Pyramids can be built only on desert tiles

[Ikael]

I'm sorry, but it something out of connection with reality.

I am critisizing said reality I have worked in game development (albeit indirectly) and I have many friends in the field, so I know the reality of it and unfortunately, some of the procedures of the gaming industry leaves a lot to be desired.

If you could do half of this in your head - send your CV to game development companies, you'll make millions immediately.

Any person with a little bit of thought and time can easily predict the outcomes and behaviours induced by game systems. Extrapolation and deductive thinking are no superpowers of mine of course, betatesting is still vital, but it is already more than proved that game rules will condition strategies and player's behaviour, and that you can predict both up to an extent.

Without terrain requirements at the start of the game you generally have choice between pursuing you favorite wonder (i.e. Great Library) if your production is very high; pursuing your second favorite wonder, which is easier to build (i.e. Stonehenge) if your production is not that great or not build Wonders at all. That's 3 choices.

With terrain requirements you have generally the same 3 choices in each game, but the combinations of available Wonders are different from game to game. It doesn't force more choices for player, but it forces player to use different strategies in different games. This means less repetitive games.

The problem is that the "hard conditions" of wonders strips choice away from you, and most importantly, the chance of choice. Let me explain:

On any given game, there are only two possible outcomes for a wonder: You either build it or not.

While these two outcomes are present in both systems, on a "hard condition" one the choice is already made for you: do you lack the terrain for building a wonder? Then you won't make it, period. Whereas on a "soft condition" system at least I have the chance (as remote as it is on higher levels) of building said wonder. The player has still limited agency, but agency nonetheless.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That being said, what I have observed is that the top players did exactly as you said with the systems in place in Civ 4, and perfected their game, the CE (Commerce Economy) and SE (Specialist Economy) in particular, then along comes the Espionage system in BTS, and with it the EE (Espionage Economy) and the dreaded CSM (civic/religion swapping missions). Now you have a whole style of play that the "experts" are unfamiliar with and its difficult to practice against because the AI doesn't use it, so when the experts face it, they were getting trounced by it. So, rather than step out of their comfort zone and learn the new system, they by-and-large simply summarily declared the Espionage system or components of it "unbalanced", "exploitative", "unfair", "un-fun" etc., and began banning its use from games.

You are well aware of my stance on espionage and the pressure I put on the rationality of some of the arguments presented back then no doubt . However, at the same time some of the better HoF players embraced CtE and shattered previous best times, and the really super strong players like Rusten milked it as recently as this past January to win always-war games on randomly generated immortal Pangaea maps, going so far as to evaluate when going full bore espionage vs traditional teching was optimal (being that only the latter can get you a technology lead that lasts).

So I'm not sure which "top players" you're talking about, the ones I had in mind quantified the tradeoffs of espionage pretty well, to the extent that they'd tend to skip it in SP when it wasn't useful but micro-optimize its return the moment they saw it having sufficient utility.

Most of the CtE complaints were not rationally grounded.

My point in mentioning this is that I see some parallels with the unhappiness with the tile restriction. The statement I quoted was particularly reminiscent of that.

Do tell which parallels. The statement you quoted makes no sense with this line I'm quoting, but maybe you can give me a reason to change my mind, rather than the best cases made here so far being devil's advocate stuff.

I could say the same thing about your stuff with similar basis (none basically), that you're embracing this wonder restriction because it's harder to handle the game's decision tree without it and you don't like that conceptually.

What really separates the points are the measurables. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question posed in principle, provided by someone other than myself. Even now you haven't done it, so I raise an eyebrow at what I'm quoting. If you really meant that, you'd have given me sound examples two pages ago.

Any person with a little bit of thought and time can easily predict the outcomes and behaviours induced by game systems. Extrapolation and deductive thinking are no superpowers of mine of course, betatesting is still vital, but it is already more than proved that game rules will condition strategies and player's behaviour, and that you can predict both up to an extent.

Unfortunately, the people best equipped to do this are often not the developers, and the developers aren't always keen on listening to them .

The problem is that the "hard conditions" of wonders strips choice away from you, and most importantly, the chance of choice. Let me explain:

I've been saying this for a while and am somewhat frustrated that it's being glossed over/ignored repeatedly.

 

[jmknpk]

I am seeing two diverging focuses or preferences here:
A) free form (sandbox) type equality and opportunity for all civs (players).
B) highly specialized, regionally (terrain) biased, and historical civilization conformity.

My dreams include a Civ 6, where the user could choose either form of play.

Why not just make the Pyramids be an Egyptian unique wonder, requiring desert tile as well? Stonehenge being an English unique wonder, additionally requiring grass terrain? In other words, go extreme with option B.

