How do you think BERT is doing?

All I know is that it really isn't doing to well in terms of how much people are playing it. Especially compared to civ v. People say the historical draw is why people play civ V over BE. I disagree, people play games because the game play is good for the most part, and civ BERT remains an overcomplicated messy product, a lot of the design choices don't make sense, and are too complicated. It is kind of like a boat patched up with tape,yes it floats, but not for long.

In the end this game definitely has the potential to be better than civ V it just need to fix the many issues it has, and improve on what Civ V has done. Civ BE tried to go it's own path but in most cases tripped over itself when it tried, and just wasn't bold enough with other choices.

I agree with you here. You are right a lot of people have said the historical perspective is the reason CiV has a leg up. But to me a good, fun game, is a good, fun game. Alpha Centauri wasn't historical, and when it came out I stopped playing Civ until the next one (4?) came out.

I do think certain parts of BERT are better than CiV...I really think it needs the fans to contribute at this point, I think Firaxis takes a lot of information from what end up being the most popular mods. A good chunk of what got added to RT was from popular mods. I just worry that whatever the critical level of fan support needed for these mods to happen might not be there.
 
I think historical relevence is being overstated. Look how many +civ mods there are for civ5 that are nonsense such as the tou-hou mods or eggman empire mod?
They are fun to play with but historically speaking they don't add up.

If we took the world of Civ:be and added all the historical leaders from civ5, would civ:be suddenly be a great game with rave reviews? The answer is probabaly no and the reason is because civ:be is not a fun game. They attempted a lot of new things which is good, I commend them for trying and I hope they elaborate on the ideas for future games, but experience tells us that each civ game is usually self contained.

We no longer have barbarian bears that refuse to enter our borders but upgrade to barbarian warriors that can capture towns. That was civ4's thing.

Civ:be feels very much like civ4 but in space and using the civ5 engine. I don't know if this is intentional or not but if it is then go all in. Bring back over-riding enemy borders and taking over cities with culture and all the fun stuff civ4 had, not much is even missing!

But the leaders thing? I think that is the least of BE's current failings
 
Civ 4's relevant economies are Cottage, Specialist, and Wonder.

Civ BERT's Generator Economy is, at the moment, dead in the water. I've yet to try a Generator game but I suspect it won't run very well. There's just not that much synergy in it. Energy is useless in itself. You have to funnel it into something that allows you to win the game. It's not like Civ4 where you can just turn tile output directly into Science on your Slider.

Academy/Generator is closest to Civ4's Cottage Economy based on tiles and tile output - though the Generator part isn't necessarily since there's a bunch of other ways to make energy.

Specialist Economy in Civ4 relies on food discounts and Great People to equalize with Cottage Economy. Specialist Economy in BERT just relies on sheer slot output, no GPs. Food output is on the table in Mass Digester and Cloning Plants, so unlike Specialist Economy in Civ4, you don't even need food on the tiles or to make farms. You just need to build the right buildings in the right places (food buildings on land cities, Culture slots in Aquatic Cities).

Dome Economy is unlike anything in Civ4 since it puts Culture output in the spotlight. It's most like Culture strategies in Civ5. Dome economy focuses on Domes and Holomatrices, allowing you to claim and defend territory strongly, while getting a lot more Virtues constantly. It naturally pairs best with Purity's low tech Victory conditions.

ARC's (and Chungsu's) Spy Economies are unique in that you put everything into the spying. You don't even care much about your own Science output. It's all in the spies. Percentage science gains means that all tech costs about the same to you, regardless of their location, so you're cost-agnostic about science acquisition once you get something like 6 or 7 Agents. Of all the Economies, this one is the most likely to actually acquire Aegis, if you're into that unit for some reason. Annoyingly, the inner ring techs are kind of a "waste" of your Spies, but it turns out that many of those effects are kind of important to a Civ.

