Gamespot: chat with Firaxis about Civ5 - April 22

[Loppan Torkel]

I'm all for reducing the information.What Aussie suggests seems like a very nice idea, with the advisors having some inside info on why Napoleon is so happy or that Catherine just is in that time of the month.

Can there be anything more gamey than describing relationships in pluses and minuses? It does not add to the immersion. I'd rather play on a reduced difficulty level and be kept somewhat in the dark.

Expanding this into the espionage sector could also be an interesting idea.


Although, some people have trouble reading bodylanguages, so perhaps it shouldn't be drawn too far either.


Of course, if the AI seeks you out and is furious about you invading his country, he'll explain why he's angry...

 

[Kazimierz Wielk]

I prefer to see the information (or at least have it available for viewing if I choose to do so). I find it more realistic and applies itself to better strategic planning, especially now that we know that Religion will not play as big a role as in Civ4. Granted, the + - system isn't perfect, because there will be no way to fully simulate real-life with an AI. (I have had countries with nothing but +'s turn around and attack me.)

I think that if it were made as a option, show relationship values numerically or not, would be the great compromise. Those that enjoy working with diplomacy rationally, looking at the consequences of one's actions, can then see it. Those that want to simply attempt to interpret body language and speculate as to why a certain leader feels that way towards you, can choose not to use the data.

 

[skyclad]

Great. diplomacy doesn;t come with a manual IRL, this is a good thing.

I had to quote you for the avatar.

I thought what he said in this interview was amazing. Sure you can get hung up on the AI... Listen. Trust them to make a good system. Of course there will be sense to it. He didnt have time to explain in depth, he just said that it will feel more like being in a world with real leaders with real motivations etc. Doesnt that sound great? Of course the game will be designed to let us make informed decisions, how we get that information, we will have to see.
Just like he couldnt explain that the Ai works on many levels now, I dont remember them but you know what Im talking about. Like overall goal, immediate goal, management, manouvering. Which is another great thing!

Honestly Civ has always been amazing, and each of them, and every expansion, has made it better than the last. So stop worrying about this little detail that we dont even know very much about yet!

 

[Ddude97]

I think that if it were made as a option, show relationship values numerically or not, would be the great compromise. Those that enjoy working with diplomacy rationally, looking at the consequences of one's actions, can then see it. Those that want to simply attempt to interpret body language and speculate as to why a certain leader feels that way towards you, can choose not to use the data.

Genius!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think that if it were made as a option, show relationship values numerically or not, would be the great compromise. Those that enjoy working with diplomacy rationally, looking at the consequences of one's actions, can then see it. Those that want to simply attempt to interpret body language and speculate as to why a certain leader feels that way towards you, can choose not to use the data.

..and let half the community render the devs hard work unappreciated by not using the body-language feature?! No ho, you should all suffer.

Honestly, most people will do what they can to exploit a feature even if it makes the game worse. It's like those gamers turning the graphics down to a minimum to gain advantage in FPSs.

Some info is better off hidden. This might be such case.

 

[Ahriman]

Some info is better off hidden

Why is the game better if you are unable to make meaningful diplomatic decisions?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Why is the game better if you are unable to make meaningful diplomatic decisions?

You'd be able to do so still, but you would perhaps be less sure about the decisions. You'd have to think things through and perhaps use the foreign advisors.

It's like the speech Meier had about combat calculations. People got annoyed when they had the odds on their side and lost. This could make the predictions of the outcome of the relations equally reliable but less upsetting. If you're attacked by someone with only pluses, you'd still not know why you were attacked. Now you'd not get annoyed over it, because they might have a good reason, which you just don't know.

 

[Kazimierz Wielk]

..and let half the community render the devs hard work unappreciated by not using the body-language feature?! No ho, you should all suffer.

