Moderator Action: merged a bunch of double posts - please use the edit post button if you want to add to a post and no one has yet responded
I just want CIV 5 to be a joyful game
- Thread starter hclass
- Start date
I agree they are in the same group because they both contribute to the strategic play of the game.
But I can't agree tech trade has nothing to do with game mechanics, to me, trading itself is always a game mechanic, no matter what is being traded.
Yes, I agree. It only contributes to the tactical play of the game and obviously not a strategic tool in the game.
I have never said I want the tree to remain, I just find one-time only reward is stupid restriction.
To me it is always easy to have user options (let user choose) on anything tactical (unlike those strategic mechanics). What is the big deal between having 1-time-only production boost and multiple? The samething applied on 1upt or 2upt or 3upt, they do make difference, but overall it is limted in a tactical area and won't have heavy overall impact to the game.
Think about this, in CIV4, tech trade can be turn 1) on, 2) off or 3) even a variant where you can only trade tech you have researched on your own (Sorry, I can't remember the term), then why should Firaxis bother to remove it in CIV5? Isn't it already can be turned OFF?
The answer is simple, tech trade is indeed a component of the game's strategic mechanic, its effect is far more fundamental and heavy than you might have expected. The developer can of course brute force it to become optional, but they will never be able to balance the game to take care of all the 3 cases.
Don't worry, I think we can mutually agree on those 2 things and I think I am going to like Civ5 because so far I hear only good news
Unlike Civ4, right in its pre-release dicussion, I have very little hope based on those changes I heard from Firaxis... and I have proven myself right in my prediction... I fall asleep while playing it... no reward, no satisfaction all kind of stupid feel.
Suho1004
Warlord
Hmm. I see your point about tech trading. Maybe I chose the wrong expression. I do agree that it has a significant impact on gameplay, but it's not such a mechanic in that turning it on or off affects the fundamental rules of the game.
And I guess this is what I mean. Maybe you can explain to me exactly what you mean by this, because I am baffled. If you don't want the trees to remain, how can you have anything but a one-time reward (unless the forest grows back)? The only thing I can come up with is that you want to cut the trees down once, but continue to get the bonus production every turn thereafter (or a certain number of turns thereafter). Is that correct?
Just for reference, I believe that's called "no trade brokering"
And I guess this is what I mean. Maybe you can explain to me exactly what you mean by this, because I am baffled. If you don't want the trees to remain, how can you have anything but a one-time reward (unless the forest grows back)? The only thing I can come up with is that you want to cut the trees down once, but continue to get the bonus production every turn thereafter (or a certain number of turns thereafter). Is that correct?
Just for reference, I believe that's called "no trade brokering"
I mean cut ti multiple times and get multiple time of bonus.
I can't exactly remember which ver CIV (or its extension pack), I know in one ver, forest can grow back... and have you never played "Plant forest" before?
i.e. I chop down the forest, get the bonus, plant forest again and chop it again...
Civ2 is the one I play the most - countless hours. I did even repeat a particular saved game several times, just to beat AI again and again in different ways (though I stop after I start playing Civ3).
Tremendous AI improvement - do you mean it can now do more things (quantity) or it can do certain thing better (quality)? If you are talking about imrpovement in diplomacy, then I am sorry, I always try my very best to play something like "everybody shut up right from the very beginnig and start punching one another".
Yes! I am unable to do that in Civ4... and yes it is one of the reason why I fall asleep when playing Civ4 and I stop totally not long after that. I remember I did win in Conquest victory of a large map but only a few time at nobel level (I wonder if I get the name of that level correctly, that is the level Firaxis claim AI players are not given any advantage over human player)
It depends on how the so called "difficulties" are crafted.
1. I will never play game where I start off being bullied by AI players (when conflict araise) simply because they are given initial bonus. Psychologically, start playing that way, will most likely make me feel I am a cheap btch (who prefer being bullied).
2. When I play computer games (whatever game including CIV) I want a release from all that I can't do in the real world. So, I find it silly to play game that is very stingy in rewards.
3. Restriction like that in the chop-tree example, changes that forbit what previously was a damn exciting wonder race and so and so on... all these do not make the game more difficult nor better, it only make the game designer sound amateur (damn unproffesional)
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,735
In older versions of Civ you had a "Plant Forest" worker option (or something like that). Players would chop down the forest, plant a forest, chop it down again.
Personally, I found that to be pretty boring. But then again, I never finish my games either, starting over when things are pretty much in the bag.
The problem with your suggestion is that you are pushing the game in one direction too much. Let me take 3, war as an example.
