An example of how "unique benefits" can go wrong

[Ralf]

Below is an extraction from an Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire review from www.gamesdomain.co.uk. This is exactly what I fear if Firaxis stubbornly decides to implements civ-unique benefits only, ala SMAC. Save yourself some headache by choosing Civ-2 style temperament- and emphasize-benefits instead. Or at the very least: make the damn thing optional/bypassable.

"As for the new canned additions, while Paul didn't see a lot of faction disparity, I have to disagree - in my opinion the new factions are just not that well balanced, and are very unbalanced in relation to the original factions. The Cult of Planet gets a +2 planet modifier, a -1 economy, a -1 industry and mind worms perform double police duty. They also start off with Centauri Ecology technology, allowing them to capture mind worms. The Gaians, in contrast, start off with the same tech and get a +1 planet, a +2 efficiency, a -1 morale, a -1 police and a +1 nutrient bonus in fungus squares. Which would you rather play? That +2 planet translates into a +50% chance of mindworm capture off the pop. That's a pretty nice way to build up a free army quick and easy (of course, you could play with the option of scarce lifeforms, but this reduces the planet's role as a gaming factor).
The other factions also stand out. The Free Drones get a whopping +75% chance of getting a free base every time one goes into revolt. That's a whopping advantage considering how often bases revolt in the game. The Data Angels get a +2 probe modifier and the equivalent of a Great Library (gains any tech known to any other three factions) off the top. The Cybernetic Consciousness have low growth (-1) but gain a +2 in terms of research and efficiency. A nice little leap over the University's measly +2 research and -2 probe. But the prize for the most imbalanced new faction has to be the Nautilus Pirates (unless you are playing on a small planet with little water and no scattered unity pods in which case it just sucks). Their ability to explore with foils (+4 movement), to build formers from day one and their relative safety to mid-game (the other factions tend to concentrate on land combat with water used for exploration until mid-game) gives them a grand advantage. Their -1 growth and efficiency modifiers can easily be overcome through tech trading (since they will be in contact with other races long before the others unless the map is a big ball of rock) and society modifiers.

As for the aliens, well, playing the aliens is wrong. Wrong like the British calling potato chips "crisps" and french fries "chips" is wrong. Wrong like the Rams going to the playoffs is wrong. (Who the hell is Kurt Warner? Arena Football? What the hell is that?) Wrong like Dubya reading anything over the level of Dr. Seuss is wrong. Wrong like, well, you get the point. Aside from their tech advances, the fact that each comes with a lovely Battle Ogre makes them invincible. I used that one unit to kill off 3 factions one game in the early going (2 capitulated and the third I just killed off for fun). Aside from the positive modifiers and the free tech the ability to do non-blind research makes them just too powerful to be left in the hands of mortals. Now, theoretically, the drawback to playing the aliens (either the Manifold Caretakers or the Manifold Ursupers) is that you acquire a game-long enemy in the other. Yet, in the games I played, I only encountered a few sorties by my opponent which I successfully beat back. There was little to suggest such a hatred in this "phony war". Since the humans were all too eager to sue for peace at the first contact given the built-in advantages that come with the faction this left for a dull management-only game. The outcome was never in doubt. As for playing a human faction against the aliens, the AI just doesn't make it that hard."

See what I mean? And with Civ-3, the ranting & disapproval of this or that "wrongly" applied or "obviously" unbalanced and historically "incorrect" benefit, is most likely to grow even worse. The reason for this is that when it comes to our civ-history, many players (including me) consider themselves their own experts. Add to this a timeline six times longer then in AOK, and a huge pool of 30-40+ available pre-game civs to choose your max 6-8 simultaneously playing AI-opponents from.
The irony of it all, is that even if they go for Civ-2 style benefits, any civ-player can still create civ-unique SMAC/AOK-style benefits of his own, with help of more powerful and the more easy-to-use Civ-3 editors that we all have been promised. And Firaxis can likewise still create any future addon-packs, with Civ-unique SMAC-style benefits in scenarios, if they want to.
And these scenarios dont have to start in late game-eras with mostly everything already built. They can also start early on, leaving the fun of empire-expansion, city-development and tech-tree pursuing, to the civ-player instead.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 28, 2001).]

[The diplomat]

First, we do not know exactly how "unique benefits" will actually be implemented in civ3. "unique benefits" might not be implemented the same way as in SMAC.

