Firaxis wants to remove "unfun"? Eliminate WORKERS!
- Thread starter dh_epic
- Start date
Diogenes183
Chieftain
I observed a good deal of the forums for MOO3. I noticed arguments like this always seem to split into two factions:
1. Micromanagement is wonderful, don't change anything. It rewards skilled playing. Besides, no one wants to play a game that can play itself.
2. Micromanagement becomes an enormous burden during the later phases of the game. Make the endgame less boring - automate the crap out of everything.
What about a third possibility: is there a way that allows players to retain the same level of control as before, yet in a way that makes economizes the player's time. This I think should be the ultimate objective. The existing "build a road to a city" option is a small example of this. I happen to think that it could accomplished while still retaining workers, but that is not the most important goal.
1. Micromanagement is wonderful, don't change anything. It rewards skilled playing. Besides, no one wants to play a game that can play itself.
2. Micromanagement becomes an enormous burden during the later phases of the game. Make the endgame less boring - automate the crap out of everything.
What about a third possibility: is there a way that allows players to retain the same level of control as before, yet in a way that makes economizes the player's time. This I think should be the ultimate objective. The existing "build a road to a city" option is a small example of this. I happen to think that it could accomplished while still retaining workers, but that is not the most important goal.
sir_schwick said:
Diogenes183 said:
Diogenes183 said:
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I think you summed up the argument perfectly, Diogeneses183.
I do not want to remove the strategy of improvement planning, but I do not want to reward players for being able to economize movements in their head. My simple insistance is that movement is handled the same for everyone, so players don't have to learn the MP game to be competative.
I do not want to remove the strategy of improvement planning, but I do not want to reward players for being able to economize movements in their head. My simple insistance is that movement is handled the same for everyone, so players don't have to learn the MP game to be competative.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
For the sake of simplicity, let's not talk about old workers and some of the complicated that I've posted. I think the collaborative approach has led us to some good results. As a result, things that I've said before aren't as sensible.
The comparison is between:
old worker method
or
new worker method = old worker method - movement points
Essentially, workers can teleport -- but with limits. They can only move instantaneously, without consuming a turn, to squares within your borders. Moving a worker outside your borders causes it to consume its one movement point.
Movement of workers would be more like how your city population can get food and shields from a tile 2 squares away from it. There's no movement point cost, so what would you gain from adding movement besides another "economize the movement point" game? Killing the movement point game is key to killing some micromanagement and strategy that a monkey can learn -- no matter how much time you spent learning it and loving it. Let's kill the monkey work, and let the strategy that military and political geniuses have employed throughout history to rise to the forefront.
Everything else works as expected. Workers can be captured as usual. Workers affect population as usual. Automated workers would allocate workers to one tile until that tile was done, then apply your remaining workers to the next tile, and so on -- as usual, just without the movement points. And if you still want to micromanage, you're still moving individual workers around and improving tile by tile.
What does it add? ... Well, if you want to half-micromanage your workers, you could pool them together and have them work through a queue of improvements. You'd then paint down planned improvements (build a road to those spices first, then irrigate near the river) MS Paint style. Plus, if you so choose (I know I like this idea), you can allocate workers to "virtual" projects like "build a trade route", or (maybe) to improve ocean squares -- if they are within your cultural borders.
Drafting workers into the worker pool at the click of a button? Take it or leave it. I don't really mind having to allocate 10 shields to produce a worker. And Arathorn does have a point: if you can produce workers instantaneously, it's a whole new little strategy to exploit... which means, you guessed it, more micromanagement. I could imagine people moving workers in and out of the worker pool every single turn to get an advantage on the AI -- which is exactly what I wanted to avoid.
And thanks to some of the other supporters of reforming workers. I know most of these ideas are yours
So thank you very much.
The comparison is between:
old worker method
or
new worker method = old worker method - movement points
Essentially, workers can teleport -- but with limits. They can only move instantaneously, without consuming a turn, to squares within your borders. Moving a worker outside your borders causes it to consume its one movement point.
Movement of workers would be more like how your city population can get food and shields from a tile 2 squares away from it. There's no movement point cost, so what would you gain from adding movement besides another "economize the movement point" game? Killing the movement point game is key to killing some micromanagement and strategy that a monkey can learn -- no matter how much time you spent learning it and loving it. Let's kill the monkey work, and let the strategy that military and political geniuses have employed throughout history to rise to the forefront.
Everything else works as expected. Workers can be captured as usual. Workers affect population as usual. Automated workers would allocate workers to one tile until that tile was done, then apply your remaining workers to the next tile, and so on -- as usual, just without the movement points. And if you still want to micromanage, you're still moving individual workers around and improving tile by tile.
