[GS] Does anyone else hate the World Congress?

[shaglio]

One little subtle detail that I DO enjoy about the WC is that you can X-out of the menu, do some research (Do I have an abundance of any Luxuries? Does my enemy have a Religion I need to stomp out), and come back to select you’re A/B options. In Civ games past, those types of things weren’t possible. Now you’re able to make an informed choice instead of trying to remember everything off the top of your head.

 

[steveg700]

1. you cannot downvote to maintain the current situation, and have to choose from A or B.

This is by design. Devs said they didn't want a WC to convene and consistently result in nothing happening.

What I don't see the benefit in is being blindly presented with an agenda specifically so that you can't proactively try to manage by, say, trying to horse-trade for favor (not that AI civ's will part with favor anyway, but ideally they should). And then you engage in a blind bid for an item that you were essentially ambushed with.

If nothing else, they could at least categorize the different types of votes by what they'll impact--e.g. buildings, great people, military units, religious units, etc--then let you know what kind of vote is coming up next.

 

[komodo]

The pop-ups are annoying, interrupting my train of thought.

The decisions are meaningless and uninteresting.

A modern UN theme before the Modern Era? It is so jarring.

Worst, most painful addition to the game.

EDIT: Wrong sub-forum. Feel free to move.

Hate it? Absolutely not! World congress is the best feature in GS other than the awesome new civs. Love the WC.

 

[universecreep]

I can't say I love it, but I certainly don't hate it. I was sceptical when they added victory points for voting for the winning resolution, but now I think that was definitely an improvement.

I find the WC boring and voting is intuitive. It shouldn't be so hard to find out what everyone else if going to vote for.

Additionally, the proposals are meaningless and I just end up clicking randomly to get back to the game. Unfortunately, with the new changes, i you want to try to go for a diplomatic victory or prevent one, you have to take extra time in a boring gameplay mechanism and try to guess what everyone else will vote for - not fun. Not only is it boring to have to click through the boxes the resolutions still have no real impact on gameplay.

I wish the WC would have fewer resolutions to vote on each time (to make it quicker) but also have them be more significant so I want to participate rather than feel like I have to.

 

[GoRniC]

I find it to be an interesting concept though I dislike how it's done. The current version got old for me really fast. It feels more like an unwelcome interruption to my game rather than an interesting minigame as which it should probably be.

In its current form, it just feels like a very lazy and poorly implemented feature of the game.

 

[steveg700]

It's completely nonsensical because everyone is voting for different things. They should vote for proposal selection first, and then we should vote on the proposals that make it.

Do you spend favor to do decide what proposal on the ballot and then spend favor to vote on the ballot items? Would lead to situations where you vote to get the item you want, then can't afford to win it.

So, maybe instead some kind of token-passing occurs. Remember in V that every session actually did have a leader who made proposals? Maybe the WC needs something like that.

 

[Bitterman]

One random proposal and one leader selected vote every session would be a solution probably. This leader could be chosen by round robin I guess, although I would personally prefer something that rewarded having more diplo favour/alliances/suzeranities.

It would still be random but not so random.

 

[kaspergm]

I wouldn't mind the current system so much if the other player's vote was more transparent, but the current system coupled with the fact that you are all but clueless about how the other players are going to vote (and how many votes they are going to throw into each suggestion) means you are basically just making random guesses, which is pretty horrible game design.

I would like some more intel on exactly how AI was going to vote, at least with higher levels of diplomatic visibility. Also, they could bring back the deceitful personality for Civ5 to have the AI lie about how they would vote.

 

[KayAU]

Things like sanctions are better reflected by the emergency sessions.

The regular sessions are more representative of the day-to-day bureaucracy. Bureaucrats making unnecessary proposals and insisting they be voted on immediately seems pretty realistic to me. Bureaucrats pushing very hard for a specific outcome but getting their cause coopted by an opportunistic rival is also something that happens.

