(Rising Tides) Quill 18's Chungsu Gameplay

[Barathor]

*facepalm*

Wow, embarked siege worms, haha. I don't think it would be too bad to simply prevent aliens from embarking if you leash them. If you need them in the ocean, you can leash aquatic aliens. There's always plenty.

As for the Colossus Strike, if placed aliens happens to land in water around a coastal/ocean city, it should become a kraken. They pillage improvements as they move too, right? And most importantly, they're colossal aliens. (Maybe they plan on doing that still, which is why it was renamed from Worm Strike?) I was initially thinking of simply using Makaras, but I don't think they pillage as they move.

- - - - - - - -

It's interesting to see Quill's attitude sink through the playthroughs. He seems to be just going through the motions quickly and doesn't really care much about anything -- two-shotting low strength cities with no defenses or units, endless resources, permanent wars, gaining perk after perk and bonus after bonus. Though, he "is" on a low difficulty. Plus, as I suspected, I think it's probably best to put all 12 sponsors on a standard map now, or at least more than the default 8. Looking at his minimap, there's so much empty space between all sponsors to expand too and grab whatever you need.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXk3HXq6FnA&t=29m55s

 

[Alkaid]

It's interesting to see Quill's attitude sink through the playthroughs.

I'm seeing that out of Marbozir's playthrough too. I think the peace bug was the number one factor for dropping both of their attitudes, and rightfully so. After each of them encountered that it was kind of a noticeable change.

 

[Halbbruder]

Episode 10:

Spoiler :

he's working on mind flower. Moment of truth: has transcendence victory changed? If not, then the typical harmony turtling is alive and well in RT.

Also, what is the feature that provides +3 culture to firaxite and certain sea resources?

 

[GenEngineer]

@ Halbrudder - one of the agreements available gives culture for strategic resources, and some ocean resources give culture naturally

 

[Halbbruder]

@ Halbrudder - one of the agreements available gives culture for strategic resources, and some ocean resources give culture naturally

Ok thanks.

 

[Natura]

Nah, they can fix it alright (Just look at warscore system, sole modder-Gazebo has implemented for Civ V -CPP (Community Patch Project). Question is do they care enough to do it.

Woah, he did?! Time to go and check out CCP again!

 

[Senteliks]

*facepalm*

It's interesting to see Quill's attitude sink through the playthroughs.....

It's not just his attitude that's dropping down. It's mine too and probably many of you share same opinion.

I really looked forward to this expansion pack but this preview let's plays have highlight some obvious and game breaking flaws and now I am not so sure that I am going to buy it on day one, which was my intention.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

While I have not watched the entire playthrough.

The fact that you are putting all of your egg baskets into "one" feature (Warscoring) that sure has it's flaw, and then calling the expansion terrible is just... weird.

Like, there's enough logic to assume it's getting fixed sooner than later.

 

[Westwall]

It's not just his attitude that's dropping down. It's mine too and probably many of you share same opinion.

I really looked forward to this expansion pack but this preview let's plays have highlight some obvious and game breaking flaws and now I am not so sure that I am going to buy it on day one, which was my intention.

This is why it pays to be cautious.

Optimism is fine, but don't let it blind you or else you're only setting yourself up for disappointment.

I think a major reason why the devs haven't commented on this at all, assuming they're even aware of the issues, is probably because they're still trying to figure out if acknowledging it will only hurt sales even more than if they just stay quiet.

In all likelihood, it's just too late for them to fix the problems pre-release. And it looks bad for shareholders if they don't see a successful launch. So I think now they're banking on most players not knowing about the War Score issues, and those who do just assuming it was a pre-release problem that they've since sorted out.

Once the expansion actually does launch and Firaxis makes its dividends, during which players finally realize the problem persists into post-release, only then do they make an announcement saying they're aware of the "bug" and plan to release a patch soon.

From a business standpoint, they have nothing to gain from admitting there's a problem now.

While I have not watched the entire playthrough.

The fact that you are putting all of your egg baskets into "one" feature (Warscoring) that sure has it's flaw, and then calling the expansion terrible is just... weird.

Like, there's enough logic to assume it's getting fixed sooner than later.

Yep, they're banking on you thinking exactly like this.

"Buy it now, hope for the fix later."

And to be fair, you're partly right. It probably will come later.

Much, much later.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

So I think now they're banking on most players not knowing about the War Score issues, and those who do just assuming it was a pre-release problem that they've since sorted out.

Most BE players won't know about the war score issues. The posters on this forum who study every minutia of every civ game, are a small percentage of the total fan base.

Yep, they're banking on you thinking exactly like this.

"Buy it now, hope for the fix later."

