Sid Meier's GDC2010 talk, obviously the Civ5 devs didnt listen.. Why?

[KingMorgan]

I imagine any disapointment Sid has over any game with his name on it is easy to deal with, he probabaly thinks about the money.

Civ5 is bad because of many reasons, what offends me the most is that I can clear my continent of 3 AIs on Imortal level with 10 warriors, 1000 gold and Steel. Then it's just click end turn until the UN is built. If I can be bothered sometimes i'll go for space - just for a change.

Civ5 is like a movie, you sit down, press a few buttons, watch the screen - 2hours later it's all tied up nicely and time for bed.

 

[Markstar]

I gotta say, I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree with Sid Meier about the combat odds.

As has been mentioned by others, all else being equal, a 3:1 superiority should NOT mean that you lose 1 out of 4 times. A combat where you are three times as strong as your opponent, you will will almost always win.

So if the designer want to even out those odds, he can simply make the opponent stronger. Not only is this more realistic, but it will also be more satisfying for the player in the end.

 

[ozon]

I gotta say, I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree with Sid Meier about the combat odds.

As has been mentioned by others, all else being equal, a 3:1 superiority should NOT mean that you lose 1 out of 4 times. A combat where you are three times as strong as your opponent, you will will almost always win.

So if the designer want to even out those odds, he can simply make the opponent stronger. Not only is this more realistic, but it will also be more satisfying for the player in the end.

You're mixing up odds with strength!

Sure strength of a unit has a major influence on odds. i guess 3 times the STRENGTH would result in much better ODDS than 3:1.

 

[blind biker]

You're mixing up odds with strength!

Sure strength of a unit has a major influence on odds. i guess 3 times the STRENTH would result in muss better ODDS than 3:1.

Yeah, seems like he's just not been paying attention. But he sure can disagree with Sid Meier!

 

[CultureManiac]

Sid was spot on with saying that designers need to let players know WHY they lost, so that when they replay the game they can try a different strategy. That's an element totally missing from diplomacy in CiV. AI reactions seem random, you can't figure them out, and you never feel you are in charge, or as Sid said, feeling like you are the king in charge of an empire.

OTOH, it was interesting to hear him talk of bad design deiscions he had made for civ1, and then corrected ... for the benefit of all civ gamers who followed.

 

[mihaifx]

First strike: the lamest mechanic ever invented in Civ series. Explain that to a game tester. I'm giving credit to Sid's argument.

 

[Markstar]

You're mixing up odds with strength!

Sure strength of a unit has a major influence on odds. i guess 3 times the STRENGTH would result in much better ODDS than 3:1.

How about you actually watch the videos instead of dissing other people?

In the video, he takes 2 warriors (basic strength 1) and the barb get a malus (-50% strength) for being uncivilized or something and the other warrior gets a bonus (+50% strength). As a result, it is 1.5 vs 0.5 (= 3:1 strength) and Sid says that that should translate to 3:1 odds, which it clearly should not (because the one guy fighting three guys, who are just as strong as he is, will almost certainly lose).

But sure, believe what you want because you are oh so smart and superior.


Edit: Added the italic part to make it even clearer.

 

[Shiggs713]

Part 3 has som incredibly fun examples of the playtesters they had for Civ Revolutions...
Such as expecting to win 100% of the time in 3 to 1 odds battles.
Could civ5 have been different if they had playtesters with an IQ above 80? We will never know.

thats actually hilarious to me, because on civ5 I actually do expect to win 100% of the time with 3 to 1, 5 to 1 odds, it really doesn't matter usually. Love the videos, thanks.

 

[Akka]

As a result, it is 1.5 vs 0.5 and Sid says that that should translate to 3:1 odds, which it clearly should not.

Hu...
3:1 is "clearly not like" 1,5:0,5 ?

 

[/solar/]

If it makes you feel any better, this is kind of an industry standard especially now in a bad economy. I'm a software engineer by trade. I think I've seen maybe one project schedule that had adequate time for quality assurance in my ~12 years in this profession. Some of these projects have failed, basically because the test budget wasn't where it should have been.

Yeah, pretty much the only way to have infinite development time is to have 11.5 million people paying you subscriptions to you mmorpg cash cow.....

World of civilization anyone?

 

[Akka]

Yeah, pretty much the only way to have infinite development time is to have 11.5 million people paying you subscriptions to you mmorpg cash cow.....

World of civilization anyone?

So we can have the final sinking into "casual gamers" crap ? No thanks.

 

[elthrasher]

But when it just happens on the map, no explanation other than the initial display of the odds.. no indication of the actual combat roll, no battle results screen, just the unit dying, it feels hollow and unfair. I get the odds the game gives me, and in lots of cases I agree with them, but losing a battle you're over 90% to win doesn't feel right.

This is reasonable. CivRev went light on the realism in a lot of ways. The pikemen winning against bombers graphic is pretty awesome (for lack of a dumber word) though.

I think Civ V actually got this one right. Everybody has 10 hit points and the displayed combat odds is not a % chance of winning, but the likely damage each party will take. It typically doesn't vary more than a point or two so you know if the odds suggest you'll be left with one or two hit points, you're taking a risk by engaging. If the odds tell you you're only going to lose 1 or 2 and you aren't injured, you know you're good to go. I like how combat odds and battles work in this game better than in previous ones.

So if you knew you had a 90% chance of winning but only 1 hit point left so losing means you're dead, would you feel as cheated as you would in Civ 4 losing your rifleman when 99.98% is shown as your odds of victory?

