The Great Backtrack continues

[Dark_Jedi06]

So what you're saying is we should expect less "Why isn't Civ 5 more like Civ 4?" threads and more "Why is Civ 5 becoming like Civ 4?" threads.

Haha.

 

[Morningcalm]

Personally I would love it if Civ 5 "backtracked" in two key respects:
-Research overflow
-Can queue up orders for units properly (I find in CiV units sometimes disobey the 1-2-3-4 orders I set up for them, might be because I clicked near "End Turn" but STILL...and most importantly, I'd like to queue up actions for workers so I don't have to suffer the tedious babysitting the game currently features)

 

[Frasco]

The problem is that there are no "brothers in faith" in Civ5 due to the lack of religion

It's an example... Imagine you get a list for each leader but without numbers.

We dislike you settling near our cities
We appreciate your help in our ongoing war
We are glad to have a PoC
We are annoyed for you breaking your PoS
We are annoyed because you have a PoS against us
...

 

[Threedog43]

What are you even trying to say here? Blind diplomacy and permanent buildings aren't back of the box features. They're things which either the devs were trying out or didn't get around to fixing - we don't know that these things haven't been on their list to fix for 6 months.

If they change something major - like eliminating city-states, removing the 1UPT restriction, removing embarkation (and I don't mean adding a transport in addition, which I could totally see happening) or removing social policies - then a post about backtracking will be justified. These changes don't even remotely qualify. They simply don't speak to the central gameplay of Civ V.

Actually the blind diplomacy was a selling point

 

[Aristos]

I just remembered this pretty recent golden comment from the official Civ 5 forums, where a Civ 5 defender thinks it's silly that people accuse AI being too warlike:

"Can you name 1 real world relationsship between nations , close borders without a war at least every 1-2 years?"

One of the finest representations of the mass market that has been the target of the "new version".....

 

[Aristos]

About the numbers: I never had a problem of immersion with the numbers, but a system like the one in Galactic Civilizations works very well too (and may be the common ground between neglecters and defenders)... basically, in GalCiv2 you have a list of modifiers with a plus or minus sign in front depending on if it is a positive or negative factor in the relation... nothing else, nothing more. No numbers that seem to scare the "math-haters" of the mass market, and no blind diplomacy that forces you to watch every blink of an eye of the silly animations (as if the animations were coded to show body language... yeah sure).

Such a system may work pretty well in this Titanic...

 

[Drawmeus]

Actually the blind diplomacy was a selling point

Less gamey diplomacy was a selling point. Telling you they're annoyed because you broke your pact of cooperation is still less gamey than Civ IV by a long shot... to be honest, it would be extremely difficult for them to make diplomacy in Civ V as poor as it was in Civ IV without reimplementing religion.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So, first we get permanent buildings and yea sayers said this is totally WAD, now you really gotta think about your buildings. Silly ofcourse so they patched that out.

Then we had the blind diplomacy. LOL, there are no numbers when Obama meets other leaders in the real world they laught. Ofcourse, this is a game that require information not socialskills so that is going.

So what is next in the patchpipeline? I´ll bet you 10 bucks it´s SP, at a cost ofcourse.

Any takers ? I´ll give you 2:1 odds!

What do you think they will revert? 1upt seems unlikely but i wouldn´t be surpriced if we got some kind of more citybased happiness sometime in the future...

In real life, diplomacy isn't #s, but it isn't blind. In this game it is not even clear what the AI is angry about most of the time.

And since a game isn't real life, but rather a game, the rules of the game are very important. Indeed, hiding the rules is a civ IV flaw also, but not a good one.

Of course, given the kind of post I'm quoting I really don't expect you to understand what makes a good game. You aren't even focusing your thoughts properly.

 

[DaveGold]

the current diplo system is useful, but you have to pay attention. an easy way to judge enemy ai's is by how much they offer you for any luxury.

Can you think of a more compelling example of the failure of a game interface? You can find the approximate information by wasting your time clicking repeatedly for trades in an obscure and unintuitive manner, so why is it not displayed to you in an intuitive manner on the diplomacy screen?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Less gamey diplomacy was a selling point. Telling you they're annoyed because you broke your pact of cooperation is still less gamey than Civ IV by a long shot... to be honest, it would be extremely difficult for them to make diplomacy in Civ V as poor as it was in Civ IV without reimplementing religion.

Hear, hear.

 

[Sox]

In real life, diplomacy isn't #s, but it isn't blind. In this game it is not even clear what the AI is angry about most of the time.

And since a game isn't real life, but rather a game, the rules of the game are very important. Indeed, hiding the rules is a civ IV flaw also, but not a good one.

Of course, given the kind of post I'm quoting I really don't expect you to understand what makes a good game. You aren't even focusing your thoughts properly.

What is unclear?

I am saying two points the "defenders" (I am thinking of another word but why bother) furiously defended as being part of the new way of playing, the new civ, are not WAD or not even intended.

I go on and claim that SP imho will likely undergo a similar change, backtracking to the civics so to speak.

Then I simply wonder if anybody else thing some things will be change "back" to a more civ 4esque way.

Anything else?

 

[Sox]

I agree, it's useful to have a bit more diplo options, but no reason to go back to +/- system.

@ OP, why aren't you just happy that they're working hard to improve the game?

Totally agree, no need for a +/- system but going to a more or less blind dimplomacy is just overkill, unfortunetly not uncommon imho in Civ V.

