KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Because Non-spillover promotes micromanagement...
Say every time you bought a Social Policy, your Culture in the pot was set to 0?
That's basically what is happening with research.
Upcoming patch info!
- Thread starter Vlade Divac
- Start date
Because Non-spillover promotes micromanagement...
Say every time you bought a Social Policy, your Culture in the pot was set to 0?
That's basically what is happening with research.
And yet we have no problems moving through the tech tree, in some cases, rapidly?
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Its not a Balance issue. Its a micromanagement issue.
Let me give a better example, say you set a citizen to work a tile and they collected from that tile for 10 turns, and then dumped their stuff in the city, and you had to assign them to a tile again.
Its micromanagement.
Research should have overflow.... regardless of the tech rate.
If the tech rate is too fast, then double the cost of the techs...or make techs cost 30% more for every city you have like social policies. (well 10% might be better)
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Something else can be adjusted then, rather than letting spillover get eliminated.
I didn't see it in the list but will game now remember your last game setup like the previous versions of Civ? It's annoying having to change the difficulty level, map settings, victory conditions every single time.
Yeah, this. Especially since the freaking thing crashes something like 50% of the time that you go into the advanced settings menu.
At least.
Those new fixes are all pretty good. Puppets generating gold and not screwing with your economy by building resource gulping or maintenance heavy buildings will reduce razing.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. Tech costs are balanced against production costs for units and buildings. If you increase the cost of techs then you've effectively made units cheaper, since you now have more turns to make them. We've already got battle lines clogged with units in the late game, so increasing tech times will just make that even worse.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Buildings are produced on a per city basis.
If you have 2 x as many cities as another empire, and your cities are the same size, your empire will research techs 2x as fast, but build buildings at the same rate (it will still take 10 turns to finish the libraries, but Writing will only take 5 turns for you 10 for them)
You don't have more time to build units... you have LESS time that you are Able to build anything else.
But since you don't necessarily Have to build every building in every city, even if you have the tech for it, slower tech would allow smaller empires to compete in quality of units if not quantity
Finally, Production for units/buildings is not the only factor. If hammers are too cheap then increase the maintenance costs of units. Double unit Maintenance will limit unit spam easily.
Making Tech costs empire size dependent, like building costs, social policy costs will allow a Bigger v. Better Trade off..... Bigger empires would have more units, cities, etc. Smaller empires would have better units, cities. (more social policies, higher pop cities, more buildings in cities, higher tech)
DalekDavros
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 303
If the number of turns in the game is kept constant and the "number of turns" it takes to train a unit is kept constant, you'll have the same number of units late game either way. They may be different units, but the numbers will be the same.
Anyway, it is that simple. Currently, tech progress is limited by losing overflow. If you add in overflow but increase tech costs by the average amount of overflow, then tech progress continues at the same pace for the non-micromanager.
The point of adding overflow is not to make tech progress either slower or faster (those are separate issues and since I've seen arguments for both they're probably issues best left to mods) but to make it so you don't get penalized for researching techs in an order with lots of overflow. As it is, you have to make sure you research the cheaper techs early lest they mean wasting a lot of overflow later on and you have to multiply science per turn by turns to make sure you don't research a tech that's going to waste a turn on one or two extra beakers. With overflow, you research what you want because you want it. Without overflow, you either have to do a stupid spreadsheet exercise every few turns or cope with a ton of wasted resources.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Adam7Eight
Emperor
Uh oh
Just wait until Friday comes and goes... and the patch isn't out.
The proverbial crap is going to hit the fan.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
They should have waited 2 or 3 months with the release, and get all the features in. People have been waiting 5 years, I really don't see why Firaxis/2K can't wait for a finished product. I said I wouldn't buy Civ5 back when they screwed up the civ4 release, but I thought it would be different this time with the frequent news updates, and a fairly short time from announcement of the game to the release. But they really bent us customers over on this one. Civilization IS Firaxis - screwing up this one will be the end mr. Meier. They can't fool me for the 3rd time at least.
I'm not in favour of research spillover or not spilling over either way.
But the tech pace isn't an issue. Simplest solution without borking the current model is to grease the wheels more, and the biggest grease in this game is gold.
Spillover research s/b converted to gold at a 50% exchange rate. Without the slider for an alternative conversion of beakers to gold, it shouldn't be an issue of which is more efficient.
But the tech pace isn't an issue. Simplest solution without borking the current model is to grease the wheels more, and the biggest grease in this game is gold.
Spillover research s/b converted to gold at a 50% exchange rate. Without the slider for an alternative conversion of beakers to gold, it shouldn't be an issue of which is more efficient.
2K Games' fiscal year is ending soon. They needed the $$$ so they released a game that wasn't ready to be released.
I also think JS did a piss poor job as well but the majority of the blame lies with 2K Games unfortunately.
This debacle does serious damage to the franchise.
eviltypeguy
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 234
Oh, I totally agree. There really is no way to verify how ciV is selling. I merely posted the only information that was available. I never said it was reliable.
In fact, 2K Games could throw out any old number and who can really check up on it? It could give a false impression on how well the game is doing.
Maybe I should buy some shares in 2K Games. It might be interesting to see their shareholder reports.
Except, as a publicly traded company, they legally can't falsify the numbers if they did release them.
The real sign of success will be whether they continue to patch the game and announce an expansion 6 months or so from now, or more DLC. If they do that, then it means they had enough sales for it to be worthwhile to continue investing in.
eviltypeguy
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 234
Öjevind Lång;9777075 said:
Be that as it may, they are our fellow human beings and should have been treated better.
generalwar
Philosopher
Agreed. I hope so that we will see that balance. Small modern empires vs big and less advanced. it looks fun and interesting. That reminds me on Persia which was often small and top tech leader
.EmpireOfCats
Death to Giant Robots
And this is where Steam can help or hurt us: Firaxis (or rather their masters at 2K) know exactly how many people are playing Civ V. If those numbers nose-dive after the first few patches, they will have little reason to invest more money, and will just leave the game as it is. Scary thought.