Second, the reviewer does not quite understand some of those benefits. For example the Drones' 75% chance to get a revolting base is not as great an advantage as it may seem. It is not 75% to get a base suffering drone riots, it is 75% chance to get a base that drone riots to the point of revolt. How often does that happen? In all the single player games, I have played, I have not yet seen this advantage really make a difference! If it does not happen that often with the AI, then it is definitely not going to happen in MP.
Regarding the Aliens getting a Battle Ogre. I agree that those little beasts are too powerful. However the reviewer fails to mention that the Battle Ogre can never repair itself. This is a pretty big negative! Attack the Ogre first or have a mindworm attack it, and it gets a lot weaker.

Third, the reviewer only mentions Crossfire factions. Well, a lot of people complained that the Crossfire factions were unbalanced versus the old factions, that is not new! It just means that the new factions are unbalanced. Are the old factions unbalanced?

All this proves is that some of the factions are unbalanced not necessarily that the concept of "unique benefits" itself is wrong!

So, let us wait and see how Firaxis plans to implement the "unique benefits" and then we can express our opinions as to its merits or problems.

I still believe that if it is done right, and the benefits are balanced, that it will be a great asset to the game just as the benefits of the OLD factions were an asset to SMAC!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Chronus]

If the "unique benefits" is to be implemented then, by all means, PLEASE make it an option! Trying to keep so many variables in balance is nearly IMPOSSIBLE as far as I'm concerned. Making it an option can obviously be done because it's there in AOE.

I want to be able to play against opponents on more even ground. And besides ... think of all the nightmare posts that'll pop up at Game League/Cases ...

... "Well, you only won because your civilization had the ability to blah blah blah"

[yin26]

Well-balanced (the operative word) unique bonuses will make the game for more interesting than many here seem to believe. And anybody who cries about losing when the bonuses are balanced just isn't a good player.

I agree, however, that this should be an OPTION. But if you look at AoK, I have NEVER seen anybody play an "All Techs" game. The fact of the matter is that ES did an oustanding job of play balance (well, the Teutons were out of whack before the Town Center adjustment). And these differences in civs are THE reason people still continue to play the game with such a passion. There's simply far more subtlety, stategy and possiblities because of it.

And nobody seemed to care that the Chinese are missing a certain tech/bonus and getting others, blah blah blah. 'Cause when the smoke cleared, people saw it for what it is: A GAME. Not a history book.

Sure, almost by definition adding more complexity to a game can make it "go wrong." But if we had that kind of attitude, any number of improvements we've come to love never would have made it in the game.

So, I see the answer here as follows:
[list=1][*] Make it an OPTION[*] Playtest, playtest, playtest and then when the Firaxis folk can't see straight any more, playtest it again, looking especially for how bonuses can be abused. For God's sake, don't just play the standard strategies...look for loopholes. Think of "TC-pushing" and you'll be on the right track.[*] And do your utmost to make these bonuses somewhat historical, though toss the realism wankers and racism tossers in the heap bin. Fun first. Realism a distant second (the whiners can just turn these off for the supposed "realism" they want).[/list=a]

So as far as I can see, there is absolutely no reason to worry if it's an option and every reason to be ecstatic if the bonuses are balanced, well-considered and at least passingly true to history.

I will join others, however, in saying that these elements can prove an absolute waste of time and worse if they aren't done with the utmost care.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited January 28, 2001).]

[wittlich]

I agree if CIV3 has unique bonuses then please make it an option of the game play

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 01-28-2001 04:29 PM First, we do not know exactly how "unique benefits" will actually be implemented in civ3. "unique benefits" might not be implemented the same way as in SMAC.

True. But, how many alternative ways are there?

quote: Second, the reviewer does not quite understand some of those benefits.

Well, my point was that regardless if this or that game-magazine reviewer (or player) have correctly understand these civ-benefits, or not; there always going to be very contradicting viewpoints on the subject.
One can argue if that really matters. Well, it matters if these important-to-Firaxis-salefigures big game-magazines spends almost 25-30% of their reviews, on ranting and complaining about "unbalanced" civ-benefits.

Anyway; I guess I can live with Yin26 solution also: Make it an option (like in AOK), so we can play around with the game, both ways.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 29, 2001).]

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-28-2001 11:23 PM Well-balanced (the operative word) unique bonuses will make the game for more interesting than many here seem to believe. And anybody who cries about losing when the bonuses are balanced just isn't a good player. I agree, however, that this should be an OPTION. But if you look at AoK, I have NEVER seen anybody play an "All Techs" game. The fact of the matter is that ES did an oustanding job of play balance (well, the Teutons were out of whack before the Town Center adjustment). And these differences in civs are THE reason people still continue to play the game with such a passion. There's simply far more subtlety, stategy and possiblities because of it. And nobody seemed to care that the Chinese are missing a certain tech/bonus and getting others, blah blah blah. 'Cause when the smoke cleared, people saw it for what it is: A GAME. Not a history book.

