Conflict between RPG players and numbercrunshers

[Tabarnak]

I find my favorite games in the blend of high difficulty level and limited trading.

Same for me. That''s why multiplayer is so fun in that sense. hotseat(gmr) games are the closest games that you can have that can combine realism and challenge in the same game. There is some personnal challenges and mods that can imitate a bit these mp games but it's not even close.

If you go into the mp section you will find stories of civs and interpretations of other civs about facts and stories told by everyone in the game and still find players that are actually trying to win.

 

[BSPollux]

[...]Having a fun game is more important than a realistic one.[...]

See and thats what I'm talking about! For me, 'fun' and 'realism' are not opposites! Quite the opposite is correct for me. The more it feels like leading a real nation the more fun it is. I know some players feel diffrent, like you, who thinks that realism should be sacrificed to create a challenging 'strategy puzzle'.

Now the question is: Should Civ try to deliver both or should it decide for one and try to be best at that?

I think that trying to do both causes quite some trouble right now, because both sites seem to be unhappy. At least thats what I take from many threads here.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

i think the longevity of the game might be affected by which camp you fall in to. to some degree everyone will experience 'burnout' but some types of players have a deeper well of interest than others.

sometimes the RPGers later become the number crunchers because only so much enjoyment is had once you've beaten the game with all of the VCs as a builder/RPGer (this happened to some extent with me--the fantasy of leading my favorite cultures was reduced to obligated play of other cultures i know less about or was not really enchanted with). but also a few dont really tire of it but they enjoy things like Scenarios more than the number crunchers (not me).

and number crunchers can play the game for a long time using different settings and difficulties since the method of play is repetitive but very random and they like that in a game. but some number crunchers, after the 'mystique' of the game is revealed, will simply move on to other strategy games. they view it as a puzzle and once it's 'cracked' (i.e the optimal way to defeat single player at the highest diff) they will move to another game to 'crack' (or move to multiplayer where opponents arent as easily cracked).

i think civ5 captures this really well. both sides have a decently dedicated following that has lasted for a while. the LP and Stories sections is still pretty active and with many of the long-time regulars who have been around from the start. the same goes for number crunchers in the HoF-type games and multiplayer games. in my steam folder i have dozens of games and none of them list anything beyond 100 hours of play when Civ5 has almost 1500 now. The last game I played that approached that was an MMO and it was far less engaged gameplay and more social interaction with occasional engaging gameplay (instances/raids).

is this the kind of dissection the OP was looking for?

 

[BSPollux]

yep

 

[eris]

See and thats what I'm talking about! For me, 'fun' and 'realism' are not opposites! Quite the opposite is correct for me. The more it feels like leading a real nation the more fun it is. I know some players feel diffrent, like you, who thinks that realism should be sacrificed to create a challenging 'strategy puzzle'.

Now the question is: Should Civ try to deliver both or should it decide for one and try to be best at that?

I think that trying to do both causes quite some trouble right now, because both sites seem to be unhappy. At least thats what I take from many threads here.

I think that trying to do both is what has made Civ such a strong series. I think the unhappiness you see is a forum artifact. The vast majority of people are playing the game and enjoying it as is. What you see on the forums is various fan extremist positions, often exaggerated for debate and effect.

As an example, not necessarily the most important balance: There are lots of people who enjoy the realism, up to a point. Go beyond that point and you reduce enjoyment for those people. Updating old buildings, units, infrastructure, or any other such things that make the ages more "real" for some is micromanagement bother for others. Not having enough of that makes it feel "gamey" to others. Moving to some of the realism goals you espouse would weaken the popularity and longevity of the series in my opinion.

We have extremists for strategy, for realism, for sandbox play, for history, for tactics, and many other subjects. The great thing is that Civ, as a series, embraces all of us fanatics.

That covers the core game. I do strongly support the concept of community for mods and multi-player, which accomplish things the devs could never do. Those things are there to delight the extremists and amaze us middle of the road folks who can only look upon such Civ dedication in admiration.

 

[tyro3]

Forget realism, it's not at all realistic when I am way out in front on tech and some idiot decides to Dow and attacks with Knights and I am bombing them and they are (throwing rocks I guess) and damaging my bombers and it takes two or three runs to finish them off, I know it is a matter of game balance to not allow me to bomb them with impunity but it does defy logic.

 

[Novalia]

lol at this thread

 

[tommynt]

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.

I dont really understand how you can think that civ5 is made for RPG guys in 1. place.

