|
It plays more or less the same, yeah. The AI's more likely to be more aggressive in higher difficulties because it will more rapidly meet whatever check it has for trying to beat someone up (probably a function of army maintenance costs or something), more likely to get more wonders because of science/production boosts, and so on. I don't think it makes any decisions differently at different difficulty levels. In MP I think it uses the lowest difficulty among the ones chosen by players, but I'm not sure.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Tao Jones posted:In MP I think it uses the lowest difficulty among the ones chosen by players, but I'm not sure. This is correct. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
I AM BRAWW posted:Also, do I need to have BNW to play with goons in the Thursday game.. I don't have it yet sadly but I'd still like to play Almost certainly, yeah - I imagine most everyone else will be wanting to play with BNW. I'm guessing the DLC will be optional though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 09:49
|
|
.
|
I AM BRAWW posted:
Sadly, BNW is required. However, they run for about 8 keys worth in many steam trading groups, or 16 bucks to round that out. Hardly a huge investment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
thehumandignity posted:
Venice is only guaranteed a coastal start if there's any on the map that the game considers viable. If there are, then Venice gets first pick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
Lugaloco posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzWnjuZrgEY I mostly wonder how they're gonna deal with America being 90% of each server population, but this could be pretty swank.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, if they do this right, that's basically the MMO of my idle daydreams.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I mostly wonder how they're gonna deal with America being 90% of each server population, but this could be pretty swank. It says that they'll add civs as time goes on, so the first four civs will probably be Egypt, Greece, China and the Aztecs or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It says that they'll add civs as time goes on, so the first four civs will probably be Egypt, Greece, China and the Aztecs or something. Then it would already be a forgone conclusion that all the goons would join Aztecs and perpetually wage war against Greece, amirite?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
I'm sorry but there's no way that's not going to be a completely horrible disaster of a game. I just hope they're not developing it instead of Civ6.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
It seems like it is a different studio than the strategy game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
SlightlyMadman posted:I'm sorry but there's no way that's not going to be a completely horrible disaster of a game. I just hope they're not developing it instead of Civ6. I was wondering how to articulate my thoughts on this news but this comment pretty much sums it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 14:23
|
|
|
I can't believe people are still seriously chasing after MMO money. At this point I'm pretty sure WoW was just a fluke. Anyone else will be lucky to even threaten to make a profit. At least they're trying something a little different I guess. I wonder what the 'kill ten boars' of Civ will be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:I can't believe people are still seriously chasing after MMO money. At this point I'm pretty sure WoW was just a fluke. Anyone else will be lucky to even threaten to make a profit. Gather twenty lumber. It's going to be one of those games that timers to finish your buildings, and then gather the resources for your buildings, for new microtransactions at every turn. There's deffo not going to be World Wonders or a way to militarily eliminate a player so don't expect anything too rad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
I AM BRAWW posted:I have no idea about ingame deep mechanics, so this might be completely wrong, but doesn't the AI kind of always play the same and changing the difficulty is just like, crippling yourself from 1 (very easy) to 10 (immortal) ?? No. There are a few way the human player is slighted on higher difficulties (lower base happiness, lower bonus against barbarians), but most of the changes are bonuses to the AI. They start with more techs and units (two settlers on Deity), have to deal with less unhappiness, and pay fewer hammers for units and buildings. Here is a full list. The names are pulled from the game files, so they’re a little cryptic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:I can't believe people are still seriously chasing after MMO money. At this point I'm pretty sure WoW was just a fluke. Anyone else will be lucky to even threaten to make a profit. A bunch of MMOs are doing well. SWTOR and EVE et al.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:At least they're trying something a little different I guess. I wonder what the 'kill ten boars' of Civ will be. Kill ten boarbarians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
euphronius posted:A bunch of MMOs are doing well. SWTOR and EVE et al. Ah yes, The Old Republic, which did so well that despite having the most popular license in nerdery went free to play less than a year after launch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:No. There are a few way the human player is slighted on higher difficulties (lower base happiness, lower bonus against barbarians), but most of the changes are bonuses to the AI. They start with more techs and units (two settlers on Deity), have to deal with less unhappiness, and pay fewer hammers for units and buildings. Here is a full list. The names are pulled from the game files, so they’re a little cryptic. Ahh, I knew I was probably horribly wrong. Thanks for the clear up/link. Also, any one have some recommended mods that are good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Ah yes, The Old Republic, which did so well that despite having the most popular license in nerdery went free to play less than a year after launch. And then apparently did so badly they felt the need to continue charging my card for months after I canceled my subscription and forced me to go to small claims court to get the money back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
dongsbot 9000 posted:Gather twenty lumber. It's going to be one of those games that timers to finish your buildings, and then gather the resources for your buildings, for new microtransactions at every turn. There's deffo not going to be World Wonders or a way to militarily eliminate a player so don't expect anything too rad. The Colossus of Rhodes (I think) is in one of those screenshots, there's military PVP, and they've said that there are definitely losing conditions. Did you read the articles?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
