Why quests are bad

[KrikkitTwo]

Disagree. Making an informed decision requires only access to some amount of information, no matter how little. When you choose the position for your first city, you haven't seen the entire map yet - certainly you're not just clicking a tile at random because you don't have access to all information? It's just that the more information you have, the better of a decision you can make. And in this case, the hidden information can be known in advance by having played the game before or consulting an external source, which makes it a poor, unfair form of hidden information that does not add anything to the game beyond the first playthrough.

I think the key issue is you should NOT need paper and pencil to play the game.

When I start a civ game I don't know the whole map.

However, when I uncover the map, I can still see it throughout that entire game.

When I start a new game, the map is covered again
because it is a NEW MAP

If every game had different quest options, then it would be fine to hide them until they were uncovered.

This is why units disappear in the fog of war but terrain doesn't.
The units on a tile can change, the terrain can't (especially in civV engine)

Having the quests hidden is like having no fog of war but only totally visible tiles and totally black tiles. (if it is not visible to one of your units right now, it is black)

I'd even be OK if it wasn't in the tooltips but Was in the civiliopedia

 

[stealth_nsk]

The problem is hidden quest info, not quests themselves. The easiest answer is to just mod the quest info to Civilopedia. If such mod doesn't exist yet (I can't check right now), I believe it will be there quite soon. Surely, option from developers will be better, but this should work too.

Quests themselves are great, IMHO:
- Easy learning curve.
- Ability to customize game by building quests.
- A lot of additional things to spice the game up.

 

[Lucius_]

I agree, hidden quest info is a problem. It was fun at first but becomes less fun after a couple games wondering what am I missing by not getting x building?

Additionally, some things are just crucial to know. If playing an Atlantean map, observatories are a nice little science building to build at some point. Once you know you can get +2 naval movement from them, they become a much higher priority in that situation.

 

[RandyG]

I don’t think quest are bad, but I agree that if you are always going to get the same two options for building quests, then those options should not be hidden. A toggle between hidden and not hidden is a good solution for those who want the information hidden.

I don’t want quests to be balanced building to building, but the two options you are given for a particular building should be balanced wrt each other. IMO building quest that are in “key” techs should be less significant (e.g. +1 production or +1 energy options) compared to techs that are not which should have buildings that give more substantial options (e.g. free tech or +% science). This makes the choice between what tech to research next a bit more of a choice. Building quests should make me want to reprioritize my tech plan under certain circumstances, but they should not be so over powered that I want to beeline for a particular building quest every game no matter what (i.e. autoplant quest). Lastly on balance, given how out of whack trade routes are, it is difficult to parse balance in most other aspects of the game, and I think this is especially true for building quests.

On meaningful choices (and this goes back to the trade route problem), at the moment when deciding between +1 energy or any other option, the “any other option” is always the correct choice. However, if trade routes get scaled back and building and unit maintenance increases, then the +1 energy or +1 something else decision becomes meaningful, particularly in the early game. The same can be said for +health or + something else once the health system gets ironed out.

I also don’t like the random wait to get my building quest, but I don’t think it should be instant either. Perhaps each building could generate, say 5 XP, towards its’ building quest, and then the quest could pop once you reached 100 XP. Have two of the same building and get the quest twice as fast. You could even make a wonder or virtue which increased building XP. Of course you could also make a wonder or virtue which increase probability of getting a building quest in the current implementation.

 

[Soffacet]

Disagree. Making an informed decision requires only access to some amount of information, no matter how little. When you choose the position for your first city, you haven't seen the entire map yet - certainly you're not just clicking a tile at random because you don't have access to all information? It's just that the more information you have, the better of a decision you can make. And in this case, the hidden information can be known in advance by having played the game before or consulting an external source, which makes it a poor, unfair form of hidden information that does not add anything to the game beyond the first playthrough.

No. In the case of landing your first city, much of the map is hidden from the player by a well-known and expected mechanic - the fog of war. I didn't think it would necessary to stipulate that the UI should display all information provided that there is not another game mechanic that specifically prevents that.

There is no game mechanic similar to the fog of war that governs a tech tree. The tech tree actually is supposed to be a realm of perfect information. There is no legitimate reason to hide the true consequences of research and construction decisions. When the Institute tooltip claims that it provides just specialist slots, that is hiding the fact that it also provides 5% science or a free technology. Knowing that would make a huge difference in the priority that an unknowing player would assign to researching Bionics and building an Institute.

