Rhye's Without Stability?

[Úmarth]

Isn't that the point? RFC is an Earth simulator and even historians have trouble pinpointing exactly why civilizations collapse never mind the leaders at the time.

I think you very quickly pick up that "general feel" for what will make you unstable, and a lot of it is common sense: poor economy, invasions, over-expansion.

 

[kairob]

I am with Umarth on this one, you know where your money comes from but stability is ment to be a bit abstract...

 

[Coral]

Isn't that the point? RFC is an Earth simulator and even historians have trouble pinpointing exactly why civilizations collapse never mind the leaders at the time.

I think you very quickly pick up that "general feel" for what will make you unstable, and a lot of it is common sense: poor economy, invasions, over-expansion.

I don't. I never pick up this "general feel". Every stability category shows =, and I have happy people, and my overall stability is going down. That is not common sense, in fact, I think that's the opposite of common sense. RFC isn't just an earth simulator, it's also a game, and I think you forget that it's supposed to not only be realistic, but fun.

 

[Panopticon]

It is fun. If everything were easy, it would not be fun. Stability is often obscure, but learning how to survive it, and eventually manipulate it, is something you learn through experience, just like any skill. On the other hand, if everything is reduced to a dry mathematical formula*, it not only becomes dry and mathematical, it also becomes easier to game the system. Please take my word that that would not be fun.

On reasons for instability, one thing it's good to remember is that stability tends to decline over time, due to permanent stability penalties you incur throughout the game. There is a reason it's not called Rhye's and Rise of Civilization

* I'm not denigrating maths; I have a degree in the damn thing. However, it has its limits when it comes to fun.

 

[Tweakee]

if everything is reduced to a dry mathematical formula*, it not only becomes dry and mathematical, it also becomes easier to game the system.

I didn't say that RFC should show you every step of its math, just the basic factors for each heading (like the other systems in Civ do). For example, the combat system doesn't show you the entire combat formula, it shows you the basic bonuses and penalties that go into the formula, with an expected result. "Crossing River = -25%" is good enough feedback to teach the player that avoiding river crossings is good. "Cities = 2 Stars" isn't good enough feedback to tell the player what they need to do/avoid to prevent that stability loss.

I am with Umarth on this one, you know where your money comes from but stability is ment to be a bit abstract...

That's horrible game design. By that reasoning, why show any breakdowns in Civ? Instead of the game showing the reasons why your people are happy/striking, they could've just left it with just a Red Face if striking and no further explanation. Every system in the game could have its tooltips and detailed info removed, leaving us to figure out every cause->effect relationship by feel.

Realistic or not, it would make for a terrible and frustrating game. And right now Stability is often frustratingly obtuse. It's difficult to learn from your mistakes when the game doesn't even let you see what your mistakes were. The challenge of RFC should be the game itself, not to decipher what the rules of the game are...

 

[Panopticon]

You have to realise that instability isn't the result of "mistakes". It is a natural phenomenon which affects practically every civ along the way. Read the wiki; the causes of instability are quite realistic and obvious. Even better, look at the code. All the numbers and causes you want are there. Just don't expect this research to allow you to avoid them.

 

[Rhye]

Keeping track of all the factors that influence stability is simply impossible, because they are based on new factors every turn + stability value of last turn, which can't be recorded in detail.
The 5 categories try to do this, but well, they're just 5. With the help of the strategy guide however, you can tell what may be the cause of your problems.
Myself, I ain't able to manage it correctly, since I collapsed every time I tried to play MP...so there's no secret formula that lets you win.

 

[Úmarth]

Ha ha, Rhye sucks at his own game...

 

[Virdrago]

 

[Tweakee]

Read the wiki; the causes of instability are quite realistic and obvious.

So obvious that no one is able to give reliable answers when people are confused about instability in specific games.

Just don't expect this research to allow you to avoid them.

