EPTCivilization: Beyond Earth - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22031 Posts
On April 17 2014 08:37 screamingpalm wrote: Actually random tech was a toggle option iirc. You're right that it was still a linear progression though. I like random elements like that which make you develop strategy on the fly, rather than having a set "build order" or mathematically beating the game before even playing it... :D I guess it's still better than the linear tech of civ, but really hope they keep random research in as an option at least. Ever played Master of Orion 2 with an Uncreative race? Its about as random as a tech tree can get :p | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On April 17 2014 09:07 Gorsameth wrote: Ever played Master of Orion 2 with an Uncreative race? Its about as random as a tech tree can get :p Yes! I love that sort of thing lol. It's something that feels missing in more recent strategy games... GalCiv3's tech sounds like it could be interesting though. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
On April 17 2014 01:56 Sub40APM wrote: soft pre-reqs are still pre-reqs. If there is a tech that costs 5 turns to develop that increases your research speed by 50% then going for that and then a tech that costs 30 turns to develop is better than to just go for the 30 turn tech... I always had the feeling that there shouldn't be techs that give you more techs (or tech speed) in 4X games. If you look at civ5 it creates an issue where you basically just go from one tech point to another. It's especially bad design (imo) when the tech jumps are exponential. In civ5 you just have to go to National College then to Education then to Schools and finally to Labs no matter your victory condition. I always thought that science should be tied to something else. For example you could have religion give you science and then making your civ around religion would be a valid option. But another civ could use production to make science and for them production would be a bigger deal. For a science victory you could simply make science techs at the end so that it's only relevant for this victory. A lateral tech tree is still an evolution though. Since while you will always get the science lateral lane you have to make choices for your side techs instead of being pigeonholed in the techs prerequisites by science techs (like Civ5). The problem in a classic civ game is that it doesn't really make sense that you could tech something modern without knowing about sailing :p Edit: Another example of this problem is in Civ4 where with tech trading players were just beelining for techs that the AI doesn't prioritize. This make the player teching something they don't really care for only to get more techs out of it. To me it's just not a good idea and I'm glad they removed tech trading from Civ5. Now I'd just wish they make changes to how your beakers per turn works in Civ6. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
There needs to be some sort of give and take. I have had some ideas on this for years, but the general idea that all techs should provide multiple benefits and cause an exclusion on another tech. Using civilizations ideas you have food, production, happiness, military, science, culture, etc. Say each age you research 3 techs to advance and the techs are something like food/production; happiness/science...etc, but whichever ones you skip you simply lose out on. I'm not sure...something along those lines. In civilization you know you just get the necessary economic techs so your economy doesn't collapse, military techs so you can stay alive (or conquer), happiness techs so your civ stays happy, and then after those minimums the only thing to worry about is teching science asap so that you can get whatever else you need faster. Every game of civ 5 the tech paths are 90% the same with different branching around science based on your civ and desired win condition. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On April 18 2014 06:33 rezoacken wrote: I always had the feeling that there shouldn't be techs that give you more techs (or tech speed) in 4X games. If you look at civ5 it creates an issue where you basically just go from one tech point to another. It's especially bad design (imo) when the tech jumps are exponential. In civ5 you just have to go to National College then to Education then to Schools and finally to Labs no matter your victory condition. I always thought that science should be tied to something else. For example you could have religion give you science and then making your civ around religion would be a valid option. But another civ could use production to make science and for them production would be a bigger deal. For a science victory you could simply make science techs at the end so that it's only relevant for this victory. A lateral tech tree is still an evolution though. Since while you will always get the science lateral lane you have to make choices for your side techs instead of being pigeonholed in the techs prerequisites by science techs (like Civ5). The problem in a classic civ game is that it doesn't really make sense that you could tech something modern without knowing about sailing :p Edit: Another example of this problem is in Civ4 where with tech trading players were just beelining for techs that the AI doesn't prioritize. This make the player teching something they don't really care for only to get more techs out of it. To me it's just not a good idea and I'm glad they removed tech trading from Civ5. Now I'd just wish they make changes to how your beakers per turn works in Civ6. Yes I guess its true that all builds on Civ5 end up about getting national college, university and then schools, but thats a function of really two things: (1) you guide science and know the tech tree, so there is almost always an optimized approach. I would be interested in seeing science re-worked in civ 6 around what your civilization has around it, like if there is a lot of iron, iron working should be easier to research whereas if there is no iron then iron working should be relatively more expensive to develop. Make the research more organic -- this will of course penalize civs with bad starts but in a way maybe it will encourage them to agro more. (I'd also like to see early militaries cheaper to make for that purpose. Its completely impossible to wage an effective war over the same time period that massive empires were created by war, and it seems dumb how overpowered archers are. 3-4 strong archers will just murder whole armies AND take cities) (2) the ai. The biggest reason you go for slingshot techs is because if you are playing against a cheating ai you cant just do wahtever build, you have to optimize everything to stay even with a cheating ai. | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
