What should the balence be?

[lost_civantares]

I know it kind of has been touched on in other threads, but how far should Firaxis push a real life model against a more playable model of rules? If Firaxis gets too much into a real life super accurate model it could turn away possible new civ people, but if they dumb down civ4 they risk lousing us, the civ fanatics. Most of us want a super accurate model, but this can really increase the micromanagement, something that they have stated they they are trying to reduce (like taking out the need for the city screen).

Thoughts?

 

[warpstorm]

There are a lot more causal players than hardcore. You do the math.

 

[Deep_Blue]

I prefer a flexible game for different types of players , by offering different levels of micromanagement. I would like to see the following levels:
1. extra micromanagement.
2. normal micromanagement.
3. little micromanagement.
4. NO micromanagement.

option 1 offers full game features for expert players , 2 and 3 offeres less micromanagement for regular players (who want less tedious games), and 4 is for players who like simplicity (or for anyone who just want to relax in the game ).
This can be chosen directly before starting a new game , or can be integrated with difficulty levels.

I wish something like this is implemented because people like me who like micromanagement will be disappointed if the game offeres little micromanagement.

 

[brianshapiro]

I don't agree with the assumption that dumbing down the game will encourage new players or casual players to buy it.

deep_blue, you just need the ability to automate things to have different levels of micromanagment

 

[mastertyguy]

You just need to do no micromanagement to get no micromanagement!

 

[Sullla]

The original post was actually asking two different questions at the same time, as I understand it. They would be:

1) Should the emphasis be on making a game as realistic as possible, or on game balancing?
2) Should the game cater to hardcore fans or casual players?

These are actually two separate questions, and probably shouldn't get jumbled together. Regarding #1, when realism and game balancing come into conflict, I'd prefer to have a well-designed game over a realistic one at every turn. Civilization is a strategy game that uses history as a setting to provide the characters, scenery, etc. There's actually very little "realistic" about the Civ games when you think about it.

The second question is more difficult to answer. Ideally, the goal would be to design a game that can be easily picked up by newcomers but still retains depth and replayability for serious players. Since the previous games in the Civilization series have generally been very good in this regard, my hope for Civ4 is that we'll get a deep strategy game which also brings in lots of new fans at the same time. We'll find out in a couple months.

 

[Deep_Blue]

I don't agree with the assumption that dumbing down the game will encourage new players or casual players to buy it.

deep_blue, you just need the ability to automate things to have different levels of micromanagment

That exactly how my suggestion can be implemented: automated every thing for no micromanagement Vs every thing is manual for full micromanagement. to make this easier for regular players just put an option in the new game menu (like accelerated production option you can have several options for micromanagement). or make these options integrated into difficulty levels.

Expert players cannot rely on automated things (because the AI is dump in micromanagement) so they can simply chose full micromanagement from the new game menu.

 

[Vael]

Master of Orion 3 is an example of a rather complicated game which relied heavily on automation AI to make things manageable for the player. Well, it didn't sell so well and most people are of the opinion that it wasn't a very fun game. Take that as you will...

 

[warpstorm]

Vael brings up a good point. Is your game system broken if you need to use automation to be able to play it, but need to turn it off if you want to win? I think there has to be a better paradigm.

 

[lost_civantares]

These are actually two separate questions, and probably shouldn't get jumbled together.

Sorry, I guess over the post it slurred into two questions!

Is your game system broken if you need to use automation to be able to play it, but need to turn it off if you want to win? I think there has to be a better paradigm.

I don't think we need a new game system (And it's much to late to make a new one), I think, as advocated above by others, that there should be different levels of micromangement, probably something where you just do as much as you want, ignoreing when you don't want to go too deep into micromangement, and going full blown into micromangement when you really want to get wrapped up in it. And as for problems where the AI goes moron, I'm not a computer progamer and have little knowlage in that area, but couldn't they have two or more (super-expert) people play each other and get the scripts from that?

 

[nicae]

i would enjoy a more realistic setting, but im satisfied with the current state (until civ5)

 

[warpstorm]

I'm not a computer progamer and have little knowlage in that area, but couldn't they have two or more (super-expert) people play each other and get the scripts from that?

Where do you get these super-expert people before the game is finished?

 

[lost_civantares]

Where do you get these super-expert people before the game is finished?

From you of course!

Actually it could be another option (we seem to be coming up with a lot of these! It could get quite crowded on the set up screen! ) for an expansion pack/Civ 5.

 

[Vael]

(Most) People expect features from expansion packs. As strange as it may seem to the people here, a truly 'killer' AI is not high on the priority list for most casual gamers. Implimenting such a system would be quite an effort as well.

 

[warpstorm]

A truly killer AI is not a priority among people here. In a recent poll, ~75% here said they would rather the AI not play to win.

 

[Darwin420]

I prefer a flexible game for different types of players , by offering different levels of micromanagement. I would like to see the following levels:
1. extra micromanagement.
2. normal micromanagement.
3. little micromanagement.
4. NO micromanagement.

option 1 offers full game features for expert players , 2 and 3 offeres less micromanagement for regular players (who want less tedious games), and 4 is for players who like simplicity (or for anyone who just want to relax in the game ).
This can be chosen directly before starting a new game , or can be integrated with difficulty levels.

I wish something like this is implemented because people like me who like micromanagement will be disappointed if the game offeres little micromanagement.

They tried this with MOO3 and FAILED hardcore. Good concept, but I don't think it can really be done.

 

[Vael]

A truly killer AI is not a priority among people here. In a recent poll, ~75% here said they would rather the AI not play to win.

Perhaps then I should rephrase it to "an AI which isn't seen as completely braindead and has to 'cheat' to play competitively." In any case, the point remains.

 

[apatheist]

A truly killer AI is not a priority among people here. In a recent poll, ~75% here said they would rather the AI not play to win.

I would attribute that to people not knowing to look below the surface. If the AI sucked, people would say "Civ4 sucks," without bothering to analyze why. It's one of those things most people people don't identify as an essential ingredient, but notice when it's missing, like making chocolate chip cookies without a dash of salt (bad example, I know).

 

[Volstag]

I know it kind of has been touched on in other threads, but how far should Firaxis push a real life model against a more playable model of rules?

IMO: If they can incorporate "realism" and "real life" w/o sacrificing gameplay, more power to 'em. But, ultimately, an entertaining game is more important to me than a pedantic simulation of "real" history.

-V