Policies

[Venereus]

That comparizon to Diablo skill tree is spot on - it's exactly the same stuff, so it won't require to much thinking from the player (like people used to say that Spiritual trait is lame and requires juggling your civics every few turns to make any use from it )

Stop right there. Character development in (good) RPGs takes long-term planning and hard choices to get some flavor and effectiveness, even if some skills or talent lines were clearly crap. Civ V's problem is the lack of challenge. If Diablo II was as easy as Civ V, any character build would've worked fine. That's the balance problem with SP. They won't make a difference as a mechanic until the choices become meaningful.

 

[Thormodr]

An RPG is a game type. "It's an RPG" really doesn't make much sense in referring to the policy tree, it makes sense referring to a game. A skill tree is no more a "mini game" here than it was in Diablo II - it's a skill tree, a gameplay element, it's not a game.

I'm simply suggesting, if you want to say "the Social Policies mechanic is based on RPG's skill/talent trees, that appeal to a wider audience" saying "It's an RPG" does a pretty poor job of explaining that and STRONGLY suggests something that you evidently weren't trying to say.

Up to you... Though I don't know why you're coming at me like I'm saying something out of sorts here. If you're trying to communicate information to your audience, I'm part of that audience - that your posts lead me to believe X when you wanted to say Y is much more likely your fault than mine, and it's up to you to correct it, not me.

*Sigh* It's not that difficult to figure out. Sharon was talking about how she/he loved the new social policies (big surprise there considering her/his professed love for all things ciV.I swear she/he works for Firaxis or 2K Games. ) and Venereus commented "It's an RPG!" Obviously by context and a basic understanding of the English language, he meant that the social policies were RPGish in nature. He never once said that ciV was an RPG.

Moderator Action: Please discuss the topic, don't make jabs at other users.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Venereus]

An RPG is a game type. "It's an RPG" really doesn't make much sense in referring to the policy tree, it makes sense referring to a game. A skill tree is no more a "mini game" here than it was in Diablo II - it's a skill tree, a gameplay element, it's not a game.

I'm simply suggesting, if you want to say "the Social Policies mechanic is based on RPG's skill/talent trees, that appeal to a wider audience" saying "It's an RPG" does a pretty poor job of explaining that and STRONGLY suggests something that you evidently weren't trying to say.

Up to you... Though I don't know why you're coming at me like I'm saying something out of sorts here. If you're trying to communicate information to your audience, I'm part of that audience - that your posts lead me to believe X when you wanted to say Y is much more likely your fault than mine, and it's up to you to correct it, not me.

Charon got it. Thormodr got it. You didn't, so I provided further explanation as you asked. It's a forum, things like this are it's fuel. The real question is why did this become an issue. At this point, I'd recommend you to ask yourself why are we still talking about this. You got the information you asked for, I explained myself until you understood me. That should've been it. Are you expecting something from me, some sort of apology? Are you trying to teach me something?

 

[Stefanskantine]

In Civ IV you could "respec" your empire through a small gold cost (anarchy), just like most MMORPG games, such as the ubiquitous World of Warcraft.

Civ IV is an MMORPG!!!!!

 

[Guardian_PL]

Stop right there. Character development in (good) RPGs takes long-term planning and hard choices to get some flavor and effectiveness, even if some skills or talent lines were clearly crap. Civ V's problem is the lack of challenge. If Diablo II was as easy as Civ V, any character build would've worked fine. That's the balance problem with SP. They won't make a difference as a mechanic until the choices become meaningful.

True, very true. Finishing Diablo 2 in SP on Hell difficulty is a mighty achievement, so that nicely brings us to the root of our problem - the AI in Civ5 sucks so badly that it makes the game nigh unplayable...

 

[AfterShafter]

*Sigh* It's not that difficult to figure out. Sharon was talking about how she/he loved the new social policies (big surprise there considering her/his professed love for all things ciV.I swear she/he works for Firaxis or 2K Games. ) and Venereus commented "It's an RPG!" Obviously by context and a basic understanding of the English language, he meant that the social policies were RPGish in nature. He never once said that ciV was an RPG.

You know, you can sit here and insinuate that I'm some idiot who doesn't have a basic understanding of the English language all night long, but... There's a simple fact. He said "Translation: it's an RPG." in a discussion I was following and apparently was trying to communicate something more like "the Social Policies mechanic is based on RPG's skill/talent trees, that appeal to a wider audience." That didn't actually come across. If he wants to communicate X and the reader gets Y, that's his failure, not mine.

Contextually it's actually quite ambiguous/confusing. The subject was social policies, "it's an RPG" doesn't make much sense when talking about a mechanic and not a game, so when he says "It's an RPG" I can either make a leap and assume that he's saying "It's an RPG mechanic" or assume he's talking about the game. I chose to take what he said literally - that "it's an RPG" talks about a game and not a mechanic, because the latter doesn't follow.

The guy saying "It's an RPG" was misleading. The proof is in the pudding - I took what he said in the way I saw most sensible, and did not get what he was trying to say. He could stand to be more clear.