There are no videos, how opponent leaders act is stricly down to some very obvious numbers and on other hand totaly irrational, there is like nothing you can do to custom your civ specificly. or is there something i am missing?

In fact its really more like:
On low difficulties you can do whatever you want and still end up winning- if this pleases some "rpg guy" the game does that very well and if you are happy with that I am happy for you.

 

[The_J]

I guess some people here might be interested in this older article on Destructoid, which is also about the different types of players:

If there's one genre that I'm not only familiar with, but whose gamer base I am intimately familiar with, it's the oft-maligned turn-based strategy. While the genre has evolved fairly steadily since its inception, I find that the user base is split into three major demographics: the old guard of history wonks and simulation junkies (let's call them simulationists); a second, younger generation whose obsession is digging through abstract rules systems and breaking them (we'll call them gamists); and a third, newer generation, whose interest in the tactical aspect of the game is secondary to other parts of the game such as narrative (the narrativists). Conveniently, all three generations are represented in my family. My uncle is an aging simulationist, I am a gamist, and my brother is a narrativist.
[...]

 

[The Pilgrim]

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.

Very much this.

I dont really understand how you can think that civ5 is made for RPG guys in 1. place.

Because it is. I'm sure Firaxis has the ability to remove RPG elements and increase the strategy depth, yet they choose to go the other way. Trying to eat the cake and have it. Successfully.

 

[Hambil]

The only real bad thing about the different types of players I've seen is the fact that the number crunchers have completely overrun the strategy forum to the point where if you don't want to micromanage every aspect of your empire and every unit in your army you might as well not even ask for strategy tips. To them, there is only one way to play. They even go so far as to say everything should be standard/standard/standard with no mods to even discuss strategy- yeah, let's just cut out 8/10th of the game, game speeds, maps, map settings, and mods because they make our number crunching harder. That's a sign you're doing something wrong in my humble opinion.

I am a big fan of playing the game any way that makes you happy. I just wish I could ask a question about wonders without the answer always being "don't build them, waste of hammers".

 

[SarahEspresso]

sometimes the RPGers later become the number crunchers because only so much enjoyment is had once you've beaten the game with all of the VCs as a builder/RPGer (this happened to some extent with me--the fantasy of leading my favorite cultures was reduced to obligated play of other cultures i know less about or was not really enchanted with). but also a few dont really tire of it but they enjoy things like Scenarios more than the number crunchers (not me).

This is temporarily my situation. In all the years I've played Civ games, I was less about strategy and more about enjoying building the world and the politics of it. I've done all all the victories, played all the civs, so now I'm into tweaking the little details of the game. Not a max/min player by any means, but I'm very interested in the mechanics, which is more than the other games did. I consider this a temporary condition though, sooner or later I'll have everything I want to learn mastered, and I'll go back to epic world building. It's why I play Civ V on higher difficulties and Civ IV on low difficulties, I play them differently.

It's the same way I handled RPGs, I never cared about tweaking the stats much as much as I wanted to construct detailed, lived-in worlds (which is why I was usually a DM). The story has always come first over all the numbers.

Never been a fan of scenarios, but I play them from time to time.

 

[Matthew.]

I'd say I am a number cruncher yet a RPGer at heart. I like to analyze systems, break down the game, but if I'm not enjoying the story I get bored and move on to something else. The aRPG genre is a good example, since that entire genre is typically defined by number-crunching. I will often play characters with skills/gear that are sub-optimal (and I know it is sub-optimal 'cause I crunched those numbers), yet I still run with it anyway because that is the set-up I want to play.

As far as Civ is concerned I'm definitely not a "simulationist". If a game offers good strategy, gameplay, and story, while also keeping some semblance of historical accuracy, then great, but it will always take a back seat to the "gaming" and "narrative" for me.

 

[The Pilgrim]

The only real bad thing about the different types of players I've seen is the fact that the number crunchers have completely overrun the strategy forum to the point where if you don't want to micromanage every aspect of your empire and every unit in your army you might as well not even ask for strategy tips. To them, there is only one way to play. They even go so far as to say everything should be standard/standard/standard with no mods to even discuss strategy- yeah, let's just cut out 8/10th of the game, game speeds, maps, map settings, and mods because they make our number crunching harder. That's a sign you're doing something wrong in my humble opinion.

I am a big fan of playing the game any way that makes you happy. I just wish I could ask a question about wonders without the answer always being "don't build them, waste of hammers".

I'm sorry in advance because you might say you're being overrun by number cruncher again, but that's really not my goal. My only goal is a constructive dialog.

