Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
edited September 2015
I mean look guys, it's an Alright Library, I just think calling it Great is a bit much though, right?
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Apparently the AI won't surrender if the War Score inflicts conditions that are too punishing, which kind of makes sense.
The problem is that the player can't change those conditions manually, it's completely up to the War Score to decide, and it really doesn't determine whether or not the AI will accept those terms.
So a lot of players are getting stuck in perpetual wars that can't end unless you wipe your enemy out wholesale.
While the base game has it's faults, I've come to like it. I'm actually rather excited for Rising Tide, seems like it will add alot of interesting choices. I do still wish we could build orbital warships and fight on the orbital layer.
DarkMecha on
Steam Profile | My Art | NID: DarkMecha (SW-4787-9571-8977) | PSN: DarkMecha
Apparently the AI won't surrender if the War Score inflicts conditions that are too punishing, which kind of makes sense.
The problem is that the player can't change those conditions manually, it's completely up to the War Score to decide, and it really doesn't determine whether or not the AI will accept those terms.
So a lot of players are getting stuck in perpetual wars that can't end unless you wipe your enemy out wholesale.
So it seems as if Maybe they intend that if you hit the other civs that hard you need to be ready to finish them off?
All I know about rising tide is that it has sea cities. And all I know about BE is that there is already too much space on the map. The game seems designed around having maybe 3 cities and not being able to place more but there is just space everywhere and the expansion is adding more space
Why do you think that? I usually wind up with a huge sprawling empire of cities, but I plan for that.
Because the management of the empire becomes ridiculous and because the game is eminently winnable before that for any strat. I mean you can have a big huge empire of cities but that is the design failure.
Look, play civ 5 and see how far you get before you run into other players/border contests. Now look at BE. It's almost double even on the base map size!
It's not that you can go wide it's that there is no interaction to do so. You just can keep expanding because there is always space
The Atlantean map really reduces the size of the land mass which puts you closer together. Obviously with sea cities that all just goes away again though.
Look, play civ 5 and see how far you get before you run into other players/border contests. Now look at BE. It's almost double even on the base map size!
It's not that you can go wide it's that there is no interaction to do so. You just can keep expanding because there is always space
Which is necessary for one of the win conditions. Even though that one is super fucking obnoxious to actually do.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Not for nothing, but IIRC, sea cities also broke the shit out of the original Alpha Centauri too. (And also Call to Power, if any of you remember that game.)
So, you know, if they're imba as shit in BE too, that'd be par for the course.
I'm going to guess noone here is exactly excited for the forth coming expansion this Friday. For whatever reason, I am though and I think I might pick it up. It seems to me like it offers quite abit of content.
Steam Profile | My Art | NID: DarkMecha (SW-4787-9571-8977) | PSN: DarkMecha
I am very excited, I am just super lazy and will be picking it up 'later'.
I'm in the same boat. I am greatly looking forward to the expansion, but my attention is predominately elsewhere atm and I know a month from now my full attention will be devoted to Fallout. So I suppose I'll wait awhile and get it after at least the first big balance patch?
I'm going to guess noone here is exactly excited for the forth coming expansion this Friday. For whatever reason, I am though and I think I might pick it up. It seems to me like it offers quite abit of content.
"Excited" might be overstatement, but I'm looking forward to it. I pre-ordered it on Steam because it was 10% off that way.
I'm going to guess noone here is exactly excited for the forth coming expansion this Friday. For whatever reason, I am though and I think I might pick it up. It seems to me like it offers quite abit of content.
I wasn't that excited because I didn't know it came out tomorrow.
But I kind of like Beyond Earth better than Civ V, so now I'm getting excited because tomorrow is here quite soon, but not quickly enough.
I've been playing a few games of the base version lately and thinking about picking it up. Are there any other deals besides the 10% off on steam?
GMG is 25% off. I picked it up, should be fun.
GMG always makes my bank go nuts when I buy through them. Debating if the extra 5ish dollars off is worth the hassle.
