Disease [Idea]

[Boris Gudenuf]

And, of course you're in on that vile bit, too. And deliberately not responding to me because sober and cautionary sense of an unfolding bad mechanic idea is better ignored than dealt with by those want vapid sensationalism and not ideas for a viable game people are expected to play.

No, I'm not responding to you because there's nothing to respond to except "It's bad, it's really bad, it's really, really bad and odious and vile."

Actually, I would posit that a Plague/Disease mechanic is simply in Extremely Bad Taste since we've all just gone through several years of Real Time Plague/Disease mechanic and don't really need to play that in any game for quite some time to come.

So it is not the mechanic that is bad, it is the subject. The mechanic may be bad or at least not good game design based on how it is implemented. But if we are to avoid 'bad subjects' in the game, I suggest we need to look not only at Slavery and Plague/Disease, but also at War in general, Starvation, and Massacre, since all of those are in the game and are apparently acceptable, or at least pass without comment.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Actually, I would posit that a Plague/Disease mechanic is simply in Extremely Bad Taste since we've all just gone through several years of Real Time Plague/Disease mechanic and don't really need to play that in any game for quite some time to come.

Ironically Pandemic/Plague games soared in popularity in the last 4 years. It's just a loud vocal minority, as it's usually the case regarding any subject, that seem to hate the ideas.

 

[Evie]

Let them stay that way. If I want Pandemic, I'll play freaking pandemic, it's good enough as it's own game. If I'm playing civ it's not for a pale clone of Pandemic as a mini-game to hog up my attention.

Representation of disease in the game I'm all for, the idea that we should avoid it is extreme,, but something along the line of a Civ IV-style passive system is the way to do it, not an entire game within the game.

 

[Patine]

Ironically Pandemic/Plague games soared in popularity in the last 4 years. It's just a loud vocal minority, as it's usually the case regarding any subject, that seem to hate the ideas.

Perhaps it's a silent majority, that's not in such plague games' marketing schemes because they're not playing them, and, "soaring popularity," is measured against, "internal marketing numbers," which is all it can be.

 

[Patine]

No, I'm not responding to you because there's nothing to respond to except "It's bad, it's really bad, it's really, really bad and odious and vile."

Actually, I would posit that a Plague/Disease mechanic is simply in Extremely Bad Taste since we've all just gone through several years of Real Time Plague/Disease mechanic and don't really need to play that in any game for quite some time to come.

So it is not the mechanic that is bad, it is the subject. The mechanic may be bad or at least not good game design based on how it is implemented. But if we are to avoid 'bad subjects' in the game, I suggest we need to look not only at Slavery and Plague/Disease, but also at War in general, Starvation, and Massacre, since all of those are in the game and are apparently acceptable, or at least pass without comment.

Ironically Pandemic/Plague games soared in popularity in the last 4 years. It's just a loud vocal minority, as it's usually the case regarding any subject, that seem to hate the ideas.

Let them stay that way. If I want Pandemic, I'll play freaking pandemic, it's good enough as it's own game. If I'm playing civ it's not for a pale clone of Pandemic as a mini-game to hog up my attention.

Representation of disease in the game I'm all for, the idea that we should avoid it is ridiculous,, but something along the line of a Civ IV-style passive system is the way to do it, not an entire game within the game.

My big concern is not subject matter, and I didn't specifically say it was. The slavery reference was just a comparison to another notion I felt should be just done as a passive, implied, background thing. It's just that, as these ideas get hashed out, I can only envision an egeregious, annoying chore of a mechanic tacked on that saps enjoyment from gameplay.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My big concern is not subject matter, and I didn't specifically say it was. The slavery reference was just a comparison to another notion I felt should be just done as a passive, implied, background thing. It's just that, as these ideas get hashed out, I can only envision an egeregious, annoying chore of a mechanic tacked on that saps enjoyment from gameplay.

