1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Do people actually like Eurekas/Inspirations?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by noto2, May 28, 2018.

  1. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,460
    Location:
    Indiana
    I don't like randomizing eurekas because I think that there needs to a certain logic between the eureka and the tech it is connected to. The player needs to see how the eureka would help them get the tech faster. If you randomize the eurekas, you lose that logic.
     
    King Rad and nzcamel like this.
  2. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    I don't like them because they devalue the power of investing in cultural/scientific output by making them only about half as advantageous.

    This makes Civ 6 a lot less long-term planning and a lot more short-term deciding which really takes away the joy of seeing your careful planning actually making a huge difference in the game. Now it just makes half the difference, the other half is made up of really mundane tasks completely irrelevant to the output of your Civilization.

    Imagine being in a race where your speed only accounted for 50% of the results and the other half is something any person can do that is irrelevant to speed. Making speed less relevant to a race is quite contradictory isn't it?
     
    ChocolateShake and Xur like this.
  3. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,454
    Location:
    Toronto
    I think when most people mention "randomizing" them, they don't mean having them completely random, but having them random between a few options. For example, the eureka for Archery one game would be to kill a unit with a slinger, but another game it would be to build a camp. They both have logic, but having that variety means that not every game follows the same paths and chasing the same eurekas.
     
    Trav'ling Canuck and nzcamel like this.
  4. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,460
    Location:
    Indiana
    Oh sure. That would work. It would of course require more work on the devs part because they would essentially need to create 2-3 eurekas for each tech and 2-3 inspirations for each civic.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  5. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    3,157
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    That depends on the race: not all races are completely and utterly about speed, some of them require clever decision making and specific skills beyond speed as well.

    IF the 'Tech Race' were only about 'speed', you'd be right. But if Technology Advance were only about a civilization's own decisions and investments in technology, education, etc, it would be a complete Fantasy with virtually no basis in history, geography, or reality.

    No amount of investment will ever make Mongolia a great naval power.

    No amount of historical investment would ever make Norway a great desert power.

    No type of rational decision or investment would keep Japan or Britain from being naval/trading nations - they can only develop so far without foreign trade and naval influence, as Japan discovered when she went into self-imposed Isolation for a couple hundred years.

    Geography and situation matter, so either you strait-jacket every Civ into starting in an identical terrain/climate start position in Every Game, or you do what Civ games have always done, allow random maps and, as a natural consequence, make the resulting in-game situations influence how you develop.

    The Eureka/Bonus system is a great addition to the game system IF (big IF) it were done right - the Eurekas and Bonuses have to have a direct relationship to the Tech/Civic involved, and I think the system would be improved if a series of Eurekas required or rewarded a Civ's making a major Investment in activity towards a given Tech goal.

    It's not about 'speed', it's about Leverage - as in leveraging your given resources and situation to attain your goals, in a game which, correctly I think, can give you a different set of resources and situations in every game you play.
     
    masda_gib and nzcamel like this.
  6. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,922
    Gender:
    Male
    40%* Though they did nerf them so I think those concerns are valid.

    But then again Science is still the most powerful yield in the whole game. The issue is more with the inability to invest in a certain campus due to the flat uses meaning that more = better. Not to mention capturing things also sets off Eureka which unnaturally skews things on higher levels to conquest.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2018
  7. Xur

    Xur Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2016
    Messages:
    411
    The more I play civ6, the more I want a civ7 and hope it isn’t centered around boardgame mechanics. Eurekas sound great on paper, but reality not so much... like a lot of the design choices in civ6. I really hope Ed Beach isn’t lead designer for civ7....
     
    Arent11 likes this.
  8. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    You misunderstood my analogy of speed in the context. I was not comparing Speed in a race with Speed in Research. I was comparing the importance of speed in a race with the importance of long-term planning/development in Civ 6.(Of course the races I was referring is the most conventional kind where speed is the most relevant or else I would not have used the example in the first place so I find your need to mention "depends on the race" quite irrelevant.)

    In the same way you don't seek to make speed less important in conventional races , you don't seek to undermine long-term consequences in a game that's supposed to span millenniums.

    Although I would agree that many if not most useful inventions required some sort of breakthrough experience that was not connected to investments in research, I would like to point out the fact that most of these experiences were completely beyond the control of whoever was involved with the breakthrough at that time. Archimedes didn't get in the bath because he knew it would lead to a Eureka. (Pun totally Intended).

    If we are to extrapolate from that the design of a game feature that somewhat resembles such a phenomenon the closest we can get to is a completely random set of "quests" beyond a player's control that would result in Eurekas. That however undermines strategy because of its unpredictability and the challenge offered then would also be irrelevant to strategical play because it will inevitably be centered around short terms decisions. i.e if a eureka takes too long to get it won't be useful.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2018
  9. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,460
    Location:
    Indiana
    Firaxis changes lead designer from civ to civ on purpose so that each new civ can be a unique game. So chances are that Ed Beach won't be lead designer again on civ7. There is precedent that the guy who leads an expansion pack gets to be lead designer on the next civ, so maybe Anton Strenger will be lead designer on civ7.
     
