Why put out an unfinished game?

[THE_COW_IS_OK]

A balance problem is a balance problem and a design problem is a design problem. It doesn't get more simple than that. The balance problem does not affect the game's design, and even if it did, the problem remain at the point where it affected the design - not the balance problem itself.

Shall we elaborate further?

Am not the one being anal about the wordings here.
I still think CS maritime is a flaw, a design flow, and a balance flow and whatever flow. And you don't need to elaborate further unless you r still looking to score cheap points that leads to nowhere.

 

[Roxlimn]

THE COW IS OK:

The point is not cheap. It is the complaint that is cheap if it doesn't know what it means. It just says that the complainer is complaining about something he doesn't really understand. At that point, the complainer really should just keep his fingers off the keyboard, if only to avoid looking foolish.

Flow is not flaw. Those are different words. The difference is profound, not semantic. Design flaws must be fixed with design fixes, whereas balance flaws must be fixed with balance tweaks. To do a design overhaul for a balance problem would be a terrible way to go.

I understand that you want to express something and are in want of a graceful way out. Can we agree that the Maritime CSs currently do not work entirely as intended?

 

[THE_COW_IS_OK]

THE COW IS OK:

The point is not cheap. It is the complaint that is cheap if it doesn't know what it means. It just says that the complainer is complaining about something he doesn't really understand. At that point, the complainer really should just keep his fingers off the keyboard, if only to avoid looking foolish.

Flow is not flaw. Those are different words. The difference is profound, not semantic. Design flaws must be fixed with design fixes, whereas balance flaws must be fixed with balance tweaks. To do a design overhaul for a balance problem would be a terrible way to go.

I understand that you want to express something and are in want of a graceful way out. Can we agree that the Maritime CSs currently do not work entirely as intended?

Thanks for even correcting my grammar. Obviously your the one who can't keep his finger off the keyboard.
Now you think there is a clear line between balance F L A W and design F L A W and I say there is not. Suppose every tech in Civ 5 cost 1 beaker and you get to industrial age in 4 turns. Would this be a balance flow or a design flow?

Good you want to find common ground. Yes the maritimes are not working as they intend and yes they introduce a game breaking luck factor.

 

[Roxlimn]

THE COW IS OK:

If the values were meant to be that way and perform such that the game is over in 6 turns - well, that would just be a radically different game, now, wouldn't it? We can't say whether or not it was a design or balance flaw without context.

Again, flow is not flaw. How the design flows is one thing, and I'm sure what sense "balance flow" even means. Do you mean flaw, or flow? As I said, the difference is not semantic, and it's not grammatical either. If you have problems with spelling, you could always look up an online dictionary. It is important to have communication right.

 

[THE_COW_IS_OK]

Roxlim, would replacing all my "flow" with "flaw" make the subject mute? Cause I seriously have no intent going further with this.

 

[Roxlimn]

It would clarify the meaning, certainly. But it would not render the counter ineffective, since I was operating under the assumption that you misspelled.

By the way, you also misspelled "moot," I believe. You need a better translating program, I perceive.

 

[THE_COW_IS_OK]

It would clarify the meaning, certainly. But it would not render the counter ineffective, since I was operating under the assumption that you misspelled.

By the way, you also misspelled "moot," I believe. You need a better translating program, I perceive.

Ha, I have it right:
"mute" (like in silence the argument). Its definitely not a "moot"

I think the maritime CS issue is a design flaw for the same reason the beaker example I gave is a design flaw. Even if both can be fixed by only replacing values. they do have tremendous effect on gameplay. The tech case makes research and pre industrial area useless. The Maritimes case renders city placement, city management, food bonus, .... useless. Hence, I attribute both as "design FLAW".

 

[Roxlimn]

THE COW IS OK:

I think you're mistaken. ICS can work even without Maritime States, and it is only that strategy that makes all those points useless. Maritimes only exacerbate the tendency. In this case, since the ICS tendency is multifactorial, we cannot point to Maritimes as the only or even the proximate problem, if there is a problem, and it's not clear that the flaw is one of design.

