New era city state quests

[Ansive]

This was probably discussed already but I could not find the topic.

Advancing to a new era triggers new quests for all city states which don't have one active.

Thus I frequently force myself to not advance to the next era just so I can finish the current quests.
I constantly have to check quests and make sure not to tech too far, civics included.
The micromanaging is killing me. I will not reload if I lose a wonder or the war is going bad, but I will reload if I advance to the next era by mistake (autosave set to every turn).

This mechanic is flawed.

Every city state should give you another quest after you complete the current one. Maybe with a 5 or more turn cooldown.
You should also be able to reject a quest (and get a bigger cooldown).

 

[Trengilly]

There is no Steam achievement for completing all city state quests - just saying! But I have also delayed a few times to complete quests.

I don't like the whole era progression in general. I usually spend time trying to slow my advancement as much as possible to hold down district costs and keep early great people around.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Certainly the rate of tech & civic progression does need to be slowed down IMHO. It is almost like they didn't factor in Eurekas & Inspirations when determining how long each age should last. Adding an extra 10%-20% to each tech/civic, & having more techs/civics with multiple prereqs (so you cannot skip way ahead) would also be great.

As for the City State Quests, I would be happy to see them have multiple quests each, & have ones from new eras stack with older ones (assuming the older one is still relevent).

 

[mitsho]

Well, from the UI it's evident that the city state quest mechanic was originally thought up differently as there's room for more than one quest but you only ever can have one. It certainly seems like an area in need of revision for/if/when the expansion comes.

 

[Cedbird77]

I am fine with it the way it is. It is fun trying to accomplish each quest while achieving other goals. It like real life.

A party or company... Your boss other other nation say hey if you can do this I will give you this. There may be a timetable on that. And you don't choose it. They do.

Sometimes you miss out on it. Sometimes you get it. That's realistic, fun and challenging

 

[Victoria]

Yes, I also see no issue. The CS quests are in conflict with beelining strategy. In a way it's sad you get so many envoys from the civic tree as for me personally I can get enough science envoys from the tree. I still think beelining is more important than a few potential envoys and so think this design Is great because it gives alternative options.

 

[The_Quasar]

Yes, I also see no issue. The CS quests are in conflict with beelining strategy. In a way it's sad you get so many envoys from the civic tree as for me personally I can get enough science envoys from the tree. I still think beelining is more important than a few potential envoys and so think this design Is great because it gives alternative options.

Imho, anything that gives alternative strategies is good. We all tend to play just a little differently, and different options keeps the interest up. I like to try different options at different times, depending on settings.

 

[MrRadar]

Just ask yourself, if you really need to get all the quests at the cost of delaying, perhaps, something vital.
Now, if there were a complete renewal of all the quests at the turn of the era BUT the price for the unfulfilled quest were a loss of one envoy, where you had some, that would spice things up a little.

 

[Victoria]

Sometimes, it's the strategy we use that is flawed.

Oh how true is this! beelining Mercs but just need to stay in that era 2 more turns to get a third money CS. Sometimes it's needed, sometimes it's not.

 

[Kyro]

I agree that there is a significant issue with the design with city state quests. Specifically with regards to progression being an obstacle to gaining envoys when gaining envoys is meant for progression in the first place.

No design meant for the player's advantage should come into conflict with progressing through the game itself. The former exists for the sake of the latter and never should a design that forces players to choose between either one of two goods that were supposed to work in tandem be considered acceptable.

Progress is to be rewarded not punished by concepts like "You can't have the cake and eat it too" unless there was first envisioned a meaningful choice for the decision in question.

Gain an Envoy, lose progress, or lose an envoy, maintain progress. Those aren't choices. That's a "you lose something whatever you do" context where players are supposed to be rewarded instead.

Civ 5's quest system worked perfectly fine. No reason to fix what's not broken.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I agree that there is a significant issue with the design with city state quests. Specifically with regards to progression being an obstacle to gaining envoys when gaining envoys is meant for progression in the first place.

No design meant for the player's advantage should come into conflict with progressing through the game itself. The former exists for the sake of the latter and never should a design that forces players to choose between either one of two goods that were supposed to work in tandem be considered acceptable.

Progress is to be rewarded not punished by concepts like "You can't have the cake and eat it too" unless there was first envisioned a meaningful choice for the decision in question.

Gain an Envoy, lose progress, or lose an envoy, maintain progress. Those aren't choices. That's a "you lose something whatever you do" context where players are supposed to be rewarded instead.

Civ 5's quest system worked perfectly fine. No reason to fix what's not broken.

I don't think I understand your reasoning. A quest that was something you were going to do anyhow isn't much of a game decision. It's not what "quest" means when you think about it.

 

[Kyro]

I don't understand your reasoning. A quest that was something you were going to do anyhow isn't much of a game decision. It's not what "quest" means when you think about it.

The context of OP's post is that era progression is destroying city state quests and by extension envoys; therefore progression in the game punishes envoy acquisition when envoy acquisition is supposed to aid progression in the first place.

The decision in context of my post hangs on the fact that eras are limited and by extension quests are also limited. The decision is not whether to do a quest or not but this: Should I advance to the next era and permanently forgo that chance for an envoy, or should I delay my progress so I could get that important envoy? Both choices result in inevitable lost when from a design perspective that should not be the case.

Should city state envoys help progression in the game? Yes.

Should Players be rewarded for progress?Yes.

Should envoy acquisition be in conflict with progression? No. Why? Should farming tools get in the way of farming when used correctly?

