Im impressed, slightly annoyed by patch

[Drawmeus]

The patch may improve some things, but I have still given up my hope that the game will ever be anything worth playing. Also, the fact that DLC is being pumped out at an alarmingly rapid rate is worrying as well.

Don't take this the wrong way, but why are you putting this kind of post in multiple threads which previously had a bunch of people talking about being excited about the game? Why can't that kind of post be confined to posts where they're, you know, on topic? Firaxis has heard the disappointment for six months.

This isn't the launch community where the conversation in every thread was about how much of a letdown the game was. There is real optimism about a fun game going around here now. Why try to derail that with a "I won't give it another try even if they do make it good" post?

(And the DLC thing - I love it. I mostly don't buy it, but hell yes, get a post-launch revenue stream, that stuff is paying for my continued patch support at no extra cost)

 

[spfun]

tldr; Research Agreements need balancing, they are to cheap...

Good

-Significant Turn time improvement - best overall change for me.
-Removing 1 Tile island cities & adding Atols - excellent
-AI 2 tile city spam changed back to 3 tile city spam - excellent
-Increased early production & food at the cost of Gold - better balance, i like.
-AI going for Culture Victory that actually had 3 1/2 trees filled!!! - Good stuff

Iffy

-Early game Wonders increased cost + 13% decrease to Aristocracy = More time spent building wonders even with boosted production than prepatch. I'm a builder & i found i got alot of these wonders in my games, now i can only get about 2 or 3. & now i feel forced to go Egypt.
-Lack of information on some of the policy choices, what the hell does the 1st point in Tradition actually do over time regarding border expansion? The player should be told this stuff! How long do those golden ages last etc...
-Diplomacy changes didn't do much for Diplomacy, its still pretty wacky.

Bad

-Increased Science costs while leaving Research Agreements alone... Not a good idea. Tech rates are to fast because Research Agreements were already to good & are now godly. Modern Era Research Agreements should be atleast 1000+ gold not 350 gold... There is still a major imbalance there & a decreasing of the fun factor of scientific advancement. I like the more traditional methods of non instant techs!

 

[Bandobras Took]

That's an interesting philosophy:

There's more content if you want it and they're working on the game thereby. This is bad because . . . why?

 

[Justicex]

Translation:
I DON'T WANT NEW CONTENT. PLEASE STOP DEVELOPING AND COMING UP WITH NEW IDEAS FOR THE GAME.


Seriously, by developing new dlc, they are seeing what works and testing things out. new ideas come from this process as they see what works in game, and what the player base likes. The fact that dlc is continuing to come out, along with a patch that fixed a number (not all) the problems, means that they are working on all aspects of this game.

Also, Firaxis and 2K gotta feed their families too.

I haven't tried the game post-patch yet, but the changes look (and sound, according to you guys) amazing! Looking forward to the next time I play

 

[ohioastronomy]

That's an interesting philosophy:

There's more content if you want it and they're working on the game thereby. This is bad because . . . why?

Because the entire DLC model of delivering it is rotten to the core, a bad idea, and not a direction that I want to see the franchise go in.

Basically, you get overpriced marginal additions to the game, with strong incentives to making them poorly balanced, and with very few hours of value per dollar. Because they are very profitable you pay people to work on them instead of either giving people free updates or improvements in patches, etc.

It's unconditionally bad, and I feel exactly the same way about DLC in games that I liked (e.g. Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect 2) as in games which I viewed as failures (Civ 5.)

 

[Horizons]

Translation:
I DON'T WANT NEW CONTENT. PLEASE STOP DEVELOPING AND COMING UP WITH NEW IDEAS FOR THE GAME.


Seriously, by developing new dlc, they are seeing what works and testing things out. new ideas come from this process as they see what works in game, and what the player base likes. The fact that dlc is continuing to come out, along with a patch that fixed a number (not all) the problems, means that they are working on all aspects of this game.

It would be all good if they were pumping out WORTHWHILE DLC (e.g. the Zulus, extra leaders for existing civs, professionally-designed scenarios) rather than utter crap such as obscure Polynesian and American civilizations.

 

[Drawmeus]

It would be all good if they were pumping out WORTHWHILE DLC (e.g. the Zulus, extra leaders for existing civs, professionally-designed scenarios) rather than utter crap such as obscure Polynesian and American civilizations.

To each his own. I would never buy the Zulus. I have already bought the Polynesians.

I would welcome Vikings, though!

Because the entire DLC model of delivering it is rotten to the core, a bad idea, and not a direction that I want to see the franchise go in.

