building and it should do everything the whole pile of stoneage stuff does.

6) AI doesnt need to play like a human because it gets benefits. Therefor conquered citys lack infrastructure and buildings. The AI never needed it!

7) You can not conquer big citys in a swift way and keep them intact. You have to kill half of the population.

8) A warriors zone of control stops a tanks movement (+other examples).

9) Your borders are decided by your culture. In reallife you just say "thats mine" and if someone disagrees you sent your legions and reach an agreement.

10) You may have contradicting choices in your cultural advancements.

...just a few

 

[Unresolved]

Out of that list, I only consider numbers 1 and 5 relevant to this discussion. The rest are just RPGer complaints and they don't have anything to do with 'numbercrunchers'.

 

[Tabarnak]

Marathon speed is probably the best speed for RPGers. They can immerse many things, stories and tales to their civ development.

But surely the worse for scientific gamers! At this speed, you can crush the AI like no more.

Not impossible to immerge both styles but you probably want to play against humans to recreate the most possible balanced game of all.

That said, one day, the humanity will recreate almost perfectly some human behaviors under an AI and at that time maybe you will find what you want

 

[BSPollux]

Out of that list, I only consider numbers 1 and 5 relevant to this discussion. The rest are just RPGer complaints and they don't have anything to do with 'numbercrunchers'.

See, thats why I didnt want to give examples in the first place.

I dont want to discuss the examples but the general question of "realism vs challenge".

If something is totaly cool from a storytelling/realism point of view, but can be abused to a point where its gamebreaking, should it be introduced?

Or reverse: If something leads to a very challenging tactical gameplay, but has no resemblance in the real world, should it be in the game?

 

[Jaybe]

Or reverse: If something leads to a very challenging tactical gameplay, but has no resemblance in the real world, should it be in the game?

No, it should NOT be in the game. With the caveat that everything in the game is an abstraction. Whether it is a building, resource, unit or (especially) wonder: it's an abstraction.

 

[Drakarska]

It's more about the immersion for me than "story telling". The aspect of realism in Civ I enjoy, especially if I play a mod like RI. In Civ V I'm not really getting the story telling aspect of the game, or for that matter the realism/immersion. For tactical gameplay, there are a few other titles that do it better and have a bit better AI. IMO, it should be more about what a individual finds enjoyable to his or her personal preferences as opposed to trying to conform to another person's point of view.

 

[BSPollux]

IMO, it should be more about what a individual finds enjoyable to his or her personal preferences as opposed to trying to conform to another person's point of view.

Well but the game comes w2ith a set of rules. YOu cant bend them to fit your playingstyle. So, what would you like these rules to be aimed at?

 

[GhostSalsa]

This is a topic I've spent a lot of time talking about here, though I don't think the dichotomy should be portrayed as "roleplay vs challenge."

Power-players methodically abuse the games role-play elements, most notably the trade screen, to reduce challenge, not to increase it. Difficulty level is set to highest to make trade screen abuse more lucrative, not less. It's to their credit that they don't like these role-play elements for precisely this reason, though I'm not sure turning then off or removing them from game so other players can't enjoy them is any kind of answer.

I'm on the roleplay side and that's, yes, why I prefer more challenge. I find my favorite games in the blend of high difficulty level and limited trading. Yes it's a bit dumb to help your enemy grow just so you can have a better fight later, and points to serious flaws in the game that a player should have to even consider doing so.

But if the game were perfect, I suspect we all wouldn't keep coming back to it.

 

[guinsoo]

As far as your realism point:

Civ is designed to be a strategy game, not a simulation. So expect realism to take a backseat for gameplay purposes. This just isn't the right game for TOTAL immersion. However, if you have any specific suggestions for realism improvements that do not sacrifice gameplay, those would be interesting. And in general, with almost every game, realism will take a backseat to gameplay. Having a fun game is more important than a realistic one. At least if you want to sell copies and have people play it

As far as how the AI behaves:

It's really difficult to program an AI that behaves differently across different difficulty levels or parameters. Not saying it's impossible by any stretch, other games have successfully done it - but the level of investment in terms of man-hours is much, much larger. Firaxis sort of tried to implement this with the flavors (and certain flavors are increased on higher difficulties, notably aggression and expansionism). In the end they were able to make a pretty decent AI that plays vastly differently and in difficulty across the different difficulty levels.

Having said all that, the AI is really bad at behaving like a real nation would. I do wish they'd improve that.

 

[Drakarska]

Well but the game comes w2ith a set of rules. YOu cant bend them to fit your playingstyle. So, what would you like these rules to be aimed at?

Sure I can. All I have to do is activate IGE and pretty much bend the rules any way I want. Point being, I really shouldn't have to in order to gain your thesis in your OP.