By giving more benefits to war, war becomes the best solution to every problem. To get technology, player should go to war rather than to use diplomacy or research. To gain gold, player should go to war rather than to build an economy. To gain more cities, player should go to war rather than settle. Only when war is not an option, other options should be considered. War is a part of the game which can not be neglected by any player, but it should not be the solution to all problems in the game.
In sum, a benefit of one mechanic should not be so great that it is the solution. That is manipulation. If the reward for war is increased, the reward for culture, diplomacy and science must be increased to counter act it. The same can be said for chopping. Replanting forests negates all reward for not chopping. Player should chop. That again, is manipulation.
By giving more benefits to war, war becomes the best solution to every problem. To get technology, player should go to war rather than to use diplomacy or research. To gain gold, player should go to war rather than to build an economy. To gain more cities, player should go to war rather than settle. Only when war is not an option, other options should be considered. War is a part of the game which can not be neglected by any player, but it should not be the solution to all problems in the game.
In sum, a benefit of one mechanic should not be so great that it is the solution. That is manipulation. If the reward for war is increased, the reward for culture, diplomacy and science must be increased to counter act it. The same can be said for chopping. Replanting forests negates all reward for not chopping. Player should chop. That again, is manipulation.
globalempire
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 70
the god button is known as world builder
No TRUE. I want BIG rewards in every thing accomplished by player.
The reason I only mentioned a greater war reward (as my 3rd request) is because it is the most under-rewarded effort in Civ3 and Civ4. Firaxis has made warfare harder and harder and its reward lower and lower since Civ3... and I hope they will realize soon that the only thing they can achive through that is a very very dull game.
Then just let all of them increase, I will welcome all that, thank you very much for saying what I should have said right at the very beginning.
If it is a solution for a particular problem in the game, why not?
I assume you want to say:
"In sum, a benefit of one mechanic should not be so great that it is the solution for ALL."
Yes, I can agree a reward (of war for example) should not be too greate until one can simply neglect every other aspects of the game -- and still win the game.
On ther other hand, the reward of war also should NOT be something TOO stingy or stink.
Think about this:
A confirmed change in conquest victory of CIV5 is you don't have to capture every cities (just the capitals of your opponents).
Isn't victory the greatest reward in CIV? Why they make it easier to achive? Why don't they instead make siezing all cities easier by giving more reward to the invader?
The answer is the same with the answer to the below question:
Do you know why Firaxis choose to reduce war reward instead of increase the reward of other accomplishments in CIV?
(If you don't have an answer or just got a guess, see the answer at the end of this post)
Don't blah! Chopping tree in CIV, even when it was first introduced in CIV has never been something easy nor effortless (and it is not without side effect). It has never be a solution to anything, it just let me boost (not much) production in 1 particular city.
The answer:
Because the devloper is lazy. It take more effort to re-code rewards of everything else, so they simply cut the reward of war.
and by doing that, as the Chinese always like to say:
they never afraid people will get TO LAN (frustrated)
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,735
Not much? It could often double or triple your production. It was to the point that chopping was SO good that it was a stupid strategy to do anything else besides chop. I want MORE options, not fewer.
Now you might say that maybe that they should make the other choices more powerful, but in the end that amounts to the same thing. It just inflates all of the worker movements. So it would either make everything just like it is now, or it would make the game so easy that it would make the whole game boring to play.
War should not be easier than it is. Already, it is the best way to expand your civilization and the win the game.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
That's the sweet spot, right there. Where the balance between winning and losing is razor-thin and you're always on the edge of your seat, not knowing how it will turn out, but at the end you get to cherish a hard-won victory.
hclass: if you changed all the rewards equally for everyone, you wouldn't really be changing the rewards at all. You'd just be making the game go by faster. You can basically achieve the same effect by moving to a faster speed setting. You'll crank out units faster, chopping is worth (relatively) more even though hammers are the same (because production costs are lower and each hammer is worth more) and so on.
Ahriman
Tyrant
It seems to me like the OP has a bunch of idiosyncratic preferences. [And a colorful use of English 
]
There's nothing wrong with that, but don't expect the game to go that way.
]There's nothing wrong with that, but don't expect the game to go that way.
Not TRUE.
Lets say, you are in a shopping mall. I will give you money with the condition you must spend them all before you walk out the mall, you have 2 choices in dollars:
a) 100K
b) 10
You got zero money left at the end but you may bring the goods home (as Victory in CIV) Which one will you choose?
It is just like you can't say
0.1 - 0.1 = 0 is identical to 100 - 100 = 0
simply because they both end up zero.