Basically, you get overpriced marginal additions to the game, with strong incentives to making them poorly balanced, and with very few hours of value per dollar. Because they are very profitable you pay people to work on them instead of either giving people free updates or improvements in patches, etc.

It's unconditionally bad, and I feel exactly the same way about DLC in games that I liked (e.g. Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect 2) as in games which I viewed as failures (Civ 5.)

Every piece of this is visibly not happening in Civ V, though. Point by point:
* Whether they're overpriced or not depends on your budget.
* They are not poorly balanced. They run the normal gamut of Civ V leaders, from the very powerful Babylon to the relatively weak Polynesia and Mongolia.
* They just delivered one of the better patches I've ever seen in a non-subscription game - for free.

 

[magnus333]

-Lack of information on some of the policy choices, what the hell does the 1st point in Tradition actually do over time regarding border expansion? The player should be told this stuff! How long do those golden ages last etc...

Golden age duration changes with the speed of the game (normal, quick, marathon). I'm sure they could code a system to display the number of turns in each speed in the tool tips, but would you rather have them spend their time doing that (which has no effect on game play) or improving diplomacy, tactical AI, etc?

As for Tradition, it was likely left vague because it's extremely complicated to the average player. The old effect used to reduce the total cost of each tile acquired by 67%. The new effect reduces the exponent in the border growth formula by 25%. The default exponent is 1.1 and a 25% reduction brings it to 0.825 which means the insane cost curve is now massively leveled out.
The change means that the later tiles are much cheaper than before, but earlier ones are more costly than the old 67% effect.

For example:
5th tile acquisition:
70 normally.
20 with the old 67%
35 with the new 25% to exponent

15th tile acquisition:
240 normally.
80 with the old 67%
70 with the new 25% to exponent

30th tile acquisition:
525 normally.
170 with the old 67%
120 with the new 25% to exponent

To acquire all 30 tiles in a city it will cost the following in cumulative culture:
7695 normally.
2483 with the old 67%
2145 with the new 25% to exponent


They basically leveled out the growth formula some instead of a ton of quick early tiles and super slow later tiles. Good luck explaining that in a tooltip... lol

 

[spfun]

Golden age duration changes with the speed of the game (normal, quick, marathon). I'm sure they could code a system to display the number of turns in each speed in the tool tips, but would you rather have them spend their time doing that (which has no effect on game play) or improving diplomacy, tactical AI, etc?

As for Tradition, it was likely left vague because it's extremely complicated to the average player. The old effect used to reduce the total cost of each tile acquired by 67%. The new effect reduces the exponent in the border growth formula by 25%. The default exponent is 1.1 and a 25% reduction brings it to 0.825 which means the insane cost curve is now massively leveled out.
The change means that the later tiles are much cheaper than before, but earlier ones are more costly than the old 67% effect.

For example:
5th tile acquisition:
70 normally.
20 with the old 67%
35 with the new 25% to exponent

15th tile acquisition:
240 normally.
80 with the old 67%
70 with the new 25% to exponent

30th tile acquisition:
525 normally.
170 with the old 67%
120 with the new 25% to exponent

To acquire all 30 tiles in a city it will cost the following in cumulative culture:
7695 normally.
2483 with the old 67%
2145 with the new 25% to exponent


They basically leveled out the growth formula some instead of a ton of quick early tiles and super slow later tiles. Good luck explaining that in a tooltip... lol

Thanks for this information, this is exactly what i wanted to know, how does this work with the new Angkor Wat? 25+25=50%? So as Russia you could get it to 75%?

 

[figwit]

Help! Help!

When the update took effect I lost the diplomacy dialogue boxes, the combat summary and the news that used to appear on the right of the screen.

Help!

(calms down)

Has anyone else experience this?

What can be done?

 

[magnus333]

Thanks for this information, this is exactly what i wanted to know, how does this work with the new Angkor Wat? 25+25=50%? So as Russia you could get it to 75%?

Angkor and Krepost are still -25% total cost (which is applied after the formula). Tradition (or whatever policy the cost discount was on before) is now a reduction to a part of the formula.
Angkor and Krepost would be an additional 25% discount to whatever the formula spits out with the tradition exponent change.

So from the example above:
30th tile acquisition with Tradition:
525 normally.
170 with the old 67%
120 with the new 25% to exponent
90 with the new 25% to exponent (Tradition) + 25% cost from either Krepost OR Angkor

I'm not sure if Krepost + Angkor add together first, or if they are applied in order. I know that America (25% GOLD cost reduction) plus Angkor is not added first. So the first tile that costs 50 to purchase = 50 x .75 x .75 = 28.125 which is rounded to 30 (not 25 which would have been the result of adding them first). Not sure if it works the same with culture or not, but there is a lot of rounding going on so it doesn't make a huge difference either way.