What does it add? ... Well, if you want to half-micromanage your workers, you could pool them together and have them work through a queue of improvements. You'd then paint down planned improvements (build a road to those spices first, then irrigate near the river) MS Paint style. Plus, if you so choose (I know I like this idea), you can allocate workers to "virtual" projects like "build a trade route", or (maybe) to improve ocean squares -- if they are within your cultural borders.
Drafting workers into the worker pool at the click of a button? Take it or leave it. I don't really mind having to allocate 10 shields to produce a worker. And Arathorn does have a point: if you can produce workers instantaneously, it's a whole new little strategy to exploit... which means, you guessed it, more micromanagement. I could imagine people moving workers in and out of the worker pool every single turn to get an advantage on the AI -- which is exactly what I wanted to avoid.
And thanks to some of the other supporters of reforming workers. I know most of these ideas are yours
So thank you very much.
Mistfit
Deity
These two don't seem to jive. How are you going to capture my workers if I can instantanioulsy "teleport" them to the other side of my empire?
geishapunk
Chieftain
sir_schwick said:
Hmmm, in a strategy game IMHO the movement play it is essential.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Mistfit said:
They still sit on the squares they work until that square is done. If the system allocates 4 workers to finish the tile right next to enemy borders, and then allocates the next 4 on the other side of the empire... that's still 4 vulnerable workers.
As for the arguments about movement play, I appreciate that it adds strategy. But if you add up all the time you'll spend on this strategy, you'll spend minutes thinking, and hours using your keyboard and mouse to execute. It takes time to learn, but then everyone will learn and use the same strategy.
A good strategy should take you hours of thought, and minutes to execute. It should take time to learn, and everyone should use different strategies: will I put my dissenting citizens in jail, or will I try to appease their criticisms? Civ needs more of those equal but opposite dilemmas. Worker movement isn't even in the same LEAGUE when it comes to strategy.
Diogenes183
Chieftain
But geishapunk, you wouldn't have to use the Infrastructure Advisor (see qoutes in post #102 for summary). You could take direct control over everything if you wanted. Besides, even if you do use the IA, its still not true automation, its just a planning/policy tool.
Like in urban planning. Your city council works with urban planners that it employs to come up with a very detailed master plan of how it wants the city to look in 10 or 20 years. The master plan is then parsed into projects and tasks that the city can seek bids on from various contractors at various phases in the master plan, etc.
Addition to IA idea: Any time worker finishes a job, the IA checks to see if there is any pollution in the empire. If there is pollution, it then checks to see if there is any tasks in the master plan above a certain high priority threshold. If there are no high priority tasks in the master plan, the worker is then automatically dispatched to a pollution spill. If there are multiple pollution spills, then each spill is evaluated on two criteria by a spill selector function: number of turns it would take to reach the spill and the number of turns the spill has left to be cleaned (some arbitrarily high number if no workers are currently cleaning or enroute, like 100 turns). All this is code and happens completely behind the scenes, transparent to the player. I guess there is one aspect which I don't mind being completely automated and that is the cleaning of pollution. There is just precious little strategy to be had there (IMHO anyways). But again, this preference can be de-activated and the player can take direct control over the cleaning of pollution if they so choose.
dh epic, take a look at this thing that sir schwick and I have been cooking up. I would be interested to hear your opinion.
Like in urban planning. Your city council works with urban planners that it employs to come up with a very detailed master plan of how it wants the city to look in 10 or 20 years. The master plan is then parsed into projects and tasks that the city can seek bids on from various contractors at various phases in the master plan, etc.
Addition to IA idea: Any time worker finishes a job, the IA checks to see if there is any pollution in the empire. If there is pollution, it then checks to see if there is any tasks in the master plan above a certain high priority threshold. If there are no high priority tasks in the master plan, the worker is then automatically dispatched to a pollution spill. If there are multiple pollution spills, then each spill is evaluated on two criteria by a spill selector function: number of turns it would take to reach the spill and the number of turns the spill has left to be cleaned (some arbitrarily high number if no workers are currently cleaning or enroute, like 100 turns). All this is code and happens completely behind the scenes, transparent to the player. I guess there is one aspect which I don't mind being completely automated and that is the cleaning of pollution. There is just precious little strategy to be had there (IMHO anyways). But again, this preference can be de-activated and the player can take direct control over the cleaning of pollution if they so choose.
dh epic, take a look at this thing that sir schwick and I have been cooking up. I would be interested to hear your opinion.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
The only part I'm not comfortable with is players getting any control over movement. Of course when dealing with pollution there is no real way to get an advantage, but otherwise I personally would like to avoid anyone even having the oppurtunity to try to gain an artificial advanatage by using optimum MP strat.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I also agree with the assessment that movement strategy isn't one based on decisions, but strict numbers. The MP strat has to be the same for everybody and isn't even fun if you try it different. Civ is about macro decisions, not micro.
