First impressions: Wonders still suck (big time).

[GAGA Extrem]

In Firaxis defense, in response to all the people talking about winning in just over 200 turns: You should realize that victories this fast are only possible because of the AI's shortcomings. If you simply beelined that Mindflower in a multiplayer session while neglecting defenses as usual, that would be an open invitation for invasion and defeat. This does make the wonders overall slightly better than they are given credit for. It isn't fair to speak of balance in terms of what you can achieve just by abusing the AI. Still, most of the end-game wonders look far too weak and will probably never be worth building in a competitive game.

I am not sure if "the AI is just too bad to play the properly" is really that much of a defence.

But I get your point. Beelining Academies means you are wide open to attack during the early game, so the tech order would have to be adjusted. It pushes back the win timer by maybe 30-50 turns (depending on how aggressive the other players are), but it still doesn't fix the mid and late game problems.

Because once you start rushing those Affinity techs, your military will ramp up rather quickly. So when you are able to build the mindflower, you are also able to field top-tier units to defend it - and you can easily create a standing army during your tech phase by building units instead of converting science.

I'd still argue: Even in MP games there are plenty of techs and wonders that will remain untouched. Yes, you might have to branch out a bit more to react to the increased threat from other players, but you would need REALLY significant stalemates to make them worthwhile.

In the end that part of the problem you mentioned leads to good old SP vs. MP balance, which is a quite tricky subject. EU4 suffers exactly the same problem, where mechanics that work fine in SP break down in MP games (and vice versa).

 

[tedeviatings]

In Firaxis defense, in response to all the people talking about winning in just over 200 turns: You should realize that victories this fast are only possible because of the AI's shortcomings. If you simply beelined that Mindflower in a multiplayer session while neglecting defenses as usual, that would be an open invitation for invasion and defeat. This does make the wonders overall slightly better than they are given credit for. It isn't fair to speak of balance in terms of what you can achieve just by abusing the AI. Still, most of the end-game wonders look far too weak and will probably never be worth building in a competitive game.

You make a fair point. It should also be said, however, that people aren't trying to win as fast as possible just for the fun of it: If you don't win around that time the AI will. So winning fast is a requirement not just a "nice to have".
In MP everyone wins slower I'd imagine since no one can afford to go full science.

 

[DemonMaster]

Once again, yes and no. 1+1 is never 3, <>

1+1=3 is the most known "symbol" for synergy that is. It means that if you put one force (1) and add another force (1) to that, you end up with a stronger force (3) than both your original forces by themselves would give you just because the forces (like you said) enhances each other.

Yes, the two wonders that you are complaining about, is not a good example. I also wrote 'work' not 'worker' just because of that. The idea for a worker is to work, so the work becomes your goal and both wonders may enhance that. I do know that one of the wonder forces you to build enough new cities (compared to what the wonder cost) so you end up with a net-gain in production before it "pays off".

I would also like to have a wonders to give something unique, but neither Civ 5 or Civ BE have 100% wonders that gives you unique effects. I usually don't complain so much about that, I skip wonders I don't like and play on, other players skip other wonders. I hardly end up with these wonders anyway (AI usually beat me to them).

 

[Ryika]

1+1=3 is the most known "symbol" for synergy that is. It means that if you put one force (1) and add another force (1) to that, you end up with a stronger force (3) than both your original forces by themselves would give you just because the forces (like you said) enhances each other.

Yes, it's used as a symbol, but ultimately that's not how it works, not mathematically and not in reality. It works by adding multipliers, but obviously making it a complex mathematical equation is not a good symbol for what it's meant to show. So your symbol is perfectly valid, but you can't draw a direct conclusion from that symbol - that's why I said "Yes and no."

Yes, the two wonders that you are complaining about, is not a good example. I also wrote 'work' not 'worker' just because of that. The idea for a worker is to work, so the work becomes your goal and both wonders may enhance that.

Yes, sure. I agree with that - but that is neither synergy between these wonders, nor is it synergy between one of the wonders and the work/goal/whatever ( - it's a one-sided bonus that is supportive of the goal/work you have in mind.

