Not getting benefit of captured wonder

[elitetroops]

When you build the wonder that grants +1 Policy Slot you are granted a perk that says "This player has +1 Policy Slots!", then the wonder does literally nothing anymore.

With the same logic you could say that the Pyramids grant a perk that says "This player's builders have one extra charge" and that you should keep the ability to produce better builders when you lose the wonder. You could apply that reasoning to any ongoing effect, except those that are specific to the city where the wonder is built.

How about wonders that say "+1 trade route capacity"? This is the same wording as "+1 policy slot". Do you think you should keep the extra trade route when losing the wonder? I haven't tested, don't know if the trade route capacity bonus transfers with the wonders or not.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, in a consistent system players should also keep (or, if the system was changed, lose) all of these effects.

If they don't, then the system is already inconsistent
Looking at the Modifiers, this may actually be the case for Civ VI though, given that stuff like the Pyramid Worker Charges are not set as Permanent/Run Once. Don't have time to verify that right now, but needless to say, if that's the case then I heavily disagree with that implementation.

 

[Cymsdale]

They should simply change the wording to "When built, gives +1 [whatever] slot". Easy breezy.

 

[teks]

Appreciate the attempts to justify this, but it's like saying players shouldn't get the benefits of districts just because they captured them. This is clearly a bug.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Its objectively a bug,
Either a bug in the mechanics or a UI bug in the decription (needs when built or builder receives, etc.)

 

[teks]

It's a bug in the mechanics. Capping wonders is a part of the game.

 

[Ryika]

It's not a bug, it's working as intended by the developers. Again, the developers have specifically ticked the Permanent/Run Once-boxes.
You can disagree with the intent, but calling it a bug when it does exactly what the code is designed to do is just idiotic.

The interesting question is whether you can untick those boxes to actually make it into an effect that transfers or whether that would cause actual bugs. They may have decided to tick those boxes because they never implemented code that is able to remove free policy slots.

 

[teks]

It's not a bug, it's working as intended by the developers. Again, the developers have specifically ticked the Permanent/Run Once-boxes.
You can disagree with the intent, but calling it a bug when it does exactly what the code is designed to do is just idiotic.

The interesting question is whether you can untick those boxes to actually make it into an effect that transfers or whether that would cause actual bugs. They may have decided to tick those boxes because they never implemented code that is able to remove free policy slots.

Did the developers actually say that wonders are intended to be like this or are you assuming this because that's how it is?
If the later, that's quite a leap. Its as simple as they forgot to code that in before releasing the game.

 

[Ryika]

What leap? The last sentence was me making assumptions, which should be obvious by the way I phrased it. Other than that, the only leap here is assuming that the code that is written in a way that it does what one would expect it does is a "bug" because it doesn't work the way you would want it to work.

In the end we cannot know, but until there's evidence to the contrary the base assumption is that it works the way the developers intended it to work.

 

[teks]

We don't know, unless we've played any prior civilization release. I say it's a leap because we could say that the horse economy was intentional because it was coded that way. We could say the AI is not supposed to attack cities, because they coded it that way. But, we call these bugs and exploits.

Wonders are visible on the map for a reason, they are indestructible for a reason. Every civ release allowed wonders to be captured, so when we capture them in this new release and gain nothing but some sprites, we assume it's a bug caused by an oversight on the code.

 

[Ryika]

We don't know, unless we've played any prior civilization release.

I don't remember how Civ 4 handled stuff, but Civ 5 handled stuff exactly the way I described above. Any one-time bonus (Free Golden Ages, Techs, Policies, etc.) is applied for the player immediately, and it doesn't change ownership. Beyond Earth did the same.

I say it's a leap because we could say that the horse economy was intentional because it was coded that way. We could say the AI is not supposed to attack cities, because they coded it that way. But, we call these bugs and exploits.

If there were a switch that says "Should AIs attack cities?" and the switch is set to 'no' instead of yes, then that wouldn't be a bug either, because the code does exactly what it is supposed to do. The decision to turn it to 'no' would be a stupid decision, but it would not be a bug. Only if it was set to 'no' by accident then it could be considered a bug, but we arrive at the same point - just because something doesn't work the way you want it to work doesn't make it a bug. Although in that example I'd probably tend towards it being an accident as well, in the case of the wonder however your reasoning is just "I want this to work this way, but it works that way, so it's a bug!". That logic just isn't sound.

I feel like I'm having a debate about atheism here.

Wonders are visible on the map for a reason, they are indestructible for a reason. Every civ release allowed wonders to be captured, so when we capture them in this new release and gain nothing but some sprites, we assume it's a bug caused by an oversight on the code.

