|
Basically the job of sales and marketing is to tell the customer, "Sure, buy our thing and you can do X!" while development actually has to do X and it's impossible, unfeasible or not even desirable
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
or, conversely, it's marketing's job to polish whatever turd has been turned out by engineering so that someone will buy it
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
I just want to know who to blame for the idea that what this game was lacking was more religious units
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:or, conversely, it's marketing's job to polish whatever turd has been turned out by engineering so that someone will buy it
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:In every company in the world large enough to have distinct departments, Engineering and Marketing despise each other and are incessantly at war. Who gets the warmongering penalties so I know who to be mad at?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Efexeye posted:or, conversely, it's qa's job to polish whatever turd has been turned out by engineering so that someone will buy it
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
qa polishes the turd, marketing gilds the lily
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Lmao if you don't have at least half of the civs as allies after the patch. It was possible BEFORE the patch mind you, as I proved with a picture. Now it's just a breeze and if you are declared a warmonger is because... you ARE a warmonger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
The head scratching thing is that Civ 5 and 6 are empire building games that actively punish you for trying to expand your empire. It was apparently designed by radical pacifists who believe planting four or five cities and spending the rest of the game peacefully building your four or five cities up and defending them is the Correct Way To Play and penalizes you for trying to play it like, y'know, a 4X game. It's weird. 6 is not as radical as 5 in this regard but it's still basically the case, and a drastic departure from the core of what Civ 1-4 were all about. It's really a different genre.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:The head scratching thing is that Civ 5 and 6 are empire building games that actively punish you for trying to expand your empire. It was apparently designed by radical pacifists who believe planting four or five cities and spending the rest of the game peacefully building your four or five cities up and defending them is the Correct Way To Play and penalizes you for trying to play it like, y'know, a 4X game. It's weird. Excuse me dear goon friend, why are you not settling literally EVERYWHERE in Civ6? What is preventing you from it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
*game presents obstacles* "THIS GAME IS ACTIVELY PUNISHING ME"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Civ 6 makes you expand more often than Civ 5 due to the way amenities works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Every complaint about warmonger penalties comes off as incredibly whiny. I only ever went to war when attacked and only refused peace terms that were clearly unfavourable and rewarded the aggressor. My warmonger status was egregious thereafter. Eye candy is one thing but the shear level of blunder and oversight in elements of the game is astonishing. More incredible are the many and obvious bugs especially on the biggest maps. I had the game promote the wrong unit because 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Did you capture cities? Because if you did, it was no longer a defensive war.
PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Yeah, capturing cities involves slaughtering a not-insignificant amount of the general population, so, it's not exactly looked kindly upon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Warmonger penalties are crutches for an AI that can't interact with an entire game system, that is all. And it doesn't actually work because again, the AI can't handle that game-system. Basically they should add an always war (easy mode) and an always peace (impossible because of AI bonuses) option since the game is certainly not balanced for both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
I think the rate of expansion in Civ VI feels pretty good. I don't poo poo out cities like mad but it *is* good to expand fairly aggressively. Civ V was a real bore in this area and one of the reasons why I have a real hard time replaying it. About the warmonger penalties, I feel they're in a pretty ok place now actually. You don't *have* to take their cities you know. And if they forward-settled you or whatever, then you can often get them to give up those cities in a peace deal (because the cities tend to be smaller and weaker) instead of taking them by force. And the warmonger penalties do wear off, though it is slow (as it should be). I dunno, I'm pretty happy with that stuff where it sits now. What I still think is a mistake are the leader agendas which, in the way they are set up, just makes it seem like the AI is hating you for playing the game. It's much easier to just buy that, hey, some Civ leaders will be gigantic dicks like in Civ IV for example. But it just feels wrong when Montezuma says "whoa now, those luxuries you have there? You better not improve them or I'm gonna be MAD!" Or Harald saying "You have a weak navy" and then a moment later when you build a new naval unit it's like "I loving love your navy man! "It just feels so stupid, especially with the pop-up leader screen. And again, it just kill me how much better diplomacy works in Civ IV. And some of that is just due to how the information is presented. In Civ IV, if someone weants to be my friend or do a trade deal, I can look up instantly (while the screen is open) what leaders he is friends with and so on and plan out what I'm doing. In Civ V and VI? I have no loving idea because I don't keep who's friends with who in my head and I can't look it up when they come to me with an offer. Leinadi fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Oct 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Leinadi posted:I think the rate of expansion in Civ VI feels pretty good. I don't poo poo out cities like mad but it *is* good to expand fairly aggressively. Civ V was a real bore in this area and one of the reasons why I have a real hard time replaying it. I feel like Civ5 did just what I wanted because I hate loads of cities. Having 5, 6 is perfect to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