Diogenes183
Chieftain
I suppose that in order to satisfy everyone, there would have to be an option when the MP game is first being started to allow/disallow use of the Infrastructure Advisor.
The human players in an MP game could put it to a vote as to whether they want it on or off. If you find yourself in the minority you could either bear it or politely bow out.
The human players in an MP game could put it to a vote as to whether they want it on or off. If you find yourself in the minority you could either bear it or politely bow out.
geishapunk
Chieftain
@Diogenes183:
It wouldn´t be the same. So in this point i agree to dh: it will change gameplay, and i think the game radically will change.
I agree to your point that you cannot satisfy everyone (i already stated that out earlier^^).
But all your ideas with masterplans, the more detailed the better, urban planning, priority settings, etc. will IMHO increase micromanagement in a way i don´t like.
Yes, CIV is a strategy game with most macromanaging decisions, but all you do to reach that is micromanagament. That´s because to obtain a master strategy micromanagament is necessary.
Moving of the military units is micromanagement.
Deciding where to build what is micromanagement.
...
It wouldn´t be the same. So in this point i agree to dh: it will change gameplay, and i think the game radically will change.
I agree to your point that you cannot satisfy everyone (i already stated that out earlier^^).
But all your ideas with masterplans, the more detailed the better, urban planning, priority settings, etc. will IMHO increase micromanagement in a way i don´t like.
Yes, CIV is a strategy game with most macromanaging decisions, but all you do to reach that is micromanagament. That´s because to obtain a master strategy micromanagament is necessary.
Moving of the military units is micromanagement.
Deciding where to build what is micromanagement.
...
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I'm a fan of the infrastructure advisor, particularly the idea of there being a screen where you see all these costs and priorities should one wish to manage them. The only reason why I don't spend more time talking about this is I guess because I'm trying to spend more time convincing the naysayers. The most important thing, to me, is an overhaul of workers and movement -- not how it's done. But with that said, the IA is a cool idea I'd get behind.
Trust me, Geishapunk. If you've taken away movement points, micromanagement can do NOTHING but decrease. Priority already exists -- implicitly -- in when you build something now, and decide to build something else later. The only difference in the new priority system is you'd be able to plan turns ahead: build this now, build this later, and decide it all within one turn.
If it's that much of a problem, take away priority, take away everything, and just have workers with infinite movement points. Would micromanagement be more, or would it be less? We're not talking about opinions, here.
And micromanagement WILL always be in Civ, but it doesn't mean that more micromanagement is better. Soren has already said that Civ 3 has the right level of micromanagement -- meaning you won't see any new concepts unless old concepts are simplified. Workers, to me, were the one kind of micromanagement we could take out while keeping the core strategy of the game.
Geishapunk, I noticed a post of yours about micromanaging starvation problems by trading food between cities. Now, imagine the developers told you that there was no way they could include more complexity in food management until something else was simplified. Don't you think that simplifying worker management by giving workers infinite movement points (as long as they are in your borders) would be worth it?
Trust me, Geishapunk. If you've taken away movement points, micromanagement can do NOTHING but decrease. Priority already exists -- implicitly -- in when you build something now, and decide to build something else later. The only difference in the new priority system is you'd be able to plan turns ahead: build this now, build this later, and decide it all within one turn.
If it's that much of a problem, take away priority, take away everything, and just have workers with infinite movement points. Would micromanagement be more, or would it be less? We're not talking about opinions, here.
And micromanagement WILL always be in Civ, but it doesn't mean that more micromanagement is better. Soren has already said that Civ 3 has the right level of micromanagement -- meaning you won't see any new concepts unless old concepts are simplified. Workers, to me, were the one kind of micromanagement we could take out while keeping the core strategy of the game.
Geishapunk, I noticed a post of yours about micromanaging starvation problems by trading food between cities. Now, imagine the developers told you that there was no way they could include more complexity in food management until something else was simplified. Don't you think that simplifying worker management by giving workers infinite movement points (as long as they are in your borders) would be worth it?
Diogenes183
Chieftain
dh_epic said:
Cool!
Why do workers need to teleport? Let the IA move them. If a worker is on a tile that has been completed, it will be deployed to a new sqaure based on distance and priority. Roads and distance to target could then still be factor, rewarding players with a well roaded empire.
I don't mean to cram this idea in everyone's face (at the expense of all other ideas)... it's just that I really like this idea.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
Why do we stick so firmly to "worker must be a tile-based unit" stuff?
Tiles around cities could be an integral part of city. 14 improvements around city, 14 population in city. Specalists are another cup of tea.