Alternatively, extreme option A would mean that only graphics have any significance regarding different Civs (set of bonus traits), wonders, and units available to all, wherein the player could pick and choose everything freely.

I generally prefer choice A, but sometimes also like choice B. Because, sometimes you fell like a nut, sometimes you don't.

Maybe if I get bored with Civ 6, I'll make a mods for both options. I think it might mostly hinge on how this new regional city approach ends up playing out. The adopt civ strategy and style on the fly, rather than being permanent after Civ choice, also seems promising.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am seeing two diverging focuses or preferences here:
A) free form (sandbox) type equality and opportunity for all civs (players).
B) highly specialized, regionally (terrain) biased, and historical civilization conformity.

No, you aren't. You're fabricating something new and non-sequitur to the last several pages to both sides.

Completely ignoring the strategy aspect of the discussion is annoying. If you want to shift the discussion entirely onto a tangent just say so.

 

[Thormodr]

I am seeing two diverging focuses or preferences here:
A) free form (sandbox) type equality and opportunity for all civs (players).
B) highly specialized, regionally (terrain) biased, and historical civilization conformity.

My dreams include a Civ 6, where the user could choose either form of play.

Why not just make the Pyramids be an Egyptian unique wonder, requiring desert tile as well? Stonehenge being an English unique wonder, additionally requiring grass terrain? In other words, go extreme with option B.

Alternatively, extreme option A would mean that only graphics have any significance regarding different Civs (set of bonus traits), wonders, and units available to all, wherein the player could pick and choose everything freely.

I generally prefer choice A, but sometimes also like choice B. Because, sometimes you fell like a nut, sometimes you don't.

Maybe if I get bored with Civ 6, I'll make a mods for both options. I think it might mostly hinge on how this new regional city approach ends up playing out. The adopt civ strategy and style on the fly, rather than being permanent after Civ choice, also seems promising.

Stonehenge would be a Celtic wonder, not English.

That is, if you truly believe the Celts built it and not someone or something else.

 

[King William I]

I don't think all the wonders will be terrain dependent. For example Broadway could require an adjacent entertainment district

 

[Txurce]

Without terrain requirements at the start of the game you generally have choice between pursuing you favorite wonder (i.e. Great Library) if your production is very high; pursuing your second favorite wonder, which is easier to build (i.e. Stonehenge) if your production is not that great or not build Wonders at all. That's 3 choices.

With terrain requirements you have generally the same 3 choices in each game, but the combinations of available Wonders are different from game to game. It doesn't force more choices for player, but it forces player to use different strategies in different games. This means less repetitive games.

Different strategies in different games: this is what makes the projection in question for civvi more interesting to me... not how complex those strategies may be. (Side point: what strategies are complex once they've been analyzed and codified on CFC? They then become a list of instructions.)

 

[Calyxx]

It seems this thread has a lot of complaining about nothing. Or at least, maybe (hopefully) nothing.

We do not know nearly enough to form any sort of rational opinion:

• How many wonders are a available in each age?
• What is the terrain distribution like?
• Do good wonders balance bad terrain?
• Is there a terrain starting bias?
• How many wonders are unique to each terrain type?
• Do terrain restricted wonders have specific effects on the terrain type they are restricted to?

Until we have answers to these questions, this debate is premature. It might be that restricting things in this way leads to already laid out decision pathways: have desert? Build Pyramids! But what if there are multiple ancient age wonders that compete for that desert spot? Which one to build? Should you forgo building the pyramids now so that you can have a shot at the Petra later? In Civ V, it made sense to build a wonder anytime you could afford to and had a reasonable shot at completing it - but if building a wonder now restricts possibilities later, this would add another dimension to the choice.

I can imagine several ways in which these restrictions could increase the number of viable options in a game, just as I can imagine numerous ways in which the number of options is decreased. I just don't think we have enough information yet to make a rational evaluation.

 

[Novu]

Saying the Pyramids need desert is a bit of an anachronism. When the Pyramids were originally built wasn't as dry then as it is now. Egypt in 2600BC was a semi arid plain.

 

[King William I]

Saying the Pyramids need desert is a bit of an anachronism. When the Pyramids were originally built wasn't as dry then as it is now. Egypt in 2600BC was a semi arid plain.

You... you so realize were talking about Civilization, right?

 

[labellavienna]

Either way I'm sure you can mod it to your needs

 

[Red Menace]

You... you so realize were talking about Civilization, right?

exactly.

also I'm pretty sure that these wonders will probably be tied to terrain, like Stonehenge maybe gives +1 faith to all flat grassland tiles worked by the city its built in, or maybe the Pyramids give you a bonus to cities built on/next to desert somehow.

these are things we don't know yet so don't get your mind set against it just yet, it may even work out pretty well.

Either way I'm sure you can mod it to your needs

and this is always an option.