 

[Thormodr]

You know, you can sit here and insinuate that I'm some idiot who doesn't have a basic understanding of the English language all night long, but... There's a simple fact. He said "Translation: it's an RPG." in a discussion I was following and apparently was trying to communicate something more like "the Social Policies mechanic is based on RPG's skill/talent trees, that appeal to a wider audience." That didn't actually come across. If he wants to communicate X and the reader gets Y, that's his failure, not mine.

Contextually it's actually quite ambiguous/confusing. The subject was social policies, "it's an RPG" doesn't make much sense when talking about a mechanic and not a game, so when he says "It's an RPG" I can either make a leap and assume that he's saying "It's an RPG mechanic" or assume he's talking about the game. I chose to take what he said literally - that "it's an RPG" talks about a game and not a mechanic, because the latter doesn't follow.

The guy saying "It's an RPG" was misleading. The proof is in the pudding - I took what he said in the way I saw most sensible, and did not get what he was trying to say. He could stand to be more clear.

No problem then. He should have been more clear then and used more pure text.
Anyway, we all agree on the RPG aspect so we can move on from that.

 

[charon2112]

So, you guys are basically stating that because the social policy screen is shaped like a chart, with symbols, that it's an RPG? I'm just trying to understand. The tech tree is kind of like a sideways social policy chart, and it has symbols...does that make the research element of Civ an RPG?

Please help me to understand.

 

[Venereus]

You know, you can sit here and insinuate that I'm some idiot who doesn't have a basic understanding of the English language all night long, but... There's a simple fact. He said "Translation: it's an RPG." in a discussion I was following and apparently was trying to communicate something more like "the Social Policies mechanic is based on RPG's skill/talent trees, that appeal to a wider audience." That didn't actually come across. If he wants to communicate X and the reader gets Y, that's his failure, not mine.

Contextually it's actually quite ambiguous/confusing. The subject was social policies, "it's an RPG" doesn't make much sense when talking about a mechanic and not a game, so when he says "It's an RPG" I can either make a leap and assume that he's saying "It's an RPG mechanic" or assume he's talking about the game. I chose to take what he said literally - that "it's an RPG" talks about a game and not a mechanic, because the latter doesn't follow.

The guy saying "It's an RPG" was misleading. The proof is in the pudding - I took what he said in the way I saw most sensible, and did not get what he was trying to say. He could stand to be more clear.

Thormodr didn't throw a "subtle" insult. Why read "this is insinuating I'm an idiot" instead of reading "this assumes I'm not an idiot"? When in doubt, give it's benefit.

 

[AfterShafter]

Charon got it. Thormodr got it. You didn't, so I provided further explanation as you asked. It's a forum, things like this are it's fuel. The real question is why did this become an issue. At this point, I'd recommend you to ask yourself why are we still talking about this. You got the information you asked for, I explained myself until you understood me. That should've been it. Are you expecting something from me, some sort of apology? Are you trying to teach me something?

Urm, I'm not entirely sure Charon got it... Here's his only response:

"So because the social policies are in a chart with symbols, that makes it an RPG? Or is it the fact that we have dynamic leader abilities now instead of static...that makes it an RPG? You guys are reaching a bit."

That really doesn't communicate anything other than that he thinks you're dead wrong.. Actually, the "dynamic leader abilities" comment suggests to me that he's also taking it as you saying "the game is an RPG" since he's now talking about a different subject and still figuring you're calling "it" an RPG...

Not looking for an apology. The reason this is "going on" is because you made a misleading/ambiguous statement your audience and your response is roughly "understand better" when someone was mislead by it. I guess the other reason we're still going on about this is because I'm unwilling to say "DURRR GUESS YOUR RITE BOSS!" when all I did is actually read what you said and not some distant implication that never actually came out of your post.

 

[AfterShafter]

No problem then. He should have been more clear then and used more pure text.
Anyway, we all agree on the RPG aspect so we can move on from that.

Yeah, sorry, not trying to be difficult... But I *really* didn't get what he was saying, and I'm getting a strong vibe of "It's not what I said, it's entirely your fault for not getting what I implied and didn't say" from him. Not overly appreciated.

 

[Ayt]

I can't believe this much is being made about what was essentially a throw away line by Venerus.

 

[Thormodr]

So, you guys are basically stating that because the social policy screen is shaped like a chart, with symbols, that it's an RPG? I'm just trying to understand. The tech tree is kind of like a sideways social policy chart, and it has symbols...does that make the research element of Civ an RPG?

Please help me to understand.

*Sigh* It was said that it was RPGish in order to appeal to RPG fans that Firaxis and 2K Games wants to attract to their watered down product.

It's really not that difficult to understand what they did, even for one who fawns over ciV so much and can't see fault in absolutely anything.

 

[AfterShafter]

Thormodr didn't throw a "subtle" insult. Why read "this is insinuating I'm an idiot" instead of reading "this assumes I'm not an idiot"? When in doubt, give it's benefit.