Well again, it works the same way it did in Civ 5. Conquer for example the Great Library and you don't get the free Technology either. All you get are the minor bonuses inherent to that wonder, which when the Game was released was +3 Science and 1 or 2 Culture per Turn, or something similar.

Alhambra gives you 2 Great General points per turn, and potentially 2 Amenities - not sure whether those transfer.

The one thing that is really different here is that it would be possible to transfer a free slot in a "clean" way, while most of the free stuff from Civ V just couldn't be transferred like that, which is why I said I'm open to the idea that the system should be changed, your but your claims about it being a bug are just nonsensical.

And your claims about it having always worked the way you think it should work are just wrong. In the <however many> hours that you've played Civ 5 you haven't even noticed. Can't be that big of a problem then.

 

[elitetroops]

I don't remember how Civ 4 handled stuff, but Civ 5 handled stuff exactly the way I described above. Any one-time bonus (Free Golden Ages, Techs, Policies, etc.) is applied for the player immediately, and it doesn't change ownership. Beyond Earth did the same.

Civ IV transfered ongoing effects but not one-time effects, just as you describe. The problem here is that a free card is so clearly not a one-time effect. You keep saying it is, but that's just you trying to bend the definitions to defend the current solution. Let's put it this way: if the effect transferred when wonder is captured, nobody would have been surprised about it and nobody would have written confused threads about losing the benefit if the wonder is lost, nor about gaining the benefit when the wonder is captured. I bet you wouldn't have been surprised either, but found it completely normal based on how we've learned wonders work in previous games.

Your speculations about code not being implemented for removing policy slots is just nonsense. Policy slots are added/removed every time you switch governments.

 

[Browd]

Having read through all of this, I'm inclined to agree with Ryika that this isn't a bug (in the sense that, e.g., the developers obviously meant for the policy slot to follow the civ that captures the wonder, but made a mistake in coding, or capturing the wonder somehow causes the game to crash because of miscoding), so moving this thread to Bug Reports seems inappropriate. But the suggestion that the developers should consider changing how this works (either just for free policy slots or for a broader array of wonder benefits), because of claimed gameplay benefits, is certainly fair for Ideas & Suggestions.

Moderator Action: Thread moved.

 

[Ryika]

Civ IV transfered ongoing effects but not one-time effects, just as you describe. The problem here is that a free card is so clearly not a one-time effect. You keep saying it is, but that's just you trying to bend the definitions to defend the current solution.

I'm not bending definitions of anything, you're just still assuming I'm saying something that I'm clearly not even trying to say. I'll just quote myself here:

A policy slot is a one-time effect (getting an extra policy slot) that has then a permanent effect for the rest of the game (having one more slot than you would otherwise have), and depending on how you look at it, both are right. It's "Getting an extra Policy Slot." vs "Having an extra Policy Slot.", purely a matter of perspective when it comes to the semantics. But this whole discussion is meaningless, because this was never meant to be a discussion about semantics.

What people are referring to when they say one-time effect vs. permanent effect - or at least what I was referring to in that other thread, of which this here seems to be a continuation of - is how it works mechanically.

When you build the wonder that grants +1 Policy Slot you are granted a perk that says "This player has +1 Policy Slots!", then the wonder does literally nothing anymore. That's the important one-time effect. You get something. That something is then completely independent from the wonder. That's why when the wonder changes ownership you keep the policy card, because you lost the wonder, but you kept the perk (Civ 5 didn't use a perk-system, but it used the same idea of wonder-bonuses being mostly one-time effects that fire once, change something in the database and then are completely "decoupled" from the wonder itself).

Let's put it this way: if the effect transferred when wonder is captured, nobody would have been surprised about it and nobody would have written confused threads about losing the benefit if the wonder is lost, nor about gaining the benefit when the wonder is captured. I bet you wouldn't have been surprised either, but found it completely normal based on how we've learned wonders work in previous games.

I actually think I already answered this, but again: The reason this feels "wrong" for people is the fact that the free slot could be transferred without much of a problem, people automatically understand that that's not the case with things like Technologies, or Policies, that's why the question doesn't come up. That's literally the only difference between: "I captured the Great Library but didn't get a free Technology (and my opponent didn't lose his free Technology)!" and "I captured Alhambra but didn't get a free Policy Slot (and my opponent didn't lose his free Policy Slot)!" - there's no "clean" way to remove a free Technology from another player because it's part of the progression system, but removing an extra Slot should be possible pretty easily.