Polystralia's pure TR Economy depends on simply growing ASAP and sending out as many external TRs as possible while maintaining a strong internal system. A significantly amount of your science and energy output will come from external routes, so someone declaring war on you when they were your erstwhile ally and trade partner is nothing short of completely disastrous. At the same time, you can strengthen an ally and also forge better relations because of the number of TRs you forge. Provided that your external TRs are in-continent with a strong and trustworthy ally, it can be profitable to ally up and risk wars just for the extra tier of Agreement benefits.

INTEGR's DC Economy is all about attracting Agreements, keeping the peace and buying everything with Diplomatic Capital. You'll still need some way to make Science, but a few Institutes and Xenonurseries can put paid to that, even without Barre's benefits. You won't need much Energy since you'll be using DC for a lot of buys.

Interestingly, Daoming's Wonder ability isn't strong enough for her to base an economy around her sponsor trait, because the Wonders aren't strong enough to change the game in general, especially the early Wonders. Arguably, she benefits the most from a VF (Vertical Farm) approach since the best early Wonder she can snag from her ability is Benthic Augur, which pairs nicely with Euphrotic Strand from Vertical Farming - she has more cause than most to go down there.

The upshot of all this is that mechanically, BERT has some callbacks to Civ 4, but it's not really that similar.
 
It maxes at King. So yeah. You can basically win with whatever. Most of Civ has always been like this. It's only Deity and Immortal where you're forced into anything, really, and a lot of those are awful gamey crap that really takes you out of the setting.

Eh. At the higher levels, the key to winning the game is exploiting the AI's deficiencies, not really a focused strategic approach. The fact that that's absent here is sort of a flaw in that nothing is taken away by adding awful game modes, but it's not much of a loss, IMO.

What are you talking about exactly ? For civ5. Do you have the experience there to make that claim ?

I sometimes see that claim on CFC or reddit. It mostly comes from people unconfortable with the difficulty and who do not enjoy the added challenge but look for justification. It's bull as far as Civ5 is concerned. If you don't want to exploit, don't exploit, it helps (duh) but is not required. Moreover, you can exploit on all difficulties so that argument can be extended to emperor or king from people thinking they need to exploit in order to beat these levels.

To be fair though the Apollo AI has enough bonuses compared to older civs games imo. The poor challenge Apollo players have is linked to the AI and balance more than the bonuses. It's the same problem experienced civ5 deity players face but of a higher intensity.
 
I don't think exploits are necessary to beat Emperor, and especially not King. Hell, you can play with significant voluntary drawbacks and still win all the games at those levels. What I'm talking about are things like luxury sales and worker steal. Basically, anything that exploits the AI's higher econ bonuses is an exploit because it leverages the bonuses the AI gets at higher settings into direct benefits for the players, making play both easier and faster than at lower settings. This runs contrary to the entire point of putting the setting higher!
 
I don't think exploits are necessary to beat Emperor, and especially not King. Hell, you can play with significant voluntary drawbacks and still win all the games at those levels. What I'm talking about are things like luxury sales and worker steal. Basically, anything that exploits the AI's higher econ bonuses is an exploit because it leverages the bonuses the AI gets at higher settings into direct benefits for the players, making play both easier and faster than at lower settings. This runs contrary to the entire point of putting the setting higher!
Do I understand this right? Are you claiming that Emperor is the highest Difficulty in Civ 5, because you can steal more workers and the AI has more Gold to trade away?
 
No. I'm saying that if you're relying on the AI's higher economy on higher settings in order to win, then you're not really setting the difficulty any higher. Basically, if you can't exploit a Settler AI for it (because it's too incompetent), then you shouldn't be exploiting a Deity AI with it, because that would make the Deity AI easier than the Settler one!
 
No. I'm saying that if you're relying on the AI's higher economy on higher settings in order to win, then you're not really setting the difficulty any higher.
This is somewhat of an answer but not really, so I'll rephrase the question to make it easier to answer for you:

Do you think playing on Emporer is just as hard as playing on Deity and stealing workers + selling Luxuries to the AI?
 
Using all the exploits, yeah. I've played Deity until the win felt inevitable using the exploits. It's very doable, just not very satisfying. I think playing on Emperor with a bunch of arbitrary restrictions can be more challenging.