But I think ultimately we pretty much agree on the topic but only phrase it differently. (Or maybe it's just me being to focused on the exact terminology)

I do know that one of the wonder forces you to build enough new cities (compared to what the wonder cost) so you end up with a net-gain in production before it "pays off".

Yes, though even if you get 1 additional worker it may not even be as strong, because those workers all come with a huge delay - AND a single wonder locks down the city for quite some time, while building workers 1 by one allows you to easily squeeze out other things and still get a direct effect from each of the workers you produced. Overall I would estimate you'll need at least 6 or 7 cities after getting the wonder to really make it a worthwhile investment. Someone mentioned huge maps earlier in this thread - that's probably the one scenario where it may work now.

I would also like to have a wonders to give something unique, but neither Civ 5 or Civ BE have 100% wonders that gives you unique effects. I usually don't complain so much about that, I skip wonders I don't like and play on, other players skip other wonders. I hardly end up with these wonders anyway (AI usually beat me to them).

Yes, I prefer unique bonuses too and I'd say the current version is a step in the right direction when it comes to that - but at the same time they've made a step back by making wonders more expensive and have them give less "direct" bonuses... so overall I find that wonders are still the same - just different. 8)

 

[Gorbles]

No. Synergy means that 2 bonuses enhance each other. Master Control does not have a synergy with workers, it has an effect on (/enhances) workers.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/synergy

End of derail, here. Argue with the dictionary instead of telling various forum posters their dictionary definition is wrong.

 

[Ryika]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/synergy

End of derail, here. Argue with the dictionary instead of telling various forum posters their dictionary definition is wrong.

It's funny how you don't even understand that you're wrong.

Here:
"The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects."

Give me an example of that happening without both effects enhancing each other.

 

[Gorbles]

So you're telling me that Master Control doesn't buff the benefits Gene Vault provides?

Or that Gene Vault doesn't grant you more Workers that have been buffed by Master Control?

Honestly, just deal with being wrong. It'd be a lot quicker if you just admitted that for once.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

So you're telling me that Master Control doesn't buff the benefits Gene Vault provides?

Or that Gene Vault doesn't grant you more Workers that have been buffed by Master Control?

Honestly, just deal with being wrong. It'd be a lot quicker if you just admitted that for once.

While there might not a direct synergy in a technical sense between GV and MC, there is no doubt that the two wonders are good to have together since they both buff workers.

 

[Ryika]

So you're telling me that Master Control doesn't buff the benefits Gene Vault provides?

Of course it does, but that's not synergy. It's a one-sided bonus.

Because:

Or that Gene Vault doesn't grant you more Workers that have been buffed by Master Control?

That's just a re-phrased version of the first bonus - one is phrased as active, the other one is phrased as passive.

The same "argument" could be made for just building a worker:

So you're telling me that building a worker doesn't buff the benefits Gene Vault provides?
Or that building a worker doesn't grant you a worker that has been buffed by Master Control?

So by your logic, building a worker has synergy with the Gene Vault.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

The wonders make me think of what I would do with a set of power tools. Nothing. I never need more than a screwdriver so an electronic drill, while quite useful and an impressive tool, won't help me with what I do.
The game does not require you to do enough to win. Thus these wonders, some of which are impressive, aren't necessary.

My thoughts on two of the wonders:
Gene vault: Have it be give a free worker for each outpost built. Then it can start work before the city is up and have improvements ready to go right away. Also, give free workers equal to the cities you already have when it is build. Then it doesn't feel like a waste if you didn't get it right away.

Ectogenisis pod: I forget when the flavor text says it does but I think it's a pseudo-cloning machine or a fast growth of humans thing. I'd have its effect applied to every city but still based on the city it is built in. So having it in your biggest city helps grow every city. Grow more humans and spread them throughout your colony. Even better if they're prometheans! No unhealth so the city can be as big as you can feed.

1+1=3 is the most known "symbol" for synergy that is. It means that if you put one force (1) and add another force (1) to that, you end up with a stronger force (3) than both your original forces by themselves would give you just because the forces (like you said) enhances each other.

Wouldn't it be much better for the symbol for synergy to be multiplication? 2*3=6, or 3^2=9? Two things combine to be more than just the sum total. Makes more sense then trying to argue addition.
Edit: didn't notice this was already said. This thread it loooong.

