Upcoming Patch Info

[Minor Annoyance]

Diversity is a powerful advantage. Literally a million people playing the game puts not only a lot of eyes and ears on it, but also a lot of different and fresh viewpoints on something that's probably been through a lot of revisions. When you're talking about entire worldwide populations, even a 0.01% return or result is still a whole lotta people.

I did the math once and in comparing the likely number of testers to the number of day one players, in the first day a game is out the players do about a month's worth of in-house testing. So a week and a half is about a years worth. They're not going to hold back the game for a year in the age of the internet and self downloading and installing patches.

That doesn't excuse all issues the game has, but I think it's unfair to say that they did nothing when we saw feedback being incorporated (e.g. Adept Blue).

It might have been fun to have everyone rush to trade with Adept Blue, pillage the routes and have to defend the station because if I can't have it no one will! But stations are not supposed to be Orion from MoO.
This is also why stations aren't that interesting at the moment. It easy to judge the value of a straight up yield increase as opposed to another bonus.

 

[Gort]

I did the math once and in comparing the likely number of testers to the number of day one players, in the first day a game is out the players do about a month's worth of in-house testing. So a week and a half is about a years worth. They're not going to hold back the game for a year in the age of the internet and self downloading and installing patches.

Thing is though, they had MadDjinn play it for a bunch of marketing videos, and he noticed that trade routes were overpowered (and the Autoplant quest was garbage), naval units sank each other in a single shot, having explorers be immune to aliens with a low level buff was weird, and having alien units be unable to embark was bad since they could wind up being found by a player in a pod but be unable to leave their tiny island. Some big issues, some smaller issues, but all easily fixable, as the modding scene has shown us.

Presumably he fed this back to Firaxis (or they should at least have been aware of his marketing materials) but nothing was done to fix any of these issues.

All these issues were spotted prior to release by having one experienced Civ player play through the game, but I guess their bug and balance fix process is too glacial for them to be included before release or even a month after it.

 

[Roxlimn]

I've played the game for hundreds of hours and I fundamentally disagree that the TRs are overpowered. They require adjustment, but the outputs don't need a massive nerfhammer. I don't agree that any of those are super-issues; if I was on the design team, I'd have roundly ignored MadDjinn as not knowing what the heck he's talking about. I'd still do that, now.

Calling something "OP" and saying, "We need to roll that back to Civ1 design," is not what I would call useful, actionable feedback.

 

[Gort]

I've played the game for hundreds of hours and I fundamentally disagree that the TRs are overpowered. They require adjustment, but the outputs don't need a massive nerfhammer. I don't agree that any of those are super-issues; if I was on the design team, I'd have roundly ignored MadDjinn as not knowing what the heck he's talking about. I'd still do that, now.

Yeah, MadDjinn's got no idea about Civ, I agree. Who does that guy think he is anyway?

I seem to recall that he was the one who flagged up Hutama's original faction power (+2 trade routes in every city) as being massively overpowered, so I'd say he does know what he's talking about and wasn't ignored. Though I bet if Hutama's power remained unchanged you'd be right here to defend it.

Calling something "OP" and saying, "We need to roll that back to Civ1 design," is not what I would call useful, actionable feedback.

Not sure who you're quoting here, 'cause that quote came straight from your own brain. Maybe you should listen to it.

I'm not opposed to a good implementation of trade routes, but this game really doesn't have one. Even you, the greatest cheerleader of the system, admit that it needs revision and that large parts of it are badly implemented.

 

[Ryoga]

I've played the game for hundreds of hours and I fundamentally disagree that the TRs are overpowered.

You are a minority, the vast majority doesn't like how much influential TR are on the "empire's" various outputs compared to how they were in Civ V.

Change doesn't always means "better" and "better" is a matter of perspective. But if Firaxis is going to adjust the game it's best that it adjusts it in a way to make most people happy.

 

[Xenotitan]

Then perhaps they should have asked MadDjinn and others for the type of feedback they were looking for. I'm sure he could have elaborated if asked.

And overpowered is exactly the right phrase to describe trade routes. Everything else with a similar investment gives much lower returns than trade routes. Trade routes give a much larger return by a factor of around 10, and thus have too much power.

 

[Roxlimn]

The vast majority don't even realize that CivBE's TRs are different from Civ5's TRs. See:every review about the game. I'm confident in asserting that most of the posters complaining about it here are a distinct minority. I am a minority within that minority. I have been before.

Whether or not people are happy about it doesn't change the fact that they're being in need of a fix is a completely subjective call. If Firaxis only ever changed things to suit the vocal feedback around here, Civ4 would have devolved back into roads already, and we would probably still be largely playing Civ2.