I read PCG and IGN's reviews of Rising Tide. They give it abit above 70% each, IGN especially citing "a lack of replayability, the same problem the base game has" as the reason for the lower score. Yet they don't go into any detail as to what exactly makes Civ5 so replayable for them over BE. I find both to be very replayable, but BE just didn't have enough "stuff" in it to hold my attention as long. I've seen the expansion draw the criticism that the hybrids only really add "3 factions" to the game, but the thing is that BE isn't setup like Civ5 so comparing a sponsor / affinity combination to a Civ doesn't work IMO. They are very different. Which is better? I think it's more down to preference.
It's funny to me because Civ5 got the same kind of comments with G&K I believe. They mention how each game of Civ5 feels so much more fresh than each of BE. However the IGN reviewer acted like all the game has to offer is "beat the game once with each affinity or victory type", which to me doesn't make sense. From that perspective you could say the same about Civ5's victory conditions and that would ignore alot of what the game has. I feel BE's main faults were A) the three victory conditions for each faction are abit samey; tech web was kind of small; C) not enough unit types especially in the orbital layer (also why no freaking helicopters?); and finally D) not enough "sci-fi" elements to cities / buildings.
From what I've seen, Rising Tide addresses atleast most of these for me. A)Not really addressed I don't think; B)More stuff to research I think right? Works for me, addressed!; C)Hybrid affinities plus a few new types of units, addressed! (though still no freaking helicopters or orbital ships, grr); D) Building crazy movable water cities is very sci-fi coolness! I can see fun options like moving your city near your enemy's coastline to extend orbital coverage over them and blasting them with orbital sats and whatnot, totally addressed!
DarkMecha on
Steam Profile | My Art | NID: DarkMecha (SW-4787-9571-8977) | PSN: DarkMecha
This has piqued my interest. The factions don't seem so generic, the graphics for the inbetweeners are good, and the sea stuff should help differentiate things from civ 5.
Also having more civs should help with the large maps feeling a bit empty.
What I found most absent in BE was the lack of natural wonders.
Natural wonders helped push me outside my comfort zone for colonization. Normally I wouldn't build the extra city in the strategically difficult to defend location with no notable industrial capacity. BUT I'VE GOTTA HAVE THAT FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH.
That diplomacy system they've talked about so much? Currently bugged such that you cannot ever make peace with any AI once they declare war on you. Which apparently they will do randomly for seemingly no reason. Great...
If it's just a bug and they fix it soon no big deal. However it will really torque me if their new diplomacy system is so flawed they can't fix it and just didn't mention that until now.
Also some people are saying the AI loves to make land armies to try to fight your ocean stuff and boats to try to fight your land stuff. Oh Firaxis...
*Edit - I think the funny thing about AI diplomacy in Civ games has always been that they are trying to win, just like you, so permanent peace just does not make sense for them. Sure military peace might make sense at times and should be part of the game, but at no time should they ally with you and be buddies forever since they will inevitably lose to you anyways. However I think a join victory condition that is doubly hard to achieve would be a cool idea.
DarkMecha on
Steam Profile | My Art | NID: DarkMecha (SW-4787-9571-8977) | PSN: DarkMecha
+5
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
where the hell is today's patch notes? I can not find them!
That diplomacy system they've talked about so much? Currently bugged such that you cannot ever make peace with any AI once they declare war on you. Which apparently they will do randomly for seemingly no reason. Great...
If it's just a bug and they fix it soon no big deal. However it will really torque me if their new diplomacy system is so flawed they can't fix it and just didn't mention that until now.
Also some people are saying the AI loves to make land armies to try to fight your ocean stuff and boats to try to fight your land stuff. Oh Firaxis...
*Edit - I think the funny thing about AI diplomacy in Civ games has always been that they are trying to win, just like you, so permanent peace just does not make sense for them. Sure military peace might make sense at times and should be part of the game, but at no time should they ally with you and be buddies forever since they will inevitably lose to you anyways. However I think a join victory condition that is doubly hard to achieve would be a cool idea.
I've always hated the "There can be only one!" approach the Civ games have always taken. Joint victory conditions should be abundant.
Posts
This doesn't bode well.
Maybe the Ai will nit make peace with player they know are about to win? A do or die mechanic to make the end game harder?
Unless there were other peace shenanigans earlier on.
Apparently the AI won't surrender if the War Score inflicts conditions that are too punishing, which kind of makes sense.