(I mean the results could be the same, but the equations are not)
I understand there are people who like to be small and cute, I just happen to be one who like BIG things. Big gun, heavy fight, crazy raze and BIG rewards, which all easily sum up to BIG in satisfaction. (I strongly believe I am not alone, I believe many others too)
I wish I could put it in words (but I don't know how), remember the fatty in Jurasic Park movie, who set his sever security with an anmation saying something like:
"Uh.. uh.. uh.., you have got wrong password!"
I foresee someone will argue with me like you have done above, right at the beginning when I start this thread, so I put in a trap... hahaha I never believe it is you, Frekk
hahaha...
Remember my "GOD button", is winning by pressing the GOD button (the fastest I can immagine) has the same effect as winning by playing a fast pace CIV game?
You have forgotten 1 crucial factor, if you opponent also get bigger reward, he/she will be stronger/richer/bigger and that makes you advance slower (especially with war way). So ummm... you are wrong! Bigger reward won't make everything goes faster
You are damn cute... FrekkThat prove you have only tried it very few times and only at the early stage of the game.... when you can only build cheap building, unit (even wonder is relatively cheap)
I remember I have a group of walker (about 30 or more) chpping together around a city which was producing an expensive building... and oh I also remember I did the same when building a wonder, it was in the mid or later stage of a long game, guess what, I only manage to complete the building a few turns earlier. (less than 10% faster)
To be frank, me too don't really like to chop (very tiring), but I find repeat chopping monotonous simply because the process take too long and the reward is not good enough. I definitely believe that I will like it if the process is faster and the reward is bigger... (I like to bring 10K while shopping instead of 10 dollars)
Me too. I want an enjoyable wonder race. Not one that says: Ya! you can race the wonder building, but you can NOT xx this and yy that... what is the fun.
War could be still the best way to expand and win the game, but it has lost its original taste, it never taste as nice as it was in earlier CIV.
I appreciate that you assumed my intentions correctly. I should have said "THE SOLUTION" or something of that sort. At least we can agree that war should not be so dominating that the other part of the game should not matter.
The answer of "developer is lazy" is reasonable inference; it is easier to weaken a overpowering mechanic. By making other mechanics more powerful, there is a good chance that the developer might break something. Rather than to break the game by increasing rewards for everything, it is easier to take away the reward of the most powerful mechanic. I would call that prudence, but at the same time, it is laziness. The developer could have worked more on balancing the game.
The change in conquest victory can be reasonably inferred as trying to eliminate the mop up phase rather than making conquest easier. When a player loses his capital and cannot recapture it, that player has practically lost the game. (This is a questionable assumption, but it is not what is correct, but what the developer assumed.) If all player except for one has practically lost the game, the game has ended because there is a de facto winner. Rather than to force a victor to go through the ritual of actually conquering everyone, the game reward the de facto victor. Then again, I am not a developer, so the best I can do is to infer.
As for chopping, sorry for being brief. As mentioned by SammyKhalifa, chopping is the best solution to lack of hammer in the early game. Whipping is another, but a player can choose both. The set back of chopping is not having the worker to do something else and losing the forest. Replanting negates losing the forest and increases the power of already powerful mechanic. At the given moment, there is only two options, chop or not to chop. One of it is too weak, so in practice there is only one option which is manipulation. Increase in the out put of chopping with later technology may be an option, but there is no need for replanting at the given moment.
The answer of "developer is lazy" is reasonable inference; it is easier to weaken a overpowering mechanic. By making other mechanics more powerful, there is a good chance that the developer might break something. Rather than to break the game by increasing rewards for everything, it is easier to take away the reward of the most powerful mechanic. I would call that prudence, but at the same time, it is laziness. The developer could have worked more on balancing the game.
The change in conquest victory can be reasonably inferred as trying to eliminate the mop up phase rather than making conquest easier. When a player loses his capital and cannot recapture it, that player has practically lost the game. (This is a questionable assumption, but it is not what is correct, but what the developer assumed.) If all player except for one has practically lost the game, the game has ended because there is a de facto winner. Rather than to force a victor to go through the ritual of actually conquering everyone, the game reward the de facto victor. Then again, I am not a developer, so the best I can do is to infer.
