New Patch for Rising Tide: Wonder War and Chungsu new colors

[legalizefreedom]

It isn't a bonus to exploration if no matter how well you explore, you don't get the bonus. Requiring more sites might have been a positive change, but requiring every single one makes the quest impossible, and therefore irrelevant, in most games.

In my first game I had both marvel quests (one 6, one 12 required) done by turn 185 (on a standard map), so I wouldn't say it was impossible. Granted different games will present different levels of difficulty completing them, but I'm okay with that.

Note turn 185 is in the neighborhood of the mid-game for me with my games usually ending between 230 and 300. For those that prefer to race, the marvels will have significantly less value.

I also noticed the hydrocoral quest gives the ability to work the tiles. That seems new.

 

[Westwall]

I agree.

This whole 'add extra turns' mentality towards making processes more balanced is a tedious, not to mention short-sighted approach at best.

One of Beyond Earth's most prolific lesser points is its comparatively brief run time so adding extra turns on top of anything, whether it's improvements, wonders or explorations or whatever, becomes a very quick way towards shelving those features entirely.

It's a concerning development trend at this point and along with the raft of *still* existing bugs such as the broken hall of fame, cheap unit upgrades and buildable-anywhere improvements, I'm rapidly losing faith in Firaxis' ability to capitalize on this game's potential.

Even the most casual players who take time to just enjoy the game and soak everything in will finish it by around turn 200 just because it's still necessary to beat the AI to one of the victory conditions.

Having overly extended and excruciatingly tedious marvel quests along with cities that can take roughly 15 turns on average to produce a unit or building is just nonsensical. This prevents the map from getting crowded and reduces the likelihood of confrontation, further turning the mid to late game into an uneventful slog.

In SMAC, I was actually a little sad when a game was finally over because I'd invested so much time in it and enjoyed pretty much every turn. Something was always happening and the world felt alive.

With BE, the feeling is more "When is this game going to be over already?"

 

[Amrunril]

In my first game I had both marvel quests (one 6, one 12 required) done by turn 185 (on a standard map), so I wouldn't say it was impossible. Granted different games will present different levels of difficulty completing them, but I'm okay with that.

Note turn 185 is in the neighborhood of the mid-game for me with my games usually ending between 230 and 300. For those that prefer to race, the marvels will have significantly less value.

I also noticed the hydrocoral quest gives the ability to work the tiles. That seems new.

Well, once any of the marvel nodes is in or behind AI's territory, it becomes impossible without a cooperation agreement (which isn't entirely under your control) or fighting a war specifically for the marvel quest (which most of the bonuses aren't large enough to justify).

Perhaps there should be some reward for exploring all of the marvel nodes, but for this to make sense the rewards would need to be substantially larger. In this case, I think it would also make sense to give a smaller reward for finding some of the nodes (in order to ensure they remain relevant for players who, for whatever reason, are not able to explore the entirety of the map.

Of course, there's no reason every marvel needs to work the same way. Perhaps, the lush marvel quest could unlock leashing with 5 skeletons, while the primordial quest could give 10 turns of bonus production for each crater, whether it's the first or the twelfth. The fungal quest could still give local bonus food for individual fungi but also give a global bonus (larger than the current one) on discovering every node. The point is that the marvel quests need to have rewards appropriate for the effort required, and when it takes two thirds of a game worth of exploration to unlock a mediocre bonus, you've essentially removed the excitement from what used to be an engaging mechanic.

 

[Ghostofkuji]

My only concern with the Hydrocoral quest is that by the mid- to late-game most of it has been blown to smithereens and most people have spy satellites up and running.

Harmony-based explorers or workers should be able to "seed" new hydrocoral reefs to counteract this.

 

[legalizefreedom]

Well, once any of the marvel nodes is in or behind AI's territory, it becomes impossible without a cooperation agreement (which isn't entirely under your control) or fighting a war specifically for the marvel quest (which most of the bonuses aren't large enough to justify).

Perhaps there should be some reward for exploring all of the marvel nodes, but for this to make sense the rewards would need to be substantially larger. In this case, I think it would also make sense to give a smaller reward for finding some of the nodes (in order to ensure they remain relevant for players who, for whatever reason, are not able to explore the entirety of the map.