  10. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    The general rule of thumb for all design is that Devs shouldn't try to fix something that isn't broken; i.e don't reinvent the wheel. They could simply have kept polishing on existing features, maybe making new features compatible with existing ones and eventually everything would have gotten better and better. Unfortunately this fallacious need to make everything new so it doesn't get boring prevents proper polishing from taking place by remaking everything and that is why every product made this way will never reach its full potential. Many games out there who don't reinvent the wheel do so well after decades of polishing I don't see why Firaxis can't do the same thing.
     
    Xur likes this.
  11. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,454
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah, my biggest problem with the eurekas is that they often reward a minor investment, but not more. So, I build 2 galleys for the eureka, but I can literally build them and delete them. If they could design a system where instead of 2 galleys, the eureka gave a bonus depending on the number of tiles uncovered by those galleys, so you need to build and explore with them. Even if they gave each tech, say, 2 eurekas, a minor and major, where the minor eureka gave like 20% and the major eureka 30%. Then you could have a system like "minor - build 2 galleys. Major - discover a new civilization with a galley". Or if it was a system where for archery, the bonus scales with the number of battles a slinger is involved with. Alternately, if the tech costs were very high so that you virtually had to do whatever it took for the eureka, that might similarly be an interesting system, as long as the tech tree was flexible enough to give you paths to go down. I mean, if you essentially never went through any of the seafaring techs until you build a galley, that would certainly be an interesting gameplay decision as well.
     
  12. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,460
    Location:
    Indiana
    In theory I definitely agree with you. I feel like civ would be a stronger franchise if they took a more iterative design philosophy. But that is clearly not Firaxis' design philosophy. They want each civ game to stand on its own as a new game, probably so that previous civ games continue to sell. That's why years later, there are civ players who still play civ5, civ4 or even civ3. Each game is different so there is a civ for everyone. Some players like how civ4 "did it" while others prefer how civ5 "did it". If you just made each civ an iteration of the previous one, then the latest civ would be the best one and no one would care about the previous ones.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  13. Zaarin

    Zaarin Chief Medical Officer, DS9

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    7,840
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    Which would be absolutely silly, given that the foundations of scientific theory in the West were established by Catholic Scholasticism and made mainstream through the Protestant Reformation. The conflict between science and religion is a relic of the Victorian age that unfortunately continues to plague popular perceptions; historically science and religion had a complicated relationship but were usually allies.
     
  14. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,902
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    I think it's best to just have the one in each game, even if they rotate; as too many of them are already too easy to get for my mind; and having a few different ways to get them everytime would only increase that.

    See the find a new continent one is great. Sure, sometimes you'll get lucky and be situated with one near by; but often you're not and it makes getting a scout going early important (possibly on the huge maps I play it's less likely). Sure - it was already important, but with barbs as they are, without incentives like that, the scout may come after a few more military units. Again, your best plan is being tugged off course.

    Glad to see you here Victoria :)

    I was going to dissent, but I see Zaarin has done it for me :thumbsup:

    Well, isn't an optimal way through the tree in 90% of games you'll play something being broken? If the choice is a Clayton's one, then I think it did need fixing.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  15. MooFreaky

    MooFreaky Meatbag Destroyer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Messages:
    332
    After the collapse of Roman control in Western Europe, wasn't it largely the church that saved, reproduced and then passed down much of that knowledge? The church was the source of spiritual and knowledge based enlightenment for a long time.
    Islam, generally, also had an alliance between science and religion. Back in the day the Zorastrians were scientifically advanced, by what limited accounts we have. The pagans in Greece and Egypt were more limited by their technological development than by their religious ideals.
    I don't really know too much about Hinduism's relationship with cultural development but AFAIK it didn't have a negative impact on scientific development.
    But it seems that most of the big players, in religious terms, were pretty good at cultivating science.

    The idea of religion and science being mutually exclusive is a modern perspective based on a very limited window of a limited period of Christian history, and the current state of Islam in certain regions.
     
    Zaarin, King Rad and nzcamel like this.
  16. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,293
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Winner, winner...

    For whatever reason, they seem to be very conservative with balancing adjustments. I don't know why, given that they have a 3 month patch cycle; maybe they just don't have the data gathering ability to inform a more active approach.
    Civ has the inherent thorn of the incredible amount of influence the starting area has on your civ's fortunes, but the map itself doesn't really impact the fact that some units aren't worth using, some techs/civics are garbage, some policies are all but mandatory, etc. For MP and esports, truly great competitive games have balancing that brings opposing sides within the margin of player skill. On the SP side, it's not an entirely different ballgame - we aren't playing other players, but the base game rules are common between the modes. If it's way easier to do one victory type over another, or if certain playstyles (tall vs wide, builder+defense vs conquest) are too good, it's true in both modes. Humans don't necessarily use diplomacy the same way in MP, but they still have to use systems like alliances (well designed for MP, imo).