Uh, really? The guy said this:

"Obviously by context and a basic understanding of the English language, he meant that the social policies were RPGish in nature."

For someone who's so gung-ho on being able to read things contextually, the context here is "AfterShafter doesn't get this." Since I was reading the comment I first responded to in context and clearly stated that, that really only leaves the "understanding of the English Language" bit. Connect the dots.

I'm sure he didn't mean it as an insult, but it kind of came across that way.

 

[Thormodr]

I can't believe this much is being made about what was essentially a throw away line by Venerus.

No kidding. Anything to defend or make ciV look better or less watered down I guess.
It's a little bizarre to see some people being so tenacious over a non issue.

Especially considering they could be playing the game that apparently is akin to mana from heaven instead of purposely misunderstanding things on this forum.

 

[Venereus]

So, you guys are basically stating that because the social policy screen is shaped like a chart, with symbols, that it's an RPG? I'm just trying to understand. The tech tree is kind of like a sideways social policy chart, and it has symbols...does that make the research element of Civ an RPG?

Please help me to understand.

"Ok, I'll bite", said Monkeyman.

Talent tress have categories, like "sword mastery" or "fire spells". Each category contains related skills, like "Super slash" or "Meteoric Fireball". That's the basic lay out. The icons and such, that's UI, and changes from game to game. So, "sword mastery" = "Order", and "Super slash" = "United Front". It's the same basic lay out, the same "skill A opens up B", and the same UI style to boot.

Now, RPG talent trees are an abstraction of progression based on gained experience, and so is the Tech tree. The difference is the classification system. The tech tree has thresholds (the eras), and those are it's "skills" only clasification. The SPs have grouped categories sorted by "skills" that share the same theme, so are just like talent trees.

But SPs show progression based on gained culture instead of experience, so it looks a bit off, unlike the tech tree that's based on science, wich works pretty much like experience in real life. But that's just a grip on the SP mechanic, wich of course you don't share.

 

[charon2112]

Civics in Civ IV were also arranged in groups, are you saying that because IV used words, and V uses symbols (that give more info when hovered over) that that makes V "RPG-ish"...? But actually, there are small symbols next to the Civics in Civ IV...I guess the Civics system in that game is RPG-ish as well. Looks like the social policy system isn't as 'watered down' as we thought.

Firaxis has been turning our beloved civ into an RPG for the last 6 years...right under our noses.

**I just noticed the tech tree in IV has symbols all over it...another attempt to "water down" civ into an RPG, I guess**

"Ok, I'll bite", said Monkeyman.

Talent tress have categories, like "sword mastery" or "fire spells". Each category contains related skills, like "Super slash" or "Meteoric Fireball". That's the basic lay out. The icons and such, that's UI, and changes from game to game. So, "sword mastery" = "Order", and "Super slash" = "United Front". It's the same basic lay out, the same "skill A opens up B", and the same UI style to boot.

Now, RPG talent trees are an abstraction of progression based on gained experience, and so is the Tech tree. The difference is the classification system. The tech tree has thresholds (the eras), and those are it's "skills" only clasification. The SPs have grouped categories sorted by "skills" that share the same theme, so are just like talent trees.

But SPs show progression based on gained culture instead of experience, so it looks a bit off, unlike the tech tree that's based on science, wich works pretty much like experience in real life. But that's just a grip on the SP mechanic, wich of course you don't share.

 

[AfterShafter]

No kidding. Anything to defend or make ciV look better or less watered down I guess.
It's a little bizarre to see some people being so tenacious over a non issue.

Especially considering they could be playing the game that apparently is akin to mana from heaven instead of purposely misunderstanding things on this forum.

Uh... I agree with your point, that this is a case of a richer mechanic being simplified or "streamlined" and, you could say, watered down? So please, don't try and force motivations on me. I *entirely* disagree with the suggestion of Civ V being an RPG - which is exactly what Venereus stated, whether he meant to or not - but I don't disagree at all with what he meant to say.

Why are you turning this into a mud slinging contest at this point? You don't have a leg to stand on with the things you're saying, and in fact they're pretty much outright wrong.

 

[Venereus]

Uh... I agree with your point, that this is a case of a richer mechanic being simplified or "streamlined" and, you could say, watered down? So please, don't try and force motivations on me. I *entirely* disagree with the suggestion of Civ V being an RPG - which is exactly what Venereus suggested, whether he meant to or not - but I don't disagree at all with what he meant to say.

Why are you turning this into a mud slinging contest at this point? You don't have a leg to stand on with the things you're saying, and in fact they're pretty much outright wrong.

Wait, so you're arguing against a statement that you now know never existed?

 

[Guardian_PL]

Oh boy, this thread is getting actually quite amusing, it's like a rehash of Monty Python - "No sir, the parrot is fine. But it's dead! No, it's just sleeping, can't you see that, what a lovely plumage!"




Moderator Action: Off-topic posts are spam.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889