Info on Next Patch

[Bob1475]

As expected we are seeing good progress on the fixes. I just hope the conversation grows more civil. ALL versions of CIV go through the same process no matter how well play tested they cannot get the same kind of feedback that thousands of actual users playing thousands of games. Let's keep moving forward!

 

[evrett37]

As expected we are seeing good progress on the fixes. I just hope the conversation grows more civil. ALL versions of CIV go through the same process no matter how well play tested they cannot get the same kind of feedback that thousands of actual users playing thousands of games. Let's keep moving forward!

The gaming market and civ franchise may never be the same and many true fans have been left in the dust but yes lets all forget and move on. Are you too lazy to care about "the big picture" or too selfish to concern yourself with your brothers?

Moderator Action: Please stop the trolling. Calling other users too selfish/lazy to do whatever you believe should be done is trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Txurce]

IMHO, the amount of research needed for a given tech needs to be randomized. Give it a mean and standard distribution and have every society playing have different values for given techs. Or alternatively, keep the techs set beaker counts, but randomize the value of the research on a given turn.

This is an interesting idea. But I think half the posters on the patch threads would die of apoplexy as a result.

 

[atteSmythe]

Heh, it's an interesting thing. We accept some randomness in combat, but I think I'd be amongst those who would 'die of apoplexy*' if other elements had a random element added to their result.

*go back to civ IV

 

[AlpsStranger]

The gaming market and civ franchise may never be the same and many true fans have been left in the dust but yes lets all forget and move on. Are you too lazy to care about "the big picture" or too selfish to concern yourself with your brothers?

Definitely the too selfish part. I'm not going to live forever and I want Civ5 to be good so I can enjoy it.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Incidentally, I'm stoked about the 'forced to pick when earned' rules for SPs/Promotions. A lot of cheeseball stuff is going to become impossible from this change alone.

EDIT: If this patch came out yesterday I'd say it was overdue. We're getting closer and closer to decent. Still a long ways to go, but I consider all the notes so far to be positive.

 

[Buccaneer]

Incidentally, I'm stoked about the 'forced to pick when earned' rules for SPs/Promotions. A lot of cheeseball stuff is going to become impossible from this change alone.

EDIT: If this patch came out yesterday I'd say it was overdue. We're getting closer and closer to decent. Still a long ways to go, but I consider all the notes so far to be positive.

Yep, I agree with all of your points.

This probably goes along with my early prediction that they made the game "easy" and "accessible" in order to get the sales from casual gamers. After that, then it's a matter of catering to those that would continue to play the game (instead of going to next newest thing). While I didn't agree with the design choices upon initial release, I do like the direction they are taking (but still a ways to go).

 

[MinutiaRules]

Want to stop beelining? Tie reasearch in part to game date. Have a minimum possible date tied to each tech. Why were early wars fought with sticks and stones? Because that was the state of the art at that time. Yeah maybe your sticks were more sophisticated than mine. But there wasn't any of this "your spearman vs. my tanks" between the major powers. Reasearch has a strong cultural identity across human civilizations. Yes its possible to learn something before someone else. But nobody was carpet bombing before the 20th century. And as soon as I see you building railroads I have them soon after. To me its not knowledge that has limited civilizations it the resourses to do something with it that has mattered.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Want to stop beelining? Tie reasearch in part to game date. Have a minimum possible date tied to each tech. Why were early wars fought with sticks and stones? Because that was the state of the art at that time. Yeah maybe your sticks were more sophisticated than mine. But there wasn't any of this "your spearman vs. my tanks" between the major powers. Reasearch has a strong cultural identity across human civilizations. Yes its possible to learn something before someone else. But nobody was carpet bombing before the 20th century. And as soon as I see you building railroads I have them soon after. To me its not knowledge that has limited civilizations it the resourses to do something with it that has mattered.

No. If you want to see me go all super-duper hater just start cross pollinating Paradox game design into my Firaxis games.

This is a Paradox mechanic, heart and soul. I want Sid Meier mechanics from my Sid Meier games. I play Paradox games when I want Paradox mechanics.

 

[Buccaneer]

No. If you want to see me go all super-duper hater just start cross pollinating Paradox game design into my Firaxis games.

Me too. The worst idea you can put into a civ game is to tie anything to a game date or even era. Era-specific elements are best implemented in a scenario.

 

[BubbaYeti]

Because this, as well as many other features, made the game cheesy, exploitative and overpowered. Civ should be hard to win and I am happy they are starting to go in that direction.

It only is overpowered if the AI doesn't know how to use it too. Shall we accept the situation where bad AI is being band aided by making the game less interesting to play?

If they want to make the game harder to win, improve the AI for pity's sake.

 

[PawelS]

It only is overpowered if the AI doesn't know how to use it too. Shall we accept the situation where bad AI is being band aided by making the game less interesting to play?

If they want to make the game harder to win, improve the AI for pity's sake.

