Why all combat modifiers are direct values instead of percentages?

[Ryika]

How? With the difference-based system, the +5 bonus is equally strong throughout the whole game.

Do we actually have confirmation that the difference-based damage is based on flat values and not based on the difference in combat compared to their overall combat strength? Because that sounds like a really dumb idea to me.

 

[killmeplease]

I love the idea of a kid who's dumb enough not to know how to calculate % but smart enough to enjoy a game of Civ

i have played civ since ~8 y.o. its several years before the percentages are studied
and it was civ1, i think they're consistently striving to make the game accessible for wider audiences
people start to play video games before they can read nowdays..

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Do we actually have confirmation that the difference-based damage is based on flat values and not based on the difference in combat compared to their overall combat strength? Because that sounds like a really dumb idea to me.

I compared in another thread two situations with the same strength difference but different strengths for battling units. It seemed to predict the same outcome. The post is quoted below:

I wasn't aware of that. To verify it did take a look to the first look videos of France and Aztecs in both the difference in melee strength being 20. In the France video a combat between Garde Imperiale of 75 strength vs a musketman of 55 strength. The aztec video had a Eagle warrior of 45 strength vs a spearman of 25 strength. The expected outcome for both battles were same (I didn't see a difference anyway). So you are right.
I think that most people who aren't aware of this fact had the same thought as me, hence why they didn't like the new approach.

 

[Haggbart]

i have played civ since ~8 y.o. its several years before the percentages are studied
and it was civ1, i think they're consistently striving to make the game accessible for wider audiences
people start to play video games before they can read nowdays..

Sure, I checked the national tests here, and % are first mentioned for 10y.o. I started playing Civ around 11-12, but I don't think I really UNDERSTOOD it (also Civ 1).

My point isn't that you can't play civ before you learn %, but there are several different concepts in the game that are difficult to grasp, it's not like that's the big hurdle. cVI is a quite complex game, much more so than vanilla CiV. Also they removed stuff like automated workers (builders), which indicates they're not keen on dumbing down the game.

And if it was true, why are there tons of %-modifiers elsewhere in the game? All the government types have %-based modifiers, and of the social policy cards we know 14 have a %-based modifier.

 

[Acken]

Im not even sure it matters. The percentage of adults that make the maths themselves must be really low... most users just rely on the UI auto calculations anyway.

The rest of the game still has % modifiers anyway so its not like they get rid of all of it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The rest of the game still has % modifiers anyway so its not like they get rid of all of it.

Not sure about "the rest of the game". Most science, culture, faith, gold, food, production and housing sources are flat bonuses as I understand.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I have seen very few % modifiers, some wonders and mainly cards. Buildings seems to give static yields or area yields.

 

[killmeplease]

yeah i think they're leaning towards the more "boardgamey" approach after civ4
where its typically worded like "+1 x per 2" rather than +50%
and its a gradual change not a complete overhauling (its just the Sid's formula of "one-third new, one-third changed, one-third the same")

 

[Acken]

Not sure about "the rest of the game". Most science, culture, faith, gold, food, production and housing sources are flat bonuses as I understand.

Cards, hanging gardens. Thats among the rest of the game 😀

 

[stealth_nsk]

Cards, hanging gardens. Thats among the rest of the game 😀

Yes, some small part of the rest of the game

 

[Plus Ultra]

i think this time they're aiming at kids and kids dont know what the hell % is

i have played civ since ~8 y.o. its several years before the percentages are studied

Are you really arguing that they decided to dispense with percentages because they are comparatively more complex than the other systems in the game, and therefore a relevant limitation to attract new, younger, players?

 

[killmeplease]

Are you really arguing that they decided to dispense with percentages because they are comparatively more complex than the other systems in the game, and therefore a relevant limitation to attract new, younger, players?

i dont think % are too hard for kids, those are just unknown to them.
its like some text in the game was in latin.

 

[SJSerio]

I should have never opened up this thread. Now my head hurts. Too much math. Can't we just doo "rock, paper, scissors, shoot"...

Lol

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Janskey]

Thing is, with CiV at least, you didn't need to do much of anything to see the odds. Select unit. Mouse over attackable unit anywhere in the world, doesn't even have to be reachable, as long as it's attackable, and you'll see your modified str vs theirs and the expected outcome. It's not like we had to actually do any math, or move units around, or anything to figure this out. Just mouse over stuff.

Im not even sure it matters. The percentage of adults that make the maths themselves must be really low... most users just rely on the UI auto calculations anyway.

The rest of the game still has % modifiers anyway so its not like they get rid of all of it.

Would you guys rather have your SAS/SPSS/Survo/R open and alt-tab to input data after every battle? I see those enough IRL, just let me have my escape from reality.

 

[Acken]

Of course not.

 

[SJSerio]

You all know, it is a computer game because the computer takes care of the math. We don't know the final formulas for it yet. Probably not until the game is released and then people dig through the code to pull it out. In the end, all that matters is that the math works and you don't have warriors one-shotting tanks every turn.

In the meantime, I am sure that Firaxis has a crack team of math nerds working it all out as we speak.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Nixalo]

Direct values are easier to explain and balance than percentages. When designers use percentages, they tend to do them in multiples of 5%. This is very limiting. "+7% to" is uglier and easier than "+3 to".

+1 Combat strength for every luxury you own? Not too bad.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Direct values are easier to explain and balance than percentages. When designers use percentages, they tend to do them in multiples of 5%. This is very limiting. "+7% to" is uglier and easier than "+3 to".

I don't see the way to reply to your post without my explanations coming across as patronizing. Since this is not the forum to discuss the usefulness of percentages, I'll just say: let's agree to disagree.

 

[isau]

Here's a way to think of it. Imagine there is a base amount of damage a unit deals, say 50 HP damage (to make it easy). Two units of equal power always do 50/50 damage to each other. This is true whether both units have 10 and 10 strength, or both have 200 and 200 strength.

If there is a difference in the combat strength, the combat values simply slide. There's a set amount of damage a unit with 5, 10, 15, 20, and so on more strength than another deals.

What it means in practice is every Strength bonus you can grab is very very important.

 

[Big J Money]

Arioch answered this thread with the first post.