I believe I understand what you are getting at, but I think that is stretching it a bit. At the end of the day, it's a vote over a specific set of proposals, just a very strangely structured vote. If they wanted to make something to represent day-to-day bureaucracy and unintentional consequences thereof, I think just some random events would serve that purpose better.

In my opinion, the game which did the World Congress right was Alpha Centauri (although it was of course called Planetary Council there). A similar system for Civ 6 would have Kupe pushing to ban chopping of rainforest. He already has the support of Mwemba, Pedro and Roosevelt, and manages to create a majority by bribing Peter. Unfortunately, the resolution is blocked by executive veto from Council Chairman Frederick, reaffirming the importance of taking control of the World Congress during the next session.

 

[criZp]

The Devs have explained why they didn't design the WC to allow for player initiated resolutions - see here. Personally, I think their reasoning is pretty solid.

You also can (potentially) control the outcome of the second part of the vote if you spend enough favour. If you choose to vote for a resolution, but don't invest enough favour to also guide the target, well then that's a risk you choose to take.

Their reasoning is not solid, they say it would take time to balance and code AI for, and we know the devs hate balance and AI. This is why they don't want to do it.

Second, no, voting on something that benefits you should never be turned into a vote that benefits an enemy. I honestly cannot comprehend that anyone playing a "strategy" game would think something so dumb and nonsensical would be a good idea.

 

[AsH2]

Spoiler :

..
You also can (potentially) control the outcome of the second part of the vote if you spend enough favour. If you choose to vote for a resolution, but don't invest enough favour to also guide the target, well then that's a risk you choose to take.

..no, voting on something that benefits you should never be turned into a vote that benefits an enemy. I honestly cannot comprehend that anyone playing a "strategy" game would think something so dumb and nonsensical would be a good idea.

Ever heard of "trade-offs"?
What you suggest here is "no trade-off - just sell off all df for the gain". In my mind, that's a dumb and nonsensical idea in a "strategy" game.

 

[criZp]

Ever heard of "trade-offs"?
What you suggest here is "no trade-off - just sell off all df for the gain". In my mind, that's a dumb and nonsensical idea in a "strategy" game.

What are you even talking about here, seriously? The only thing I suggested is that votes for one proposal should not be turned into votes for something else. Go put your straw man somewhere else.

 

[AsH2]

What are you even talking about here, seriously? The only thing I suggested is that votes for one proposal should not be turned into votes for something else.

Wow.. Not only did you fail to look up a common expression in "strategy" game design; You had no clue what you were dissing in the first place..

Go put your straw man somewhere else.

Only if you'd contribute with one of your tinfoil hats.

OnT.. And no, I don't think WC is working perfectly fine as it is; but jumping one of it's few mechanism that do add some relevance (to it), is IMO laughable (especially when ignorantly done).

 

[criZp]

Wow.. Not only did you fail to look up a common expression in "strategy" game design; You had no clue what you were dissing in the first place..
Only if you'd contribute with one of your tinfoil hats.

OnT.. And no, I don't think WC is working perfectly fine as it is; but jumping one of it's few mechanism that do add some relevance (to it), is IMO laughable (especially when ignorantly done).

Of course I know what a trade-off is. My first point had nothing to do with trade-offs, so I still have no idea why you are bringing that up.

 

[acluewithout]

Boy, that escalated quickly.

I get that the WC voting is not what some people want, and that's a totally legitimate view to have. But the voting is not fundamentally broken, and saying it is doesn't make it so.

I'm not sure the voting is really or strictly a trade-off per se, but not going to argue either way. Key thing is that the voting has an element of risk & reward. If you vote for Option A, you have to factor in that it also has a target and you may not like the target that ultimately gets chosen. So, you either have to invest enough diplo favour to guarantee the precise outcome you want, or not and run the risk you get screwed, or vote for Option B and (hopefully) avoid the risk altogether but then also rule out the upside of Option A going your way.

