New Developer Interview SA-Games

[Ryika]

That's why I'm hoping they'll get borders again with workers, combat units and improvements to pillage, bringing them closer to city states but maybe occupying no more than a set number of tiles.

Why don't you just continue playing Civ 5? It seems like you prefer that game.

Aside killing anyone who leaves and cutting off all supply, I'd guess they could tear into it or climb on it somehow.

Well, they do eat trade routes and when they do that constantly, then cutting off supply is covered. 8) Doesn't seem like anyone ever leaves that station though and I don't see why they'd even try to tear into their base though. They're not portrayed as predators, unless you actively invade their territory - which a stationary station (...) doesn't do

 

[Callonia]

Well, they do eat trade routes and when they do that constantly, then cutting off supply is covered. 8) Doesn't seem like anyone ever leaves that station though and I don't see why they'd even try to tear into their base though. They're not portrayed as predators, unless you actively invade their territory - which a stationary station (...) doesn't do

I've seen stations pop up close to hives like 1-3 hexs away.
If that isn't considered invasion then I don't know.

 

[Westwall]

Why don't you just continue playing Civ 5? It seems like you prefer that game.

Because I have 900+ hours logged and I prefer the sci-fi theme?

What kind of question is that?

Are we not supposed to prefer things that were obviously done better in past iterations?

 

[Ryika]

Because I have 900+ hours logged and I prefer the sci-fi theme?

What kind of question is that?

Are we not supposed to prefer things that were obviously done better in past iterations?

Well, because many of your arguments seem to evolve around "hopefully we get X back" and "they really need to bring Y back". Wasn't trying to be rude, but I don't think it's a "healthy" way of developing a game "forward" by just bringing back old stuff. Just because a system doesn't work that good at the moment doesn't mean that we need to take a step back... quite the opposite - evolve it further into the new direction and make it its own interesting thing.

 

[Westwall]

Well obviously I don't think they should stop at just bringing back city-states.

As I (and others including yourself) mentioned earlier, there are ways to incorporate them more seamlessly and dynamically into the off-world setting that don't involve scaling them down into something shallow and uninteresting.

 

[Makenshi]

big problems with stations at the moment ... that they eat up land without a way to get rid of them

An idea occured to me... the beacon/gate/flower are "things" that take one tile, and that tile can't be used for anything else... maybe stations could take space in the same way, instead of working like a city? If that could be done, stations wouldn't take sweet spots that would be perfect for settling. Instead, ALL stations would ALWAYS ask for a player/AI permission, and then spawn at a player/AI designated tile [like the "things"], inside our/theirs territory.

Now that would be ace, and even more reason to go a bit wide empire!

 

[legalizefreedom]

An idea occured to me... the beacon/gate/flower are "things" that take one tile, and that tile can't be used for anything else... maybe stations could take space in the same way, instead of working like a city? If that could be done, stations wouldn't take sweet spots that would be perfect for settling. Instead, ALL stations would ALWAYS ask for a player/AI permission, and then spawn at a player/AI designated tile [like the "things"], inside our/theirs territory.

Now that would be ace, and even more reason to go a bit wide empire!

Agreed! Great suggestion!

I would expand on that idea and say even if you didn't get to pick where they landed, they still only take that one tile and don't require the city offset distance. So you could settle right next to them. Or maybe just give them one hex.

 

[CraigMak]

I am glad to hear that they will be changing the game rather drastically. This is exactly what the game needs. I hope they take steps in the right direction and make an effort to remove as much luck based play as possible.

Get rid of affinity from progenitor ruins, tone down derilect settlements and other ruins, make siege worms unlikely to randomly tear through your land for no reason, make it so that settling on a strategic resource does not destroy it, tone down titanium, make alien nests never spawn 2 hexes from some one, give you an extra hammer for settling on a hill compared to plains since you lose food.

This stuff would do wonders for the game.