The problem is that the player can't change those conditions manually, it's completely up to the War Score to decide, and it really doesn't determine whether or not the AI will accept those terms.
So a lot of players are getting stuck in perpetual wars that can't end unless you wipe your enemy out wholesale.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
So it seems as if Maybe they intend that if you hit the other civs that hard you need to be ready to finish them off?
Or might be a bug. Who knows.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
The ability to go wide isn't a failure. That's one of the things that let's you know the game is working properly.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
It's not that you can go wide it's that there is no interaction to do so. You just can keep expanding because there is always space
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
Which is necessary for one of the win conditions. Even though that one is super fucking obnoxious to actually do.
So, you know, if they're imba as shit in BE too, that'd be par for the course.
I'm in the same boat. I am greatly looking forward to the expansion, but my attention is predominately elsewhere atm and I know a month from now my full attention will be devoted to Fallout. So I suppose I'll wait awhile and get it after at least the first big balance patch?
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
"Excited" might be overstatement, but I'm looking forward to it. I pre-ordered it on Steam because it was 10% off that way.
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
I'm excited to try the hybrid units, especially purity/supremacy.
I wasn't that excited because I didn't know it came out tomorrow.
But I kind of like Beyond Earth better than Civ V, so now I'm getting excited because tomorrow is here quite soon, but not quickly enough.
GMG always makes my bank go nuts when I buy through them. Debating if the extra 5ish dollars off is worth the hassle.
I read PCG and IGN's reviews of Rising Tide. They give it abit above 70% each, IGN especially citing "a lack of replayability, the same problem the base game has" as the reason for the lower score. Yet they don't go into any detail as to what exactly makes Civ5 so replayable for them over BE. I find both to be very replayable, but BE just didn't have enough "stuff" in it to hold my attention as long. I've seen the expansion draw the criticism that the hybrids only really add "3 factions" to the game, but the thing is that BE isn't setup like Civ5 so comparing a sponsor / affinity combination to a Civ doesn't work IMO. They are very different. Which is better? I think it's more down to preference.
It's funny to me because Civ5 got the same kind of comments with G&K I believe. They mention how each game of Civ5 feels so much more fresh than each of BE. However the IGN reviewer acted like all the game has to offer is "beat the game once with each affinity or victory type", which to me doesn't make sense. From that perspective you could say the same about Civ5's victory conditions and that would ignore alot of what the game has. I feel BE's main faults were A) the three victory conditions for each faction are abit samey;
From what I've seen, Rising Tide addresses atleast most of these for me. A)Not really addressed I don't think; B)More stuff to research I think right? Works for me, addressed!; C)Hybrid affinities plus a few new types of units, addressed! (though still no freaking helicopters or orbital ships, grr); D) Building crazy movable water cities is very sci-fi coolness! I can see fun options like moving your city near your enemy's coastline to extend orbital coverage over them and blasting them with orbital sats and whatnot, totally addressed!
Also having more civs should help with the large maps feeling a bit empty.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Natural wonders helped push me outside my comfort zone for colonization. Normally I wouldn't build the extra city in the strategically difficult to defend location with no notable industrial capacity. BUT I'VE GOTTA HAVE THAT FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH.
Armchair: 4098-3704-2012
I feel like they did some AI improvement as well. Felt more aggressive the bit I played today. The color coordination in the tech screen is huge too.
and I'm now reinstalling Civ5. Dammit.
You uninstall it?
I am waiting to see how the new expansion turns out for BE. I liked the game but the game is not as good as Civ5. And I play a shit ton of Civ5.
If it's just a bug and they fix it soon no big deal. However it will really torque me if their new diplomacy system is so flawed they can't fix it and just didn't mention that until now.
Also some people are saying the AI loves to make land armies to try to fight your ocean stuff and boats to try to fight your land stuff. Oh Firaxis...
*Edit - I think the funny thing about AI diplomacy in Civ games has always been that they are trying to win, just like you, so permanent peace just does not make sense for them. Sure military peace might make sense at times and should be part of the game, but at no time should they ally with you and be buddies forever since they will inevitably lose to you anyways. However I think a join victory condition that is doubly hard to achieve would be a cool idea.
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
I've always hated the "There can be only one!" approach the Civ games have always taken. Joint victory conditions should be abundant.