How does denying half the community the data they desire give the devs hard work any more appreciation? The appreciation level would certainly be higher if the WHOLE community is pleased and able to play the way they choose. With numerical data or with body language. Why does it have to be one way or the other? In reality, the body language cues will be driven by numerical values and computations, so the data is already there. All that would need to be added is a player's access to those values, if the player decides they want to.

What I don't understand is the apparent animosity some here have against allowing players to choose - either numerical data or body language.. If I choose to view the data, that does not lessen anyone else's gaming experience if they choose not to view the data.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What caught my ear was the mention about diplomacy, that pluses and minuses will no longer be visible. You will have to take your ques from the body language and your knowledge of the personality you are dealing with. Of course somewhere I read that there are supposed to be a range of behaviors that vary from game to game to make the leaders less predictable... I'll call it moody Sounds more immersive to me, which is a good thing.

Well, I've heard the Germans always sound angry, but if they make it relatively easy to tell it should be good. I mean, as long as you can tell the difference between a mild dislike and an epic hate. I agree though, where do you draw the line between cautious and annoyed? Although this was for reference, is there an exact answer to how many minuses to get to annoyed, pluses to get to pleased, exc.

They should tell you why, yes, particularly if you ask them. If a leader is annoyed with you, an option should be "Why do you dislike me?" To which they could reply, "You have a different religion then we do," for an example, however we don't really need outright numbers or the like.

 

[Ahriman]

It's like the speech Meier had about combat calculations. People got annoyed when they had the odds on their side and lost. This could make the predictions of the outcome of the relations equally reliable but less upsetting. If you're attacked by someone with only pluses, you'd still not know why you were attacked. Now you'd not get annoyed over it, because they might have a good reason, which you just don't know.

This is a great analogy. If combat just happened without displaying the combat odds, I would be very upset, because I would no longer be able to rationally plan battles.
The game would be much worse if we didn't know the statistical outcome of combat. The BUG mod (and Battle for Wesnoth) do this even better by displaying the full probability distribution of outcomes.

There's no excuse for hiding this kind of info from the player.

 

[Thormodr]

Hiding the diplomacy modifiers is fine.

Hiding the combat odds would be bad though.

 

[chongli]

This is a great analogy. If combat just happened without displaying the combat odds, I would be very upset, because I would no longer be able to rationally plan battles.
The game would be much worse if we didn't know the statistical outcome of combat. The BUG mod (and Battle for Wesnoth) do this even better by displaying the full probability distribution of outcomes.

There's no excuse for hiding this kind of info from the player.

In your opinion.

I, for one, don't want to see how the sausages are being made. I want a game to play, not a spreadsheet to balance. I care about immersion, not mechanics. I want the game to surprise me and force me to make interesting choices.

Hiding the combat odds would be bad though.

Civ 5 won't have combat odds. Many attacks will result in neither side dying.

 

[Ahriman]

Hiding the diplomacy modifiers is fine.
Hiding the combat odds would be bad though.

Why, what's the fundamental difference?

I, for one, don't want to see how the sausages are being made

Then don't mouseover the diplomatic modifiers.

I want the game to surprise me and force me to make interesting choices.

How do you know if a decision is interesting if you don't know what the consequences of it will be? Its incredibly frustrating to find out ex post that you just messed up your diplomatic relations with Russia because you declared war on Spain. That kind of "accident" is something that would never happen IRL, and its the consequence of bad UI.

Civ 5 won't have combat odds. Many attacks will result in neither side dying.

Civ5 will still have combat odds. Combat will still no doubt have some randomness, so the outcomes depend on the realizations of random variables. Just because unit death is less likely doesn't mean there are no combat odds anymore.

Look at Battle for Wesnoth to see a simple way of presenting combat outcomes.

 

[Disgustipated]

I still say body language is a gimmick to show off "graphics". Realistically you should be dealing with your foreign advisers, diplomats, etc. I don't want to look at body language.

What I think would be cool is have your foreign adviser give you a briefing before you go in and talk to the leader. That way you know what deals you have, why they like or hate you etc. Give the player the option to skip this if they don't want to waste time on it.