And I am happy, don´t get me wrong, I just wish they didn´t need to work so hard

 

[elthrasher]

I think the game needs more transparency in diplomacy. Last night I was playing and met a distant civ that hated me instantly. I wasn't at war with anyone, hadn't killed anyone. I have no clue what the problem was. My only guesses are that the leader hated me because I was more advanced or she hated me because I had just allied a city-state she had her eye on (but before I met her). The latter seems reasonably likely I guess.

I don't really need a point system where I can go "well Bismarck is at pleased so I know he won't attack" but this totally opaque system where I can't tell what effect my actions will have is just annoying. I pretty much ignore any real diplomacy in this game and just play it as a war game. It seems like I'm not the only one.

So if this is a backtrack, that's great. Let's backtrack. I'm totally onboard with getting some kind of tech overflow bonus so it's not a total waste to go after a 160 beaker tech when the best I can do is 150 bpt. If we could backtrack out my war allies hating my guts for being their war ally, that would be cool too.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

What is unclear?

I am saying two points the "defenders" (I am thinking of another word but why bother) furiously defended as being part of the new way of playing, the new civ, are not WAD or not even intended.

I go on and claim that SP imho will likely undergo a similar change, backtracking to the civics so to speak.

Then I simply wonder if anybody else thing some things will be change "back" to a more civ 4esque way.

Anything else?

I still don't see how changes to diplomacy constitutes "backtracking" in any way. I don't see anywhere that patch notes say you're going to see modifers and numbers that signify a civ's attitude. That's what I remember them hyping pre-release, and that's what I remember the "defenders" defending. I see no conflict between not liking that old system and thinking the new one can be made better, as you seem to be implying.

The game telling me that France likes me because I am selling him furs, and the game telling me that France likes me 7.059 much, are two different things IMO.

 

[lordsurya08]

How do you expect me to give your viewpoints any respect considering how poorly written your post was? I can't understand a single word you said. Your post clearly shows that you spent 15 seconds writing it, which is the same time that I'd usually have spent on a thread like yours.

 

[Sox]

I still don't see how changes to diplomacy constitutes "backtracking" in any way. I don't see anywhere that patch notes say you're going to see modifers and numbers that signify a civ's attitude. That's what I remember them hyping pre-release, and that's what I remember the "defenders" defending. I see no conflict between not liking that old system and thinking the new one can be made better, as you seem to be implying.

The game telling me that France likes me because I am selling him furs, and the game telling me that France likes me 7.059 much, are two different things IMO.

How is it not backtracking though? The whole point of the new diplomacy was to be "mysterious" and not just +9 or -3. So what they gave us was blind diplomacy. That is the point.

Now they are changing it to be more like the old one. I´m not saying i wouldn´t want a more flexible diplomacy, not so cookiecutter, I´m just stateing the facts.

 

[Sox]

How do you expect me to give your viewpoints any respect considering how poorly written your post was? I can't understand a single word you said. Your post clearly shows that you spent 15 seconds writing it, which is the same time that I'd usually have spent on a thread like yours.

Well thanks for dropping by then

No but honestly, I didn´t spend that much time as I were on my way to work and apparently it was unclear so i clarified it in another post as you can see above.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

To be honest, I don't think transparency would be necessary if diplomacy overall worked better.

But as it is right now, the diplomacy can be difficult to use. It's easy to stay peaceful with the AI, in my opinion, if you just pay attention and use common sense, but it is difficult to do stuff, and for example, to stay peaceful while also getting some sort of benefit from the relationship. If you never ask your friends for anything, then you give them free stuff, of course they'll be your friends. )


I was glad to see the Civ4-style "+1 this, -2 that" stuff gone, but for Civ 5, at least seeing the reasons would give us a better clue of how the AI is actually working, since there has been lots of bugs stemming from Open Borders INCREASING aggression, to other stuff. And really, I have been great friends and allies with some civs, but never gotten them to agree to anything I've propose in some games. Sometimes, long time allies with PoCooperation and who I've gone to war with wouldn't even trade with me unless I overpaid.

So while I would prefer blind diplomacy that works better and has more ways to be influenced, I'll accept openly displayed diplomacy for the sake of being able to use it better.

 

[elthrasher]

To be honest, I don't think transparency would be necessary if diplomacy overall worked better.

But as it is right now, the diplomacy can be difficult to use. It's easy to stay peaceful with the AI, in my opinion, if you just pay attention and use common sense, but it is difficult to do stuff, and for example, to stay peaceful while also getting some sort of benefit from the relationship. If you never ask your friends for anything, then you give them free stuff, of course they'll be your friends. )

That works sometimes, but not all the time. I just wrote about that here.

So you've got civs immediately going to hostile upon meeting you.

Civs proposing a war and then getting mad at you for doing exactly what you were asked to do.

Civs valuing open borders exactly the same (50g generally) no matter how big your empire is, no matter how far away it is. On deity you can often sell open borders before your first border pop on your first city. Okay, not really a transparency issue, but still kinda dumb.

No clear sense of how to improve relations with a civ that doesn't like you.

No way to end a war that has dragged on for centuries other than cities (and generally a lot of them) changing hands.

Sometimes it seems like there's little rhyme or reason to the way the AI acts, but without transparency, we can't really be sure. If I can't have transparency, then I'd like the above fixed.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

As I said, I would like blind diplomacy that works, if I had a choice.

But I'm willing to accept openly-visible diplomacy that works, rather than blind diplomacy that doesn't. So I'm agreeing with you.