 

[PawelS]

First strike: the lamest mechanic ever invented in Civ series. Explain that to a game tester. I'm giving credit to Sid's argument.

I agree, First Strikes in Civ4 were a bad idea, they complicated the combat mechanics and made it hard to compare true unit strengths without adding anything interesting to the game.

 

[scratchthepitch]

The rng and combat in the 1st 4 editions of Civ was very poor, with a very noticeable decline in Civ4. It sounds like the Civ5 system is at least a step in the right direction away from the previous games, and especially away from Civ4. But the worst combat problem in all the Civ games is the AI can not handle anything but the most rudimentary combat strategies and tactics.

 

[Rohili]

Hu...
3:1 is "clearly not like" 1,5:0,5 ?

I believe what he meant was that a strength superiority of 1.5 to 0.5 should not translate into 3:1 odds. In other words, when one unit has 3x the strength of another unit (think scout vs horseman, or warrior vs longswordsman), it should not be winning only 3 out of 4 times - i.e. losing 25% of the time. It should be winning way more often than that.

 

[Markstar]

I believe what he meant was that a strength superiority of 1.5 to 0.5 should not translate into 3:1 odds. In other words, when one unit has 3x the strength of another unit (think scout vs horseman, or warrior vs longswordsman), it should not be winning only 3 out of 4 times - i.e. losing 25% of the time. It should be winning way more often than that.

Yes, thank you. That is why mentioned "strength" 3 times in my last post, just to make sure. Apparently that wasn't enough.

My guess is that ozon, blind biker and Akka are exactly the crowd that Sid Meier was talking about when he used the "hey, why are my 20:10 odds not better than 2:1? 20:10 is way better than 2:1!" example. Everybody can post here, regardless of intelligence or whether or not they actually took the time reading (understanding) what they bash or properly review the facts/material that is being talked about.

But it's nothing new, Civ5 is not dumbed down, guns don't kill people, democrats are just liberal pansies, the earth is ~7000 years old and everybody who disagrees will go to hell.

 

[Stiefel]

Dont forget to blame yourselves and your fellow forum members. Many people here tested the game before release and said NOTHING..I was trying to organize protest s prior to release and didnt get a toot of interest. If the so called "fanatics" are going to sit around all passive and pick their nose while 2k is feeding them crap do we really deserve a good game ?

Before we as a community are once again worthy of being graced with good games we are going to have to start actively caring and being involved during the development cycle.

Moderator Action: We don't like this trolling attempt against the community and certain members of it.

Additional note: Everyone who quotes trolling after it has been infracted will also get infracted for trolling, because backtrolling is trolling, too.

I like how the mods accuse people of trolling when they provide legit suggestions to the community. They are most definitely pawns of Big Brother 2k and trying to censor us.

Moderator Action: Infracted for PDMA and for editing mod tags
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ozon]

Yes, thank you. That is why mentioned "strength" 3 times in my last post, just to make sure. Apparently that wasn't enough.

My guess is that ozon, blind biker and Akka are exactly the crowd that Sid Meier was talking about when he used the "hey, why are my 20:10 odds not better than 2:1? 20:10 is way better than 2:1!" example. Everybody can post here, regardless of intelligence or whether or not they actually took the time reading (understanding) what they bash or properly review the facts/material that is being talked about.

But it's nothing new, Civ5 is not dumbed down, guns don't kill people, democrats are just liberal pansies, the earth is ~7000 years old and everybody who disagrees will go to hell.

I apologize for having missed the part with the example about the two warriors -
I really thought final odds aren't linearly dependent on strength...
If this is the case, i.e., Sid's example is really the mechanism it is applied in the game then I fully have to agree with you.
But anyway, you seem quite a bit stressed

 

[Quillur]

I think Sid is a very smart guy and he's moving Civ in a different direction. In order to achieve that, the game must be simplified significantly. That makes it more accessible, and eventually faster.

My hunch is that he sees the future of TBS games in online play. The genre itself is not as popular as it used to be, left behind by FPSs and action games, RPGs and RTS games. People like movement and playing against other people.

Other people present a much tougher challenge. Unlike the computer, which is basically static and never learns from its errors. But Civ as it was up to Civ4 was basically unplayable online. It's just too deep and too long. And you cannot just walk away and leave your empire frozen.

A sleek, dumbed-down Civ may be the way to go (yes, I also hate the idea). That way you can come home after work, sit down, log into a server, and play for a few (3 or 4, tops) hours with other people.

Turns will be short, planning will be simple, worlds will be small, and rivals will be few. But you can go to bed at 10pm to get to work early the next day.

 

[Stiefel]

I think Sid is a very smart guy and he's moving Civ in a different direction. In order to achieve that, the game must be simplified significantly. That makes it more accessible, and eventually faster.

My hunch is that he sees the future of TBS games in online play. The genre itself is not as popular as it used to be, left behind by FPSs and action games, RPGs and RTS games. People like movement and playing against other people.

Other people present a much tougher challenge. Unlike the computer, which is basically static and never learns from its errors. But Civ as it was up to Civ4 was basically unplayable online. It's just too deep and too long. And you cannot just walk away and leave your empire frozen.

A sleek, dumbed-down Civ may be the way to go (yes, I also hate the idea). That way you can come home after work, sit down, log into a server, and play for a few (3 or 4, tops) hours with other people.

Turns will be short, planning will be simple, worlds will be small, and rivals will be few. But you can go to bed at 10pm to get to work early the next day.

Why not drop the turn-based system totally and go for a real-time approach? The Victoria series from Paradox does an excellent job of this, and Firaxis can learn a lot from it.