The Final Analysis?

[Dale]

So when talking about Civ 5, he lambasts the designers for penalizing players for expanding. But when talking about Civ 4, he praises the designers for penalizing players for expanding .

It's the little things like this that made me conclude that Sullla only wanted BtS v2, and that anything else would not be good enough.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

It's the little things like this that made me conclude that Sullla only wanted BtS v2, and that anything else would not be good enough.

And it's posts like this that make it obvious that you are going to just decry everybody who disagree with you on this game. What he actually said, which you would know if you actually read the article instead of assumed the meaning, was that the mechanism for limiting expanison in Civ 4 worked in that it penalised larger empires, without crippling them, while also allowing smaller empires to remain relevant with good play. The mechanism in Civ V penalises small empires, and, unless you are playing massively sub-optimally, puts no meaningful penalty on over-expansion, contrarily it actually makes it the one right strategy no matter what the situation.

 

[jjkrause84]

It's the little things like this that made me conclude that Sullla only wanted BtS v2, and that anything else would not be good enough.

Civ 3 was very much Civ 2 v.2 and Civ 4 was Civ 3 v.2 (by your implied definition o the term). Why shouldn't people want the series to continue to gradually change the way it has for the past 20-ish years?

(I can't speak for Civ 1....never played it for more than 15 minutes)

 

[Dale]

And it's posts like this that make it obvious that you are going to just decry everybody who disagree with you on this game. What he actually said, which you would know if you actually read the article instead of assumed the meaning, was that the mechanism for limiting expanison in Civ 4 worked in that it penalised larger empires, without crippling them, while also allowing smaller empires to remain relevant with good play. The mechanism in Civ V penalises small empires, and, unless you are playing massively sub-optimally, puts no meaningful penalty on over-expansion, contrarily it actually makes it the one right strategy no matter what the situation.

I've had many a 2-3 city Empire with massive populations. I've never felt "penalised" as a small Empire (in fact some of my best non-war victories are from OCC's or 2-3 cities). The game just feels more natural for wider Empires because of the underlying maths favors wider Empires more (pop == science mechanic is a prime example). Small Empires do not get "penalised" for being small, it's just EASIER to be wider. Sullla fails to make that distinction.

EDIT: Here's a 3 city India culture victory where I never felt "penalised" for being small: http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?4948-3-city-India-culture-victory-pursuit

 

[ds61514]

I've had many a 2-3 city Empire with massive populations. I've never felt "penalised" as a small Empire (in fact some of my best non-war victories are from OCC's or 2-3 cities). The game just feels more natural for wider Empires because of the underlying maths favors wider Empires more (pop == science mechanic is a prime example). Small Empires do not get "penalised" for being small, it's just EASIER to be wider. Sullla fails to make that distinction.

If anything, with the National College, staying at one city for the first ~40-~55 turns can be MUCH more powerful than expanding out. Contrast this with Civ 4, where with proper planning, city #2 almost always earned a profit, AND you earned an additional 4-5 happiness points for no cost.

 

[basta]

It's the little things like this that made me conclude that Sullla only wanted BtS v2, and that anything else would not be good enough.

Four pages later and I fall again upon this.

There are two threads in this thread.

First, there's all the people who post (in a nutshell, but many of them much more insightfully and eloquently) "You know, what Sulla said hit the nail on the head. He summarized and elucidated why I don't enjoy this game." Most are chieftains. All are ignored.
Moderator Action: Don't troll other people.

Then there are the others, with 1000+ posts, who have spent most of their time arguing over this piece of belly-button lint.

Point is, Sulla summed up the un-FUN-ness of CiV quite lucidly and thoroughly. He did it often by using a comparison to IV--is this in any way surprising, since V comes right after IV?

Pooh! Give it a rest already. Really, it just looks unseemly from the perspective of the noobs.

A mod will doubtless smack me, but so be it. Really.

 

[zuraffo]

There's still a couple of the Franky group who bother to visit this board any more, we do in fact take the best ideas back to the devs and tell them about it (it's a part of what we do for Civ 5).

And there's no need to be insulting, easy enough to make a point without insulting him.

Some posts just begged to be insulted. I am not at my most restrained on these board.

First, I don't know what's a Franky group.

Second, if your own feedback didn't get through to the dev, what's the chance of those feedback you play messenger to get to the dev actually getting through?

Dev/Publisher is not in a receptive mood now. What the franchise need is some serious soul searching, and the dev can't do it if they are not submissive enough to really LISTEN to what the fans have to say. Perhaps a colossal failure at civ6 might wake them up, but I don't know.

 

[Dale]

Some posts just begged to be insulted. I am not at my most restrained on these board.

First, I don't know what's a Franky group.

Second, if your own feedback didn't get through to the dev, what's the chance of those feedback you play messenger to get to the dev actually getting through?

Dev/Publisher is not in a receptive mood now. What the franchise need is some serious soul searching, and the dev can't do it if they are not submissive enough to really LISTEN to what the fans have to say. Perhaps a colossal failure at civ6 might wake them up, but I don't know.

