EPTOn October 24 2014 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So how is the game?
So how is the game?
Too sleepy to play it. But got al day tomorrow off, and it's rest day from gym ^^
Civilization: Beyond Earth - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
Too sleepy to play it. But got al day tomorrow off, and it's rest day from gym ^^ | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10673 Posts
| ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
| ||
|
KillerSOS
United States4207 Posts
I want some real first thoughts tomorrow though! | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On October 24 2014 12:14 GGzerG wrote: Hows the Multiplayer? I want to know if the gameplay is at all dynamic like in stacraft or just slow paced RTS as I am expecting... how could it be dynamic like starcraft when its a turn based game? Watching the best players, ie consistently beating the game on Diety in Civ before moving online, they have 2 minute turn timers. So 6 players will take 12 minutes at max to do one turn. Games last to about 200 turns. Even at a rapid 1 minute turn pace thats 1200 minutes or so. | ||
|
ToT)OjKa(
Korea (South)2437 Posts
They usually last maybe 1-4 hours. Or maybe longer than that. | ||
|
KillerSOS
United States4207 Posts
On October 24 2014 12:25 Sub40APM wrote: how could it be dynamic like starcraft when its a turn based game? Watching the best players, ie consistently beating the game on Diety in Civ before moving online, they have 2 minute turn timers. So 6 players will take 12 minutes at max to do one turn. Games last to about 200 turns. Even at a rapid 1 minute turn pace thats 1200 minutes or so. They do simul turns online | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
pros: definitely one more turn thing works, the game looks pretty even on medium settings, I really like the web tech tree (although maybe someone will find an optimized approach to it and I just dont know any better), the different load outs really do make each start feel different (although some feel super overpowered). cons: (1) ai is bad -- it seems much weaker than even BNW immortal ai in several aspects outright: (a) map movement, with miasma that deals 10 damage per turn bad map movement actually has a huuuuge penalty on the ai. I've seen at least 3 different ai battle groups just walk through miasmi until they got to their destination with red HP. The movement issues are compounded by the fact that at least on the map I was playing there several natural mountain choke points and the ai just happily walked down it. (b) diplomacy, I joined another ai vs a third one. After 20 turns of not doing anything to contribute to the war the ai i am at war with offers me what in BNW would be a total surrender, all his money and strategic resources. (c) the ai in general is much more passive, I expanded into 4 cities and concentrated on building them up, so 0 units, and no one even said a word. I didnt expect the ai to be Diety Consul Zulu with a 50 turn mass rush but still, this ai feels on the level of prince in terms of aggression (3) negative health doesnt seem like much of a penalty -- so far anyway --, I've been at -8 to -11 health the whole game, in BNW this would destroy my empire but here everything is full steam ahead, I am generating decent gold per turn AND I am in the science lead. Actually, the science lead is the most shocking, for the first 30-60 turns you are in a significant beaker lead. (4) this is more of a quibble than a complaint but while some of the interface changes is for the better, it feels crisp and futuristic, some is annoying -- specifically to find the specialists you have to take an extra click and look to the left of your screen instead of the right. I get that they were under pressure to not just be a Civ5 re-skin but boy, moving a screen and then default hiding it is not the way to do it! Still, take that with the qualifier that I am only 3rd in map score, that I have no real idea what I am doing except vaguely pursuing harmony and that one of the Ais is doing the good old Civ 5 consul city spam that could theoretically snowball into an unbeatable enemy. | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10673 Posts
| ||
|
ref4
2933 Posts
| ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On October 24 2014 23:19 ref4 wrote: Having fun so far! Wished they had more difficulty levels akin to BNW and the AIs are more competent and don't herp derp themselves to death on miasma Well BNW was what, 3rd DLC for Civ 5? Don't worry, I am sure BE will have a DLC or two. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
I feel like they added plenty of new systems and features to differentiate from Civ 5, but took a step back on things that should have been at the top of their list, like improved AI. Unfortunately it seems like Civ 5 all over again, a day one purchase for diehard fans but everyone else should probably wait until after one or two expansions when they add additional features and iron out a lot of the rough spots. We need a Brave New World for Beyond Earth. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