In this we are agreed. IF the game must have a 'disease' mechanic (and Note that my first comments were not in favor, either) I also think the 'passive' or at least largely Invisible mechanics used in Civ IV are a better way to go than piling on new Buildings, Great People, or other game devices that require more attention from the gamer. I might suggest ways that 'clutter' could be introduced that are based (loosely) on Real Events, that doesn't mean I think it is necessarily a good idea to bury the gamer in them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Let them stay that way. If I want Pandemic, I'll play freaking pandemic, it's good enough as it's own game. If I'm playing civ it's not for a pale clone of Pandemic as a mini-game to hog up my attention.

Representation of disease in the game I'm all for, the idea that we should avoid it is extreme,, but something along the line of a Civ IV-style passive system is the way to do it, not an entire game within the game.

I never meant for it to be that fleshed out. I do think there is a middle ground between being too passive, and a fleshed out mini-game.

I'm also up for having more customizable games, so there's no reason why a "Pandemic" mode couldn't be a toggleable game mode? In fact, I was hoping for one in the NFP.
That way it wouldn't hurt the people that do not care for it at all.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I never meant for it to be that fleshed out. I do think there is a middle ground between being too passive, and a fleshed out mini-game.

I'm also up for having more customizable games, so there's no reason why a "Pandemic" mode couldn't be a toggleable game mode? In fact, I was hoping for one in the NFP.
That way it wouldn't hurt the people that do not care for it at all.

I am not a programmer and am completely ignorant of the engines and computer languages used in game development these days, so this may be pure Pie In The Sky, but there's a Thought Experiment:

Anno 1800, a very popular game in another long-running franchise of games, has a bunch of DLCs each of which adds very different things to the game. Many are based around a new part of the world to play on and in, but there are also things they add like a government Palace which modifies play, or a DLC that adds airships and airmail mechanics, another that hugely modifies the way bulk trade goods can be handled.

So, how difficult would it be to separate elements and mechanics of Civ VII into DLCs in much the same way?

Examples:

A DLC that adds the Ottomans as a playable Civ also adds a Slavery and Slave-Trading/Slave Economy mechanics to the game: building on the fact that the Ottomans and their Christian opponents both dealt heavily in trading their opponents' citizens in their conflicts.

Another DLC adds the playable Civs of, say, Sweden and Bohemia and Charlemagne as an additional Leader for either France or Germany, and also a Plague mechanic reflecting the fact that all the playable additions are modeled as their Medieval versions.

You could toggle on or off any element in the DLCs, so if you are tired of Charlemagne's face or find it distasteful to deal with slavery you don't have to.

Call it Civilization VII, the 4X Game Kit . . .

 

[BuchiTaton]

Healthiness: A similar approach to CIV4's is a good model to replace CIV6's Housing, that can work by itself without a pandemic disease mechanic. Technologies, buildings, policies and resources with bonus for Healthiness fit perfectly like many "requeriment" systems in CIV.
Disease: Trigger epidemic/pandemic when players fail to provide the fundamental level of healthiness is very similar to revolt from low happiness/loyalty or disaters from global warming. The probability element for disease should not be a concern if it is locked to be possible only under the worse level of insalubrity.
This is not a punishement from nowhere, it icould be the not immediate result from let a city decay for several turns. I mean you would need to ignore healthiness upgrades, fall some levels, have an alarm of the problem, then being some turn at the worse to finaly unlock the percentage chance to produce a disease and if you are lucky it could take some turn to pull out the actual disease. Then emergence of the disease would be announced to players so others could take measures like quarantine to reduce the spread and effect of the disease.
Medicament: About this I think is too complex to have resources and great people specialized to deal with disease or healthiness. I mean, of course it would be nice to have some resources with bonus for healthiness, but these resources should be just some of the resources that happen to have a health bonus between their others affects.
Now there is a think that could works and is linked to both Science and Diplomacy. What if at late game after the proper technologies like Vaccines, Antibiotics and Genetics players could develop treatments/cures for diseases. For example:
1- Eras before a seriously unhealthy Danish city produced the "Copenhagen's Plague", this disease already turned into a minor malus for cities where it spread.
2- Later a player put its science research queu to investigate a Treatment/Cure for this disease (I have the idea of use Science research queu for others thinks beyond technologies, like expeditions, crop varieties, academic grants, etc.), once achieved this cure the player can use it for...