Xenotitan:

And overpowered is exactly the right phrase to describe trade routes. Everything else with a similar investment gives much lower returns than trade routes. Trade routes give a much larger return by a factor of around 10, and thus have too much power.

There is one unit that is more powerful than a Trade Convoy. That would be the Colonist. Colonists return far, far more than Trade Convoys would on their own. Compare: OCC with Trade Routes vs Colony without Trade Routes.

 

[Lord Tirian]

And overpowered is exactly the right phrase to describe trade routes. Everything else with a similar investment gives much lower returns than trade routes. Trade routes give a much larger return by a factor of around 10, and thus have too much power.

Yep. Trade routes are not overpowered in the sense that they break the game and make it too easy, they provide a disproportionate return upon investment. When every decision involving trade routes is always "more trade routes", you don't have a mechanic, you have button clicker, so to speak.

The design of the trade route mechanic is sensible, scaling with cities instead of tech rewards expansion and is good. The increased value of internal trade routes mean you open up more play styles, which is also good.

The thing is: none of this needs to come at the expense of... everything else. Nobody wants trade routes not to matter. What people want is that you don't just build trade routes on auto-pilot and then select the highest yield as target city. Cases where starting with a trade depot in a city is not always the optimal choice.

 

[Gort]

Trade routes are not overpowered in the sense that they break the game and make it too easy

They do, though. Humans know that a 60 hammer unit that gives you back 10 hammers and food a turn is a really good investment. AI's think they're playing a game where trade routes aren't the #1 mechanic, so they build dumb (non-trade route) stuff first. They do this because the designers didn't realise they had made trade routes so overpowered. (or you wouldn't have the Autoplant quest not getting fixed or Hutama's +2 trade routes per city only getting at the last minute rather than in the concept stage)

As a result, you get Civ 5 players coming to Beyond Earth and breaking the game over their knee on Apollo difficulty on their first try. I was pretty disappointed that I didn't have to get any deep understanding of any of the mechanics of the game in order to win it easily on the hardest difficulty setting on my first go.

 

[Xenotitan]

Colonists have a higher cost than simply the production cost though. If you don't rush buy they have a growth cost. There is limited land for cities and planting a colonist consumes some of that. There's a permanent increase to virtue and tech costs. In many cases there are diplomacy penalties as well leading to a required investment in military units. There is also an unhealth cost. Cities end up with large returns, which make them easily worth it a lot of the time, but these returns grow over time instead of being as immediate as trade routes.

In playing BE, even though I expand a lot, my cities at 2 pop or more spend a lot of time building things that aren't colonists even though they could build more colonists. But once I get the ultrasonic fence quest, when I can build more trade routes I always build more trade routes.

 

[Haggbart]

The vast majority don't even realize that CivBE's TRs are different from Civ5's TRs. See:every review about the game. I'm confident in asserting that most of the posters complaining about it here are a distinct minority. I am a minority within that minority. I have been before.

Whether or not people are happy about it doesn't change the fact that they're being in need of a fix is a completely subjective call. If Firaxis only ever changed things to suit the vocal feedback around here, Civ4 would have devolved back into roads already, and we would probably still be largely playing Civ2.

Xenotitan:



There is one unit that is more powerful than a Trade Convoy. That would be the Colonist. Colonists return far, far more than Trade Convoys would on their own. Compare: OCC with Trade Routes vs Colony without Trade Routes.

Yes on the same account that them NOT needing a fix is a totally subjective call.

Yet when people claim they are OP (which of course is an entirely subjective opinion) you argue against it as if they are WRONG. Saying that colonists are even more OP is kind of being a dick, because I think you know perfectly well that when people are fine with one concept (settling colonists) is an important part of the game, but not another (assigning TRs), that reflects how much fun they think the different things are relative to the time they have to spend on it.

There is no objective measures to "fun" in a game, only subjective preferances, no matter how well you rationalize your preferances.

 

[Xenotitan]

Saying colonists are more OP isn't being a jerk. Colonists are powerful. What makes them okay and trade routes not okay is an interesting question.

 

[Roxlimn]

Xenotitans:

Colonists have a higher cost than simply the production cost though. If you don't rush buy they have a growth cost. There is limited land for cities and planting a colonist consumes some of that. There's a permanent increase to virtue and tech costs. In many cases there are diplomacy penalties as well leading to a required investment in military units. There is also an unhealth cost. Cities end up with large returns, which make them easily worth it a lot of the time, but these returns grow over time instead of being as immediate as trade routes.