The problem is that in many cases you aren't even aware of them with any degree of certainty. That's not a strategy game.

Keeping track of all the factors that influence stability is simply impossible, because they are based on new factors every turn + stability value of last turn, which can't be recorded in detail.

The mod keeps track of every factor, or it couldn't use them to make calculations. The formulas exist, you've just made a decision to keep their presentation extremely abstract when presenting them to the player - far more abstract than any of the systems the original game has. There's a reason Civ's designers didn't keep Health or Happiness or Combat so vague that you had to guess why a city was unhealthy or rioting or why you lost a battle. It's not fun, it's frustrating.

I wouldn't expect (or want) the exact formula sitting on the screen all the time, but it seems obvious from user comments (-especially- those defending the system) that the current presentation of 5 categories is far too obscure for something this complicated. The challenge should be in trying to balance the factors that cause instability versus your desires to improve your empire. The challenge should not be to guess what those are and which are affecting you.

If you can't even tell people why something is happening in understandable terms, the system is broken. I actually liked the stability system a lot more before I read this thread.

 

[Panopticon]

The system is not frustrating; we need a better explanation as to why is it "frustrating" to not have everything spelled out to the player in the course of the game. Just because it happens in other, more simple systems in Civ 4 doesn't mean it's always appropriate for every game. I rarely have any problems with stability, unless I'm going for a really huge empire, and that's because I have learned how to use it, not because I make a Python console type out every equation.

There are virtues to having to learn something in an abstract manner through experience, rather than getting every single number written out for you, particularly when there are a VAST amount of those numbers. For one thing, instability has multiple causes, so trying to isolate "one" factor that causes anything is a fool's errand. For another thing, it is much more like the real world.

In summary, what I am trying to say is that instability is a problem that will affect players less and less the more time they put into the game. In other words, it is a learned skill.

 

[mitsho]

If it were totally spelled out you could simply calculated the "perfect" moves (something that is being tried already with some success) and thus master the stability-addition, something the AI cannot. But stability is intended to be the exact opposite, something not really controlable, at least for the AI and thus get away from the "micromanagment" illness Civilization always had...

But of course, that is a personal opinion and the feature doesn't manage that perfectly.

m

 

[musicfreak]

Tweakee, you do realize that you're by yourself in this argument, right? Everyone here has made good points. I think the main point is that if everything was spelled out, you could just figure out the perfect method to win, like mitsho said. The whole "abstract" concept of stability and trying to figure out why you empire is collapsing is what makes it fun. If you knew exactly how it worked it wouldn't even present a challenge, as you'd always know what to do in the case that your civ is collapsing.

 

[Rhye]

furthermore, the lack of ingame documentation is due to localization reasons

 

[Tweakee]

Tweakee, you do realize that you're by yourself in this argument, right?

And I should care about that? Judging from how the real game was designed, I think the Civ4 team would agree with me.

Besides which, I'd argue that most of the people that are turned off by the poor feedback for Stability probably aren't playing this mod anymore. I've been playing games a long time, so I'm willing to forgive some very rough edges when I see good ideas at the core (like RFC), but I also work in game design, so I'm not able to just ignore major design flaws.

I think the main point is that if everything was spelled out, you could just figure out the perfect method to win, like mitsho said.

People seem to be assuming that there is no middle ground between the current presentation and "spelling everything out". That is simply not true. A bit more info than "Cities = **" doesn't have to mean detailing every step of the formula.

If you knew exactly how it worked it wouldn't even present a challenge, as you'd always know what to do in the case that your civ is collapsing.

Strange then that the entire rest of the game (the unmodded Civ) has been built in direct opposition to this idea of how systems should be designed.

Is warfare too easy and boring because the game gives you some clues as to what causes bonuses and penalties in combat?

Is balancing happiness/health too easy and boring because the game gives you information on why your cities are unhappy/sick?