Yeah Civ is a game. But its a game thats about history. In a way that AOE/AOK is not. I played AOE before I played Civ, and one of the reasons I switched was that AOE/AOK didnt "feel right" as an empire builder, largely for reasons of scale. The scale was so wrong that it wasnt worth arguing about the ahistorical charecter of the civ attributes. Civ, despite the movement speed problem (unsolvable in a 6000 year scale game IMHO) has a fundamentally more historical appeal than AOE/AOK. AOE/AOK is an RTS with historic atmosphere - Civ is a history game, an alternative history gane rather than a grognard historical simulation to be sure, but a history game nonetheless. If unique civs (AOK/SMAC style, not the "distinction through learning" some have suggested)are an option many more of us will play without them than play "all techs" in AOK. because its a different game, that we play for different reasons.

[Biddles]

Even if they do implement unique factions without the option to switch it off (they SHOULD though, can't be that hard to do), it would be simple to switch them off yourself. Just open up the civ.txt files (assuming that they have the same level of edibility as SMAC, which is pretty much a given) and reduce all the modifiers to 0. It is not the end of the world.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 01-30-2001 12:29 PM Take a look at this extract from the Firaxis' Civ 3 site: "Culture and nationality will play dramatic roles in your Civilization's history. We have systems for reflecting cultural value of cities and civilizations that depend upon the players use of his resources." This seems to suggest that the unique civ benefits will develop from your playing style rather than be fixed at the beginning, which looks sensible to me.

If this is the case than I am all for it. I have always felt that having technology be based in some ways with what you have done with previous technologies is important. As is your people reacting to your decisions and you reacting to what your people want. If this does get included and is well done than the replay value will be huge and Civ III will be the great game we all know it will be.

[Jon Miller]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 01-28-2001 11:23 PM Well-balanced (the operative word) unique bonuses will make the game for more interesting than many here seem to believe. And anybody who cries about losing when the bonuses are balanced just isn't a good player. I agree, however, that this should be an OPTION. But if you look at AoK, I have NEVER seen anybody play an "All Techs" game. The fact of the matter is that ES did an oustanding job of play balance (well, the Teutons were out of whack before the Town Center adjustment). And these differences in civs are THE reason people still continue to play the game with such a passion. There's simply far more subtlety, stategy and possiblities because of it. And nobody seemed to care that the Chinese are missing a certain tech/bonus and getting others, blah blah blah. 'Cause when the smoke cleared, people saw it for what it is: A GAME. Not a history book. Sure, almost by definition adding more complexity to a game can make it "go wrong." But if we had that kind of attitude, any number of improvements we've come to love never would have made it in the game. So, I see the answer here as follows: [list=1][*] Make it an OPTION[*] Playtest, playtest, playtest and then when the Firaxis folk can't see straight any more, playtest it again, looking especially for how bonuses can be abused. For God's sake, don't just play the standard strategies...look for loopholes. Think of "TC-pushing" and you'll be on the right track.[*] And do your utmost to make these bonuses somewhat historical, though toss the realism wankers and racism tossers in the heap bin. Fun first. Realism a distant second (the whiners can just turn these off for the supposed "realism" they want).[/list=a] So as far as I can see, there is absolutely no reason to worry if it's an option and every reason to be ecstatic if the bonuses are balanced, well-considered and at least passingly true to history. I will join others, however, in saying that these elements can prove an absolute waste of time and worse if they aren't done with the utmost care. [This message has been edited by yin26 (edited January 28, 2001).]

Yin, once more I must disagree with you. The reason why no one ever plays AoK with all techs is because it is too boring that we, the game is not made with enough stragtgic options to allow people to create there own civ as in civ and civ2. I do not want a game like that and I do not even want one like SMAC. Sure it might cell just as the backstreet boys sell but it is not good gaming. Them being implemented will cause people to use them (since most just play default) and so the entire civ franchise will be weakened by them and the great replayability will be gone. Sure make that option (I can see how it would be very useful for scenario developers) but don't make it default. I am for the idea of bonuses and weaknesses coming in because of how you play the game but uniques at the start is just a horrid idea and I think it is for any eppic game (at least on the scale of civilization). And you still haven't addressed the issue that even in SMAC the different factions forced the player into one particular strategy, if that is not the strategy the player uses the bonuses of the particular faction are wasted (and since 1 or 2 strategies have proven themselves time and time again to be the strongest in Civ games who wins on a fairly equal playing field is decided by the faction choice). I have played AoK and AoE and the only reasson why I played it more than a couple of times is because I can almost always get 2-4 player games going. The uniques (I will repeat again) are neccesary because of the low amount of playing options and so are needed to keep more gullible players from getting bored quickly. And finally, there is no way that they can have even passing historicness unless the civilization was static like the Aboriginees. Face it, Civ is a dynamic game (or at least was) unlike AoK.