I think you are incorrectly perceiving an error that could be corrected by changing values as being in terms of design necessarily. As I said, context matters. Let's get down to brass tacks here. What do you mean by "design" anyway? It seems as if anything that could be wrong with a game is a design flaw by your accounting, which is probably why you can't understand the significance of the difference.

Ha, I have it right:
"mute" (like in silence the argument). Its definitely not a "moot"

I suppose that might make sense. The idiom is quite unusual, however.

 

[THE_COW_IS_OK]

THE COW IS OK:

I think you're mistaken. ICS can work even without Maritime States, and it is only that strategy that makes all those points useless. Maritimes only exacerbate the tendency. In this case, since the ICS tendency is multifactorial, we cannot point to Maritimes as the only or even the proximate problem, if there is a problem, and it's not clear that the flaw is one of design.

Many factors contributes to ICS and I did not say maritimes was the only one so you won't find an argument from me here.

I think you are incorrectly perceiving an error that could be corrected by changing values as being in terms of design necessarily. As I said, context matters. Let's get down to brass tacks here. What do you mean by "design" anyway? It seems as if anything that could be wrong with a game is a design flaw by your accounting, which is probably why you can't understand the significance of the difference.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say any problem is a design problem.
I clearly said CS maritimes renders a lot of game features almost useless and hence consider them a design flaw( cause there would be no point designing those features in the first place).
Between, this is not meant to tease you but IMHO:
1)balancing the game should be part of the design phase
2)avoid giving luck out of propotion effect should also be the goal in a strategy game.
But thats personal opinion.

 

[Roxlimn]

THE COW IS OK:

Many factors contributes to ICS and I did not say maritimes was the only one so you won't find an argument from me here.

Most of the things that make Civ a Civ game contributes to ICS. This is why it's present in every game that's of that design.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say any problem is a design problem.
I clearly said CS maritimes renders a lot of game features almost useless and hence consider them a design flaw( cause there would be no point designing those features in the first place).

Your reasoning is unsound. The only thing that renders those game features useless in the context of Maritimes is ICS. In the context of most other strategies, Maritimes don't even factor. In fact, they aren't even that central of a factor in ICS, as I said, which indicates that they aren't rendering the game features useless - it's ICS that's doing it, not Maritimes, and ICS, as mentioned, is because Civ V is a Civ game.

If you can logically explain why Maritimes renders game features useless in a game that focuses on just three cities, let's hear it.

Too, having a dominant strategy doesn't necessarily follow from a design flaw. One does not lead to the other. Just because poodles are dogs doesn't mean that all dogs are poodles. Finally, you cannot perceive the difference between a balance problem and a design problem, then it follows that all gameplay problems would be perceived as the same thing, as you have done.

 

[Abegweit]

Most of the things that make Civ a Civ game contributes to ICS. This is why it's present in every game that's of that design.

Nonsense. ICS is defined as spamming endless numbers of small cities everywhere. It was certainly not a viable strategy in Civ4. If you tried it, you would crash your economy hard and never recover. It wasn't viable in Civ3 either, where the optimal strategy was to build a core of about 20 cities of size 10-12. In Vanilla, although they didn't cost you, cities outside your core were largely useless.

In CivII and CivV, it is possible to win with nothing but small cities. It might be useful to mix in a couple of larger ones in both games (an SSC in CivII, a wonder-whoring capital in CivV) but it is not necessary.

Your reasoning is unsound. The only thing that renders those game features useless in the context of Maritimes is ICS. In the context of most other strategies, Maritimes don't even factor.

More nonsense. Maritimes are overpowered even in small empires. The main difference is the set of Social Policies you use. In a small empire, you'll want Patronage to cut down the cost.

In fact, they aren't even that central of a factor in ICS, as I said, which indicates that they aren't rendering the game features useless - it's ICS that's doing it, not Maritimes, and ICS, as mentioned, is because Civ V is a Civ game.

Your first clause. at least, is accurate. Or more accurately, ICS is possible without Maritimes but it sure is a helluva lot more powerful with them.

 

[lschnarch]

lschnarch:

If you think 1UPT is simple, feel free to write a concept-level algorithm that will allow the AI to perform better than it already does. It's not hard to do for stacks, since the army will only ever occupy one tile, and you only have to program the AI to path to tiles with the best defensive value.