ChrisXP posted:Paperspace Virtual machine gaming stuff TjyvTompa posted:I am genuinely interested in hearing what you have setup and what you use it for, it sounds interesting. Sorry, it took me a few days to check back in with the thread. I have good (but not great) internet in the UK, so up to 38Mbps down and up to to 10Mbps up, and my virtual machine is on the East Coast of the US, so its hardly local. I play Civ and Football Manager on it and I honestly don't think you could tell it was remote for these games. There must be some input lag, but on these I don't notice it. I've tried Dirt Rally as well and would consider that playable, but you can tell there is something a little 'off'. Maybe if I optimised the settings it would be 100% as well. I have three options for actually connecting to the machine: Html5 browser, Paperspace client or Parsec client (for Android). So at home I use their own client on full screen and sometimes I use the browser option for Civ at work during lunch hour. There may be better options than Paperspace, they were just the first I found and it works for me. Here are some videos from YouTube and - as I understand it - if you can stream that video without issues then you can play that game with the same experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeKSXUw7FNo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfo3kyURcI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwYKQRj67gI I have a referral code that says you will get $10 bonus when you add a payment method, but I've never used it: https://www.paperspace.com/&R=MD8W7P
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
Warmonger penalties are dumb. The AI should hate you for threatening their chances of winning the game, regardless of how you're doing that. A peaceful turtle going for a space victory should be as hated as a warmonger going for domination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
ChrisXP posted:Sorry, it took me a few days to check back in with the thread. I have good (but not great) internet in the UK, so up to 38Mbps down and up to to 10Mbps up, and my virtual machine is on the East Coast of the US, so its hardly local. Thanks for the information, it actually looks usable. This could be something to use when travelling for work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Yeah, capturing cities involves slaughtering a not-insignificant amount of the general population, so, it's not exactly looked kindly upon. Realism arguments for game mechanics often fall flat, especially when the game mechanics prevent you from taking other "realistic" approaches to the problem. Like, you can't decide between sacking the city and trying to keep you troops in line (or blinding everyone except leaving 1 eye for every 10th person...), you can't call on the city to surrender, there's no war score for surrounding the place, you can't bombard the walls until you have a practical breach and then call on the city to surrender after which if they refuse the lost lives are on them. etc, etc etc. It's a bad system. The AI will attack you for dumb reasons and then if you take any of their cities to reduce their ability to fight back, every hates you for the next thousand years. Is that realistic? France and Germany are pretty chummy these days despite two recent world wars, the franco-prussian war, the 30 and the 7 year wars, the napoleonic wars etc etc. If you don't take their cities that civ will just continue to hate you and attack you whenever they can. Hell, even civs who like you will attack you at the seeming drop of a hat. The civ that you saved from their larger neighbour last year? Yeah, they are backstabbing you now because you , a vast yet landlocked empire, have a smaller navy than they do and it enrages them. Sticking to ingame reasons as to why I dislike warmonger penalties in civ6, it's because if any war is going to run relations forever then I might as well make sure any war ruins other civs forever. Typically I try to avoid wars until I can launch a series of attacks to kill off or at least cripple every civ on my continent. After that I consolidate until I can kill everyone else, or, because war tends to be really dull, just nuke everyone and quit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
You could just play some Civ 4 while waiting for Civ 7.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Gort posted:Warmonger penalties are dumb. The AI should hate you for threatening their chances of winning the game, regardless of how you're doing that. The latest patch (or one of the patches) did add in something where the AI will start to dislike you more and more if you're creeping up on the Space victory (I guess for Culture and Religion as well, haven't checked). Can't say I've ever noticed it really *doing* something though, the AI seems very unlikely to declare war in the later parts of the game in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Gort posted:Warmonger penalties are dumb. The AI should hate you for threatening their chances of winning the game, regardless of how you're doing that. Didn't they try that in Civ 5 and people got angry because it was too "game" and not "historical" enough?