 

[TLHeart]

Yes. CIV5 was about the decision *when* to get a tech. BE is about the decision *if* and *when* you want to get a tech. But only to a certain degree.

BECAUSE: The game still forces you to research all the Affinity techs (if you want to win an affinity victory) - even if you don't want or need them. Heck, in the late game I just SHIFT click on everything that has the right affinity icon on it, I don't even care what the tech does apart from Affinity XP.

Or to look at it in another way: In CIV:BE the tech dogma is reversed: The basic premise is to NOT research a tech, to research as few techs as possible and then to find a reason why you should do so.

I understand why you like that. What I am saying is that it I find it questionable from a design/balance standpoint in regards to affinities. Best examples: Ballistic Lev or Human Idealism. Nobody will EVER get these two techs since they just slow down your victory. They might as well be removed from the game.

edit: To get back to topic, the quest system is interconnected to that whole issue because the hidden benefits skew the actual value of tech on the board. Most noteworthy the Institute, which is basicially a cheap Oxford University - but the game doesn't tell you (and yes, exploring is fun for the first few games, but I don't want to have to *remember* every bonus or use spreadsheets to look them up while playing). A simple toggle "show quest reward" option would make everyone happy.

that is assuming that everyone plays for fastest win times...

not everyone plays the game for that reason.

 

[Chaos Blade]

personally I liked the idea of having random options for the building quests, that way they end up being situational instead of auto choices.

and would still be fresh even after several gameplays. as it stands, I already know what options I'll choose and why before I plop down my first city.

 

[Gorsky]

I think the building quests should be more integrated with the affinity system. So instead of an extra trade route from the auto plant, the purity option would give some purity XP and 5% science bonus to host city of internal trade route, harmony would give corresponding xp and 5% production bonus to city for foreign trade routes, and supremacy would give xp and 10% energy bonus to station routes.

If each building quest gave some related bonus and affinity xp it would make it more likely you would actually choose different options from game to game

 

[GAGA Extrem]

that is assuming that everyone plays for fastest win times...
not everyone plays the game for that reason.

That issue is not a player problem, but a design problem.

It is okay to play "sub-optimally" - in fact, I do that in CIV5 all the time. That's why I only play on Emperor (plus the fact that it is the last difficulty were you can reliably stay at peace). But you cannot design a game like CIV around the concept of having your players artifically lengthening it. That shouldn't work on higher difficulty levels and it certainly doesn't work in Multiplayer.

You can still take it slow even if the issue is fixed.

 

[Ryika]

1. In a strategy game, a player should strive to select the strategy that is best suited for present circumstances.

Uhm... the last time I checked, the only thing a player SHOULD do in any game is whatever is fun to him. Striving to select the most optimal strategy might not even be desirable to many people, because the more you refine your gameplay, the more apparent choices you take out of the game. There's nothing wrong with playing Civ5 as an empire sandbox and I suppose that for most people who don't play for "maximum efficiency", not knowing about quest rewards will probably not really be a problem, probably even quite the opposite. Anyone who wants maximum efficiency will have to get external information anyway, because with the exception of maybe Rock-Paper-Scissors and XXO, there's never been a strategy-game that hat all its mechanics properly and without any misunderstanding possible described laid out within itself.

 

[ggmoyang]

Let's not nitpick Ryika, you know what Soffacet meant. Making 1~2 line joke is fine, but writing essay is just attacking a straw man.

 

[Ryika]

Mhhh... I actually don't think I was really strawmanning what he said and was done "dealing with his quote" after the second sentence. ^^

The rest is me disagreeing with the notion that an UI in a game like Civ needs to be tailored to serve the needs of the most "efficiency-focused" players. Those players will use external sources (or just read the quest-code) anyway, so why spoiler the quests for "casual" players? After all, these are bonuses that the Civ discovers after using the building, so I don't really see how that even makes sense in terms of immersion.

 

[ggmoyang]

Maybe the quest can be listed after you got them once...
Anyways, IMHO, as being a strategy game it would be better if the game showed information with clarity.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Mhhh... I actually don't think I was really strawmanning what he said and was done "dealing with his quote" after the second sentence. ^^

The rest is me disagreeing with the notion that an UI in a game like Civ needs to be tailored to serve the needs of the most "efficiency-focused" players. Those players will use external sources (or just read the quest-code) anyway, so why spoiler the quests for "casual" players? After all, these are bonuses that the Civ discovers after using the building, so I don't really see how that even makes sense in terms of immersion.