Played apollo right away and that was a faceroll. Had no idea what I was doing and still won without a scratch. Follows my "first impressions" post on civfanatics. It's okayish... worst fears have come to fruition though. At the top of my head. Positives: +New setting +Quests Flavor +Wide being a viable option +Multiple tile improvement choices +Techweb and virtue trees +3 Affinities with many differences +Buildings bonuses based on ressources +Melee units more relevant Negative: -Difficulty is non existent. Won my first game ever on Apollo while having no idea what I was doing. -AI hasn't improved on BNW, it's not agressive enough -Units shouldn't all upgrade at once like that, reduces difficulty -Trade Route requests are SOOOO annoying and the menu for them just plain sucks. -Trade Route have to be toned down in general, in number imo so that it reduces the annoyance while we're at it (one per city would be enough). -Many UI issues. I didn't think you could do even an even worse UI than Civ5. -Building Icons are so cryptic, no idea what I'm building from the main view -Health is just poorly managed. -Stupid useless wonders Strategy games have to pass through a serious test phase. This wasn't the case. UI clunkiness, bad AI and clear balance issues are just a sign of it. Welcome to beta. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On October 24 2014 23:40 -Archangel- wrote: Well BNW was what, 3rd DLC for Civ 5? Don't worry, I am sure BE will have a DLC or two. It's a little suspicious that they don't apply the same AI competency that they learned in BNW | ||
|
ref4
2933 Posts
On October 25 2014 01:11 Torte de Lini wrote: It's a little suspicious that they don't apply the same AI competency that they learned in BNW in BNW, the AI doesn't need to worry about miasma tiles and thus can be programmed to be progressively more aggressive, but with the introduction of miasma tiles it really limit how open and aggressively the AI can play, since I think they are programmed to prioritize avoiding those tiles at all cost or something on higher difficulties or doesn't care at the lower difficulties and just suicide their units idling on those tiles. this is easily exploited by human players. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On October 25 2014 01:17 ref4 wrote: in BNW, the AI doesn't need to worry about miasma tiles and thus can be programmed to be progressively more aggressive, but with the introduction of miasma tiles it really limit how open and aggressively the AI can play, since I think they are programmed to prioritize avoiding those tiles at all cost or something on higher difficulties or doesn't care at the lower difficulties and just suicide their units idling on those tiles. this is easily exploited by human players. Yeah this is sort of the whole problem. Civ 5 AI is still pretty weak, but it's better than this. It seems like they ported it over directly, not accounting for any of the BE features, as well as making the AI much less aggressive. That's actually a step back and makes it look like they didn't put any work into the AI for this game. In Civ 5, G&K and BNW were marked improvements over the base game, by adding new features and fixing broken things. That's great, and we ended up with a great game. But I think it's reasonable to expect Firaxis to skip the part where it takes two expansions to fix the broken things in their game this time around, and just save those for new and cool added features. Instead they took a lot of steps back so we are almost where we were with vanilla Civ 5. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On October 25 2014 01:17 ref4 wrote: in BNW, the AI doesn't need to worry about miasma tiles and thus can be programmed to be progressively more aggressive, but with the introduction of miasma tiles it really limit how open and aggressively the AI can play, since I think they are programmed to prioritize avoiding those tiles at all cost or something on higher difficulties or doesn't care at the lower difficulties and just suicide their units idling on those tiles. this is easily exploited by human players. I mean, even with the context/scenario of miasma, I would figure they would assert a trigger of sorts that allows the AI to both continue their initial plan while also accounting for the harm of miasma tiles: thus either avoiding it, doing things to compensate for its duration or something. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
For hardcore players there is always MP. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On October 25 2014 01:11 Torte de Lini wrote: It's a little suspicious that they don't apply the same AI competency that they learned in BNW The movement ai is BNW-issue but they also added a higher level of difficulty to the map itself. There are far more ravines/mountains than there are in maps generated on BNW, so you take that, layer in the miasma and they essentially turned 50% of the map into a one tile pass, mountainous, guarded by a fortress ai path, but they never bothered to teach the ai that some moves are just better not to be done at all. Very upsetting. Actually though, to be fair to the game upon further reflection I will give it one thing: late game ai seems more competent than in BNW. Mostly because it gets units -- hover tanks -- that ignore the whole point of terrain. And I have seen the ai pursue thematic victories. So there is that, but if you are used to BNW where on immortal-diety the first lets say 150-200 turns are the most important because you either snowball or some ai does then its definitely a let down. And thre trade routes are OP As fuck. You dont have to be Polystralia to build up a ridiculously massive empire with internal trade routes AND you suffer no real pain up until -22 or something like that , and even then you only suffer in terms of the ease with which foreign spies fuck your shit up. And of course as a civ fan, although my game downloaded at 9 pm and I figured "oh ill just dip my toes in till 11" the next thing I know its 2:30 am and I honestly could have played on... | ||
| ||
