Refined Poll: your standing with the game

[MkLh]

Just because a point is short and obvious does not mean it's empty gesturing or speculation. In fact, it really points more to your stubbornness and ignorance when it's THIS short and obvious, yet you still cling to your argument. You can't admit that 1UPT (primarily in a case like this where Units and Cities are the same size, and these tiles being too large for a "tactical" feature) is the root of many problems because you've attached your argument to it now, and admitting it now means you've been defeated by a stupidly obvious point. Can't have that.

It's simple.

• If they had wanted, they could have made units quicker to produce.
• They did not.
• So they are not.
• Why not?
• To avoid breaking 1UPT.
• Except on Deity, where it's broken anyway due to production bonuses.

That's it. At least concerning units. Building Hammer costs... and Gold/Building Maintenance... are similarly limited for the same reason. Low yields relative to Production costs.

Everything else you're saying is just camouflage to avoid admitting you are wrong.

If long building times of units are due to 1UPT, why are constructing buildings so slow also? And why is the rush buying so efficient? While this "1UPT leads to low production/flat tile yields" -theory has been mentioned numerous times, it's not plausible at all.

 

[blind biker]

If long building times of units are due to 1UPT, why are constructing buildings so slow also?

????????

 

[OneFootInThe...]

D - it's boring.

 

[Mathalamus]

i dislike the game and don't play it. i don't have it installed. i even threw out the CD, too.

 

[Nares]

[*]If they had wanted, they could have made units quicker to produce.
[*]They did not.
[*]So they are not.

That's not proof of an argument. That's barely even an argument at all.

"They could have done this buy they didn't, therefore they didn't do it for this reason" is complete speculation.

At least my speculation is supported by statements Shafer/Firaxis made about their development goals.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

If long building times of units are due to 1UPT, why are constructing buildings so slow also? And why is the rush buying so efficient? While this "1UPT leads to low production/flat tile yields" -theory has been mentioned numerous times, it's not plausible at all.

Simple on slow building times, you wouldn't expect a barracks to cost less materiel than a group of warriors, or a University less than a group of knights would you. If they made buildings cheaper than units per hammer that would be the single most immersion breaking mechanic in the history of strategy gaming.

As regards rushbuying, that is a combination of nerfing the production to make 1UPT marginally viable and a badly designed rushbuy system.

And why is the theory not plausible, it a) explains all aspects of the phenomena witnessed in game, and b) it follows Occams Razor in that all alternative explanations are more complicated. Those two alone make it the leader, by a country mile, in the plausibility stakes. I would suggest looking at the arguements made again this time in an objective fashion, with no preconceptions.

 

[lschnarch]

319 votes now.
Time to have another short look at the results (all values rounded):
32% enjoying and playing (-3)
48% disliking the game (unchanged)
58% no longer playing (+5)

Conclusion: almost half of the fanbase dislikes the game. More than half are no longer attracted enough to play.
All of this just four months after release.

I wonder if this ever happened to a Civ game before in such a short time.

We have crossed the 400 border now. Another look at the results so far (all values rounded):
30% enjoying and playing (-2)
50% disliking the game (+2)
61% no longer playing (+3)

So, it seems to be safe to say that at best 1/3 are still enjoying and playing the game.
Around 50% are disliking the game.
The majority doesn't play it anymore.

Remember, we are talking about a Civ game.

 

[TacTac]

I dislike the game, no longer playing it, because ...

It didn't really appeal to my cravings for a strategy game anymore. I was on the "prefer more depth" side of the fence from the start though.

And with the nearly endless selection of titles on steam right now who's got time to wait for fixes/patches anyway?

 

[mutant-enemy]

Playing and enjoying.

Only with mods, but it was the same with cIV after all.

 

[MkLh]

Simple on slow building times, you wouldn't expect a barracks to cost less materiel than a group of warriors, or a University less than a group of knights would you. If they made buildings cheaper than units per hammer that would be the single most immersion breaking mechanic in the history of strategy gaming.

I'm not sure people would complain about it. One unit like knight represents a big group of units, actually a whole army, and I don't think it's too unrealistic if it takes more time to produce an army than some building. Anyway, you don't even need those long unit building times to avoid the carpet of doom -problem. See below.

And why is the theory not plausible, it a) explains all aspects of the phenomena witnessed in game, and b) it follows Occams Razor in that all alternative explanations are more complicated. Those two alone make it the leader, by a country mile, in the plausibility stakes. I would suggest looking at the arguements made again this time in an objective fashion, with no preconceptions.

Because it's not the best way to avoid the problem. Like already mentioned, if you want to restrict army size you can do it by simple increasing unit maintenance (progressive maintenance would do that effectively). Or you can simply limit the number of all units allowed at the same time, not just those that needs resources. This limit could be a function of population, which would be realistic - an empire can only use some percent of its population in its army.

But if making maps hammer poor was really an attempt to avoid carpets of dooms, then it's just an another design flaw in this game. The problem is not 1UPT per se.

 

[builer680]

But if making maps hammer poor was really an attempt to avoid carpets of dooms, then it's just an another design flaw in this game. The problem is not 1UPT per se.

Yes it is. You've already been told why. Multiple times.

 

[Nares]

And why is the theory not plausible, it a) explains all aspects of the phenomena witnessed in game, and b) it follows Occams Razor in that all alternative explanations are more complicated.