Not everyone agrees that this change made the game less interesting. I don't. It's a common practice in many games to limit the possibilities so the AI can handle them. It's acceptable for me, as long as it's done within reasonable limits. In this case I don't think we're losing anything important, for me it's even better, because it's more intuitive to choose a policy as soon as it's available instead of doing such strange things as delaying it. I don't think delaying a policy is an interesting option that makes the game more enjoyable. More choices don't always mean a better game.

 

[Buccaneer]

It only is overpowered if the AI doesn't know how to use it too. Shall we accept the situation where bad AI is being band aided by making the game less interesting to play?

If they want to make the game harder to win, improve the AI for pity's sake.

You mean like the AI in Civ2-4? Admittedly, the AI in Civ5 has a ways to go to reach the ineptitude of the previous AI but much of the challenges comes from having unfairness and penalties for the human player.

 

[Varanid]

the only problem I have the with social policy changes are that now, I'll never have anything past probably the commerce tree. If they do that (and I understand why they are doing it) they really need to change how they're tied to eras.

1) Slingshotting is way, way too easy
2) The later trees are so good compared to the earlier ones that people will build entire strategies around waiting for them

QFMT.
The other options I see are buffing the early trees, making the others unlock earlier, or reducing policy cost somewhat. I guess you could base cost more on # of cities than SPs too. I mean, tradition is meh, liberty is nice, honor...well, if the AI was better it'd matter?

The Maritime nerf I understand, but I hope they include a nerf to the ultrahigh food cost for decent sized cities along with it.

 

[biohazard72]

Ugh. Being able to delay social policies was the only thing that made them interesting. They were decently balanced before - early policies are weaker but make impacts earlier. Taking policies later makes them cost more (because you will likely have more cities) or you avoid making new cities - an associated cost of later policies. The balance might be a little off, but that can be changed by buffing earlier policies.

Now the only way to plan policy taking is to heavily micromanage techs and culture, delaying policy acquisition (culture buildings) until good ones open up. This seems like an even bigger deviation from how the game is supposed to be played than delayed policies!

FAIL.

 

[smellymummy]

but the AI never delays policies (or promotions). and like ive posted before when you look at the lua its clear that somewhere somehow the intent was to block the next turn until a policy was picked

 

[Louis XXIV]

Shafer said you could save them. Even if, at one point they decided to force use, they changed their mind and allowed you to save them.

Maybe a compromise would be nice. Perhaps until you choose a policy, you only gain half as much culture per turn.

 

[smellymummy]

yeah something like that is the right direction

 

[biohazard72]

but the AI never delays policies (or promotions). and like ive posted before when you look at the lua its clear that somewhere somehow the intent was to block the next turn until a policy was picked

Then policies were never meant to be strategic, making Civ5 even more simplistic and boring compared to its full-featured predecessor.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Ugh. Being able to delay social policies was the only thing that made them interesting. They were decently balanced before - early policies are weaker but make impacts earlier. Taking policies later makes them cost more (because you will likely have more cities) or you avoid making new cities - an associated cost of later policies. The balance might be a little off, but that can be changed by buffing earlier policies.

Now the only way to plan policy taking is to heavily micromanage techs and culture, delaying policy acquisition (culture buildings) until good ones open up. This seems like an even bigger deviation from how the game is supposed to be played than delayed policies!

FAIL.

I think the point is to enforce a 'natural' playstyle. In the same way that some shooters disallow firing sniper rifles that aren't aimed or make freejumping impossible they are attempting to make 'double ninja backflipping' impossible.

To clarify, 'double ninja backflipping' is playing in a counter-intuitive way in order to pump a mechanic way past its intended role. 'Natural' skillful playing would involve making a series of solid, rational decisions with an overarching goal. 'Backflipping' is usually very mechanical and flies in the face of what the game mechanics are intended to express.

Examples of what I mean by Double Ninja Backflipping:

• Inducing anarchy to avoid paying city upkeep in Civ4(I read this on a Deity strategy somewhere, I've since forgotten)
  
• Purposefully maximizing overflow on walls to get extra money with stone+protective(Also Civ4)
  
• Deliberately maximizing overflow on a tech with a high research modifier(Civ4 again)
  
• Staying level 1 on purpose to exploit the level scaling(Oblivion, others.)
  
• Severe ICS(Civ5)
  
• Ignore happiness(Civ5)
  
• Blowing yourself up with a grenade to 'jump'(various)
  
• Building nothing but builder units and upgrading them to fight(Company of Heroes)
  
• Getting a large number of your men killed so that medics replace them with more powerful men(Also Company of Heroes)

These are things that, if you take the game at face value, appear to be blatantly irrational behavior. However, due to unforeseen blind-spots in the game mechanics, they are actually quite effective.

I know this is a controversial opinion, but I like it when game designers target these tricks and make them suboptimal. I know most 'hardcore' gamers don't agree with me, but games should reward solid understanding of the mechanics and skillful, conservative play. They should not reward the person who is the best at exploiting whatever the most powerful exploit happens to be.

TL;DR: Mechanics shouldn't be able to be used in ways that circumvent/defy what the mechanic is intended to express.