 

[Ryika]

I am glad to hear that they will be changing the game rather drastically. This is exactly what the game needs. I hope they take steps in the right direction and make an effort to remove as much luck based play as possible.

Get rid of affinity from progenitor ruins, tone down derilect settlements and other ruins, make siege worms unlikely to randomly tear through your land for no reason, make it so that settling on a strategic resource does not destroy it, tone down titanium, make alien nests never spawn 2 hexes from some one, give you an extra hammer for settling on a hill compared to plains since you lose food.

This stuff would do wonders for the game.

That stuff would make the game even more boring than it is now. The more predictable and "the same every single game" things become, the less interesting they are.

 

[CraigMak]

That stuff would make the game even more boring than it is now. The more predictable and "the same every single game" things become, the less interesting they are.

Getting rid of luck based play is much better for multiplayer and would make the game less of a complete joke.

If having superior skill is less important than luck what is the point in becoming skilled at the game? BE is far more luck based than BNW and we can all agree that BNW is a far better game with a much more avid player based both in SP and MP.

It's no surprise that people are more willing to invest their time in a game that rewards them for becoming skilled rather than random dumb luck.

 

[Galgus]

Getting rid of luck based play is much better for multiplayer and would make the game less of a complete joke.

If having superior skill is less important than luck what is the point in becoming skilled at the game? BE is far more luck based than BNW and we can all agree that BNW is a far better game with a much more avid player based both in SP and MP.

It's no surprise that people are more willing to invest their time in a game that rewards them for becoming skilled rather than random dumb luck.

I view Civ V and BE as single player games first and multiplayer games second.

Balance is always good, but I prize immersion and interesting mechanics over pwerfect balance.

In my opinion, the game is less popular now because it largely lacks immersion or things to spice up the experience.

And besides, skill in adapting to different circumstances is more interesting and impressive than "skill" in memorizing and implementing stale optimal tactics.

 

[CraigMak]

I view Civ V and BE as single player games first and multiplayer games second.

Balance is always good, but I prize immersion and interesting mechanics over pwerfect balance.

In my opinion, the game is less popular now because it largely lacks immersion or things to spice up the experience.

And besides, skill in adapting to different circumstances is more interesting and impressive than "skill" in memorizing and implementing stale optimal tactics.

The AI in BE is so terrible that BE is a MP game only IMO. BNW is a far better game in SP and still, playing against humans is about 800 times more enjoyable because the AI is just so stupid even in BNW.

They need to either balance this game and gear it for MP or invest massively into an AI that can think and reason. I would prefer MP balancing since SP games are a dinosaur. Online play vs humans is so much more involving and unpredictable. Outsmarting a human is WAAAAY more fun than outsmarting a very stupid AI with some cheats.

 

[Lord Tirian]

It's no surprise that people are more willing to invest their time in a game that rewards them for becoming skilled rather than random dumb luck.

Randomness is a valuable tool but needs to be wielded carefully - it should throw curveballs but not decide wins and losses (like the Contact victory from progenitor ruins).

Same reason why I think biased starting locations (i.e. 1x random strategic resource nearby, X bonus resources in starting area) etc. are a good compromise between predictability and randomness.

BNW hit a good spot in terms of predictability vs. randomness. But instead of random siege worms and close nest spawns by chance, I would simply enforce them. Everybody gets to deal with a nest, everybody gets to deal with an angry siegeworm at some stage. Everybody gets a progenitor ruin within 12 tiles.

If you can't take advantage of it and explore properly, then it's a failing in skill, not random chance screwing you over.

 

[Galgus]

The AI in BE is so terrible that BE is a MP game only IMO. BNW is a far better game in SP and still, playing against humans is about 800 times more enjoyable because the AI is just so stupid even in BNW.

They need to either balance this game and gear it for MP or invest massively into an AI that can think and reason. I would prefer MP balancing since SP games are a dinosaur. Online play vs humans is so much more involving and unpredictable. Outsmarting a human is WAAAAY more fun than outsmarting a very stupid AI with some cheats.