A- Patent, earn X amount of gold from every city with the diese in exchange to remove it. ​

B- Donate, send your cure for free to every nation of the world, of course these would give you great diplomatic reputation. ​

C- Weaponize, of course a serious evil and dangerous thing to do, but CIV allow you be "nuclear Gandhi haha-hihi" ​

If the last one is too much the second one is still a chance to let us think about something both more positive that real pharmaceutical politics and usefull in game for diplomatic victory.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I never meant for it to be that fleshed out. I do think there is a middle ground between being too passive, and a fleshed out mini-game.

I'm also up for having more customizable games, so there's no reason why a "Pandemic" mode couldn't be a toggleable game mode? In fact, I was hoping for one in the NFP.
That way it wouldn't hurt the people that do not care for it at all.

I don't think anyone is suggesting a concept that is too overcentralising, to the point of being its own game or mini game.

The health systems discussed in this thread range to mostly tame, it's not any more complicated or time consuming than religious systems for example.

Obviously it depends on execution

 

[Patine]

I don't think anyone is suggesting a concept that is too overcentralising, to the point of being its own game or mini game.

Several people here did, in fact, paraphrase suggesting that the path the ideas were heading down were becoming such.a mini-game, and one more implied, passive, background mechanics would be preferable. Are such posters not, "anyone."

 

[GeneralZIft]

Several people here did, in fact, paraphrase suggesting that the path the ideas were heading down were becoming such.a mini-game, and one more implied, passive, background mechanics would be preferable. Are such posters not, "anyone."

Either you don't read on purpose for the sake of jumping to inane conclusions like this or you HAPPEN to misunderstand what I said in such a conveniently misleading way; either way it is incredibly funny.

Let's review the message:

I don't think anyone is suggesting a concept that is too overcentralising, to the point of being its own game or mini game.
The health systems discussed in this thread range to mostly tame, it's not any more complicated or time consuming than religious systems for example.
Obviously it depends on execution

I don't think anyone is suggesting a concept that is too overcentralising to the point of being its own game or mini-game.

This is an opinion, it says "I don't think anyone in this thread, has suggested a concept that is overcentralising, my own standards, to the point where that concept would feel like its own game."

Let's review the reply:

Several people here did, in fact, paraphrase suggesting that the path the ideas were heading down were becoming such.a mini-game, and one more implied, passive, background mechanics would be preferable. Are such posters not, "anyone."

In other words you said this:
"Multiple people actually did suggest that the ideas were heading down towards becoming a mini-game, are these people not people?"


This reply is attacking a strawman that does not exist. I didn't say anything about the people who thought that this idea was alike a 'mini-game' - I am solely talking about the idea itself, and providing a counter-opinion (that I do not think the suggestion is like a mini-game)


This is incredibly infuriating to read. You jump to inane angry conclusions several times this thread. Please READ before you respond. You are not winning any fake imaginary arguments.

 

[Patine]

Either you don't read on purpose for the sake of jumping to inane conclusions like this or you HAPPEN to misunderstand what I said in such a conveniently misleading way; either way it is incredibly funny.

Let's review the message:


I don't think anyone is suggesting a concept that is too overcentralising to the point of being its own game or mini-game.

This is an opinion, it says "I don't think anyone in this thread, has suggested a concept that is overcentralising, my own standards, to the point where that concept would feel like its own game."

Let's review the reply:


In other words you said this:
"Multiple people actually did suggest that the ideas were heading down towards becoming a mini-game, are these people not people?"


