1.FIRAXIS-patch: 17f tech acceleration is too fast to enjoy - Page 2

Spec · March 4, 2002, 17:53

I voted for "not important" cuz you can change it which ever way you want in the editor.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 4, 2002, 18:00

White Elk,
No sarcasism ment.

I usually play emperor. My fewer games on Monarch I experienced slower tech accelerations and more time to enjoy Ancient and Medieval Era.

It could be an impression though ...

AJ

Adm.Naismith · March 4, 2002, 18:01

Tanks Arrian!

Interesting links, and I must add I've seen lot of silly offers for trade, something like the "1 gold" offer mentioned.
What a pity I never saved nor grabbed a screenshot to show this.

Another silly situation: Playing at regent level, I captured a german city, then I tried to sell it to Chinese (the nearest civ, allied with me against german) because I had plenty of town and I preferred to reinforce Chinese that manage a far, corrupted city, for my empire. Chinese refuse to offer anything.

I gave the city away as a gift to Chinese: they accept, then order my former garrison troops to immediatly leave their new town border or else!
Come on, stupid AI, I've left the city to you just a second ago!

Adm.Naismith · March 4, 2002, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Spectator
I voted for "not important" cuz you can change it which ever way you want in the editor.

Sorry Spectator, you missed the point: you can't solve this problem with the editor, because the devaluation model is hard coded inside the game, and only Firaxis (as Soren mention in linked thread) can adjust the formula.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 4, 2002, 18:06

Spectator,

I find myself amongst those that feel rather insecure/unwilling to work with an editor, because it in time will lead to people discussing about non-equal products. Furthermore, if a qualitative game is solid from day one, most of us wouldn't feel the need to edit and alter ...

I've tried once though, but I thought about how I'd have to change everything back afterwards and my energy sunk to my shoes at once. Me adjusting the game myself just didn't feel ...
FAIR.

Kind regards,
AJ

White Elk · March 4, 2002, 18:32

AJ Corp. The FAIR

I agree with your impression; I just wanted to point out that the tech changes are indeed felt at the Monarch difficulty.

In my current game I've just learned Military Tradition in 1140 AD. This is much quicker than my prepatch average, and it seems that some strategies/methods of play are no longer possible.

Steve Clark · March 4, 2002, 19:11

I haven't been keeping up at all but didn't EVERYONE complain pre-1.17 that the tech research was way too slow? Now everyone is complaining that it is too fast? I mean, everyone complained about how it took to 400-100bc before you can get to Monarchy because of the forced number of turns (40) on some of the pre-reqs. Is this issue unrelated to that or did they change the algorithms because we asked them to?

lockstep · March 4, 2002, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve Clark
everyone complained about how it took to 400-100bc before you can get to Monarchy because of the forced number of turns (40) on some of the pre-reqs.

Sorry, but I don't get it. Without the 'forced number of turns', tech advantage would be sometimes even slower.

Quote:

Is this issue unrelated to that or did they change the algorithms because we asked them to?

They changed another algoritm (tech trading) because we asked them to, and now we are experiencing a lot of unforeseen side-effects (e.g. rapid tech advantage and a '1 human vs. 7 AI's' feeling).

Coracle · March 4, 2002, 21:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Just so you all know, Soren has said that Firaxis is looking into the rate of tech advancement and also the floor on tech devaluation (i.e. the lowest value a tech can fall to, currently 1/number of existing civs). Basically, they agree things aren't working quite right. See:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=43559

and

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=42905

FYI.

-Arrian

Let's hope one of these months Firaxis finally gets it right.

Dida · March 4, 2002, 22:55

I'm playing Monarch,Standard map. right now it is 1200 AD, i'm already building the space ship to AC.

kimmygibler · March 4, 2002, 22:57

It's mostly tech trading and the catchup bonus that causes the problems. This is the biggest problem with the game now.