Examples of restrictions that might apply in one game:
1. No exploits
2. One city only
3. Ranged units must equal melee units in number
4. Not Venice
 
You don't need to worker steal and saying selling luxuries is an exploit is very controversial. Both of these things are also very much available on King and Emperor. My girlfriend who plays on Prince sells her ressources and at this stage she cannot win King and Emperor.
I'm sure some players feel they need to exploit to win Emperor. Some players are fine with Immortal but say these things only about Deity. Etc. etc.

The way you feel about Emperor and King is how I feel about Deity.

You have no point here. Whether or not people want to "exploit" is up to them. A lot of this stuff being gamey/exploits/abuses are mostly a question of opinion. If you restrict yourself you'll still have a challenge boost for going up.

But I mean the other time IIRC you said that expanding like crazy in CivBE is exploiting the game. So I'm not sure what there is more to add to this.

"Do you think playing on Emporer is just as hard as playing on Deity and stealing workers + selling Luxuries to the AI?" Using all the exploits, yeah.

You're deluded. Emperor is massively easier, "exploits" or not.

I think playing on Emperor with a bunch of arbitrary restrictions can be more challenging.

Examples of restrictions that might apply in one game:
1. No exploits
2. One city only
3. Ranged units must equal melee units in number
4. Not Venice

So what ? You can play Prince with a blindfolder if you want.
 
Nah. I said expanding until way under the Health penalties goes against the spirit of the game. That's clearly what the devs intended because the Health penalties were made more severe, and it does kind of make Health meaningless if you just expand in an unlimited fashion and ignore it (because it was ignorable). So yeah, that was clearly exploitative. Wasn't it? You didn't think so?

Look Acken, you asked what I meant and I said it as best I could. If you don't want to understand it, that's on you. If you like, you can impress me by playing a CivBE game strictly under the restrictions I will specify. But you don't have to. Neither of us has anything to prove as far as I'm concerned.

And yes, worker steal and luxury sale are available on Emperor and King. I don't do them. I'll freely say that I find it impossible to win Immortal without things I consider exploits. I'll be very impressed if you can win a Deity game Standard setting 100% with a horrible start without any exploits.
 
Using all the exploits, yeah. I've played Deity until the win felt inevitable using the exploits. It's very doable, just not very satisfying.
Alright, in that case I think you must have lost your mind. And that's already giving you the benefit of the doubt. :crazyeye:

I think playing on Emperor with a bunch of arbitrary restrictions can be more challenging.

Examples of restrictions that might apply in one game:
1. No exploits
2. One city only
3. Ranged units must equal melee units in number
4. Not Venice
That may very well be the case, but nobody is keeping you from doing any of that on Deity.
 
Sure. But I kind of like winning.

I don't think it very insane to try winning without tactics I consider cheating. After all, it is a single player game, so the only one I'm really cheating is literally myself. I want a game I like playing, and I enjoy it less when it feels like I'm undermining the AI's unintended weaknesses.

Acken:

So what ? You can play Prince with a blindfolder if you want.

Sure. Play the game the way you want. You asked, I answered the best I can. If you want to understand, make a better effort at it.

You're deluded. Emperor is massively easier, "exploits" or not.

We have different opinions. That's possible without either of us being deluded.
 
Sure. But I kind of like winning.

I don't think it very insane to try winning without tactics I consider cheating. After all, it is a single player game, so the only one I'm really cheating is literally myself. I want a game I like playing, and I enjoy it less when it feels like I'm undermining the AI's unintended weaknesses.
So to summarize:

- Your "At the higher levels, the key to winning the game is exploiting the AI's deficiencies, not really a focused strategic approach"-statement was nonsense as there are clearly people who win without doing any of that
- Your "Emperor is just as hard as Deity"-statement only works if you use a bunch of arbitrary no-gos for Emperor while every exploit available on Deity is being used
- You don't manage to win on Deity without exploiting and instead decided that you would much rather stay on Emperor with some arbitrary rules that are just restrictive enough that you're still winning.