This reply is attacking a strawman that does not exist. I didn't say anything about the people who thought that this idea was alike a 'mini-game' - I am solely talking about the idea itself, and providing a counter-opinion (that I do not think the suggestion is like a mini-game)


This is incredibly infuriating to read. You jump to inane angry conclusions several times this thread. Please READ before you respond. You are not winning any fake imaginary arguments.

I do read, as a matter of fact. Just because I point out errors, flaws, or proclaimed falsehoods in one's posts doesn't mean I don't, and is yet another insult by you, and disingenuous attempt to invalidate my viewpoints you find inconvenient, or that disagree with, or criticize your notions. Evie used the term, "mini-game," and Boris and I used analogous terms. And, the last part of this post is attempting to backtrack what you initially said, complete with more insults. It's so transparent.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think anyone is suggesting a concept that is too overcentralising, to the point of being its own game or mini game.

The health systems discussed in this thread range to mostly tame, it's not any more complicated or time consuming than religious systems for example.

Obviously it depends on execution

I'd like to get an opinion on how much is too much for some people:

Buildings/Districts: I don't think the concept could exist without some buildings, maybe a whole district, being geared towards this. Housing already has its own district and buildings, and if Health were to replace it, I don't see the problem.

Great People: I don't think we need a specialized group of Great people to deal with Health. That role could be given to various others. I can see at least one Great Scientist/ Great Prophet etc. having abilities geared towards it.

Civilian Units: I know a lot of people hate having many different civilian units, but Plague Doctors honestly would look cool.

Resources: I've already mentioned this, but having some resources that could have health would be fine. Maybe you could upgrade one of them by founding a corporation, considering I want those to also return.

World Congress: Obviously we would need a Pandemic emergency, right? Using your science to research a cure and being able to send aid to other civs seems like the most mini-game part. But of course, isn't every World congress emergency already like a mini-game?

 

[pokiehl]

I'd like to get an opinion on how much is too much for some people:

Buildings/Districts: I don't think the concept could exist without some buildings, maybe a whole district, being geared towards this. Housing already has its own district and buildings, and if Health were to replace it, I don't see the problem.

Great People: I don't think we need a specialized group of Great people to deal with Health. That role could be given to various others. I can see at least one Great Scientist/ Great Prophet etc. having abilities geared towards it.

Civilian Units: I know a lot of people hate having many different civilian units, but Plague Doctors honestly would look cool.

Resources: I've already mentioned this, but having some resources that could have health would be fine. Maybe you could upgrade one of them by founding a corporation, considering I want those to also return.

World Congress: Obviously we would need a Pandemic emergency, right? Using your science to research a cure and being able to send aid to other civs seems like the most mini-game part. But of course, isn't every World congress emergency already like a mini-game?

I don’t think any of that is excessive. It mostly just fits in with existing systems.

 

[Patine]

I'd like to get an opinion on how much is too much for some people:

Buildings/Districts: I don't think the concept could exist without some buildings, maybe a whole district, being geared towards this. Housing already has its own district and buildings, and if Health were to replace it, I don't see the problem.

Great People: I don't think we need a specialized group of Great people to deal with Health. That role could be given to various others. I can see at least one Great Scientist/ Great Prophet etc. having abilities geared towards it.

Civilian Units: I know a lot of people hate having many different civilian units, but Plague Doctors honestly would look cool.

Resources: I've already mentioned this, but having some resources that could have health would be fine. Maybe you could upgrade one of them by founding a corporation, considering I want those to also return.

World Congress: Obviously we would need a Pandemic emergency, right? Using your science to research a cure and being able to send aid to other civs seems like the most mini-game part. But of course, isn't every World congress emergency already like a mini-game?