Of course, there's no reason every marvel needs to work the same way. Perhaps, the lush marvel quest could unlock leashing with 5 skeletons, while the primordial quest could give 10 turns of bonus production for each crater, whether it's the first or the twelfth. The fungal quest could still give local bonus food for individual fungi but also give a global bonus (larger than the current one) on discovering every node. The point is that the marvel quests need to have rewards appropriate for the effort required, and when it takes two thirds of a game worth of exploration to unlock a mediocre bonus, you've essentially removed the excitement from what used to be an engaging mechanic.

My only concern with the Hydrocoral quest is that by the mid- to late-game most of it has been blown to smithereens and most people have spy satellites up and running.

Harmony-based explorers or workers should be able to "seed" new hydrocoral reefs to counteract this.

All great points and suggestions!

Even the most casual players who take time to just enjoy the game and soak everything in will finish it by around turn 200 just because it's still necessary to beat the AI to one of the victory conditions.

I usually take the route of preventing the AI from winning and disabling victory conditions I'm not planning to pursue to make that manageable. I don't believe I've ever finished a game before turn 200. That's just when it's getting interesting.

Agreed though, needing to do this is silly and removing content from the experience. I'm expecting the victories to get more attention before they are finished with this game. It continues to be the biggest flaw in the game for me. Do I really need to backstab my longtime ally because he built a telescope?

 

[Gorbles]

If you want to win the game, yes.

Given that you can continue playing after winning or losing an AI game (pretty sure they fixed that for losing, though I could well be wrong), I don't really see the need to care about the boolean of who wins or loses if you're simply in it for the experience.

 

[Westwall]

It continues to be the biggest flaw in the game for me. Do I really need to backstab my longtime ally because he built a telescope?

In the bizarro logic of these game developers, yes.

 

[legalizefreedom]

If you want to win the game, yes.

Given that you can continue playing after winning or losing an AI game (pretty sure they fixed that for losing, though I could well be wrong), I don't really see the need to care about the boolean of who wins or loses if you're simply in it for the experience.

True, but the victory build-up and even the simple victory splash are part of the experience I would rather not miss. That's why I believe a sandbox mode would work.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=557345

It's not even that I really care about "winning", but that I am forced to bring might to bear to halt someone else's progress (even when we are perfect allies and have the same goals) if I wish to have my experience. It could be done better.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

True, but the victory build-up and even the simple victory splash are part of the experience I would rather not miss. That's why I believe a sandbox mode would work.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=557345

It's not even that I really care about "winning", but that I am forced to bring might to bear to halt someone else's progress (even when we are perfect allies and have the same goals) if I wish to have my experience. It could be done better.

To make it seem realistic/get out of the bizarre logic,

You need to
1. Have an ability to Share a Victory.
2. Have an ability for the AI to manipulate you diplomatically in the same ways you manipulate them. (have diplomacy be an actual game mechanic as opposed to just an approximation of table talk)

This way the game would consist of working your way into the winning team AND making sure that the team you joined was the one that won.

That way alliances could actually work both competitively and 'realistically'

 

[omniclast]

Ironically played a game to completion yesterday before I knew there'd been a patched. Noticed none of the changes.

So I guess building farms on resources really is intended?

 

[legalizefreedom]

So I guess building farms on resources really is intended?

I seriously doubt it. Same with the ability to build buildings that require workable resources that aren't available (since RT I believe).

These are the kinds of easy fixes that turn people off and show how much TLC is lacking. These kinds of things are hurting the strategy aspect. They are kind of important.

 

[Westwall]

These are the kinds of easy fixes that turn people off and show how much TLC is lacking. These kinds of things are hurting the strategy aspect. They are kind of important.

It's either the developers are incompetent or they simply don't care.

Neither prospect is particularly attractive.

 

[Gorbles]

It's either the developers are incompetent or they simply don't care.

Neither prospect is particularly attractive.

Are they the only reasons, really?

 

[legalizefreedom]

To make it seem realistic/get out of the bizarre logic,

You need to
1. Have an ability to Share a Victory.
2. Have an ability for the AI to manipulate you diplomatically in the same ways you manipulate them. (have diplomacy be an actual game mechanic as opposed to just an approximation of table talk)

This way the game would consist of working your way into the winning team AND making sure that the team you joined was the one that won.