 

[Gorbles]

So by your logic, building a worker has synergy with the Gene Vault.

How does a Worker have synergy with the Gene Vault? The synergy is with Master Control. Gene Vault provides Workers that compliment that purpose, being an additional synergy when executing a strategy.

You really have a fondness for accusing people of strawmanning, but perhaps you should get a handle on whose logic you're quoting first, because I never said anything like that.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, I did indeed name the wrong wonder, I did of course mean the Master Control. Sorry for that.

So here's the argument again, this time with the correct wonder:

So you're telling me that building a worker doesn't buff the benefits Master Control provides?
Or that building a worker doesn't grant you a worker that has been buffed by Master Control?

By your definition that's synergy.

 

[DemonMaster]

<>Wouldn't it be much better for the symbol for synergy to be multiplication? 2*3=6, or 3^2=9? Two things combine to be more than just the sum total. Makes more sense then trying to argue addition.
Edit: didn't notice this was already said. This thread it loooong.

I have not come up with the teachings of synergy, nor its symbols. Great mathematicians and economists have.

The idea of synergy-effect is (puh, again) that sometimes two forces (the 1:s in the symbolic formula), by working together, can achieve more than they could by themselves (the 3 in the symbolic formula).

 

[Acken]

A dependency from a design perspective is forced synergy; a reliance to make either party better as a pair, but weaker individually. This can be used in good design, but frequently isn't (RPGs and MOBA heroes tend to rely on forced synergy / gimmicks in design sometimes, as an example). The fact is that some form of synergy exists between the two Wonders. Unlike, say, the Resurrection Device and Xenonova which look to have related effects, but in reality affect two separate parts of the Health mechanic (unhealth, and Health). You could have no (or a small amount) of unhealth, which renders one of them pointless even when paired with the other. Or no positive Health, which renders the other one pointless. Master Control benefits Workers, and Gene Vault provides Workers. Of course you can build your own, but that doesn't mean that the two Wonders don't complement each other.

You seem to argue semantics at this point. Something I'm not interested in. MC has no weight in the discussion of whether or not GV is worth it over self made workers depending on the game. Which is what I clearly say in the post you quoted and nothing else.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Just to reemphasize the point.

If the game would last 350+ turns, some of these wonders would actually be decent. But as it is, you are actually better of converting science (if you go for an affinity victory). Maybe that's the big misunderstanding here - they don't expect the game to be over around turn 215?

I'm rather baffled by some of these changes. I probably would advise to simply ignore wonders for someone interested in having a strong game... disappointing. A couple of them are interesting but that's about it.

Again... it seems they're shooting in the dark.

Gene vault require you to make at least 5 more cities AFTER you make gene vault to be worth it. I'm not sure how likely that is in my experience.

In the end, the main problem with wonders is still twofold:
(1) Game pacing (games end WAY too early)

(. . .)

Since I can convert production into science, my rule of thumb is basicially: Does the wonder provide a [COST/4] worth of science until the point when I start the Mindflower? If the wonder is not located at one of my affinity techs, it also has to recoup the cost for the tech I had to research to get it.

(. . .)

I think to make wonders actually useful/powerful they need to push back the win timer by at least 100, maybe even 150 turns. As long as turn 200-215 wins are possible, many of the existing mechanics (including wonders) can just be ignored.

And this one made me laugh, given the previous:

I am not a competitive player, so I am in for the fun as well. It's just a different type of fun.

And the kicker:

Many people play the game for its tactical aspects. If you don't that's fine, but saying that there's only one way to play it and yours is the right way is just nonsensical. Obviously, this thread values wonders from a perspective of a somewhat efficient strategy, so if you play the game differently then your perception may vary.

The game does not require you to do enough to win. Thus these wonders, some of which are impressive, aren't necessary.

You make a fair point. It should also be said, however, that people aren't trying to win as fast as possible just for the fun of it: If you don't win around that time the AI will. So winning fast is a requirement not just a "nice to have".
In MP everyone wins slower I'd imagine since no one can afford to go full science.