In single player, the AI is incompetent but you are free to roleplay somwhat.

In multiplayer, everything is about strictly optimal options which get stale fast.

There is also less feeling that you are running an empire and more focus strictly on a victory condition.
_______________________________________

@Lord Tirian

My personal ideal would be for players to fight over Progenitor Ruins not placed near any landing site.

 

[Ryika]

Getting rid of luck based play is much better for multiplayer and would make the game less of a complete joke.

If having superior skill is less important than luck what is the point in becoming skilled at the game? BE is far more luck based than BNW and we can all agree that BNW is a far better game with a much more avid player based both in SP and MP.

It's no surprise that people are more willing to invest their time in a game that rewards them for becoming skilled rather than random dumb luck.

I actually disagree on the notion that BNW is less luck-based as the variance between Starting Locations is much higher in that game than it is in Beyond Earth and easily makes up for the random nature of Ruin-Rewards in most cases. BE may overshoot Civ 5 a bit when it comes to the "most insane outcome", but Civ 5 easily makes up for that by having a rather high base-variance.

However, I don't really play Multiplayer, so for all I care they can add an option to disable ruins or strong ruin rewards or something like that, but tuning down these bonuses in Single Player? No, certainly not.

The AI in BE is so terrible that BE is a MP game only IMO. BNW is a far better game in SP and still, playing against humans is about 800 times more enjoyable because the AI is just so stupid even in BNW.

Well, if you don't even like the Singleplayer that most of the Civ5-Playerbase is spending their time with, then I'd say that makes your opinion about "what Firaxis should do about Singleplayer" mostly irrelevant. "The game is too luck-based!" is and was not a frequent complaint and most people I know don't care about having a "perfectly balanced" Singleplayer-Experience, what the people are looking for are fun mechanics and Immersion.

 

[CraigMak]

Randomness is a valuable tool but needs to be wielded carefully - it should throw curveballs but not decide wins and losses (like the Contact victory from progenitor ruins).

Same reason why I think biased starting locations (i.e. 1x random strategic resource nearby, X bonus resources in starting area) etc. are a good compromise between predictability and randomness.

BNW hit a good spot in terms of predictability vs. randomness. But instead of random siege worms and close nest spawns by chance, I would simply enforce them. Everybody gets to deal with a nest, everybody gets to deal with an angry siegeworm at some stage. Everybody gets a progenitor ruin within 12 tiles.

If you can't take advantage of it and explore properly, then it's a failing in skill, not random chance screwing you over.

I mostly agree with all this. The problem is not that the bonuses or detriments are strong, it's that they are not evenly distributed. Balance means everyone gets or deals with similar circumstances.

 

[Ryika]

I mostly agree with all this. The problem is not that the bonuses or detriments are strong, it's that they are not evenly distributed. Balance means everyone gets or deals with similar circumstances.

But that's not how bonuses are distributed in Civ 5 either. One Player can start with Salt and a Natural Wonder a few tiles away and another player can start in the jungle, with no production capacity and 2 sea resources. Do you think that's a problem, too?

It would be extremely bland if every start had the same amount of nests nearby. Yeah, maybe make it a Multiplayer-Option, but as Standard for Singleplayer that's just boring.

 

[CraigMak]

I actually disagree on the notion that BNW is less luck-based as the variance between Starting Locations is much higher in that game than it is in Beyond Earth and easily makes up for the random nature of Ruin-Rewards in most cases. BE may overshoot Civ 5 a bit when it comes to the "most insane outcome", but Civ 5 easily makes up for that by having a rather high base-variance.

However, I don't really play Multiplayer, so for all I care they can add an option to disable ruins or strong ruin rewards or something like that, but tuning down these bonuses in Single Player? No, certainly not.