Jon Miller

[yin26]

Yes, that's precisely why it was so much fun to play all the civs and find the one that fits your style of play. That was the whole point of factions as well. I fail to see how making every supposed civ exactly the same does anything more than limit replayability and strategic challenge.

Sure, a civ that evolves according to your actions would be ideal, but can we realistically expect it? That's what SE was supposed to be, but we all know something was missing there.

And I'll just have to disagree with you that AoK's unique civs are there as some kind of candy for the masses. The fact of the matter is it takes an immense amount of time and gaming talent to truly execute strategies that both complement your civ and exploit the civs you're fighting against.

Then again, in civ you can take minutes, hours and days to decide what you want to do. A far easier task IMO. Relaxing and intersting, sure, but hardly much of a mental (or physical) challenge.

But all of this is pointless, really, since we don't even know how or what they are implementing.

[Jon Miller]

So are you saying that the theory of relativity (for example) was not mentally taxing because Einstein had a lot of time to do it in but who wants to be a millionare is(since it is timed)? I admit time does play a factor but a very small one and doesn't up the stategy much (you do like you do in Civ and just understand the game before hand, I never take long figuring out what I want to do in Civ and make all my choices instantly (same with smac), all the rts's do is make it so that those who click the fastest win (the most dexterity), while this has some physical difficulty it has no mental difficulty and I do not go to computer games for physical difficulty).

Jon Miller

[yin26]

Again, the grandioseness of Civ, eh?

If you want to try to compare Civ to the Theory of Relativity, be my guest. Einstein would probably point out a few differences, though. Civ just isn't that mentally taxing, sorry. Chess is much harder (especially when the clock is ticking, ahem). Civ is something to play when I want to relax. Of course, its beauty so far has been its simplicity and slow pace. I, for one, want more complexity and a faster pace (but still a TBS). Are unique civ bonuses the answer? We'll see. Could be part of the answer.

What I see, oddly enough, is a number people fighting to keep the game simple and then calling THAT "realistic" or "complex." I don't buy it. If that's your point here, then there's nothing to be argued. Most likely, Civ will remain the simple game it is. I'll enjoy it. You'll enjoy it. But went I want a real challenge, I'll play something else. Others will reach and consider playing Civ more difficult than writing a history book.

And I've heard this "who ever clicks faster" nonsense so many times. I have NEVER (not at least after I had learned the game) been beaten because the other guy was clicking faster. Every game of AoK I've ever lost has been because the other guy executed better econ/military balance along with superior troop mix and timing. But I suppose if you could look at the guy with a programmable mouse (the kind that allow you to literally script parts of the game), there'd be a legitimate complaint. And I'll grant that there is a certain minimum requirement of hand-eye coordination in order to play competitively, but it's much lower than many people think.

After all, it's easier to blame genetics than to admit you just suck.

[yin26]

By the way, you could give me until the day I die and I'd never come up with the Theory of Relativity. Some people are just geniuses. But if you put Einstein under lights and time-constraints of a quiz show, he might well look like a blathering fool.

It looks like we are heading down the tired RTS v TBS road. And I don't think either of us want to re-hash all that stuff. Maybe if MP Civ were somehow more feasible, I'd be a whole lot happier.

[Chronus]

Gee, I thought making it an option would be a win-win situation for everybody. As far as I can tell, all the "anti-unique civ" people (for lack of better words) haven't mentioned anything about eliminating the idea entirely, we just don't want to be forced to play the game that way. Personally, I see unique civs as a scenario ... and I love the scenarios in Civ 2! But I also like the good ol' fashioned way too with everyone starting out on a more even basis (not perfect, but more even).

Jon - I agree. Comparing AOE players and Civ players is like comparing apples and oranges. The guys at work, after playing a night of AOE, gather 'round, joke and laugh about what happened, etc. Civ players, however, continue the war long after the game is over. As the forums show, there's some kind of personal honor at stake with a lot of these people. Most of the time, it can be shrugged off. But some of the posts can get really nasty.

YIN QUOTE:
"But all of this is pointless, really, since we don't even know how or what they are implementing. "

Perhaps, but if we wait until they announce what they're implementing, it may be too late. I'll take my chances and air my concerns now.