As for chopping, sorry for being brief. As mentioned by SammyKhalifa, chopping is the best solution to lack of hammer in the early game. Whipping is another, but a player can choose both. The set back of chopping is not having the worker to do something else and losing the forest. Replanting negates losing the forest and increases the power of already powerful mechanic. At the given moment, there is only two options, chop or not to chop. One of it is too weak, so in practice there is only one option which is manipulation. Increase in the out put of chopping with later technology may be an option, but there is no need for replanting at the given moment.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
What I get from the OP and then again (and again and again) from the original poster is that the game should follow next to no rules yet it should be exciting and maximise fun instead. What boggles my mind however is that the rules are there not to limit what you can and cannot do, but to force you to choose what you do with the time you have. Without this layer of depth the game would be nonsensical imo, and winning would mean nothing. That would be like playing a guessing game with yourself.
"Hmmm, well me, I am thinking of a number and if you can guess it, you win!"
"Hmmm, that sounds interesting me! Could this number be... 7,927,561,381,510?"
"You are correct me! You win!"![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
It seems to me like the OP does not cope very well with losing a game, and then rants about it. Sorry but I do not feel anything that is posted here and I do not see the need for any of this nonsense. The only thing that may be a good idea is the choosing of a nice reward when capturing a city, but then again I am unsure if that would be a good idea since it would focus Civ even more on warfare.
"Hmmm, well me, I am thinking of a number and if you can guess it, you win!"
"Hmmm, that sounds interesting me! Could this number be... 7,927,561,381,510?"
"You are correct me! You win!"
It seems to me like the OP does not cope very well with losing a game, and then rants about it. Sorry but I do not feel anything that is posted here and I do not see the need for any of this nonsense. The only thing that may be a good idea is the choosing of a nice reward when capturing a city, but then again I am unsure if that would be a good idea since it would focus Civ even more on warfare.
Hi,
Do you know why there is a series of - Superman movie (who always save the world at the end, part1, 2, 3 ... all are good sellers) whereas there isn't one about an ordinary man who always save his family?
Because Superman save the whole world population again and again, the no. of lifes saved is damn great in quantity. The fight between superman and any super-devil in the movie is overwhelming, at light-speed, extraordinary, incredible (etc... you may continue to add your own adjectives, at will) and all that attract attention of all ages. (every fight and its outcome in the movie is amplified to 100 time greater magnitude from that of what ordinary men can do)
Remark: CIV used to be a Superman (at least, a player can easily gear the gameplay so), especially in Civ2 and some part of Civ3.
But the director of the movie decides that from Superman part 4 on:
1. To make sure it is a new and fresh experience to all the Superman fans, 1/3 of the capability or advantage of Superman remain the same as in the past, 1/3 must be discarded (two of them are mentioned below) and 1/3 new. So the first thing he did, is to remove Superman's mantle, according to the director, that at least let everyone see Superman's good shape clearer, but...
2. Without the mantle Superman now can no longer fly around the globe, he can only fly at most 10 miles, (why it is 10 not 11 remains a mystery). The director of the movie believes this will give his opponents (many happen to be computer control robots, with AI) have more time to escape or prepare for fight, thus make the movie more interesting. Superman is going to loss more in fights.
3. When Superman capture a bad guy, the neighbourhood no longer applause, they instead condemn him for capturing their friend, it will take days if not weeks before they realize Superman is doing them a good deed. The director never give a reason why he make this change.
As a Superman movie fan, I believe the director might also want to make Superman only fly at night (so that no more fighting in the sky under daylight, that save a lot of trouble enhancing the movie quality of those part)... and there is more, since Superman is not that powerful anymore, may be, sometime he will have no choice but to talk the bad guys over... I mean like father teaches son...
Remark:
When every action/accomplishment in CIV (probably in Civ6) is rewarded much greater, whereas the cost of buildings and units (or their maintenance) remain the same (low), then there will be intensified/amplified result of all activities of the game - make it tasted like the ordinary Superman movie... it will be much more interesting.
Who cares about bad guys in the movie are beaten by Superman simply because Superman is borned with superpower?
Do you know why there is a series of - Superman movie (who always save the world at the end, part1, 2, 3 ... all are good sellers) whereas there isn't one about an ordinary man who always save his family?
Because Superman save the whole world population again and again, the no. of lifes saved is damn great in quantity. The fight between superman and any super-devil in the movie is overwhelming, at light-speed, extraordinary, incredible (etc... you may continue to add your own adjectives, at will) and all that attract attention of all ages. (every fight and its outcome in the movie is amplified to 100 time greater magnitude from that of what ordinary men can do)
Remark: CIV used to be a Superman (at least, a player can easily gear the gameplay so), especially in Civ2 and some part of Civ3.