The theory that most of the gameplay changes were made to make the game "more accessible" equally explains "all aspects of the phenomena witnessed in game," while also being supported by developer statements.

The anti-1UPT crusade's argument may provide an alternative explanation, but does so on the basis of speculation by admittedly skilled and intelligent players.

Logically yes, adjustments should have been made to facilitate 1UPT. Developers defy such common logic on a regular basis, as has been demonstrated by this development team themselves several times. If there's one thing I've learned in years of online gaming, it's that there's a total disconnect between skilled and intelligent players and the developers. Forgive me if I'm skepitcal that our tinfoil hat consipiracies have any reality to them.

I would suggest looking at the arguements made again this time in an objective fashion, with no preconceptions.

I make the same suggestion to yourself and others.

 

[Fistalis]

D. The game just didn't offer what i expected or wanted in a game of civ. I expected new and improved not new and diminished.

 

[Eskel]

I think there were 2 reasons they tried to cope with 1UPT the way they did:
1) Maintenance is good mechanics, however good for HUMAN players. As the AI is broken, it needs a serious advantage in numbers to make combat odds even. If number of units was limited by maintenace, AI cheating would become unacceptably obvious. So they chose a production nerfing as lesser evil (supposition).
2) Civ 5 should have less techs and less buildings (it should be even more pro-warmonger oriented), to work well and keep in scale between tactical combat and timing. In other ways, it should be more similar to PG, where startegic part is almost unexistant. But they didn't dare to go that far againts expectations, being almost sure that producing PG clone labelled Civ will enrage conservative fanbase. It did, anyway, with the streamlining already applied.

 

[godotnut]

I'm heartbroken that my favorite game series took a nose dive with Civ V. I was so excited, I preordered with same day shipping, but the game plays like it was never playtested. The fact that the game polls so poorly on Civfanatics of all places is particularly damning. This is like my disappointment with Spore, only worse because Civ IV was/is my favorite game of all time.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I think there were 2 reasons they tried to cope with 1UPT the way they did:
1) Maintenance is good mechanics, however good for HUMAN players. As the AI is broken, it needs a serious advantage in numbers to make combat odds even. If number of units was limited by maintenace, AI cheating would become unacceptably obvious. So they chose a production nerfing as lesser evil (supposition).
2) Civ 5 should have less techs and less buildings (it should be even more pro-warmonger oriented), to work well and keep in scale between tactical combat and timing. In other ways, it should be more similar to PG, where startegic part is almost unexistant. But they didn't dare to go that far againts expectations, being almost sure that producing PG clone labelled Civ will enrage conservative fanbase. It did, anyway, with the streamlining already applied.

While most of your post is solid, you really have to drop the "conservative fanbase" bit. The fanbase (or the greatest part of it anyway) aren't unhappy because the game is too different, they are unhappy because the differences have lead to a far infrerior game than the previous installment.

 

[Nares]

The fanbase (or the greatest part of it anyway) aren't unhappy because the game is too different, they are unhappy because the differences have lead to a far infrerior game than the previous installment.

This we can agree upon.

So much of the game fails on so many levels that 1UPT is both a scapegoat for some, while also being relatively irrelevant to the final assessment of the product.

You can't tell me that the global happiness system/poor ICS-prevention, streamlined tech tree, schizophrenic diplomacy, shallow City States or mediocre social policy system(/civic system replacement) are 1UPT related, but they contribute significantly to the overwhelming dissatisfaction with the game.

 

[bananamana]

C: dislike the game, but still playing

to be more precisely, i play when there's new patch release, to see whether it is really fixing the crash

the game is good with the changes, apart from poor decision making of AI
it is riddled with tons of bugs and crashes
the worst is the crash, it basically kill the game experience, unless you willing to tuned down everything, play with the whatever lousy strategic view mode.

Fix ur goddam PC!

 

[r_rolo1]

This we can agree upon.

So much of the game fails on so many levels that 1UPT is both a scapegoat for some, while also being relatively irrelevant to the final assessment of the product.

You can't tell me that the global happiness system/poor ICS-prevention, streamlined tech tree, schizophrenic diplomacy, shallow City States or mediocre social policy system(/civic system replacement) are 1UPT related, but they contribute significantly to the overwhelming dissatisfaction with the game.

Well true enough ... but I think some bad decisions reinforced each other. For a example, the change to hexes ( that I'm not against per se ) lead to the 3 ring city radius. As 3 hex rings has more tiles than a radius 2 BFC ,the tile output has to be reworked from the square version ( less stuff per tile in average ). Add the 1upt and the need for less units and you need even less stuff per tile. This ,joined by some very unimaginative city builds options, creates issues with the average queue ...

I'm not saying that things were actually like this, but IMHO there were some core ideas that were thought as necessary for this game even before the game got out of the sketch sheet and the relations between those were not thought out and/or when they were, no one had the courage/time to toss one out to save the rest. 1 upt is only one of those ideas ... like the global happiness ( that IMHO has much more blame than 1upt in the current state of affairs ) or the aparently erratic AI diplo management ( other hell hole IMHO )

 

[number51]

D
I played one game, it isn't the worst game, but it is the worst Civ game.

I will check back later to see if it's been improved with patches and or mods.