On April 18 2014 09:06 Sub40APM wrote: I would be interested in seeing science re-worked in civ 6 around what your civilization has around it, like if there is a lot of iron, iron working should be easier to research whereas if there is no iron then iron working should be relatively more expensive to develop. You know that's actually a really really good idea. Instead of iron being discovered (revealed) by a tech being researchable, maybe you have to have iron in your city limits to be able to research iron working so you can use it. OR...perhaps every coastal city you have increases the speed of researching maritime techs by 10%. What if each worked mine in your civ gave a 2% increase in research speed of mining technologies? etc. Perhaps you I honestly believe its way easier to take a good concept and for other people that aren't related with the project to improve it than it is to come up with a good concept. The three things civ really needs are 1) Set AI scripts that allow it to compete for victory conditions and especially military scripts that are varied and challenging. 2) Tech choices that are meaningful with different ways to make it through the game. Right now its all about getting to the science level you need so you can then get the tech you want as fast as possible. I like the ideas of the game world itself impacting your path through the game...work against it to get something you prefer OR work with it and alter your gameplan based on what advantages you have. 3) More meaningful interactions with the opposing factions. The interactions are still too forced and not fluid enough and too random. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
(1) What you propose is only a precise case of what I propose. I'm just saying that tech shouldn't be tied to tech but to some other factor, in your case resources. (2) Yes but you can't avoid people looking for optimal ways because of that challenge, if people were able to do whatever they want then there's no challenge. So we want something where there is a decision to take, an optimal one being inevitable but which should vary from one game to another depending on external factors... But then we go back to (1), the problem being that civ5 optimal way to tech is almost only tied to the tech tree which is set in stone no matter your start. Which is why you and I propose instead something that is relying on external factors that vary from game to game. And like I said I would just go as far as removing science techs or if that's not possible give multiple version of it scattered in multiple branch and giving tech not only through pop. | ||
|
Jetaap
France4814 Posts
Am I missing something? | ||
|
Eliezar
United States481 Posts
What I don't enjoy is how long turns can take when its a bigger map with lots of AIs and how easy the game is to win if I make it to a decent position through a certain amount of time. | ||
|
Jetaap
France4814 Posts
On April 19 2014 03:06 Eliezar wrote: Jetaap...its hard to say because I don't know what you are comparing it to. The part I enjoy is the empire building, when I can eek out a wonder, and trying to go for different win conditions. What I don't enjoy is how long turns can take when its a bigger map with lots of AIs and how easy the game is to win if I make it to a decent position through a certain amount of time. I don't have a lot of references, i played a bit of Crusader King II and Europea Universalis, and i enjoyed it quite a lot but i haven't spent a huge amount of time into these games (15 hours for CKII) Overall i was just disapointed by the UI, and the game that i played was really easy but i think i should try again with hard difficulty settings. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On April 19 2014 05:27 Jetaap wrote: I don't have a lot of references, i played a bit of Crusader King II and Europea Universalis, and i enjoyed it quite a lot but i haven't spent a huge amount of time into these games (15 hours for CKII) Overall i was just disapointed by the UI, and the game that i played was really easy but i think i should try again with hard difficulty settings. sounds like you dont like turn based games. | ||
|
Nachtwind
Germany1130 Posts
oh god this is so awesome | ||
|
Arnstein
Norway3381 Posts
| ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
On April 18 2014 16:19 Jetaap wrote: I have tried civ5 because so many people play it and it has a good reputation but honestly i was really disapointed. The game really feels like it was made for touch device first, and the UI feels like a click fest. Moving an army across the map was insanely annoying. Overall i was expecting something much more fun. Am I missing something? If you're playing it without the two expansion packs, then you're missing a whole lot. Without the expansions, Civ 5 is more of a military strategy game and less of an empire building game. | ||
|
LaNague
Germany9118 Posts
If you play civ 5 because you want some epic 4x game about a civcilization that starts in the stoneage and ends with them leaving earth, then you will be thoroughly disappointed. | ||
|
riyanme
Philippines940 Posts
On April 19 2014 08:55 LaNague wrote: civ 5 plays a lot like a boardgame, some love it, some cant stand it. If you play civ 5 because you want some epic 4x game about a civcilization that starts in the stoneage and ends with them leaving earth, then you will be thoroughly disappointed. sounds like your an anti 4x we love civ5... 4x games are for people with lots of patience and more time to waste | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
 It's just sad after 3.5 years to still have garbage civ traits and policies that nobody use.If Civ had a nicely tuned balance and a better AI I'd have almost nothing to say against it. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
Take the best features of XCOM... the tactical combat, perma death and attachment to squad members (could be heroes or whatever title to give on-map leaders etc), the impending doom and sense of urgency... and mix these elements with a 4X game. Like, AoW3 has decent tactical combat, but still not as good as XCOM, for example. | ||
| ||