...and with that in place you make judgement calls on people who play on high difficulty and try to have a challenge. Yeah... no.
 
Oh I understand what you say. I just don't agree with what you said in post #40.

And yes, worker steal and luxury sale are available on Emperor and King. I don't do them. I'll freely say that I find it impossible to win Immortal without things I consider exploits.

And this is where I was getting. Thank you for making my point:

I sometimes see that claim on CFC or reddit. It mostly comes from people unconfortable with the difficulty and who do not enjoy the added challenge but look for justification.

Can I beat Deity with no "exploits" ? I did it in a no bribe no worker steal let's play. I wasn't aware at the time that selling stuff could be considered an exploit so you'll excuse me for that part :rolleyes:. On the other hand that was a Domination game, using liberty with the worse civ (Morrocco) on a below average map.

Can I beat the worst situation possible on Deity ? Probably not. Am I supposed to ? :confused:
 
Ryika:

How about this. Point me to a game of Deity that was won in Civ5 and I'll tell you whether it used things I consider exploitative of the AI. Thus far, I have not encountered a 100% victorious player on Deity that didn't exploit the AI at all and I'd like to see how that person plays.

Acken:

Play the way you want. You asked ME how I enjoyed my games. I like winning. I like winning even when I start with nothing, and without using things I consider cheating. So I'm supposed to win in the worst situation possible. Not you. Me.
 
Acken:

Play the way you want. You asked ME how I enjoyed my games. I like winning. I like winning even when I start with nothing, and without using things I consider cheating. So I'm supposed to win in the worst situation possible. Not you. Me.

Then you play on lower difficulty ;) That's the beauty of the levels, it fits multiple people. No one is criticizing you for chosing Emperor difficulty lol.

Finally no, I never asked you how you enjoy your games. That's the point I'm making: I don't care. What I care is when you spew the following nonsense:

It maxes at King. So yeah. You can basically win with whatever. Most of Civ has always been like this. It's only Deity and Immortal where you're forced into anything, really, and a lot of those are awful gamey crap that really takes you out of the setting.

Eh. At the higher levels, the key to winning the game is exploiting the AI's deficiencies, not really a focused strategic approach. The fact that that's absent here is sort of a flaw in that nothing is taken away by adding awful game modes, but it's not much of a loss, IMO.
 
It's not nonsense. I don't think the game is missing anything if it doesn't have levels where you have to use the AI's even higher bonuses against it. I'm pretty against the entire "give bonuses to AI" approach to difficulty to begin with, so having more of that for the player to leverage doesn't feel like it adds anything to the game.
 
Ryika:

How about this. Point me to a game of Deity that was won in Civ5 and I'll tell you whether it used things I consider exploitative of the AI. Thus far, I have not encountered a 100% victorious player on Deity that didn't exploit the AI at all and I'd like to see how that person plays.
Why exactly are you now asking for a 100% victorious player? :confused: A difficulty that poses a proper challenge is one that will make you lose some games from time to time, that's part of the beauty. If you win 100% of your games, then you're not playing on a setting that is difficult for you.

Reality is simple: You have played around a bit, tested how far you can get and then decided that you wouldn't enjoy going any higher (which could very well mean stopping to use certain explotish stuff on Deity) and settled in a comfortable spot. Not that there's anything wrong about that, but I still don't see how you can feel to have the knowledge and experience needed to make claims as brought as the above.

It's not nonsense. I don't think the game is missing anything if it doesn't have levels where you have to use the AI's even higher bonuses against it. I'm pretty against the entire "give bonuses to AI" approach to difficulty to begin with, so having more of that for the player to leverage doesn't feel like it adds anything to the game.
For you personally, because you don't care about high difficulty anyway. People obviously disagree with this statement. And making the AI play better would of course be optimal, but if that's not feasible then most people who care about difficulty will want to have an AI that has enough bonuses to pose a challenge.
 
Back
Top Bottom