I think that's a pretty cool idea, although as I've said I think the actual resolutions need some work and maybe there needs to be more visibility on how people will vote and like the WC just needs some more bells and whistles overall anyway. But if you don't like the design then, well, yeah, I get that.

 

[Victoria]

Second, no, voting on something that benefits you should never be turned into a vote that benefits an enemy

I guess you dd not read my thread earlier or discarded the point.
There are votes like this that happen all the time in real life and in games. Even if it is down to 2 choices, So in the world congress you vote for melee units get +5 because it benefits your WC domination ... or you have a few legions that need upping a bit because you are near Shaka..... then Shaka attacks out of the fog. Often things do not turn out the way intended even if the vote is the one you wanted let alone grouping votes.

That this simple A vs B vote has been given sub options just means you have to be more careful and you need a different tactic. If you do not have a lot of votes you need to think what would affect me most rather than what would benefit me most. If you think you can win your vote then you vote for your benefit. What I see is someone creating a thread because they put 1-2 votes in the hope the AI would not and they would win-on-the-cheap and now they are suffering another bad outcome.

and I repeat from my first post. This is not "dumb and nonsensical" but different and you may not be used to the style. Just argue the point correctly. I get really tired of people using "straw man" and emotive biased language like "dumb and nonsensical" in the same thread argument. Dumb and nonsensical is designed to misdirect and bias and is not logical argument. Seems you knock yourself off your own high horse taking this approach. Makes you the straw man. (alternative meaning - man without substance, your argument has no substance)

Their reasoning is not solid, they say it would take time to balance and code AI for, and we know the devs hate balance and AI. This is why they don't want to do it.

Surely you are straw manning here? You argument is based on the unproven and very likely untrue generalised slur "devs hate balance and AI". That is a classic simple example.

You are countering something solid the devs said with this?
Try and think from the opposite side of your argument about these options and you should see there is some sense there. I am not saying it is all pink and tasty but it certainly stops banging a couple of votes in with the hope that you may win it without you thinking about what the implications are.

 

[criZp]

Votes in "real life" like don't change into a different vote, no. That never happened, EVER, so don't say it did. Surely a person can change his vote, but this always happens with that person's approval. In civ 6 it just happens on its own, even if the player would be opposed to it. Not just "gamey" but pure nonsense.

And, no, I am not strawmanning. If the developers didn't want to spend time to do AI and balance to make the system proper, then don't add it at all. Add something else instead. "It takes time" is not a good argument in a customer's ear as to why something is not working well. I want to pay for something that is good.

 

[Victoria]

Votes in "real life" like don't change into a different vote, no

Neither do they in this game.
In real life you vote that all countries can send aid to Somalia then find a few countries are aiding them with weapons?
And that’s a simple example of how politics work.

 

[criZp]

Neither do they in this game.

Did we play the same game? Of course the votes change. A vote f.ex. for cheaper units by faith can change into a vote for cheaper units by gold, without any player approval of the change. It's not at all the same thing.

 

[Victoria]

Did we play the same game?

You vote knowing the way the vote works, your vote has not changed.
there are so many examples in life
You vote for one political party because of the leader, then the leader changes.
It’s a different mechanic, read the text after the vote and you will see your vote did not change.
You are unhappy with the rules, fair enough, I am happy, they are different, refreshing in my eyes and it is clear from this thread I am not the only one.
You want to vote republican but really hate trump and it looks like he is going to win you make a decision based on that. It is so simple and yet you say it’s a dumb and nonsensical way of doing things? Maybe the game is trying to teach you the facts of life. That things are not that simple in reality. Why do they have to be in a game?
Votes change = straw man, or similar. Just twisting things.

If you vote faith and it loses to gold then there was quite a likelihood that there was a few votes put in it. On top of that, if someone voted for faith being more expensive and won because they changed the way votes worked people would still complain. At least faith did not get more expensive. You are really voting 2 things not 1. That something is cheaper and at least I will not suffer even if it does not turn out to be faith.