I would say a district or two, some techs, and policy or two would be sufficient. Anything more I would see as two much aggravation for very little game.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I do read, as a matter of fact. Just because I point out errors, flaws, or proclaimed falsehoods in one's posts doesn't mean I don't, and is yet another insult by you, and disingenuous attempt to invalidate my viewpoints you find inconvenient, or that disagree with, or criticize your notions. Evie used the term, "mini-game," and Boris and I used analogous terms. And, the last part of this post is attempting to backtrack what you initially said, complete with more insults. It's so transparent.

But you didn't actually. What you did is reply to something I didn't say. Which is very infuriating.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I'd like to get an opinion on how much is too much for some people:

Buildings/Districts: I don't think the concept could exist without some buildings, maybe a whole district, being geared towards this. Housing already has its own district and buildings, and if Health were to replace it, I don't see the problem.

Great People: I don't think we need a specialized group of Great people to deal with Health. That role could be given to various others. I can see at least one Great Scientist/ Great Prophet etc. having abilities geared towards it.

Civilian Units: I know a lot of people hate having many different civilian units, but Plague Doctors honestly would look cool.

Resources: I've already mentioned this, but having some resources that could have health would be fine. Maybe you could upgrade one of them by founding a corporation, considering I want those to also return.

World Congress: Obviously we would need a Pandemic emergency, right? Using your science to research a cure and being able to send aid to other civs seems like the most mini-game part. But of course, isn't every World congress emergency already like a mini-game?

I don't think it is, but by saying that, I hope I don't imply to some people, that I think other people don't think it is

 

[Patine]

But you didn't actually. What you did is reply to something I didn't say. Which is very infuriating.

No, I didn't. If your intent didn't across in your wording, that's not my problem. But what I constantly endure, for reasons I don't know, from you goes beyond infuriating to the level of egregious and intractable.

I don't think it is, but by saying that, I hope I don't imply to some people, that I think other people don't think it is

I quoted two other posters. You usually just say, in unbacked declarations, the people (or, in one case, early on, the, "silent majority,") support you, or that no one disagreed when some have, and also, insultingly, imply is not part of, "everybody."

 

[Evie]

As I see it:

Building Districts are core like you said. Strong yes.

Great People: I completely agree with this implementation. Great people with abilities like "Can use its charge to make a city immune to unhealth from flood plains" or "Can use its charge to grant +4 health to a city" are perfectly fine, and a good and healthy part of the game.

Civilian Units: A poor fit for a baseline health system without some sort of pandemic crisis minigame, and the last thing we need is more civilian unit minigames. Outside that option, they could either use up a charge to grant a health bonus to a city, or grant a health bonus to a garrisoned city, but both effects are much better attained with buildings, and are much easier to keep track off that way. About the only way in which they might be helpful is in late-game remote outposts where they can provide a health bonus that allow a new city to get off the ground before it can build improvements, but that's a very niche use. As much as the plague doctors are cool, I don't see that as a good fit.

Resources: FOOD. In Civ IV, this was rightly the roll that was assigned to food resources : they provided health (as balanced diets with access to varried foodstuffs do) as luxuries provided happiness. This is a much better implementation than keeping the food resources as strictly local bonuses and designing a whole new category of resources with an in-game effect. That said, the idea of having a corporation, improvement or something similar that convert some other resources into a "medication" resource make sense.

World Congress: Aside the fact that nobody likes the World Congress (but nobody likes the World Congress), I would say we're talking more competitions than emergencies (emergencies are pretty much all just forms of warfare in Civ VI). And while they are technically minigames, the difference between them and how most people use the term is that none of them involve its own units and its own map interactions. Competitions pretty much exclusively rely on one-of off-map actions, and interact with almost nothing except your build order and your ability to generate great people point. This is a reasonable appropach to the game.

If done in the style of the Civ VI competition, you could have a pandemic competition where civilizations score points for completing the "Cure Disease" project, and for building clinics and hospitals, but that'S about as much of a pandemic mini game as I'd be interested in having. Most importantly, no units moving around trying to drive the pandemic out of this or that city.