In playing BE, even though I expand a lot, my cities at 2 pop or more spend a lot of time building things that aren't colonists even though they could build more colonists. But once I get the ultrasonic fence quest, when I can build more trade routes I always build more trade routes.

I don't see those as fundamentally different. The limitations for building Colonists are flexible, but those for building Trade Routes are hard. Once you're at the limit, you simply cannot build any more Trade Routes. However, when you're at the point where you can afford to build more Colonists, it's always a good idea to make more. I see those as the same thing.

Haggbart:

Yet when people claim they are OP (which of course is an entirely subjective opinion) you argue against it as if they are WRONG. Saying that colonists are even more OP is kind of being a dick, because I think you know perfectly well that when people are fine with one concept (settling colonists) is an important part of the game, but not another (assigning TRs), that reflects how much fun they think the different things are relative to the time they have to spend on it.

There is no objective measures to "fun" in a game, only subjective preferances, no matter how well you rationalize your preferances.

Liking one thing or another is subjective.

Saying that TRs make yields unimportant is not. This latter statement is just factually wrong because TRs depend on yields to determine their strength.

Saying they're OP because they're more important than they were before in other games is also a mistake. That is clearly a preference call, not a strict power call.

If people who don't like TRs can stand up and just say they don't like innovation, then I'm willing to accept that as a reason to say they're "OP." However, to say that you want something new, but then reject the new things when they actually come over is contradictory.

 

[Haggbart]

Xenotitans:



I don't see those as fundamentally different. The limitations for building Colonists are flexible, but those for building Trade Routes are hard. Once you're at the limit, you simply cannot build any more Trade Routes. However, when you're at the point where you can afford to build more Colonists, it's always a good idea to make more. I see those as the same thing.

Haggbart:



Liking one thing or another is subjective.

Saying that TRs make yields unimportant is not. This latter statement is just factually wrong because TRs depend on yields to determine their strength.

Saying they're OP because they're more important than they were before in other games is also a mistake. That is clearly a preference call, not a strict power call.

If people who don't like TRs can stand up and just say they don't like innovation, then I'm willing to accept that as a reason to say they're "OP." However, to say that you want something new, but then reject the new things when they actually come over is contradictory.

No. It's a preferance call to call them OP on the same terms it's a preference call to say they are not.

Also there's not a contradiction in asking for changes but be disappointed in the changes that were made.

I like most the changes but I think TRs are OP. If you can't accept that without lecturing me how colonists and workers are more OP or claiming I don't understand how they work, you're just being a dick.

 

[Roxlimn]

I'm not lecturing. I'm just pointing out things that are true. How you choose to take that is your business. I mean no offense.

 

[Gamewizard]

I also believe TR yields are NOT OP. It is not like the human player is the only one that gets to use them. If they can get the AI to use them better then the yields are less of an issue. However, the fact that they are so easily protected by the UF quest is a problem. TRs should be high risk/high reward.

 

[Sequitor]

The fact that the game gives us so much economic power purely from trade seems illogical. The production that is traded needs to be diverted from somewhere. At the moment, it seems somewhat magical; energy/science/hammers grow dramatically just by trading. I'm not arguing that trade isn't a good thing in reality, just not THAT good.

 

[Haggbart]

The fact that the game gives us so much economic power purely from trade seems illogical. The production that is traded needs to be diverted from somewhere. At the moment, it seems somewhat magical; energy/science/hammers grow dramatically just by trading. I'm not arguing that trade isn't a good thing in reality, just not THAT good.

TBH if realism was the only factor, I'd say that TRs if anything are underpowered.

 

[m15a]

The fact that the game gives us so much economic power purely from trade seems illogical. The production that is traded needs to be diverted from somewhere. At the moment, it seems somewhat magical; energy/science/hammers grow dramatically just by trading. I'm not arguing that trade isn't a good thing in reality, just not THAT good.

Yeah... But it's all magical. The way production works (i.e., that it's a single resource) in the game doesn't really line up with real life anyway.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Yeah... But it's all magical. The way production works (i.e., that it's a single resource) in the game doesn't really line up with real life anyway.

That's why I'm okay with trade routes conceptually: it doesn't create things out of nothing, it's trading things one city doesn't need for things a city needs - basically, both cities profit in production because spare parts, materials, resources are exchanged. Similarly food - there's excess food that can't always be stored, trade helps both sides.

It's not perfect but considering Civ's general level of abstraction it mostly works... but gets weird if the trade produces more production than the rest of the city combined somehow - the disbelief suspenders are very stretchable but not infinitely far.