 

[Bandobras Took]

It seems odd to me that people are worried about strategy and options being determined by the map.

That's been the case with most iterations of the Civ series, unless a person used a mapfinder/rerolled maps.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

I am quite interested in seeing this implemented in the game. We don't yet know what wonders do, so maybe having the Pyramids in the desert makes perfect sense, since desert tiles usually give nothing.

Moreover, it might actually help human players who play on Deity. For example, in most Deity games Petra can go as early as t60, built by AI in a city which has 1 desert tile. Now, imagine you are playing Arabia and spawned in the desert... that's so annoying when the AI who gets it only has 1-2 desert tiles to which it applies. Another example is Colossus going to some crappy AI expo.. such a waste. All in all, the restrictions might actually help humans on higher difficulty settings.

 

[Tabarnak]

They want to make a game where the map will largely influence decisions. With dynamic research and builds, they have included Wonders to be more map specific.

It's purely for game mechanics. Bonuses from World Wonders might be less stronger than actually(Civ5).

 

[Haig]

People have speculated that The Great Wall might be a Chinese Unique improvement.

Would definately be cool to create one's own wall around the empire, but I just wonder how it would cope with the mechanics? Should the attacker smash it open with siege weapons before attacking, That would also be sweet tho..

 

[Stilgar08]

It's interesting: I have absolutely nothing against the terrain restrictions for certain wonders but I am completely against the idea of having World Wonders exclusively for one civ.

I'm quite sure that it won't be "I have a desert tile, so I built pyramids". That would be nonsense and there will still be enough other options to take into account (building something else instead so not wasting my time because the wonder-bonus is not big enough or I need units/buildings/whatever? )

I'm all for the tech bonuses derived from the map and/or playstyle and this terrain restriction is nothing else IMO. If CiV Iroquese-UA wasn't helpful at all you had to live with it. Same here, isn't it? Play Polynesia on Pangea...
Certainly not a gamebreaker! And look at it the other way around: I can already foresee myself grinning IF I can built pyramids because I have a desert tile and my stupid neighbour won't... Or he can build it and I will be jealous and prepare for war. Or the AI does...

 

[Stilgar08]

Either way I'm sure you can mod it to your needs

Nevertheless I'd like to point out that I'm welcoming any effort that you might have to mod for flavour(!!) (eg graphics )
But game-mechanics is different for me - This should be thought out by the creators of the game as much as possible (and balanced).

Otherwise you could just say: Everythings bad about CIVVI but it doesn't matter: You can mod it..

Personally I tend to play "the original game" mechanic-wise for a loooooonnnnggg time and only add the occasional UI-mod-improvement. And when I get bored (after x hours of playing) I'm looking for gamechanging mods...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It seems odd to me that people are worried about strategy and options being determined by the map.

That's been the case with most iterations of the Civ series, unless a person used a mapfinder/rerolled maps.

You're not stating the case being made.

The concern is a reduction in the number of meaningful choices a player can make outright, including poor ones.

On some maps, rushing oracle is a bad idea. That is out the window if rushing oracle is impossible outright.

To make this change work in practice, they will have to alter the role of wonders compared to previous titles in the series. That might yet happen, and in that case I could envision supporting such a change/defending it instead. We'll see.

I'm quite sure that it won't be "I have a desert tile, so I built pyramids". That would be nonsense and there will still be enough other options to take into account

There's nowhere near enough evidence for high confidence, let alone certainty. Every iteration of civ has created situations where "have x so do y" is either an every-time or almost every-time conclusion. In creating a restriction to narrow the decision space, to avoid this problem they must come up with something that widens it in a different way.

That's fine in principle, but it seems an odd choice in this instance so far. But we have so little information about the details of buildings/districts/etc that it might make more sense later.

 

[Bandobras Took]

You're not stating the case being made.

The concern is a reduction in the number of meaningful choices a player can make outright, including poor ones.

On some maps, rushing oracle is a bad idea. That is out the window if rushing oracle is impossible outright.

I see no fundamental difference between that and being unable to rush a certain troop type if a resource is absent (Civ 4, and even more so Civ 3).

Or indeed, being unable to build a spaceship in Civ 3 at all due to absent resources.

Being food-poor in Civ 4 reduced meaningful choices in the early game as much as a lack of fresh water did in Civ 3.

A while back I got into an argument in the Beyond Earth section because I rated Hutama's trade route bonus as incredibly map-dependent.

Is the contention that if you have the rng luck to build the Oracle, it's always going to be a good idea? If the Oracle can still be a bad idea despite being able to build it map-wise, nothing is lost. And if you're not always guaranteed the ability to build it, then it does not become a go-to strategy in any way, shape or form.

I actually like the idea that techs that enable a given wonder are not automatically going to have value regardless of the map.