Why quests are bad

[TLHeart]

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

and I would enjoy that game immensely. Actual science research is blind, the scientist have a theory, and a goal, but it does not always work that way, and amazing discoveries happen by accident.

SMAC had blind research, you could prioritize a type of research, but could not pick that actual tech researched, and the other types of research still continued, at a slower pace. No more slingshots.

 

[Rick Ross]

I think they should hint at extra functionality, at least. "May lead to advancements in alien repulsion" or something would be enough for me.

edit: In terms of the fence building.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

and I would enjoy that game immensely. Actual science research is blind, the scientist have a theory, and a goal, but it does not always work that way, and amazing discoveries happen by accident.

SMAC had blind research, you could prioritize a type of research, but could not pick that actual tech researched, and the other types of research still continued, at a slower pace. No more slingshots.

That game would be great IF there were different results each time (sometimes genetics gives a pharmalab, sometimes it gives a bioweapon attack... sometimes it costs 100, sometimes it costs 1000)
(even then the Range of possible costs+results should be displayed)

However, if it is going to be the same (95 cost get pharmalab X hammers 1 maintenance for 2 health +1 health OR +1 science) each time....then that information should be easily available in game without having to research it first.

 

[Ryika]

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.

I actually enjoyed getting the building quests AFTER the building was done, that added an aspect of exploration to the game. So don't assume what effects other people and what doesn't - people are different.

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.

And because I just told you, you shouldn't assume what effects people and what doesn't, I'll now do the exact same thing, just to look really stupid. It effects you in the first few games and that's it. You explore the game and you know what happens. You've probably already memorized the important quest decisions, so you shouldn't even need to care about this. Was it hard to learn them? Probably not. Now there's even a mod for this.

So where's the problem? That you're forced to play some games without being able to min-max everything in the first match?

 

[NoobEmperor]

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.)

people dont read the civilopedia before starting the game the first time anyway so there's no excuse for not putting the info in the pedia.

 

[Soffacet]

I actually enjoyed getting the building quests AFTER the building was done, that added an aspect of exploration to the game. So don't assume what effects other people and what doesn't - people are different.

As a strategy game, the game needs to assume that the player is interested in making meaningful decisions. The UI needs to cater to that. If some players later decide to troll the game and treat it as a sandbox, that's their prerogative, but the game doesn't need to cater to that.

]You've probably already memorized the important quest decisions, so you shouldn't even need to care about this. Was it hard to learn them? Probably not. Now there's even a mod for this.
So where's the problem? That you're forced to play some games without being able to min-max everything in the first match?

After the sandbox player plays it through once, he won't be a newborn pup either. So where's the problem with doing it the right way? The sandbox player might feel 1% less "immersed" the first time through? Whoop-dee-doo.

 

[bkwrm79]

I wish they had the options SMAC had, of directed vs. blind research. That said, a better Civilopedia would help.

As it is, I'm enjoying the exploration, and after a couple more games (when there's no suspense, just the attempts to remember) I will probably download the mod.

Mods to balance the choices (e.g. increase the energy option for some of the quests) would also be welcome.

 

[Cannes]

Somewhat related I think building quests should act like national wonders in civ v. For example, building 1 institute in your 10 city empire would mean a low chance to pop the quest. More institutes and the chances increase. It would give you some control over strategizing around the powerful quests and give you more of a reason to build more than 1 of the buildings with the one time benefit quests.

This is actually a GREAT idea!! Modders?! Where are you?? Make this happen, please!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This is actually a GREAT idea!! Modders?! Where are you?? Make this happen, please!

It's such a great idea Firaxis implemented it

each turn your chance of getting a quest is 5% x the number of the buildings you have.

 

[Ryika]

As a strategy game, the game needs to assume that the player is interested in making meaningful decisions. The UI needs to cater to that. If some players later decide to troll the game and treat it as a sandbox, that's their prerogative, but the game doesn't need to cater to that.

If the game is a pure strategy game, sure. Civ isn't though. If it were, it would use pre-created maps instead of randomly created planets. Because not knowing what's hiding under the black mask is the main reason why a player can't make 100% informed decisions all the time. Starting locations would also need to be balanced if Civ wanted to be a pure Strategy Game. Or have you ever seen a serious strategy game in which 1 player can start in a location that is 5x better than the other one? Goodie Hoods would also need to be replaced with something that's not random. Good thing is: Civ5 is not designed as a pure strategy game in that sense.

After the sandbox player plays it through once, he won't be a newborn pup either. So where's the problem with doing it the right way? The sandbox player might feel 1% less "immersed" the first time through? Whoop-dee-doo.

See? It's just not a big thing. Both ways work. You're saying the UI has to be changed, because of reasons that become meaningless very fast. I say it's fine because of reasons that become meaningless just as fast. It's just not that important either way.

And hey, I like the idea of random bonuses that change every game. Would you also be against that? Because if you are, well... that sort of goes against what Civ already does in so many other fields.

 

[Kutuzov]

This is actually a GREAT idea!! Modders?! Where are you?? Make this happen, please!