 

[chongli]

How do you know if a decision is interesting if you don't know what the consequences of it will be? Its incredibly frustrating to find out ex post that you just messed up your diplomatic relations with Russia because you declared war on Spain.

You don't need to show explicit numbers just to show that Russia and Spain are friends and that attacking one will piss off the other. Besides, decisions become more interesting the more uncertainty you introduce. Decisions that are made with perfect information are obvious and totally uninteresting.

That kind of "accident" is something that would never happen IRL, and its the consequence of bad UI.

That "accident" did happen in real life. Ever hear of World War 1?

Look at Battle for Wesnoth to see a simple way of presenting combat outcomes.

You call that simple? It gives you a statistical breakdown that fills half the screen and that's only for a few different outcomes. What happens when there are hundreds of possible outcomes?

 

[The_J]

First i thought, hiding the values is fine, but after reading the thread and remembering civ 2+3 i now don't think so.
But hey, for what do we have the advisors ?
I hope, that you can maybe "ask" the foreign advisor via a rightclick on a diplomatic option, and he/she'll tell you, how it will affect the relationship to the other countries.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

See The_J, my feeling is that it *was* great having the Combat Calculator & visible diplomatic penalties & bonuses for CivIV, because of the massive changes they made to both the combat & diplomacy engines between CivIII & CivIV. I sort of think of them both like training wheels on a bike-now we've learned how to ride, it's time to remove them . I do think those who oppose the removal of the penalty/bonus list are making a *lot* of assumptions. The designers haven't said that they're removing the Furious, Annoyed etc etc indications, or the similar indications in your foreign relations screen. Unless they say otherwise, I'm assuming that they'll still be there. Also, don't forget that aside from your foreign advisor, the leaders themselves will now *converse* with you. Although this is also just an assumption, isn't it at least *possible* that the leaders themselves will tell you *how* they currently feel towards your nation & *why* they currently feel that way "Well yes, we'd consider trading silk for dye, but we're still extremely angry about that time you broke a previous trade agreement to curry favor with the <insert Civ name here>".

 

[Ddude97]

Perhaps the answer as suggested by skyclad is make it an option?

 

[Kazimierz Wielk]

See The_J, my feeling is that it *was* great having the Combat Calculator & visible diplomatic penalties & bonuses for CivIV, because of the massive changes they made to both the combat & diplomacy engines between CivIII & CivIV. I sort of think of them both like training wheels on a bike-now we've learned how to ride, it's time to remove them .

So, you are assuming that the only people who will purchase Civ V are those who have played the earlier versions in the series?

Again, as I stated earlier, setting it as an option to turn on or off should make everyone happy. Those who want to see data, can turn in on. Those that don't, don't have to. Choosing either action will not affect the other while they play in the privacy of their own homes.

 

[Ahriman]

That "accident" did happen in real life. Ever hear of World War 1?

WW1 wasn't an accident. Everyone was expecting war. It was very deliberate. Its just... everyone misperceived how bloody the war would be, and over-estimated their own relative military effectiveness. WW1 was a product of military misperceptions, not diplomatic accident.

You don't need to show explicit numbers just to show that Russia and Spain are friends and that attacking one will piss off the other

But its much easier to do it with numbers than with any other method. And numbers are the only effective way of showing the relative importance of different actions.

You call that simple?

Yes. And if you don't want that info, you don't need to look at it. Why would you need hundreds of different outcomes?

I hope, that you can maybe "ask" the foreign advisor via a rightclick on a diplomatic option, and he/she'll tell you, how it will affect the relationship to the other countries.

Or better, make it a mouseover.

because of the massive changes they made to both the combat & diplomacy engines between CivIII & CivIV. I sort of think of them both like training wheels on a bike-now we've learned how to ride, it's time to remove them

This makes no sense. They are making at least as big chances to the diplomacy and military system civ4->civ5 than they did civ3->civ4.