When an enemy unit pillages a square, it captures citizens (workers?) that were hidden on (or integral part of) that tile.
-kirby
Tiles around cities could be an integral part of city. 14 improvements around city, 14 population in city. Specalists are another cup of tea.
When an enemy unit pillages a square, it captures citizens (workers?) that were hidden on (or integral part of) that tile.
-kirby
but more itneresting micro managementadmitadly things like moving military units to unusual squares for odd reasons is anal micromanagement but it is not very regular. choosing what cities build is nearer macro management id saygeishapunk said:
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
On IA: Yeah, it's definitely a cool idea. But you gotta win the battle before you win the war 
Still, I use "worker teleportation" as just a way to explain how simplified the movement is. The IA would absolutely manage movement.
To Bibor: Same thing goes, gotta win the battle before you win the war. A lot of people who are against overhauling workers feel a lot of comfort from seeing little worker units, so you know where they are and when to capture them. I personally like the pillage-for-citizens idea, but hey, what's really important is that you no longer have to make decisions about the best way to move your workers again.
And to t3h mo13: you hit it on the head. some micromanagement is more interesting than others. Why? Because it involves more real choice, contributing to the big picture -- will I spread my culture, or will I let my military go to work; will I build libraries, or will I get my economy rolling and BUY good science?
... Mastering one formula, like worker movement, never made the big picture of Civ more interesting. It only let hardcore players like myself compete at the deity level.
Still, I use "worker teleportation" as just a way to explain how simplified the movement is. The IA would absolutely manage movement.To Bibor: Same thing goes, gotta win the battle before you win the war. A lot of people who are against overhauling workers feel a lot of comfort from seeing little worker units, so you know where they are and when to capture them. I personally like the pillage-for-citizens idea, but hey, what's really important is that you no longer have to make decisions about the best way to move your workers again.
And to t3h mo13: you hit it on the head. some micromanagement is more interesting than others. Why? Because it involves more real choice, contributing to the big picture -- will I spread my culture, or will I let my military go to work; will I build libraries, or will I get my economy rolling and BUY good science?
... Mastering one formula, like worker movement, never made the big picture of Civ more interesting. It only let hardcore players like myself compete at the deity level.
geishapunk
Chieftain
dh_epic said:
The IA would change gameplay that way it wouldn´t be CIV anymore.
dh_epic said:
That´s the point. I don´t. Why should i?
IMO it can do nothing but increase.
You got your opinion and i got mine. The difference between the two of us is that i say its a personal opinion and you are selling your opinion as a fact.
dh_epic said:
No it does not exist ig! Maybe in the players head but not ig! And that is one big difference!
dh_epic said:
You think infinite movement would be good solution? I totally disagree! Scouting the map would take one turn or unless the coast of your continent is reached. The whole strategy issue of the workers movement points are blown away... you can´t be serious on that one.
Your words are not chiseled in stone. (Babbelfish gave me no better Translation of this german wisedom: "Deine Worte sind nicht in Stein gemeißelt!")
dh_epic said:
Micromanagement is key to all good strategy games.
dh_epic said:
That is another point on which we both disagree, and this is again about opinions. You want the workers out, i don´t. It´s that simple and one reason why i tried to end that discussion between us...
dh_epic said:
I did not talked about complex systems. I just mentioned that it is unrealistiv that a huge empire with a big food surplus lets a connected city starve. There could be several solutions to that. Simple ones or complex ones. I don´t care because i would be glad when they add something you can use to prevent cities from starvation. Maybe its just a simple "yes or no" click at the end of a turn when the computer recognizes that in city A is lack of food production. No complexity here. No more micromanagament. But i big problem, IMO a big mistake, corrected.
BTW, i hope that my english is fair enough to understand everything or quite enough...
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
geishapunk said:
I have to wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. My friend, the CEO of a blood collection agency(not the Red Cross), was reading this post with me. I asked him his opinion about this issue because he works as an administrator.
My impression is that the role civ puts you in is similair to that of any company CEO. The function of the CEO and his Board of Directors is to figure out what direction the company is taking. Senior Executives concern themselves with what they want implemented and who will know how, not the mecahnics of how. Micromanagement is the job of middle and lower management, not upper management. So it would make sense that your IA would handle movement and assignment, but you have to tell him what you want the terrain to look like in the future.
Just FYI, he read this and approved that it stated what his expert opinion was on the subject.
Another example of what was just said:
I remember there was an old magazine ad for some RTS game controller. It showed a King type unit digging dirt(a la Monty Python style) while a huge enemy army was approaching. The ad was basically saying you shoudln't be dooing all the dirty work with yoru old controller. I thought that image of a King doing the dirty work was a good example of what I think is screwy about you manageing construction workers.
Similar threads