It's such a great idea Firaxis implemented it

each turn your chance of getting a quest is 5% x the number of the buildings you have.

This is one of the reasons why I read posts on these boards. It's often easy to miss features that are an important part of the game. I didn't know that either.

So it seems that we agree that building quests are not bad. A simple solution would be to create a Civilopedia entry in 'Game Concepts' called 'Building Quests' that revealed them all. I wouldn't want them in the building entry because I sometimes read those while playing and wouldn't want the 'spoiler'.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I feel like I'd like these quests better if there were two changes made:

1.) A way to see what my options are going to be before I do the research/build the building. This one is pretty obvious.

2.) Make the choices have a more significant effect with a cost attached. Example that I just made up and is therefore probably terrible:
a.) Laboratories focus on research at all costs and get a much more significant science boost but at the cost of health because they are polluting the environment or
b.) Laboratories focus on efficiency, giving them an energy specialist slot on them (so the cost is you have to tie up one of your citizens to gain the bonus).

This would be a much more interesting decision because instead of just thinking "Which bonus do I want more" you now have to balance that information against "which cost can I more easily afford".

 

[NoobEmperor]

If the game is a pure strategy game, sure. Civ isn't though. If it were, it would use pre-created maps instead of randomly created planets. Because not knowing what's hiding under the black mask is the main reason why a player can't make 100% informed decisions all the time. Starting locations would also need to be balanced if Civ wanted to be a pure Strategy Game. Or have you ever seen a serious strategy game in which 1 player can start in a location that is 5x better than the other one? Goodie Hoods would also need to be replaced with something that's not random. Good thing is: Civ5 is not designed as a pure strategy game in that sense.

You have a very wrong idea of what a strategy game is.

 

[Ryika]

You have a very wrong idea of what a strategy game is.

Well, most competitive strategy games work that way. Be it board games, be it rts or tbs. Just imagine rolling a dice if or if not a player gets to start with a queen in chess... But sure, you're correct, I was using the wrong word. BE is, no doubt, a strategy game by definition, it's not one that tries to cater to a competitive scene though. And the word I use doesn't really change anything about the actual argument. There's just no need to give all the information beforehand. Sure, it would be preferable if those information were available in the Civilopedia - at least for anyone who wants to play his first game as perfectly as possible - but neither do I see a need to have it in the UI, nor do I think it's a problem if they've deliberately decided that they want these things to be hidden, so that there are some surprises during the first few playthroughs.

 

[NoobEmperor]

Just imagine rolling a dice if or if not a player gets to start with a queen in chess

Just imagine rolling a die to see if or it not a player gets to go first...


and there is nothing inherent about competitiveness that would require that the information be given to the player in the civilopedia. only that the rules are agreed to before hand. and in this instance, a competitive rules for civBE would be agreed before hand and the rules would be embodied in the programming of the game and it resolve by the program itself.

and putting any info in the civilopedia won't kill the 'surprise' factor just as showing you the entire tech web won't. because nobody reads the entire civilopedia before they play, they mostly just play the game and make the decisions as they come.

but having the information available does make it much easier for people that want to look it up.

 

[Ryika]

Just imagine rolling a dice to see if or it not a player gets to go first...

Well, simultaneous turns isn't really an option in chess. (At least not in traditional chess, speed-chess ftw) That's one of the reasons tournaments usually consist of more than just one match to determine the winner. That's still not 100% fair (because of morale and because of being "one turn ahead"), but you can surely agree that these rules try to take as much unfairness out of the equation as possible.

Games like Civ and many other 4x and Grand Strategy-Games don't try to be 100% fair. They try to mix things up with random maps, random events and/or other stuff. That's what the building quests were for me in the first 1-3 playthroughs - random events. Sure, they're not REALLY random and instead become part of your strategy in the games after that but in the first few games, they fulfill that role.

and there is nothing inherent about competitiveness that would require that the information be given to the player in the civilopedia. only that the rules are agreed to before hand. and in this instance, a competitive rules for civBE would be agreed before hand and the rules would be embodied in the programming of the game and it resolve by the program itself.

Not sure why you think that's what I said. But anyway, that's not that important really, because the only reason I brought that up was that Soffacet does not seem to understand - or maybe just doesn't care - why people actually enjoy hidden quests. He seems to have this weird thought in his mind that certain elements of the game need to be predictable (like, when he's saying that it's a problem that building quests have a probability to show up instead of a 100% predictable outcome) when the whole rest of the game is not built around that idea.

and putting any info in the civilopedia won't kill the 'surprise' factor just as showing you the entire tech web won't. because nobody reads the entire civilopedia before they play, they mostly just play the game and make the decisions as they come.

but having the information available does make it much easier for people that want to look it up.

Sure, I totally agree. Again: Put them into the Civilopedia. No problem with that. And yes, they should have been there in the first place. That is NOT what Soffacet wants though. See:

As a strategy game, CivBE is a puzzle. The reason to play is to try and beat the puzzle as quickly and reliably as possible by making the best decisions. If the game UI is not being honest with new players about the consequences of their decisions, then they are not capable of making informed decisions. Which is indistinguishable from being incapable of playing at all.