There are many sections that suit RPG-ers: GD, modding section, Stories and Tales and there are those, which suit number crunchers better. Strategy section is indeed an area where most of them hang out. It is explicitly dedicated to number crunching side of Civ, if you want.

People who ask questions in S&T are seeking this kind of advice. They want to know how to win, not how to write the best story. And that's what is assumed when a new thread appears. If you ask how to wonderspam on deity, of course you'll be said to abandon this idea, not because we're heartless, lack imagination, creativity or whatever, but because the game is designed this way. It has nothing to do with forum members or their preferences. However, if you specifically ask about something that is achievable even though not optimal, you'll get the advice you're looking for.

 

[Hambil]

Fair enough. I suppose it's sort of like saying the mod section has been overrun by modders.

 

[The Pilgrim]

Fair enough. I suppose it's sort of like saying the mod section has been overrun by modders.

 

[tommynt]

I'm sure Firaxis has the ability to remove RPG elements

maybe you guys have to outline which are these rpg elements before discussing them.

I simply see non- rpg would mean different leader act accoring to their historic role - like huns doing constant war, but having ais which are more peaceful and other doing more wars d also be there if civs were just called civ1 civ2 civ3 civ4 ..

 

[The Pilgrim]

maybe you guys have to outline which are these rpg elements before discussing them.

Unreasonable trading system, flavors that encourage some of the AI to wonderspam instead of making proper defense, AI is sitting back waiting for human player to win instead of taking actions to prevent that, sub optimal SP picks based on flavors etc. Very long list. Bottom line - AI is not trying to win and is not capable of winning.

 

[Kazdum]

I remember when I tried to ICS as Germany in Immortal dificulty, any Number Crunsher will tell me to go Mayan or Arabia. I knew it was the best choice of civs to do an ICS, but I started a game anyway to see how far I would go.

As the game progressed and I expanded my cities like hell, people hated me, but I had one allied among them, Japan. the US and Gandhi invaded me in the medieval era, I got overwhelmed and lost two cities, I almost rage quit that game, I saved the game and went to sleep. Next night when I came home from work I thought "should I start a new game like everyone else would do, or should I try to get some fun out of that game?".

Then I loaded it, I had 8 cities before the invasion, I ended up with 6 cities, my under developed capital and my little 1-2 pop cities. I decided to stop expanding and build up my empire. The thing is, I was so far behind by that point and I was unable to expand further because everyone around me had armies way bigger than me, and I was playing a pagea map so I couldn't colonize islands or other continents.

I knew the game was lost, the US and Gandhi were the 1st and 2nd in the game. As the game progresses I was able to pull my cities together and make them grow a little bit, from that point forward my sole objective of that game was not to let the US or Gandhi win the game, I did everything I could to stop it.

Turns out that because of me, Japan crawled from 7th place (I was 8th) to 1st and won a science victory. I spend the whole game killing my enemies units, capturing a few cities and just turtling, making RA's with Japan and giving them money and GPT. You can say I was just a Japan's minion on that game, I even captured a few cities and just gave them to Japan since he could manage to make it grow and get use of it, my happiness was capped.

Turns out that was most quite fun a game that I ever had, I lost it but who the cares? I had that game as a big victory for me, I stabilished objectives and I went trough with them, I am sure I gave the victory to japan, no doubt the US and Gandhi would have won, I was victorious with Japan. You people should just have fun your own way with the game. I am a little of a number cruncher myself, but I don't let it all come down to numbers and hammers. I find pathetic to start a game and restart it just because "I have a crappy start". it, make it work.

 

[Veneke]

... Bottom line - AI is not trying to win and is not capable of winning.

Maybe it's changed but I'm pretty sure that few, if any, role-players (or narrativists/simulationists or whatever you want to call that crowd) are against the concept of the AI being able to win. Not trying to win is a different thing, especially if the alternative is the AI playing in a way that matches its 'flavour' and the in-game setting.

I think Civ 5 has struggled with the divide more so than any other iteration of Civ. Early on the AI was pretty heavily designed towards being a potential competitor for the human player. The infamous randoms acts of betrayal players were subjected to because the AI thought it had a shot against the human in combat have been seriously toned down since release but early on it was bordering on the absurd. I don't think either crowd were happy with that state of affairs, the number-crunchers/gamers could pretty handily smack the AI around, so it wasn't really a challenge; and the role-players were pretty concerned at the fact that long-standing AI friends were an impossibility. Neither side really got what they wanted. It's become better since then, thankfully, but I still reckon it errs on the side of the gamer.