Again, how do you explain that in a tooltip?

 

[Wezqu]

Help! Help!

When the update took effect I lost the diplomacy dialogue boxes, the combat summary and the news that used to appear on the right of the screen.

Help!

(calms down)

Has anyone else experience this?

What can be done?

You should verify that all the files were downloaded and installed right. Right click on the civilization v in steam and chose properties. There chose local files and press "verify integrity of game cache...". Steam will check the files and download corrupted files again.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Because the entire DLC model of delivering it is rotten to the core, a bad idea, and not a direction that I want to see the franchise go in.

Basically, you get overpriced marginal additions to the game, with strong incentives to making them poorly balanced, and with very few hours of value per dollar. Because they are very profitable you pay people to work on them instead of either giving people free updates or improvements in patches, etc.

I can't say this any other way: you're wrong. They just released a major patch for the game. They're also releasing a Polynesian DLC. This shows that the two aren't even close to mutually exclusive. The patch even added a completely new building for free. If anything, DLC can be used to fund further patching. Some people are willing to pay for DLC. I haven't bought any yet. I can still play the game. There is no rule that says I have to buy any of it. But it is available for those who want it and contributes to the Civ 5 overall budget. If anything, a lack of DLC would slow down the patching effort because the company won't be putting as much money into it. Many DLCs are a simple matter of some art slapped over the engine and one ability to code -- hardly a Herculean effort. Fixing a memory leak causing long turn times on large maps . . . that requires a lot of funding for little to no return. DLC is a very efficient way to increase the budget a company can devote to a game without forcing expense on the people who don't want it.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I can't say this any other way: you're wrong. They just released a major patch for the game. They're also releasing a Polynesian DLC. This shows that the two aren't even close to mutually exclusive. The patch even added a completely new building for free. If anything, DLC can be used to fund further patching. Some people are willing to pay for DLC. I haven't bought any yet. I can still play the game. There is no rule that says I have to buy any of it. But it is available for those who want it and contributes to the Civ 5 overall budget. If anything, a lack of DLC would slow down the patching effort because the company won't be putting as much money into it. Many DLCs are a simple matter of some art slapped over the engine and one ability to code -- hardly a Herculean effort. Fixing a memory leak causing long turn times on large maps . . . that requires a lot of funding for little to no return. DLC is a very efficient way to increase the budget a company can devote to a game without forcing expense on the people who don't want it.

I have bought the DLC civilizations, and have found them very satisfying, particularly the Inca and Polynesia(because they play completely differently from other civs). But that's just me. I agree with your sentiment: it's clear that they aren't mutually exclusive and likely that they boost each other.

As for the DLC hate in general: I don't get it. I really, seriously do not see any rational basis for it. This game released with 18 civilizations, the same number as were found in Civilization IV when it launched. In that regard, the game was not lacking relative its forebears. But now you can get more civs at a reasonable price if you so choose. Undoubtedly, there will be an official expansion pack or two that will likely have civs as well, among everything else.

As for the patch, I really quite like it. ICS is quite difficult to manage now thanks to the cumulative nerfs it has received over time. It's hard to make much money off of a 3-pop city now, and shifts the emphasis back towards the quality of the land. Improvements become stronger over time, particularly ones that are on resources. In that regard, I think the game is mostly in a good spot. I am also heartened by the apparent shared commitment Firaxis and 2K have to continue to patch this game and attack its remaining issues. I eagerly await future patches(and future DLC civs!)

 

[Chimera1804]

Having now sunk a few more hours than I should have into the game there is something about the patch that has just made playing awesome again. Last night while playing I thought "Okay, finish this plan here and I need to get to bed." An hour later "Crap...why am I still here...okay, well, let me just get this done and then..." and so on and so forth. I'm not quite sure why, but diplomatic relations suddenly seem meaningful; I've somehow only met two civs on a twelve civ map but already there's a Cold War like build up between Russian and Greece and I've been at war with both for various reasons but with reasonable peace treaty offers to end them .

Also, holy photon is the tradition tree powerful or what?. Not just for tall empires, too...I maxed out liberty given I had space for two decent empires and now am picking up a few tradition policies for my "wide" empire.

This is a very very promising step. The only thing was that the AI still is awful at handling military tactics. It showed a little promise in coming out in a decent formation but still left it's archers open to attack by longswords...