Does it affect the game an awful lot? Not necessarily but is the design proper? No.

Edit: If an expansion pack features a diplomatic victory requiring city state envoys as part its strategy it IS going to affect the game a lot. I can already see people delaying tech progression as much as possible so they can do more quests. Is that really how the game is meant to be played?

 

[UWHabs]

The main thing I would change with the quests is that I think any un-completed quests should reset every era or two. Far too often a city-state on the other end of the world will request that I send them a trade route, but then I'm stuck with that for the whole game. Far too often I love it when they suzerain with someone and then go to war with me, since then at least I can get a new quest once I make peace.

 

[Karpius]

The decision in context of my post hangs on the fact that eras are limited an by extension quests are also limited. The decision is not in deciding whether to do a quest or not but this: Should I advance to the next era and permanently forgo that chance for an envoy, or should I delay my progress so I could get that important envoy? Both choices result in inevitable lost when from a design perspective that should not be the case.

I completely disagree!

The very point of the game is deciding what choices to make based on the situation at the time (as was the case throughout history) and not having every avenue available at all times.

By your logic, we should never lose the chance to build a Wonder or gain a Great Person just because another civ beat us to it. Should it be possible for each civ to build the Pyramids for the entire duration of the game?

I believe it would become an incredibly dull game if there were no risk to losing out on one thing because I thought something else was more important at the time.

 

[Victoria]

Both choices result in inevitable lost

To me its not a game where you can get everything, you have to choose what you want and forgo other things... what is the most optimal thing may not be what you want to do for a bit of fun.

Should farming tools get in the way of farming when used correctly?

Diplomacy rather than civic... I only have so much in my budget to invest... You do not need an envoy to get to mercenaries and so it is not farming tools and farming

Is that really how the game is meant to be played?

Well I have played a diplo victory where the task was getting 100 envoys... I enjoyed it so much I have played it 5 times and it has taught me a lot about envoys. Meant to be played?... I do not care how a game is meant to be played... I play it how I want to play it.

I would recommend strongly playing a game to get envoys, its not as dull as it sounds.Play it as Pericles and watch your culture soar.... now he gets an envoy with each theater his bonus is more powerful and a civ thats harder to beat for a CV.

 

[Karpius]

.. I play it how I want to play it.

Scandalous!

You...you........ Individualist!

 

[Kyro]

@Victoria

Well rebelling against how the the game is designed to be played is like defying God and incurs wrath in the form of nerf hammers that persist until you play the way the Devs want you to play. Just look at Command and Conquer 4...you like to build bases? Well they removed that entirely and completely destroyed the franchise. Oh wait it's already happening with the recent patch where devs are enforcing starting distances from major civilizations.

My point is it is the duty of developers to come up with proper, unbiased designs and it is not acceptable or excusable that players have to play against the design of the game to have fun. It's just not especially when players are playing according to the original vision of the game. Why defend something that is against the way you play when the way you play is justified? Join the retort and maybe we can hope to see some sensible change.

I completely disagree!

The very point of the game is deciding what choices to make based on the situation at the time (as was the case throughout history) and not having every avenue available at all times.

By your logic, we should never lose the chance to build a Wonder or gain a Great Person just because another civ beat us to it. Should it be possible for each civ to build the Pyramids for the entire duration of the game?

I believe it would become an incredibly dull game if there were no risk to losing out on one thing because I thought something else was more important at the time.

You are confounding two issues which are entirely separate by ignoring the context of both ideas which you are comparing. You need to establish a common ground of comparison before you can make a comparison.

For example, a proper comparison for your context would be this:

a: You have to delay era progression to earn envoys.

b: You have to delay era progression to build a wonder.

c: You have to delay era progression to acquire a great person.

In each of these contexts there is an unjustified and additional cost of acquiring said object on top of its inherent costs which is simply put not good design because it is both unintuitive and contradictory to the game's purposes.

And Not:

Envoy Acquisition not conflicting with Era Progression = Everything goes the player's way. There is no risk no reward etc.

I am not saying everything should go the player's way and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying every obstacle, risk, or cost in the game needs to be justified, logical,intuitive and integrated with the purposes of the game. Era Progression as an obstacle to Envoy Acquisition meets neither of the four requirements and is simply there as a plain obstacle to limit envoys in the game with no reason other than "we need to be different from Civ 5".

You never reward failure and punish progress, ever. If you are a proponent of designs like this your design knowledge is lacking and you will not survive in the game industry. You can disagree but the fact of the matter is that there are established principles for game design one simply cannot ignore.

Also are you really comfortable with the prospect of players intentionally delaying era progression to do quests for envoys?

 

[Winged Hussar]

I miss the civ V rewards for killing barbarians inside, or just outside a city state's territory. Wish they brought that back. Perhaps an envoy for each barb killed is a tad too much, but one for perhaps every two barbs killed might work. On the same subject, I noticed very few quests to clear barbarian encampments.

Finally, I wish certain quests were influenced by distance. Playing on a giant earth map, I hate getting "send a trade route" or "religious conversion" quests from a city state well outside my trader's range, or over a dozen turns away for a missionary.

 

[Victoria]

Join the retort and maybe we can hope to see some sensible change

I quite happily complain, I often say things are wrong or odd.

My point is it is the duty of developers to come up with proper, unbiased designs

100% agree

 

[Archon_Wing]

/shrugs

I don't even know what the quests are most of the time though that might have to do with a lot of CS's being dead.