Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Brau, Dec 26, 2010.
He explains it very well. All he says is true, but I couldn't express it so nicely
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, just to me it sounded that way.
I'd be interested in your ideas for a Civ game. I've put mine out there, but I don't think too many people would like it since I believe it is impossible to represent 6000 years in a single game, and cut it down to 500 years.
Reading fail! I actually said they do occur, just not universally.
Here's an interesting fact for you...... over at 2k forums a few "guaranteed-next-turn-crash-saves" have been posted, and I can pick them up and play them with no crashes (along with some other people) even whilst others confirm the crash.
I don't know whether I should laugh or shake my head in dismay.
Here is your quote:
Highlighted for your convenience.
Here is my response:
Highlighted for your convenience too. Did I mention anything about everybody would encounter the errors? Or that you denied that bugs exist?
Meanwhile, I've seen some of your comments at the 2K forums too, suggesting some most absurd and apologetic reasons for crashes and bugs. Post #18 for convenience sake.
A short preview for everyone else:
Ah.... so now you're calling me a liar? Nice attitude mate.
Moderator Action: @Islet and Dale: cool it, if you cannot engage each other civilly, don't engage each other.
Perhaps it's better to tie every unit type (except warriors and scouts) to a resource, prjbaby adding more of resource types...
I wrote a long post, but got frustrated. I do not have the time to fight about things that are matters of oppinions.
In a few sentences: Instead of revamping completely, which I think is not necessary at all (why should it be? What should ciV be revamped into?), I would rather have the broken and unfinished elements fixed. To me, the game isn't pure trash and I do not agree on the "1upt is bad, it ruined the game"... Come on.
Somehow I doubt this thread will be the "final" analysis.
As it is plainly visible for everybody, islet did not call you a liar.
By the way, are you the same Dale as the Dale from the 2K Games forum?
I didn't read all the posts, but as always there are people who agree and there are people who disagree, but I do think then we can all agree on one thing:
MP is broken!
and since we are living in year 2010, nearly 2011 and we are talking about Civ, that is something that the designers just cannot get away with.
I feel pretty sure that Jon Shafer didn't work on the basic game for civ III. In fact, Soren Johnson did. Shafer did mod civ III, but you'd have to find and download and play his mods to see what they play like. Sulla indicates that he play-tested the Conquests expansion of civ III (he calls him "Trip"), but that's about it. Here's his professional profile.
I disagree a bit with the penalties part of Sullla's article/post.
The argument seems to rest on penalties not being fun. But penalising someone and rewarding them to achieve the same end are functionally identical. The only difference occurs when the penalties are themselves simply badly designed. I can understand that there is some psychological effect in penalising people rather than rewarding them, but if there is no actual difference between the outcomes of the two, then there shouldn't really be a problem.
The other main point made seemed to be in regards to realism. Or at least, not regarding it. Buildings adding costs makes sense. Yes, you could let a player build a completely useless barracks and not suffer the consequences of such a bad decision, but if you design the game such that that barracks really is completely useless, why should the player be exempt from a penalty? Doesn't it assist them in making a good decision if they see there is some penalty associated? A new player may not see the opportunity cost with creating such a building, but will more easily regard the penalty in building maintenance. Having a visible and clear penalty actually assists the player in making decisions, and is entirely realistic.
Good read, though.
I'm looking forward to reading this!
Please do make a point of trying to take and work with the good things/good intentions obvious in Civ5's design.. well, not much, but namely hexes and attempting to limit army size.
I'd suggest some kinda civ3 style army system.. with a gal-civ style logistics rating to limit the maximum number of units into them. Lone units being able to weakly hack away at an army would be fair, but armies should be attractive!
Welcome to the forums, Lheim.
I don't entirely sure that merely identifying an issue without providing an adequate solution is really cause for praise, as much as I'm one for positivity.
Fair enough. Actually, the comment about civ-3 style armies was meant to do that. You produce units, but they funnel into super-units called armies - combined strength, etc. One army, of a reasonable maximum allowable size.. perhaps the best unit/army defends on a tile, and if it loses, everything of yours in the hex is destroyed. No more SoD, hopefully no more CoD.
Whilie I'm at it.. what do you think of some kinda production pool system for terrain improvements? Getting rid, finally, of the worker unit?
Population as a limiting factor to the amount of units you can maintain? Sounds like the mechanic a good old game has, can't remember wich one...
I am also very disappointed in the latest civ and I share most of Sulllas concerns.
I wouldn't blame everything on 1upt (like bad testing, lack of polish and documentation, cutting features like statistics and replays, unacceptably poor AI etc), though. Also, I see why they tried to take the franchise that way, sadly it just seems obvious that it just doesn't work on a global scale. I would have liked it to work but all the needed compromises make the rest of the game less fun.
Civ V can probably be salvaged by for example
- introducing some stacking to allow for larger armies and less clutter
- making some drastic changes to happiness/empire growth issues, like
-a) make money define how much you can afford to expand (like cIV)
-b) make happiness affect culture output and tile yields more than it does now
-c) take out most bonuses that increase by city count
-d) lessen the link between population and science so smaller empires can compete. Maybe reintroduce the slider so science costs gold, but make it slow to change it to make it more realistic?
- fixing combat AI and diplo AI (stacking gives AI some slack)
- a lot of balance work to make city placement more important and all buildings/units usable (modder example should be used more here)
I don't see all this happening without an expansion that Firaxis can get paid for, and after this sorry release I'm very reluctant of giving them any more money. But I probably will if they produce something worth it.
I didn't vote in the poll, but my personal opinion is that I like 1upt and hexes, but I despise the moronic AI that cannot handle it (or many other things). IDK how much more I will play Civ5. I am working on a mod, so that'll probably keep me interested for a while.
Awesome! Love your username while reading this!
Maybe you would even be right?!?
Going back to my cIV-BTS while laughing!
Separate names with a comma.