Dienstag · March 5, 2002, 03:42

Two more things I don't think were mentioned yet:

Possibly one more factor in the furious tech rate (which I can't stand) is the instant techs that expansionist civs seem to get in droves. Nothing irritates me more than making contact with the English about 20 to 30 turns into the game, to find they have something like a 6 tech lead. This is about the time when it's still taking me 30-some turns per tech. You just know they're going to make contact with everyone posssible, and you'll be half an age behind if you don't somehow get in on that. So the expansionist civ ends up with some more money, and the rest of the continent is haflway to the Medieval Era, and NO ONE HAS RESEARCHED HALF THE TECHS, since they all came form obscure genius-tribes. That's not the way a fun game works.

Another factor is the multitude of "Do-nothing-but-allow-more-research" techs. If all the techs did something, I bet that the era would feel more satisfying, even if the number of turns was otherwise unchanged. However, yes, it should also last more turns.

I haven't played with the editor too much, and not at all on this topic yet. My first thought is that increasing the minimun turns per tech from 4 would mean, mostly, that you'd get more money from lower science rates. The general increase of tech cost seems to have more potential, but I wonder how this will work with the city growth/production rates... I mean, if you're still researching Construction, but most of your cities are stuck at size and have no city improvements left to build, is that really what you want? Come to think of it, that doesn't sound too bad. Anyone who tries this, I'm sure we'd love to see your insights.

For the record, I currently play on Monarch, and if this is any worse on Emperor I can't imagine playing that level...

Steve Clark · March 5, 2002, 11:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
I'm playing Monarch,Standard map. right now it is 1200 AD, i'm already building the space ship to AC.

Just like a Civ2 game. If I recall, there was a definitely movement to change some key Civ3 features back to Civ2. Firaxis, again, listened to our narrow-minded request and apparently complied. Now people are complaining about that they changed some key Civ3 featires back to Civ2.

Every single change will have side effects. We don't know what they would be, so don't be surprised that they show up because we just see the trees, not the forest. First we complain that it takes forever to research anything, now we complain that getting techs happen too quickly. I believe a solution lies in having the civer, through its actions, determine how slow or fast they get techs, not being forced into "ages". But then again, if they did that, you will get people complaining that the X age goes by too fast and that you will have researched one line of techs while ignoring other ones.

This goes back to my fire truck analogy of getting a blue one and then wanting a red one. You then get a red one but you really wanted a blue one. They give you a neutral color one so you can make it whatever color you want and now you say you want a blue/red one.

DFHNY · March 5, 2002, 12:46

i think it may take months or years to get the AI right
think about it, one change creates hundreds of other effects...
i look at it like this, I paid my fifty dollars and have enjoyed the ride, i see this software like Linux where we are all "play testers" and we constantly improve the AI over time with our feedback, maybe even open up the code to people on these boards who can code...because we enjoy the complexities and we are adults (as opposed to kids who buy game cartridges that can't be updated as easily, if at all). I just hope Soren keeps on tweaking the code. My point is that it will never be perfect, but it can be improved in itterations. Do we want those playtesting rounds to go on in the dark? More fun if we have a part in it. That being said, it is clear that the game has become too much "do this or else" and that is what I hate about it at the moment (playing Monarch level, I have little room to say a. not expand b. not get military tech c. change gov't d. sail around...sailing around was a lot of fun in civ 1 and 2...just to explore ya know). Some of the innocence of the game has been lost I guess since civ1, but it is still lots of fun. Soren: please make the different civs think differently about expand vs. improve like was done in civ2.

White Elk · March 5, 2002, 13:18

Steve Clark

The tech research aspect of this game needs improvement. Changes were warranted with the original release, and yet more changes are warranted with this current release. This isn't a matter of bells and whistles; but rather an issue of gameplay mechanics.

I agree that we as gamers may not be seeing the forest for the trees; but as far as this analogy goes, it is amongst these trees in which we dwell. Is it not possible that the Firaxians, who dwell amongst the clouds, are not seeing the forest for the landscape?

I think that by combining the views of the micro(Civ gamers) and macro(Firaxis) is gonna improve this Civ3 world.

Another analogy tweaked. Say you've restored an old horse drawn fire engine to it's original glory. Then you decide to take it to a craftsman to true the spokes, reduce the axel friction, and make some general improvements to increase it's performance. When you get it back you find that instead of a horse driven cart, it is now a horsepowered motor vehical.