So now we are back at the decision that I have been talking about for half of this thread - do you make an exception for this one case because it feels unintuitive anyway (and would generate better gameplay), or do you keep a hard line when it comes to uniformity of rules? I, as I said twice-or-so already, am open to both in general.

Your position of "This one thing makes total sense and this other thing makes no sense at all!!!" is still nonsensical, if you really can't understand why there's good arguments for and against both implementations then I'm sorry, but that's a failure on your part.

Your speculations about code not being implemented for removing policy slots is just nonsense. Policy slots are added/removed every time you switch governments.

That doesn't mean that the code can be used to reset Policy Slots at will, things like the Legacy Bonuses for example may very well be webbed into that code and would mean that the code can't be reused that easily.
Aside from that, just resetting and returning all Policies wouldn't exactly be an ideal solution either, the ideal solution is to return just that one Policy Card that was socketed in the Policy Slot to the owner and leave the rest as it is.

Also, just for fun: Terracotta Army from Civ 5.
Creates a Copy of each unique Military Unit you currently possess.

Player gets to keep all Units generated by the wonder when their wonder is being conquered, conqueror gets nothing. "But having the units is an ongoing effect!" <> "No, these units were generated as a one-time effect."

 

[teks]

I mean we can agree to disagree, but I'm holding firm that this was a gross oversight. I can't believe wonders are visible on the map with their own tiles yet provide no benefit what-so-ever. Call it what you want. It was a mistake, one which should be brought up next patch.

 

[Ryika]

I have named some Pros and Cons for both implementations in the post above, if you think the Pros outweigh the Cons that's fine, but just ignoring the Cons of your implementation and saying that it should totally be changed is not an argument.

And I don't think there's a wonder that literally provides no benefit at all to its conqueror, as I said - you still get Great Person Points and stuff like that, plus adjacency bonuses. You're just lying to make your non-argument sound stronger than it actually is.

That's, once again, exactly how it worked in Civ 5, you conquer the Great Library and all you get are yields.
Conquer the Terracotta Army in BNW and all you get is >>>>>> 1 Culture per turn <<<<<<.

 

[Cymsdale]

I don't see how free technologies or terracotta army bonus are in any way logically similar to extra policy slots. That argument is quite a reach.

I don't care much for the semantic argument between bug and bad game design. What purpose does it serve. If something is wrong int he game, I don't care one what what the intention of the programmer was, nor can I really know what that intention was unless they specifically tell me. I have no problem with calling this a "design bug" or "flaw".

 

[Ryika]

I don't see how free technologies or terracotta army bonus are in any way logically similar to extra policy slots. That argument is quite a reach.

I have never claimed that these are the same, all I have said is that the same thing is happening for all of these wonders.

"Player finishes construction of Wonder X so he gets Bonus Y. If Wonder X is conquered by player Z, then player Y keeps the Effect of Wonder X and player Z just gets the yields associated with the wonder, but not its main effect."

I made this example because people claimed that in all other cases except for extra policy slots the bonuses change ownership, which is obviously not true as proven with the examples I gave, and that it would be odd for a wonder not to provide "any" benefit when conquered, yet, such wonders* already exist - again proven by the examples I gave - and have never caused much uproar). That does not mean that the bonuses are the same, it just means that the claim that no other wonder works this way is simply incorrect.

(*"such wonders" within the limitations outlined in my last post, the main effect doesn't transfer, the yields do.)

But again, I'm even open to the idea that the wonders should be changed, I think both implementations make sense depending on what you want. Which basically boils down to uniformity of rules, or more interesting gameplay. So it's still not a bug no matter how you look at it.

Calling it a design flaw however... yes, if you are on the side that thinks more interesting gameplay trumps uniformity of rules, then calling it a design flaw makes perfect sense for you.
It's a design flaw in the same way 1upt is a design flaw for people who really hate to play whack-a-mole with the AI.
And if most people agree that the benefits of one system totally outweigh its negatives then it may very well be an objective design flaw.
Which, at least with the small sample size of this thread, may very well be the case given that I'm basically alone, arguing against a horde of people who don't even seem to be able to see the other side of the equation while not even being on the side of totally wanting uniformity of rules over better gameplay.

 

[Cymsdale]

I simply disagree with you that the current implementation follows any uniformity of rules. I don't think having the +1 policy slot transfer with the wonder would be some weird exception to how players should expect things to work.

 

[Ryika]

Out of interest:

- Imagine a Wonder gave access to a unique Worker when completed. That Worker cannot be killed, captured or sold, it can construct an indefinite amount of Improvements, but every Improvement needs 10 turns to be completed.
Should the worker change ownership when the Wonder is completed?