|
Post by knupp on Apr 25, 2006 14:18:19 GMT -5
Well i guess you don't know what is considered a counter in strategy games. Same strategy is not a counter, if only because it has exactly the same cost. When something is overpowered and don't have a counter, then something is wrong here. Also, by removing it we also nerf Phi somewhat in teamers. Besides, culture is persistent so even if you culture bomb as well, he who did it first still has a big advantage. Building culture building and raising the culture slider are also viable counters to Culture bombs. I'm thinking maybe 2-5 points per unit (just brainstorming here). If somebody loses an army attacking a city but burns the city the victim is the one that is going to be losing the most points. The attacker will be losing the points for their military. The victim will be losing all the points from the units they lost (should be a lot unless they didn't guard their city properly), the points from population, the points from land, and the points they would have gotten from future techs they would have researched earlier, if they hadn't lost the beakers the city was producing. I'm not saying the scoring point system should be remodified. I'm just saying maybe it needs looking at. I don't currently agree with it for MP the way it stands.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Apr 25, 2006 18:11:56 GMT -5
There are a lot of good ideas here. But maybe if there is a way to manage the lack of metals better... Like maybe as suggested with added costs for those w/o resources. Or maybe can add defense to warriors and archers, be it through promotions or an automatic buffer until a resource is hooked up. As a promotion, you need a barricks, and once you chose the special defense promotion, that unit becomes something like the machine gunner, though not as powerful. I am not suggesting a massive upgrade in the HPs just one that will enable the warrior to defeat an axe 3 in 5 tries. As to the Archer same as warrior suggested above but vice horse type units. I would like to see tha double move so disabled that a game would no longer take the full turn every turn the whole game. I would do this out of respect for other players, not because I feel it is an exploit. Just think of how slow a game goes when you have to wait all that extra time, on each move, just think how many more games you could play, and how much more enjoyment the game would bring. It is bad enough that most are unable to play on blazing, but they are so greedy that they want to waste more time trying to double move. Maybe we could lower some of the worker action times, and maybe speed up the game a bit. Not as fast a QC, but just a bit. It would give it a bit more drama, and with luck more kills. I also like the proposal about bringing back the VP idea. I admit that some of the idea was used as a basis for the scoring system we have now, but maybe we could improve a bit on the scoring system as it is now.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Apr 26, 2006 1:08:17 GMT -5
Ellester, you seem to know what your doing in terms of modding, how about start a thread for changes to future, and make a really good mod? 1) Ellestar 2) I have no idea how to play future By this weekend, I will have a proposed changelist ready. By the way, do we plan to change XML only, XML and Python or XML, Python and C++? Building culture building and raising the culture slider are also viable counters to Culture bombs. How about... No? It's not singleplayer. So, it will be too slow to counter a culture bomb. Just count a number of turns you need to get 2500 culture a normal way. Say, you have theatre and 2 wonders (8 culture each)... Ok, you'll get 2500 culture in 131 turns ;D Of course, you'll never be able to make 2 wonders in a border city. Not to mention that you'll be dead significantly earlier than 131 turns if enemy culture bomb will be close enough. Razing culture slider? And how much culture do you plan to have that way? Maybe it's more efficient to make one great person instead?
|
|
|
Post by donaldkipper on Apr 26, 2006 5:40:36 GMT -5
would it really detract from the game to remove the ability to culture bomb?
maybe just boost the culture bonus per turn when great artist added to a city
|
|
|
Post by zerza on Apr 26, 2006 6:54:33 GMT -5
would it really detract from the game to remove the ability to culture bomb? maybe just boost the culture bonus per turn when great artist added to a city No, it gives a reason to research music for us warmongers ;P One elaboration. Only change I think is maybe needed is Archers should have a bonus vs axemen, just to balance out the early metal problems. Most of these suggestions are just due to inability to react imho, and will throw the game off.
|
|
|
Post by donaldkipper on Apr 26, 2006 17:20:47 GMT -5
with the greatest of respect zerza, if you dont say which specific ideas you are talking about and provide the counter arguments, i dont see the point of making the statement
|
|
|
Post by zerza on Apr 29, 2006 8:51:48 GMT -5
How about a patch that has all the game changes from new patch, and the networking of the old patch (the one that "kinda" worked)
Also, DK, with all respect, merely saying "I think the culture bomb needs removed" is not enough of a statement for me to provide a counter argument. I will agree however that its a very unrealistic aspect of civ.
EDIT. Its occured to me that most of these proposed changes are problems on small maps. I notice many players play "small" maps with 7 or 8 players or more, and this is more then the recommended number of players for that map. Starting so close gives a great advantage to a few ancient civs and players with metal in the cap. Playing on a size appropriate to the number of players fixes all these balance problems, as it allows time to counter.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Apr 29, 2006 16:35:25 GMT -5
How about a patch that has all the game changes from new patch, and the networking of the old patch (the one that "kinda" worked) Also, DK, with all respect, merely saying "I think the culture bomb needs removed" is not enough of a statement for me to provide a counter argument. I will agree however that its a very unrealistic aspect of civ. EDIT. Its occured to me that most of these proposed changes are problems on small maps. I notice many players play "small" maps with 7 or 8 players or more, and this is more then the recommended number of players for that map. Starting so close gives a great advantage to a few ancient civs and players with metal in the cap. Playing on a size appropriate to the number of players fixes all these balance problems, as it allows time to counter. I think reverting the network code is not something you can even do with the SDK. You would have to be an experienced C++ programer to do that. And I'm not sure about the legalities of doing so even if you had the ability. CS
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Apr 30, 2006 10:46:31 GMT -5
The proposed changelist for version 1.0 will be out later today.
|
|