The fact is that buggy releases happen. It's the nature of the biz when your games have hundreds of thousands of lines of code. So don't you want them to fix any bugs post release? At the end of the day, the important thing is to fix the game. If you can fix it pre-release fine but if you can't then at least fix it later. It is better to fix the game post release than not to fix it all.

 

[poom3619]

@Westwall : I believe the dev said problem are fixed, while I don't sure what's the dev's meaning of "fixed". I suppose it could be a bit harder to fix their reputations.

@SupremacyKings2 : You know, this forum is not exactly the entire fanbase of CivBE. There's poeple on the subreddit who aware about this, so I think Westwall's sentinent is true. They are more or less banking from player who don't know this, and despite it is nature of the business, I think it is too much for "buggy". I really wish any player who buy this won't feel offended by spending at least $27-$30 to found out about this... unlikely, I say.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

@SupremacyKings2 : You know, this forum is not exactly the entire fanbase of CivBE. There's poeple on the subreddit who aware about this, so I think Westwall's sentinent is true. They are more or less banking from player who don't know this, and despite it is nature of the business, I think it is too much for "buggy". I really wish any player who buy this won't feel offended by spending at least $27-$30 to found out about this... unlikely, I say.

Well, I disagree with the idea that the devs don't care about bugs or broken features because they just want to sell games to clueless gamers who think the devs will fix things later. I don't buy that cynical view of the things. The devs kept the war score as is not because they like bugs but because the war score is a mechanic that they like and is working pretty much as they want it to. The problem is that players hate the way war score works. In many ways, the war score issue reminds of trade routes before base BE was released. There again, we had a feature that worked as the devs intended but that players hated. Eventually, the devs fixed it.

 

[Westwall]

The fact is that buggy releases happen. It's the nature of the biz when your games have hundreds of thousands of lines of code. So don't you want them to fix any bugs post release? At the end of the day, the important thing is to fix the game. If you can fix it pre-release fine but if you can't then at least fix it later. It is better to fix the game post release than not to fix it all.

Well obviously I'd rather they fix it than not at all, I just find it amusing that those are our choices. Meaning the devs themselves apparently either (1) never ran into this problem themselves or (2) didn't think it was worth mentioning.

Both of which should be cause for concern.

@Westwall : I believe the dev said problem are fixed

They didn't, Andrew just didn't understand the question.

 

[Westwall]

The devs kept the war score as is not because they like bugs but because the war score is a mechanic that they like and is working pretty much as they want it to. The problem is that players hate the way war score works.

I don't think it's the players' fault that the AI is incapable of surrendering in certain situations.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Well, I disagree with the idea that the devs don't care about bugs or broken features because they just want to sell games to clueless gamers who think the devs will fix things later. I don't buy that cynical view of the things. The devs kept the war score as is not because they like bugs but because the war score is a mechanic that they like and is working pretty much as they want it to. The problem is that players hate the way war score works. In many ways, the war score issue reminds of trade routes before base BE was released. There again, we had a feature that worked as the devs intended but that players hated. Eventually, the devs fixed it.

That's exactly how I think the score was designed. They didn't want to give the choice of the war deals.

But I do think they did not realize that its' a poorly designed one unfortunately.

But they are aware that it is not very well recieved so in due time it should be changed.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Meaning the devs themselves apparently either (1) never ran into this problem themselves or (2) didn't think it was worth mentioning.

Of course, they ran into it but since the mechanic was working as they intended, they did not see it as a problem. At least, that is what I think is the most likely scenario based on what they have said.

 

[poom3619]

I realized it became my own mantra that we will know who are right by how long before this forum flooded by rant after release

https://youtu.be/tA3ItiGX5Q4

They didn't, Andrew just didn't understand the question.

I suppose I will take more optimistic position that the dev may have fixed that but didn't gave them to reviewer before war score bug became apparent

 

[Westwall]

Of course, they ran into it but since the mechanic was working as they intended, they did not see it as a problem. At least, that is what I think is the most likely scenario based on what they have said.

That's horrifying.

So basically what you're saying is that when you soundly defeat the AI, it's supposed to not want to surrender until it's removed from the game.

 

[poom3619]

Of course, they ran into it but since the mechanic was working as they intended, they did not see it as a problem. At least, that is what I think is the most likely scenario based on what they have said.

Read : It don't need to be fixed.

In other words, https://youtu.be/j4Gge5Par_I?t=6m15s This don't need to be fixed.

Upvote Westwall. Downvote dev.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

That's horrifying.

So basically what you're saying is that when you soundly defeat the AI, it's supposed to not want to surrender until it's removed from the game.

Well the alternative is leaving the AI as a one city civ, getting energy per turn as tribute and getting powerful agreements from them again. Rinse and repeat with every civ. That would be a strong game exploit and if the devs let it in, we would be hearing cries to remove it. Now I can't speak for the devs but maybe they just wanted to try to remove that exploit?