Civ isn't built around forcing the player to discover the game's rules on their own through trial and error. Civ is built around presenting the player with the basic rules and information, and letting them decide how to balance all the different systems and factors when building their empire. Without basic understandable presentation, it's not strategy, it's guesswork.

Anyway, I think I've made my point as well as I'm able. It would be great if what are IMO the rough edges of a really well done mod could be smoothed out, but since I lack the time or initiative to do it myself, I'll just offer my advice and leave it at that.

 

[solitary]

The wiki states that razing cities costs stability ...
but isnt very clear wether its only
when someone razes ur cities ( logical )
or also when you raze a city ur self ?

 

[Rhye]

having a city razed causes a penalty; razing a city causes nothing

 

[say1988]

Razing conquered cities does not cost a stability penalty?
I have always seen posts saying otherwise (not from you though).

 

[Rhye]

there's a penalty that counterbalances the bonus that you get conquering the city. So in the end, nothing

 

[Harrier]

I wander over to this forum after many months away - just after the BtS launch. And I find some similar stability discussions occuuring yet again. The initial reason I wrote my stability guide. (probably needs updating!)

I do not know what changes have been made over the last six months - but the questions seem the same.

If any really interested poster wanted to find some answers - try looking at older pages of this forum and you will find threads related to the stability problem: this includes the details in the wiki for those who do not want to access that site.

Note the details on the Wiki site are 8 months old, any changes Rhye has made since then are not yet added.

So to try and answer some of Tweakee's questions:

So obvious that no one is able to give reliable answers when people are confused about instability in specific games.

That is because there are so many variables, to simulate real life situations. Consider the recent events in Kenya after the elections, or what happenned in France a few weeks ago -etc. Not predictable but effecting national stability. For R&F, the Wiki lists all the possible effects - you have to determine those that affect you in any given game.

The problem is that in many cases you aren't even aware of them with any degree of certainty. That's not a strategy game.

The stability part of the info screen breaks them down into categories. The Wiki explains those categories.

Read the Wiki - and think of the possible consequences of your governmental decisions.

I printed out some parts, to refer to when I played the game.

The mod keeps track of every factor, or it couldn't use them to make calculations. The formulas exist, you've just made a decision to keep their presentation extremely abstract when presenting them to the player - far more abstract than any of the systems the original game has. There's a reason Civ's designers didn't keep Health or Happiness or Combat so vague that you had to guess why a city was unhealthy or rioting or why you lost a battle. It's not fun, it's frustrating.

True - but showing all the factors would remove the fun from the game. Also that would probably put off the majority of players. So Rhye made the decision to show a simplified screen displaying the categories and the current status.

We are playing a game and not trying to understand a complex spreadsheet etc. For those players who want more detailed info, there is the wiki, which gives you pointers as to what may be happening - so you can decide if that is what is causing your problems.

I wouldn't expect (or want) the exact formula sitting on the screen all the time, but it seems obvious from user comments (-especially- those defending the system) that the current presentation of 5 categories is far too obscure for something this complicated. The challenge should be in trying to balance the factors that cause instability versus your desires to improve your empire. The challenge should not be to guess what those are and which are affecting you.

Again true - but as you mentioned, showing all the factors would remove the fun from the game. See the above answer.

If you do not want to access the Wiki the same information is available in this forum - you just have to look back a few pages to find the relevent thread heading's on stability.

If you want I could bump them.

If you can't even tell people why something is happening in understandable terms, the system is broken. I actually liked the stability system a lot more before I read this thread.

Thats what the leaders of Kenya and France want to know today. Not forgettig all the ancient civs etc.


The main thing to remember is the name of the Mod.

Rhyes [Rise] and Fall of Civilization.

Without stability - you will not get the Fall.

It is not a mod where you keep getting bigger and better and eventually win.

It is about real civilizations, that rise and fall and maybe rise again and probably fall again. Then maybe they .......???? Who knows.



Does that help answer your questions?