The way they're marketing it reminds me a lot of age of empires online, which was really bad. It's gonna suck, but I'm surprised they're using cryengine 3 to make it. It might look really nice if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Ah yes, The Old Republic, which did so well that despite having the most popular license in nerdery went free to play less than a year after launch. While that's defintely the game's fault it's also a change in market. Even WoW is doing less well (though still making enough to charge a monthly fee exclusively). People just arent drawn into it anymore and a f2p strategy becomes a neccesity. SWTOR has done pretty well when it went f2p, going back to launch level profits. Anyway this game sounds like a trainwreck. The Interview sounds like the sort of pie in the sky MMOs you always hear about where the players generate all the content and everyone wants this to be a thing but only EVE has ever done it, and in that case you can only do it if you're willing to dedicate mass amounts of time to mining space rocks while the 1% have all the fun. Whenever people design these sorts of ideas they always imagine themselves as getting to be the ones running the show, never the one mining space rocks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:SWTOR has done pretty well when it went f2p, going back to launch level profits. Well I'd posit that this is more due to TOR's almost exploitative F2P system that requires you to pay for such frivolities as being able to run or having more than one bar of hotkeys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:Well I'd posit that this is more due to TOR's almost exploitative F2P system that requires you to pay for such frivolities as being able to run or having more than one bar of hotkeys. They actually changed that and now the people who buy the hotkeys bars get 2 more (6 instead of the basic 4), but in regards to civ 5 I got my first victory on king the other day. Granted it was a diplomacy victory but hey still counts. I lucked out in that I was next to Gandhi so the fact that I neglected an army for so long didn't hurt me, and by the time I did declare war on him I had allied with all the city states around him so they took care of his meager forces before he even got into range of my cities and i just rushed him with cannons and took him down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
This excites me because I've been wanting more MMO games to gently caress around with the idea of "You can lose, and then everyone starts at zero and tries again" model. Which is why I can see this working, because completely resetting the server after a Civ wins gives them a hell of a lot more leeway to make sure things actually have consequences and meaning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Benagain posted:This excites me because I've been wanting more MMO games to gently caress around with the idea of "You can lose, and then everyone starts at zero and tries again" model. Which is why I can see this working, because completely resetting the server after a Civ wins gives them a hell of a lot more leeway to make sure things actually have consequences and meaning. No, it gives every fuckwit on the internet a way to grief people with permanent consequences that cannot be shrugged off. It's a brainless idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
The bigger problem with the concept is what happens when your character's nation gets knocked out of a long-running game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
I hope Civ MMO lasts longer than CivWorld.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Jedit posted:No, it gives every fuckwit on the internet a way to grief people with permanent consequences that cannot be shrugged off. It's a brainless idea. I'm not sure that's true in this case. They've already said that if a player dies there's little consequence other than having to run back from the respawn point. The fact that everything is about civs made up of large groups of people rather than individual players should go a long way towards preventing individual griefers from having much effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It seems like it is a different studio than the strategy game. Sure, but Take2 might have Firaxis working on something else since they're already funding "that other Civ game" or something. I don't think this is likely though, just stating that I hope it's not the case. It seems far more likely to me that Civ Online will be another CivCity: Rome, and quickly forgotten about while we all enjoy the awesomeness that is Civ6 in three years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
SlightlyMadman posted:Sure, but Take2 might have Firaxis working on something else since they're already funding "that other Civ game" or something. I don't think this is likely though, just stating that I hope it's not the case. It seems far more likely to me that Civ Online will be another CivCity: Rome, and quickly forgotten about while we all enjoy the awesomeness that is Civ6 in three years. No, we'll yap and complain about how terrible Civ6 is in three years and then three years after that enjoy the awesomeness that is Civ6: The World is my Oyster or whatever they end up calling their second expansion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
I'm just imagining the MMO as a giant multiplayer game, where you take your actions for a turn, and wait a day. The winner of each server will be determined by 2020.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
I think this goes against the whole purpose of Civilization. You get a power trip from being the ruler of a small nation that grows and overwhelms the world, the top dog. That's the sort of thing that plays out better in single player, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
It can't be worse than the Facebook Civ game. ed As long as they're not ignoring XCOM strategy I'll be okay. I can squeeze another year or two out of Civ V.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Wasn't "Civ MMO" already explored and proven to be a horrible idea with Civony? ^e: f;b^, also didn't see the posts and information about playing as one dude. Could definitely be interesting, but really this seems like less Civ and more competitive not-scifi Eve, and as stated above, that's tedium for most people involved. At least it might be grounds for the Goonswarm to come along and liberate the peasants on a server in exchange for Heavy Lobster fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
That terrible micro transaction flash game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
I simply don't play MMOs and I dislike it when IPs of stuff I like get turned into an MMO and I can't support the brand. The only thing appealing about this is sometimes I wish I could physically explore the Civ I built, walk through the streets and see all the wonders of my cosmopolitan city. But I'm not going to invest in an MMO to do this. Since it's a different studio doing this, fortunately it won't affect development of the next Civ5 expansion or Civ6 that much hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
The Civ MMO, if it's even completed, will be horrible garbage. Everything else aside, there is one issue that I absolutely guarantee you they will not be able to get around, and it's based around these two facts... A) They will not instituted any form of population balancing B) Population balancing is 100% necessary to maintaining the game. I think every one of us knows how this is going to go down. As soon as any given civ starts pulling ahead half the people on the losing sides are just gonna stop playing until the next cycle. It's been shown over and over and over again that in any game where you character is tied to faction, the participation rate on the winning side soars while it drops like a rock on the losing side. Every single "round" of this hot garbage will end with one civilization having more people logged in than all the others combined. Don't even try to tell me that this won't happen. The most they might do to control population is say "sorry, you can't join China right now cause it's full". We all know that will be woefully insufficient. To balance the civs when poo poo starts going down they would have to forcibly reassign people to civs that are falling behind, and they will never do that because people would absolutely flip their poo poo because they a big babies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 18:04
|
|