I'm just wondering if anybody else sees the hypocrisy of the bolded portion of Ryika's last quote. If the designers don't design for Ryika's play style, this is the calm, well-reasoned reaction:

Who the hell designed that nonsense, Firaxis? Are you really sure he's the right person for that? And if you don't know what you're doing... how about just asking the players?

Foot, meet mouth.

Now, on to the theme of the others: you're all complaining that these game elements can't be pursued on difficulty levels where the AI wins early.

Here's a news flash: This is how it's been since at least Civ 3. One consistent aspect of the games has been that wonders are something you aim for at lower difficulty levels.

It's just that this has somehow come to be viewed as a problem instead of the natural result of playing with distorted AI bonuses.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=71238

A related note, and at least as old, is the idea that anything past the point where you must win on higher difficulties is useless. tedeviatings chooses a difficulty where the AI will actually win at a certain point. Well and good. This isn't any of the lower difficulties.

Firaxis doesn't design the game around the highest difficulties, nor should it.

Saying that a Wonder is worthless because you have to keep expanding to get its worth when the whole point of the Wonder is to help those who are trying to expand is circular logic, to say the least.

Playing efficiently on higher difficulties is well and good. But to answer Ryika's initial question: yes, the designer was the right person, because he didn't make the glaring error of balancing the game around higher (or even the highest) difficulty levels or catering to the crowd whose only goal seems to be to stop playing a given game as quickly as possible.

 

[Ryika]

I'm just wondering if anybody else sees the hypocrisy of the bolded portion of Ryika's last quote. If the designers don't design for Ryika's play style, this is the calm, well-reasoned reaction:

Well, for your playstyle wonder balance is not important, for mine it is. So yes, I expect wonders to be balanced to at least in part fit my playstyle. Civ 5 actually did a good job at that.

But you're right, looking back at that comment it is rather harsh and probably uncalled for. I'll edit the post.

I disagree with that though:

Here's a news flash: This is how it's been since at least Civ 3. One consistent aspect of the games has been that wonders are something you aim for at lower difficulty levels.

[...]

Playing efficiently on higher difficulties is well and good. But to answer Ryika's initial question: yes, the designer was the right person, because he didn't make the glaring error of balancing the game around higher (or even the highest) difficulty levels or catering to the crowd whose only goal seems to be to stop playing a given game as quickly as possible.

First of all, there were always some wonders that you'd want to build, even on the highest difficulty. And those that you did not want to build were those that either didn't match your strategy, were almost impossible to get before the AI does or just not viable because of their opportunity cost.

The current wonders are, with some exceptions, just weak - doesn't matter on what difficulty you play on. There's just no reason to get them other than "Yeah, I... well, I sort of want that wonder although I know it's not too good."

 

[Acken]

I've uploaded my "first impression/feelings" about wonders. See my BE LP thread if interested or wanting to discuss it.

 

[Victus75]

I don't think this is hard to grasp... people aren't understanding the word synergy. Ryika has it right. Just because I wonder gives you free workers does not make it "synergize" with a wonder that buffs workers. It gives you free workers, ones you could have built individually, and both of them get the same bonus.

To look at it this way:
Without synergy (s): 1+1 = 2
With synergy (s): s(1+1) = 3

This is why synergy is a multiplicative bonus, as it enhances each individual thing to be greater than sum of it's parts.

 

[Acken]

Quality post

I'm glad you get a good laugh, at least you keep entertaining the rest of us too.

On top of having no idea about what you're talking about when it comes to Civ4 and Civ5 you're trying to refute the argument that wonders make little sense from a strategic point of view with the argument that it's in fact okay because you can still make them for giggles on Mercury difficulty. I'm so convinced they did a good job now.

The problem isn't that the AI will beat us to the wonders, like it could in previous Civ. It's that the wonders aren't worth it to win because (not all) they suck so I'm not even interested in making them to begin with. But you can keep making the argument that as long as you put your strategic sense on off and play without thinking the changes are good. Strategy game indeed.

How cool would that be if on top of being able to spam wonders on low difficulty they were actually good ?

 

[Ryika]

Just finished watching Ackens video (even delayed launching Starships for that ) - can only recommend that for anyone, I think he provided very valuable feedback and goes into explaining a lot of the obvious and not-so-obvious problems in great detail.