So he's not talking about the "powergamer" who, before deciding what to build or research in his first game, checks the Civilopedia to determine which building has the best quest, he's talking about random gamer x who just plays the game. What he's actually talking about is that it should show up in the buildings tooltip itself or somehow be visible in the UI when building something. Because if they don't, then "players are incapable of playing at all". And that's just nonsense. The player should be allowed to decide for himself if he wants to spoiler the quests and get more complete information or if he wants to be surprised and is willing to give up some information. There's really no need to force this information onto new players when there are some who enjoy the experience more when not knowing about these quests in the first playthrough.

 

[alpaca]

See? It's just not a big thing. Both ways work. You're saying the UI has to be changed, because of reasons that become meaningless very fast. I say it's fine because of reasons that become meaningless just as fast. It's just not that important either way.

Two points: first, you have a limited capability of remembering things. It is difficult to remember exactly which quest each building provides, but that is pretty much what you have to do if you want to make a really good decision, especially seeing as some buildings have huge bonuses. That means you will have to refer to the wiki repeatedly during playing because you forget what the nanopasture's quest was, if it was good or not, and are considering if it makes sense to research the tech (no). To perform a reductio ad absurdum, you could also request the UI be changed to not display any yields at all, because it makes the first few games more thrilling and if you want to manage yields you can just memorize all of the buildings and all tile yields for all resource/improvement combinations. The game should not incentivize you too much to look at a website during gameplay just because you don't want to bother learning every detail by heart.

Second, hidden bonuses may actually make you actively avoid a building (what do I need 3 scientist slots for, which are really crappy anyways), even though it's actually very strong (because it provides a free tech). Hiding strong bonuses like that is a pretty bad idea since it strongly increases your incentive to look at the wiki, and even if you don't, reduce your chances of actually exploring the possibility. I'm not against hidden bonuses per se, but you have to give the player enough information to make a qualified decision. Just building things blindly because you don't know what they do might be interesting for you, but for me it's like plopping down a city somewhere with the surrounding terrain hidden. Imagine a game where you cannot explore the terrain but only build new cities blindly. It's not a decision but a crapshot.

Ideally, I think buildings should provide meaningful enough base bonuses to make them interesting without quests. The quests should then provide a strong local bonus chosen from a random pool, perhaps limited by building type to make it a little more predictable. Global bonuses should be avoided if possible because they just create luckshot gameplay. That way you would have some actually meaningful exploration going on which you can then capitalize on by building the building everywhere you want, or avoiding it if the bonus isn't good for your current strategy.

 

[manu-fan]

Quests are fine for me, because I just ignore them until they pop up and it's a nice little bonus for something I've done that gives me a reward. I don't open up my quests and see what I need to complete them, I just play the game and let them flow naturally.

I know that's probably not viable at higher levels, but it does make quests enjoyable.

 

[Soronery]

I like quests but they are poorly balanced.

 

[Soffacet]

So he's not talking about the "powergamer" who, before deciding what to build or research in his first game, checks the Civilopedia to determine which building has the best quest, he's talking about random gamer x who just plays the game. What he's actually talking about is that it should show up in the buildings tooltip itself or somehow be visible in the UI when building something. Because if they don't, then "players are incapable of playing at all". And that's just nonsense.

It's not nonsense. I already demolished the argument that it was. If information that a player should have is being withheld from him, he cannot make an informed decision. Many examples have already been given of extremely useful quests attached to seemingly useless buildings that a player would prioritize completely differently if he actually knew the real consequences of his decision. When a player decides to not build an Institute he should know that he is forgoing a free technology. That is so simple a principle that it borders on axiomatic. I cannot believe someone is actually debating that.

The vast majority of people derive fun from games, particularly strategy games, which Civ undeniably is, by making informed decisions and witnessing the positive results that vindicate those decisions. If that type of player cannot make informed decisions then he cannot meaningfully play or enjoy a game. Imagine trying to play a parallel version of chess where a certain number of legal moves will be randomly disabled each turn. You cannot make any meaningful decisions because any plan you make might be foiled for absolutely no reason at any time. The game would be pointless. It would cease to be a game.

Not sure why you think that's what I said. But anyway, that's not that important really, because the only reason I brought that up was that Soffacet does not seem to understand - or maybe just doesn't care - why people actually enjoy hidden quests. He seems to have this weird thought in his mind that certain elements of the game need to be predictable (like, when he's saying that it's a problem that building quests have a probability to show up instead of a 100% predictable outcome) when the whole rest of the game is not built around that idea.

The player should be allowed to decide for himself if he wants to spoiler the quests and get more complete information or if he wants to be surprised and is willing to give up some information. There's really no need to force this information onto new players when there are some who enjoy the experience more when not knowing about these quests in the first playthrough

I fully understand that there are some people that would prefer to play thoughtlessly, and think that such a playstyle is more fun. I will readily admit to not being able to understand how anyone could possibly enjoy that. Still, if those people want the option to hide information, there can be an option in the game settings to do that. But to make that the default option is absolutely indefensible.