But the director of the movie decides that from Superman part 4 on:
1. To make sure it is a new and fresh experience to all the Superman fans, 1/3 of the capability or advantage of Superman remain the same as in the past, 1/3 must be discarded (two of them are mentioned below) and 1/3 new. So the first thing he did, is to remove Superman's mantle, according to the director, that at least let everyone see Superman's good shape clearer, but...
2. Without the mantle Superman now can no longer fly around the globe, he can only fly at most 10 miles, (why it is 10 not 11 remains a mystery). The director of the movie believes this will give his opponents (many happen to be computer control robots, with AI) have more time to escape or prepare for fight, thus make the movie more interesting. Superman is going to loss more in fights.
3. When Superman capture a bad guy, the neighbourhood no longer applause, they instead condemn him for capturing their friend, it will take days if not weeks before they realize Superman is doing them a good deed. The director never give a reason why he make this change.
As a Superman movie fan, I believe the director might also want to make Superman only fly at night (so that no more fighting in the sky under daylight, that save a lot of trouble enhancing the movie quality of those part)... and there is more, since Superman is not that powerful anymore, may be, sometime he will have no choice but to talk the bad guys over... I mean like father teaches son...
Remark:
When every action/accomplishment in CIV (probably in Civ6) is rewarded much greater, whereas the cost of buildings and units (or their maintenance) remain the same (low), then there will be intensified/amplified result of all activities of the game - make it tasted like the ordinary Superman movie... it will be much more interesting.
Who cares about bad guys in the movie are beaten by Superman simply because Superman is borned with superpower?
Ahriman
Tyrant
Absolutely. You can't just hand out "rewards" or they become meaningless, and the rewards for different effective strategies need to be similar. You can't just go around handing out big bonuses for conquering cities, or being a warmonger becomse even more of a dominant strategy than it already is. There are already huge rewards for capturing a city; you get a new city that can produce stuff for you, AND you deprive your opponent of a city.
That has to be the weirdest (and least useful) analogy I've ever seen.
Making every reward higher makes no sense. Rewards can only be evaluated relative to opportunity costs. If I increase the research output of everything by a factor of 10, and increase tech costs by 10, then I haven't actually changed the game. If I double the strength of every military unit ("Big Guns!"), I haven't actually changed the game. If you gain an ability to easily change 1 terrain type to another, then you just removed the importance of terrain, because it doesn't matter anymore what the original terrain was.
MOAR! is not always better. Value is often defined only through limitations. City site X is better than city site Y precisely becuase I know I *can't* easily flatten the mountanis around city Y and dig out a lake.
Limitations also help with AI. The more options there are, the worse an AI will do relative to a human player. By limiting the game, you can code an AI that works within those limitations, and limit the number of areas where the human can do better than the AI, and so make an AI that can compete without having to cheat as badly.
"Lazy developer" is just ridiculous. Coding a good AI is *hard*.
moscaverde
Prince
I disagree completely, Superman is one of the most boring characters ever made. He enter, win, go away....
The most rewarding experience is when you win a hard battle (in CIV) or manage to have a good nation with a poor start etc.
See, Spiderman is much cooler. =P
Ex.: In CIV 2 you simply steal a technology of your enemy when you capture one of his cities, that was too much.
The most rewarding experience is when you win a hard battle (in CIV) or manage to have a good nation with a poor start etc.
See, Spiderman is much cooler. =P
Ex.: In CIV 2 you simply steal a technology of your enemy when you capture one of his cities, that was too much.
Trias
Donkey with three behinds
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 594
Actual it is often in dealing with limitations that the player is better than the AI. This was painfully obvious in CTP were the AI was very bad at dealing with the limited number of units on a tile. In this respect SoD were very good mechanic for the AI, there was a simple heuristic (MOAR is better) and it allowed the AI to leverage the production advantage it got at higher levels.
If there is not a dramatic increase in the level of the AI in civ5 (which hopefully there is) the AI will be utter fail at dealing with the 1UPT restriction.
Are you stupid?!?!?
Batman is MUCH cooler than both.
Ahriman
Tyrant
It depends on the specific context. But absolutely in general the more options you have, the more the AI has to consider, and the harder it is to make good choices.
True, but that doesn't quite deal with the issue.
In a way, 1upt means fewer limitations. With stacking, it was easy to get an AI that was ok, because the intelligent strategic actions were very limited. All you had to do was merge everything into a big stack, move it to the target city, bombard, and then attack in decreasing order of probability of victory.
1upt increases the number of strategic options, because there is a complex system of which units should be in which tile.
So you have to be careful how you interpret "limits".