    Even if they have limitations preventing them from doing tweaks like what they've just done for the Military tactics UUs every patch, I think they other missing piece is some type of communication from the balance team. How do the developers see the game? What do they think is too fast or too strong? What is the design intention behind some of the things they change or won't change? Being enigmatic doesn't get you anywhere - it can be as simple as "Hey, we noticed players were rarely choosing Victor, so we've tweaked his starting bonus" or "Horseman are proving to be too good against swordsmen, so we are upping their production to 90." These things could be copied right from the minutes of their balance team meetings. Most balance changes are basically little table edits. Balance is a dynamic and moving target; it's okay to take a few iterations to get right.

    I'm not knocking what they do - I think what balancing they have done so far has been pretty solid- but if, in the case of eurekas, we (the fanatics) actually knew that the dev team intended typical games to last X turns and for players to average about Y% of the eurekas in a game, then it would be very clear to us if something isn't quite working right. In this case, I think players proved able to get way more eurekas than they planned for: hence they cut eureka bonus to 40%.
     
  17. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I like eureka/inspiration mechanics:
    1. It gives some variability in games as sometimes you alter research order based on available eurekas.
    2. It may alter priorities of other things depending on Eurekas needed.
    3. It can't break the game as randomized techs could.
     
  18. Chocolate Pi

    Chocolate Pi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    74
    Gender:
    Male
    The system is solid, and functions as one of the best quest/tutorial features I've seen in a game. It does a great job of mixing up tech tree progression when it's working right.

    That said, the system is one of the areas where we really see some of the balance weaknesses of civ(6), both in the quests themselves and more broadly. Ideally all quests should be map-based or tied to specific tall-play benchmarks--the quests most like that indeed tend to work quite well, while stuff based on district-X count, unit count, or diplomacy tend to be underwhelming and add much less to decision making. (And merely offer ways to convert production to science.)

    My awards for best quests:
    • Found a city on the coast
    • Grow a city to at least 15 population
    • Build 6 farms
    • Build a University next to a mountain
    • Recruit 3 total Great People
    Some of the duds, which are all either obnoxious or trivial:
    • Be the target of a Declaration of War
    • Declare War using a Causi Belli
    • Build an Aquaduct
    • Construct 2 Forts
    • Build 2 Campuses
    • Construct 3 Banks
    • Construct 3 Crossbowmen
    • Kill a unity with a Musketman
    • Construct 3 Biplanes
     
    Zaarin and Exterrestrial like this.
  19. KayAU

    KayAU King

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    861
    I like the system, although I think it could certainly be improved. The fundamental idea of it is great, as it should add to variety and immersion. For example it makes sense that the civ which founded a city on the coast should develop sailing or related technologies quicker, the civ which built a huge city should develop sanitation quicker, and the civ which did a lot of warfare should develop weapons.

    Where it falls a bit short of its potential, though, is when you have to do a certain amount of busywork which does not make sense in the overall strategy you are working with, and which you are doing just to optimize your research. I also don't particularly like the mechanic of researching something just past half-way, then switching over to something else because you are expecting to get the remaining research for free. This makes little sense, and breaks immersion.

    Just a couple of ideas to mitigate these issues:
    • Perhaps there should be a rule which says that a boost can not be applied after research has started, i.e. you can only get the inspiration up front. This means no more switching out half-researched techs to play optimally. And no more being annoyed that you forgot to do so.
    • As an alternative to the above: boosts should not come in the form of a heap of free research points, but as a percentage modifier to your research points while you are researching the boosted tech.
    • Perhaps there should be some hard limit to how many eurekas or inspirations you can get for each era. This will mean you will not be compelled to try and hit every single one, as that somewhat undermines the idea of creating variety between playthroughs, and customizing your civilization based on situation. Of course, the limit may be modified by abilities or wonders.

    Also, as others have stated, there is room for improvement in what the quests should be themselves.
     
    cinattra likes this.
  20. Onii-chan

    Onii-chan King

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2016
    Messages:
    604
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Well I can only heavily disagree with that. I think it's a fantastic system that actually encourages you to be active on the map to get ahead and incorporates a ton of fancy micromanagement timings, especially in combination with the free policy card swaps that are available every time you finish a Civic. Obviously there are some tech paths that may be better than others, but you won't always have the ability to do what you want since circumstances change from game to game, and thus you're forced to adapt. That's what causes variation and replayability. You can't just mindlessly get whatever tech you want like you would otherwise. Now you actually have a reason to either go out of your way to do something in order to get what you want or having to come up with some other plan if you can't get it the optimal way

    Now I will agree that some boosts are a bit stupid and might need tweaking, but that's just some specific editing that is needed. The system itself is great

    Could be fun seeing some mod to just randomize what boosts are required for which techs and civics a bit though, that'd cause a bit of chaos and perhaps not be very logical anymore but it would be fun from a gameplay point of view at least. The idea to have a couple different alternative boosts per tech/civic where just one is randomly chosen per game sounds awesome I think, that'd maintain the logic but still heavily increase variety even further
     
    cinattra and nzcamel like this.

Share This Page