Well, if you don't even like the Singleplayer that most of the Civ5-Playerbase is spending their time with, then I'd say that makes your opinion about "what Firaxis should do about Singleplayer" mostly irrelevant. "The game is too luck-based!" is and was not a frequent complaint and most people I know don't care about having a "perfectly balanced" Singleplayer-Experience, what the people are looking for are fun mechanics and Immersion.

Getting free affinity is far too luck based. Affinity is MASSIVE and getting it from progenitor ruins is completely absurd. Likewise getting 80 hammers or a ton of culture is also absurd. But free affinity takes the cake.

While terrain can have a large impact in a BNW game, I still feel that BE luck is more influential. I once found 4 progenitor ruins that's GG, I don't care how good the other people are. 2 - 4 free affinity is just game breaking.

I wouldn't say I don't like SP it's just I feel it is vastly inferior to playing against human adversaries. I played every civ game SP up until civ 5. I even played civ 5 for about 6 months in SP before I decided to give MP a shot. After that first MP game it was clear to me that SP pails in comparison.

Much like playing against the AI in starcraft is completely boring and pointless compared bnet games.

The AI is too dumb, too easy to exploit and is difficult only through unrealistic advantages in both games.

 

[whyidie]

That stuff would make the game even more boring than it is now. The more predictable and "the same every single game" things become, the less interesting they are.

Hurrah!

If having superior skill is less important than luck what is the point in becoming skilled at the game?

I'm not sure what the point is otherwise....

It's no surprise that people are more willing to invest their time in a game that rewards them for becoming skilled rather than random dumb luck.

Whats the reward again ?

I view Civ V and BE as single player games first and multiplayer games second.

Balance is always good, but I prize immersion and interesting mechanics over pwerfect balance.

Hurrah!

BNW hit a good spot in terms of predictability vs. randomness. But instead of random siege worms and close nest spawns by chance, I would simply enforce them. Everybody gets to deal with a nest, everybody gets to deal with an angry siegeworm at some stage. Everybody gets a progenitor ruin within 12 tiles.

However, I don't really play Multiplayer, so for all I care they can add an option to disable ruins or strong ruin rewards or something like that, but tuning down these bonuses in Single Player? No, certainly not.

Both good ideas, of the two I'd prefer the 2nd method. I'm ok having an AI stumble into good fortune which was just not going to happen for me on a particular roll. So long as I am aware that it happened at some point, I'm good with it. Rather than make a compromise for both MP and SP, I'd rather an option was provided to disable the feature. Let us single player dinosaurs have a good experience while not compromising the multiplayer dinosaurs of the future.

 

[Ryika]

Getting free affinity is far too luck based. Affinity is MASSIVE and getting it from progenitor ruins is completely absurd. Likewise getting 80 hammers or a ton of culture is also absurd. But free affinity takes the cake.

While terrain can have a large impact in a BNW game, I still feel that BE luck is more influential. I once found 4 progenitor ruins that's GG, I don't care how good the other people are. 2 - 4 free affinity is just game breaking.

Yeah, and how often does that happen? Finding 4 Pregenitor ruins AND having an Affinity Uprade in all of them? Once in... 2 Million games? I'm sorry, but picking such an unlikely example doesn't make a point. The only thing you'll get somewhat regularly - and by that I mean something around once or twice in a hundred games - are 2 Affinity upgrades.

I wouldn't say I don't like SP it's just I feel it is vastly inferior to playing against human adversaries. I played every civ game SP up until civ 5. I even played civ 5 for about 6 months in SP before I decided to give MP a shot. After that first MP game it was clear to me that SP pails in comparison.

Much like playing against the AI in starcraft is completely boring and pointless compared bnet games.

The AI is too dumb, too easy to exploit and is difficult only through unrealistic advantages in both games.

That's still the difference between PvE and PvP-Games. People who enjoy Civ5-PvE obviously prefer it over PvP. Or at least enjoy it enough to not feel compelled to try PvP. So these people are not looking for the same thing that you, as someone who prefers PvP, is looking for.