So although I feel that the changes in tech research are a solid step in the right direction, I feel that it still needs some fine tuning. And what better way to gauge these adjustments than the pages of these forums?

Steve Clark · March 5, 2002, 13:52

White Elk

I like "not seeing the forest for the landscape". That is very clever. I think I'll include that in my signature.

In the past 18 months in this forum, I have witnesses many conflicting viewpoints on civ elements, including how the tech research should be handled. You seem to suggest that there is a magic answer. I say that such an answer is impossible to achieve because there will always will be a subset of civers that will want/demand just the opposite.

Quite a while ago, we (mainly Civ2/SMAC vets) documented some of the complaints that the ancient age went by too fast, as well as the complaints that you can research a modern tech without having some middle ages one. That led to, in Civ3, the forced Ages, not only forcing you to research nearly all of the techs before going onto the next Age, but in forcing a 32 or 40 turn rate early on so you are forced to spend more time in the age. (My response has always been that if you want to spend more time in the ancient age, go play one of Kull's Ancient Age scenarios). But alas, since this was one of the more prominent complaints, Firaxis complied but in hindsight, many(?) of those who made the original complaints determined that perhaps the way it was in Civ2 wasn't so bad after all. So perhaps that led to the tweak in the other direction and predicatably that aliented those that liked it the other way. My only point is that there must be a design decision on the approach to this one feature and stick with it. As with all design decisions, some will love it and some will hate it. You can't expect to tweak it to death and have more people like it because using your analogy, I didn't want you to fine tune a horsedrawn vehicle in the first place, I wanted you to design an airplane.

I know this offers nothing regarding resolving or fine tuning this feature. I'm just taking a historical perspective or perhaps a more forest perspective where it doesn't make sense to fine tune a pine tree when it should be a forest of aspens (or vice-versa).

aahz_capone · March 5, 2002, 17:16

Well, I think the age idea is a good one, it also helps keep the game visually sensitive to the delusions of grandure that occure in our own puny minds.

However I must stress I agree whole heartedly with Dienstag that TECHS MUST DO SOMETHING. When (or IF nowadays) I get the theory of evolution, the extra techs I "choose" by means of already having the others are the ones that don't do anything. refinery and corporation for example.

IMHO, the expansion (if it will ever happen or what they claim might be MP-pack) should add loads of STUFF to the useless techs. They give no "feel" to the age or game without doing anything. And don't anybody mention that I can "editor" new buildings/units myself, thats not the bloody point (for many reasons that I've mentioned in many threads).

White Elk · March 5, 2002, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve Clark
...You seem to suggest that there is a magic answer. I say that such an answer is impossible to achieve because there will always will be a subset of civers that will want/demand just the opposite.
...My only point is that there must be a design decision on the approach to this one feature and stick with it. As with all design decisions, some will love it and some will hate it.

I agree, although I support the notion of the game continuing to evolve. The Civ gaming world is indeed diverse, and attempting to make a perfect game for everyone and all of their different playing styles, is as you've said, impossible. I do think however, that a broader range of game "preferences" would go a long way towards satisfying the various gameplay desires of our diverse Civ community.

Quote:

I like "not seeing the forest for the landscape". That is very clever. I think I'll include that in my signature.

Thank you Steve; I am truly honored

Egyptian · March 6, 2002, 16:47

Interesting posts!

I don't so much mind the fast tech advance. What REALLY bothers me is the fact that instead of eight civilizations playing to win, it's me against the rest of the world! As mentioned previously, the AI trades techs so casually that they are all at the same scientific level. I wish civs would keep some of their techs to themselves sometimes - it would make the game SOOOO much more interesting and diverse.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 7, 2002, 14:06

Yes Egyptian,

as I too have mentioned on Willem's 1.18 thread:

COLONY CONCEPT (Willem's idea of controlling a weakened civ, heavily beaten civs with no perspectives whatsoever should surrender instead of being destroyed!!! Remember ALL real life wars?, remember history?)

+ Civs governments should matter a lot more in their interactive trading, wars, alliances etc. Right now, bitterly proven by the rapid tech concept, it's you on your own, no matter what you do ...

Slightly exagerated, but definitely an unrealistic feature that should be corrected somehow.

AJ