That way alliances could actually work both competitively and 'realistically'

It doesn't really even need to be a shared victory. We can subtly celebrate someone else's "victory" and the game continues until the player reaches a victory condition. The victories don't have to be exclusive. Even the two that appear to clash at first glance, Supremacy and Purity, could be explained by some wanting to stay on earth and some wanting to go to the new world.

Granted this mode isn't for everyone. Many enjoy the danger of losing. But some enjoy the empire building more than just winning.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It's either the developers are incompetent or they simply don't care.

Both are false. The devs may be inexperienced but they can't be truly incompetent or they would be fired. Firaxis does not seem like the kind of company that would willfully keep bad programmers on staff. And the fact that they listened to our criticisms about the war score and released the "spoils of war" mechanic to complete the war score system and make it work, proves that they do care. Not to mention, all the time and energy spent on the other patches and the RT expansion, shows that they care about BE. Companies generally don't spend time and money on patches and expansions if they don't care about a product.

I think a more reasonable explanation is simply that the devs lack experience (not the same as incompetence) and have a very different vision for the game than many players on this forum. I think it is obvious that the devs have a very different vision for the game than many players here, since most of the criticism deals with design philosophy like "affinities should not be tied to tech." or "we care more about a tough AI rather than role-playing".

 

[Aldor]

I like the game mostly. But I think the critics have a number of fair points. If the game was intended as a tough strategy game, it apparently fails (according to many on this forum). I can't argue much with that, as I only play on medium levels, and on those I don't see much of a challenge. A challenge is not really what I'm after, I'm more interested in the "build a new civilization on an alien world" approach. Unfortunately, the game also fails on that roleplaying side (at least for me).

Really, there are groups of people who have crossed lightyears of space to start over new, and then...the first thing they do is start wars? And worse, without ANY reason really? There's so much space on the planet now that the ocean can be colonized (apart from the fact that most AI just stop expanding after three or so cities anyway). Resources are super abundant. There is just NOTHING to fight over. I'd understand if some boxed in AI goes on the war path, but just ALL of them do it...in every. single. game.

I also get sick and tired of the continous remarks "Your army is not big enough". "Your soldiers aren't experienced enough". "You're doing it all wrong, engage the enemy!". Is that all the AI cares about? Seriously...

That said, I still like the game for what it is. It could be a lot better though.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It doesn't really even need to be a shared victory. We can subtly celebrate someone else's "victory" and the game continues until the player reaches a victory condition. The victories don't have to be exclusive. Even the two that appear to clash at first glance, Supremacy and Purity, could be explained by some wanting to stay on earth and some wanting to go to the new world.

Granted this mode isn't for everyone. Many enjoy the danger of losing. But some enjoy the empire building more than just winning.

It needs to be a shared victory or else an AI that just 'celebrates your victory' feels like it is not playing the game and has simply been manipulated. (and vice versa as well)

The idea is for the game mechanics themselves to make
"good strategy player"="good empire simulator"

That way you don't worry about 2 modes, sand box v. strategy.

 

[legalizefreedom]

It needs to be a shared victory or else an AI that just 'celebrates your victory' feels like it is not playing the game and has simply been manipulated. (and vice versa as well)

What I mean is if/when an AI achieves a victory condition, we see the normal pop ups and their accomplishment is subtly celebrated, but the player doesn't "lose". Once the player achieves a victory condition, the game acts as it does now when the player wins.

Role playing, there's not a whole lot that would cause you to turn on the other civs for accomplishing great things. Why would you? You would say, that's great, not what I'm going for, but to each his own.

 

[Gort]

And the fact that they listened to our criticisms about the war score and released the "spoils of war" mechanic to complete the war score system and make it work, proves that they do care.

Keep in mind that war score was substantially broken as a mechanic when it was first released. I wouldn't hold it up as a shining beacon of competent development.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Keep in mind that war score was substantially broken as a mechanic when it was first released. I wouldn't hold it up as a shining beacon of competent development.

Oh, I totally agree that the war score mechanic was broken at release. But, if you look again at my quote that you posted, I never said that the war score was an example of competence but of the devs caring about the game. The way the devs fixed the war score mechanic post release shows me that they do care about the game. I was attempting to refute Westwall's second hypothesis that maybe the devs don't care about the state that the game is in.