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Civ BE did it right by having huge diplomatic penalties if you reached victory mile stones. Just build on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Keiya posted:Didn't they try that in Civ 5 and people got angry because it was too "game" and not "historical" enough? Things people get angry about in Civ: Too many "famous" civilizations Too many "not famous" civilizations AI that is too aggressive AI that is too passive Combat that is simplified Combat that is complex Building roads manually Building roads automatically Historical outcomes Ahistorical outcomes Play is too "gamey" Play doesn't appear to follow clearly-defined and predictable patterns AI provides too much information about their agenda AI provides too little information about their agenda Game is too easy Game puts too many obstacles in the way of victory Science is too strong -- other paths should be viable Science doesn't do enough -- it should really provide other benefits This iteration doesn't do [thing I liked in previous iteration] People also complain about the UI and crashes, but I've never seen anybody say they want more crashes or want to have to click more times to accomplish a common task, so those complaints are different. I'm not going to argue they have made a perfect gem, but trying to design around what angers Civ fans would be a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
I will say though, France fuckin hated Germany after the Franco-Prussian war, very much because they took alsace and lorraine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
In Civ6 logic, Australia would hate France today for retaliating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
In Civ6 logic, the reason the EU hosed over Greece was because of the outrage after razing Troy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Keiya posted:Didn't they try that in Civ 5 and people got angry because it was too "game" and not "historical" enough? Nah, they hosed up the implementation by having it be "You're trying to win in the same way as me" instead of "You're winning" and they had it start at turn 1 so Gandhi was afraid of your space victory in 4000BC. Then, having hosed up the implementation of the idea, they decided it was the idea that was bad and dumped it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Gort posted:I just find the game a slog, but particularly I find the combat a slog. There comes a point in almost every game of Civ 6 where where you've amassed so much warmonger that you're basically resigned to winning the game by conquest, and at the point the game just becomes a morass of slowly pushing units around. It really is shocking how much worse the micro is when you're dealing with a carpet of units compared to dealing with a stack. 1UPT made worse one of the very problems it was trying to fix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Keiya posted:Didn't they try that in Civ 5 and people got angry because it was too "game" and not "historical" enough? It being gamey is part of what makes the AI get people so mad right now though. They shouldn't know that you're about to win a cultural victory, they should just carry on playing based on how they've interacted with you across the timescale of the game like in Civ4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Poil posted:In Civ6 logic, the reason the EU hosed over Greece was because of the outrage after razing Troy. Can you really say this is incorrect? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Taear posted:It being gamey is part of what makes the AI get people so mad right now though. They shouldn't know that you're about to win a cultural victory, they should just carry on playing based on how they've interacted with you across the timescale of the game like in Civ4. I really feel like the "One player wins and everyone else loses" design decision is a bad one. I'd much rather there be more reasons for civs to work together or stuff like actual history doesn't work. I always thought a "fulfil these objectives" way of winning would be better. Like in the Cold War era you might get victory points for promoting your ideology or making sure city states followed it, while in the renaissance you might get points for exploring the world. That way you have objectives that may cause conflict, but all players have a decent chance of making it to the end and getting a result that isn't just "Bob launched a spaceship, you lose".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Taear posted:It being gamey is part of what makes the AI get people so mad right now though. They shouldn't know that you're about to win a cultural victory, they should just carry on playing based on how they've interacted with you across the timescale of the game like in Civ4. Civilizations IRL know who's winning cultural victories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Taear posted:It being gamey is part of what makes the AI get people so mad right now though. They shouldn't know that you're about to win a cultural victory, they should just carry on playing based on how they've interacted with you across the timescale of the game like in Civ4. So, should we remove all the information on victory progress from the UI? Because players have access to that information too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Im completely fine with everyone hating me because Im winning Im not ok with everyone hating me for thousands of years because I took a city from some rear end in a top hat who attacked me for no reason
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Consider not taking the city.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
How would a game go if you're trying for a peaceful victory, and your entire war plan is "kill every unit that shows its face but take no cities" if someone declares on you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 19:50
|
|