The Frankenstein group is the group of testers taken from the different Civ communities to help test the game, tell the devs what their respective communities are saying, and to analyse the game and make suggestions. Check the in-game credits to find out who they are.

I would think the recent Dec patch highlights that the message is getting through, what with all the changes taken directly from the various communities (such as the ICS nerfs, the tradition changes, etc etc).

 

[Dralix]

It's the little things like this that made me conclude that Sullla only wanted BtS v2, and that anything else would not be good enough.

And it's posts like this that make it obvious that you are going to just decry everybody who disagree with you on this game.

And the truth is probably that neither one of you is completely correct.


Re Dale's point, the fact is that in every game of the series, there are abstractions and game mechanics. Some of these get picked to part as being flawed, unrealistic, whatever. This is not new to Civ V. Human nature dictates that if you're pleased with the product as a whole, you are going to be more forgiving of these flaws. Case in point, the person in "the other thread" who thought that the way the leaders spoke in V ruined immersion, but the cheesy Caesar salad joke in IV was funny.

 

[blind biker]

Well, when I started playing Civ V, many moons ago, I remember how surprised I was when I founded my 4th or 5th city, and had no penalty at all. In Civ IV, you have to be very careful about your rate of expansion. Get it wrong, and you'll go bankrupt. Anyhow, when it hit me that there is no penalty in Civ V, I decided I'll just build settlers like there's no tomorrow. It was fun, at first, but I got bored of that, pretty quickly. Then I read about ICS, and just the thought that I would play the game using that strategy, made me quit Civ V completely (that, and the crashing, and the lack of replay, and the fact that I didn't very much like 1UpT, and the broken happiness system).

I'l like to hear from people who played Civ V multiplayer, and tell me that ICS wasn't the strategy that ultimately won.

 

[lietkynes]

The Frankenstein group is the group of testers taken from the different Civ communities to help test the game, tell the devs what their respective communities are saying, and to analyse the game and make suggestions. Check the in-game credits to find out who they are.

I would think the recent Dec patch highlights that the message is getting through, what with all the changes taken directly from the various communities (such as the ICS nerfs, the tradition changes, etc etc).

I am not sure that listening to the fans is always a good thing. For example the last patch was very good on paper, but in fact made me stop playing. It fixed a good number of things but I can't stand the AI using ICS, and the tech is going waaaay too fast (AI with rifleman in 900ad). Before the patch I was happily playing Civ5 despite its flaws.

 

[Ahriman]

Other than the National College, what in the patch would have sped up your tech progress?

I agree that the post-patch AI ICS is very annoying and not-fun to play against.

 

[Dralix]

Other than the National College, what in the patch would have sped up your tech progress?

Beaker overflow

 

[lietkynes]

Other than the National College, what in the patch would have sped up your tech progress?

Boh, research overflow ?

I don't know but after the patch I played 2 games (same settings as before patch) and in both occasions tech progress was insane and everyone ended up having modern units before 1000ad. The ancient eras are my favourite, you can imagine how happy I am of this.

 

[blind biker]

I am not sure that listening to the fans is always a good thing. For example the last patch was very good on paper, but in fact made me stop playing. It fixed a good number of things but I can't stand the AI using ICS, and the tech is going waaaay too fast (AI with rifleman in 900ad). Before the patch I was happily playing Civ5 despite its flaws.

If the patch was a result of Firaxis listening to the fans, then I think they need a visit at the otolaryngologyst, stat. One of the main complaint people had with Civ V, was crashing. And what does the patch do? Even more people have crashes, after it.

 

[lietkynes]

If the patch was a result of Firaxis listening to the fans, then I think they need a visit at the otolaryngologyst, stat. One of the main complaint people had with Civ V, was crashing. And what does the patch do? Even more people have crashes, after it.

Well I played 200+ hours and I didn't have a single crash, so I can't comment on that. I know that every game will have a percentage of the players who crash or have problems, what is relevant is how large that percentage is.

 

[blind biker]

Well I played 200+ hours and I didn't have a single crash, so I can't comment on that. I know that every game will have a percentage of the players who crash or have problems, what is relevant is how large that percentage is.

How about 57%? Is that large enough?



Tell us honestly, what is the largest map you played? Did you play it till the end?

 

[Dralix]

If the patch was a result of Firaxis listening to the fans, then I think they need a visit at the otolaryngologyst, stat. One of the main complaint people had with Civ V, was crashing. And what does the patch do? Even more people have crashes, after it.

You shouldn't read so much from polls posted on internet forums

 

[blind biker]

You shouldn't read so much from polls posted on internet forums

More handwaving from Civ V fans. Look, your dear game is a turd, try to cope with that.

 

[LDiCesare]

I've got the Gold ed. No replay here

Can you check that ToT really does have replay? I searched the web, but no word to confirm or deny it.

I hate you. I reinstalled it on my machine to make sure. I had already gone back to Civ IV, you do realise that? Now, now... Argh...
I could swear it did show a replay. Unfortunately, it doesn't work on my current computer (the replay - the game runs fine except that). I blame DirectX 6. I just got 2 black windows at the end of the game.