Using that argument it doesn't make sense to see what buildings/units a technology unlocks either.

I can see not having it in the tooltips (as an option like Blind research)
It should NOT be absent from the civilopedia...that is lazy and dishonest (forcing the player to go through a long complicated process outside of the current game to get the info)

 

[TLHeart]

Using that argument it doesn't make sense to see what buildings/units a technology unlocks either.

I can see not having it in the tooltips (as an option like Blind research)
It should NOT be absent from the civilopedia...that is lazy and dishonest (forcing the player to go through a long complicated process outside of the current game to get the info)

I actually agree with you here, the civilpedia is very lacking in information... just generic paragraphs that say NOTHING. The information does need to be there.

I would like to see a toggle, for the tool tips, play with blind for building quests, or show building quest options.

 

[kipwheeler]

the building quests are situational, depending on when you build the building, and what path you are taking...

I like that I do not KNOW beforehand what everything does, but discover the options as I play the game... Nothing more boring than planning out a game BEFORE I start the game.

A few of the building quests/options need some balance, many are quite good and well balanced. That +1 for every building of that type does make a change to your game.

I agree with TL Heart. Not knowing the exact results makes the game actually feel like you are voyaging into the unknown. That's the "X" part of exploration in a 4X game--but for the first time, it's not just the terrain you have to explore to peel back the fog of war, but there's a fog of mystery into what unknown technologies will do in the building quests. After I've played a gazillion times, it might become a predictable chore. But for early play, not knowing exactly the long-term results of each quest are quite fun. (Though telling you in advance that certain choices lead to one of three affinities? That's kind of a spoiler I wish they hadn't included.)

 

[Soffacet]

Uhm... the last time I checked, the only thing a player SHOULD do in any game is whatever is fun to him.

I didn't think it would be necessary to stipulate that the hypothetical player was playing to win. The PtW/PtHF debate is irrelevant to this discussion, PtHF players will have their fun regardless of whether the UI has complete or incomplete information.

Mhhh... I actually don't think I was really strawmanning what he said and was done "dealing with his quote" after the second sentence. ^^

The rest is me disagreeing with the notion that an UI in a game like Civ needs to be tailored to serve the needs of the most "efficiency-focused" players. Those players will use external sources (or just read the quest-code) anyway, so why spoiler the quests for "casual" players? After all, these are bonuses that the Civ discovers after using the building, so I don't really see how that even makes sense in terms of immersion.

Which is ridiculous.

Situation A. UI deliberately omits information. "Efficiency-focused" players are unable to make proper decisions. "Happy-go-lucky" players can do whatever they want.

Situation B. UI has all relevant information. EF players are enabled to play. HGL players can still sandbag.

 

[Rick Ross]

The fence protects trade routes?

WTH.

I never would have found that out. EVER. and what a great bonus too!

Hidden bonuses on that scale make it impossible to plan ahead without having a web browser open...

 

[TLHeart]

The fence protects trade routes?

WTH.

I never would have found that out. EVER. and what a great bonus too!

Hidden bonuses on that scale make it impossible to plan ahead without having a web browser open...

and there is the debate... planning ahead... some people want to be able to plan every step, and NEVER have to change the plan, others want to take the information available at that stage of the game, make a decision, knowing it is subject to change next turn...

Now, for those who want to KNOW every thing possible, before making a decision, the information should be available within the game in the civilpedia.

Those of us who enjoy the exploration of the game, we can, and those who need to know, can look it up in the civilpedia.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I agree with TL Heart. Not knowing the exact results makes the game actually feel like you are voyaging into the unknown. That's the "X" part of exploration in a 4X game--but for the first time, it's not just the terrain you have to explore to peel back the fog of war, but there's a fog of mystery into what unknown technologies will do in the building quests. After I've played a gazillion times, it might become a predictable chore. But for early play, not knowing exactly the long-term results of each quest are quite fun. (Though telling you in advance that certain choices lead to one of three affinities? That's kind of a spoiler I wish they hadn't included.)

The problem with that type of eXploration is that it Only works for one game, it destroys replayability, because the second game you can't Explore that (its already known)

Unlike exploring the map... that is different every time.

What if you had a truly blind game...
You don't know what grassland yields, you just know it is called grassland.
You don't know what techs are in the tech web until you can research them
You don't know the costs of the techs or what benefits they give until you finish researching them
You don't know what buildings do until you actually build them*

*you are advocating for this