 

[LegionSteve]

The recent patch has completely changed my attitude on civ 5, I really enjoy playing now. Now that the balance is much better in almost every aspect of the game, the other problems (crap AI, scale weirdness) don't annoy me so much. I even take time to zoom in look at the unit animations and stuff. Diplomacy to me seems much improved too, though I am only on my second game since the patch.

I play with my own 'mod' which just removes RAs, because I don't like the way they work at all, and if I don't use them I don't see why the AIs should be able to All the other changes I had made to make the game even slightly playable are either in the patch or are no longer necessary. Though I may just want to increase late game tech costs a bit more, see how it goes after a few more games.

I don't care how much DLC they churn out, as long as they keep fixing the game too, which they are doing. That doesn't mean that I will actually buy any DLC, just that its existence does not offend me.

Having said all that, I still get AIs that I am at war with trying to send unescorted settlers straight through my land I hope they will at least improve the AI a little bit. If they could make it understand water at all, that would be nice.

 

[zomg]

Don't take this the wrong way, but why are you putting this kind of post in multiple threads which previously had a bunch of people talking about being excited about the game? Why can't that kind of post be confined to posts where they're, you know, on topic? Firaxis has heard the disappointment for six months.

This isn't the launch community where the conversation in every thread was about how much of a letdown the game was. There is real optimism about a fun game going around here now. Why try to derail that with a "I won't give it another try even if they do make it good" post?

(And the DLC thing - I love it. I mostly don't buy it, but hell yes, get a post-launch revenue stream, that stuff is paying for my continued patch support at no extra cost)

haha I have this image of goth adolescents sitting around on their bed dressed in black listening to death metal just talking about how everything sucks and theres no point to anything and generally trying to bring everyone down

To the point, it sounds like a great patch, I enjoyed the game before so I am REAALLY looking forward to the weekend when I have some time to play

 

[spfun]

Angkor and Krepost are still -25% total cost (which is applied after the formula). Tradition (or whatever policy the cost discount was on before) is now a reduction to a part of the formula.
Angkor and Krepost would be an additional 25% discount to whatever the formula spits out with the tradition exponent change.

So from the example above:
30th tile acquisition with Tradition:
525 normally.
170 with the old 67%
120 with the new 25% to exponent
90 with the new 25% to exponent (Tradition) + 25% cost from either Krepost OR Angkor

I'm not sure if Krepost + Angkor add together first, or if they are applied in order. I know that America (25% GOLD cost reduction) plus Angkor is not added first. So the first tile that costs 50 to purchase = 50 x .75 x .75 = 28.125 which is rounded to 30 (not 25 which would have been the result of adding them first). Not sure if it works the same with culture or not, but there is a lot of rounding going on so it doesn't make a huge difference either way.

Again, how do you explain that in a tooltip?

I'd leave it out like they have done, but add it to the civilopedia! Put all Advanced Information for things exactly like this in there. Make it useful.

 

[Thormodr]

I can't say this any other way: you're wrong. They just released a major patch for the game. They're also releasing a Polynesian DLC. This shows that the two aren't even close to mutually exclusive. The patch even added a completely new building for free. If anything, DLC can be used to fund further patching. Some people are willing to pay for DLC. I haven't bought any yet. I can still play the game. There is no rule that says I have to buy any of it. But it is available for those who want it and contributes to the Civ 5 overall budget. If anything, a lack of DLC would slow down the patching effort because the company won't be putting as much money into it. Many DLCs are a simple matter of some art slapped over the engine and one ability to code -- hardly a Herculean effort. Fixing a memory leak causing long turn times on large maps . . . that requires a lot of funding for little to no return. DLC is a very efficient way to increase the budget a company can devote to a game without forcing expense on the people who don't want it.

The question is whether the money will genuinely go towards improving the game or will it go in the 2K Games' shareholders' pockets?

If they could increase the budget and bring out an expansion that made the game much more immersive and deep and fixed many of the fundamental problems with the game then I'm on board.

 

[Dralix]

The question is whether the money will genuinely go towards improving the game or will it go in the 2K Games' shareholders' pockets?

It's not really an either or question. Companies make money, that money pays expenses and rewards shareholders. The budget doesn't say "the revenue received from DLC goes 50% to Sid and the other 50% divided among shareholders."

What may exist is an incentive program that directly ties an employees compensation to the work they do, so that if Civ V generates more revenue, the employees working on that project get higher bonuses.

What likely does exist is the corporate philosophy to not continue to fund projects that don't make money. So if Civ V continues to earn revenue through DLC (as well as new sales), that should directly result in funding for the game, including patches. If the game is not earning money, it would be harder to justify throwing more resources at improving it.