Now, do the same for 1UPT.

As you correctly point out, pathfinding is simple because "you only have to program the AI to path to tiles with the best defensive value".
Now, there is no difference in this task based on the object for which you do it. If pathfinding is simple for a stack, then it is simple for a unit too.

You're really struggling with basic thought processes here.

In a competition from same-start, maritime is going to be almost irrelevant to who wins - it's so strong that everyone will buy it out, meaning the winners would be decided by something else.

Yes, maritime is imbalanced, but that doesn't mean you get to use garbage/pretend arguments.

So, if everyone is going to bribe the maritime CS, it seems to be pretty obvious that the one who meets them first (and maybe even more than the opponent) will get a significant advantage, no?
His cities will grow faster, thus making him research faster, thus getting access to wonders/stronger units/different units faster.

The design flaw is to have CS which support any number of cities located anywhere on the planet with food.
The balance flaw is that limiting the food provided would render them obsolete, as there wouldn't be any point to make friends/allies with them.

 

[THE_COW_IS_OK]

THE COW IS OK:



Most of the things that make Civ a Civ game contributes to ICS. This is why it's present in every game that's of that design.



Your reasoning is unsound. The only thing that renders those game features useless in the context of Maritimes is ICS. In the context of most other strategies, Maritimes don't even factor. In fact, they aren't even that central of a factor in ICS, as I said, which indicates that they aren't rendering the game features useless - it's ICS that's doing it, not Maritimes, and ICS, as mentioned, is because Civ V is a Civ game.

If you can logically explain why Maritimes renders game features useless in a game that focuses on just three cities, let's hear it.

Too, having a dominant strategy doesn't necessarily follow from a design flaw. One does not lead to the other. Just because poodles are dogs doesn't mean that all dogs are poodles. Finally, you cannot perceive the difference between a balance problem and a design problem, then it follows that all gameplay problems would be perceived as the same thing, as you have done.

How many games have you played with 3 cities maxed?
You are not extrapolating on a special case are you? If Maritimes bonus become fair during those rare occasion does this means we should ignore the negative effect in most other cases?

your poodles comparision is funny since I said maritimes is a design flow and you jumped on me arguing that I think all problems are design caused.

As for your design/balance argument. Here is some food for thought:

if the libray costs 5000 hammer. I will tell you there is a balance problem and tone down the hammer cost. If all medieval buildings cost 5000 hammer, I would say this is a design decision and issue since the designers obviously doesn't want us to build "spam" in all our cities. Now please extrapolate from that instead of your 3 cities case. To me, maritimes in their current state were a bad design decision and I would have been much happier if they didn't include "food bonus" or "irrigation improvement" in Civ5 when Maritimes are available. Part of the fun in Civ games is making informed decisions and maritimes kills a lot of alternative choices. Heck, I can't even remember the last time I specialized a food heavy city for specialist production.

I wonder how long you will keep arguing this "balance flaw and NOT a design flaw" opinion. IF you don't agree, just ignore it cause this is my last post on this subject.

 

[Roxlimn]

lschnarch:

Such a simple algorithm for AI in Civ V would be a greater failure than what the AI currently is. As the AI appears not to be able to judge where it will end up after a turn, or where your units are unless it has vision, such an algorithm as yours would not only serve up the Ranged units just as they do now - it would also not allow the AI to bypass units that don't matter, while also tying up its units in rough terrain when it would stupid to do so.

No, such an algorithm works for stacks, but not for 1UPT. Indeed, given how you thought this might work, I can't imagine how you would envision such an AI to perform well at all.

 

[Jharii]

I suppose that might make sense. The idiom is quite unusual, however.

It's actually quite commonly used.

 

[Roxlimn]

Jharii:

Truly? I've heard of subjects and arguments being "moot" but "mute?" As in, silent? I'm not sure that's such a common idiom.

 

[Jharii]

Jharii:

Truly? I've heard of subjects and arguments being "moot" but "mute?" As in, silent? I'm not sure that's such a common idiom.

"Moot" yes. That is what I thought I was pointing out. You guys going back and forth, my head is spinning. LOL

Sorry for inflicting my confusion on you. Nothing to see here.