Discussion about the format of the longturn game
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:10 pm
I thought we need a thread to discuss the format and our experiences of the longturn games. It's really cool with these huge games. Thanks to all developers, contributors and players for making it possible.
I want to start the discussion with something from in-game chat. Many players seems to do just one turn and never come back. What can we do make it better? Here are some suggestions:
1. Make it more of a commitment. Make people check a box with "I commit to this game and have intentions of playing it" or something. Send email reminders to idlers. Make it less than 12 turns of idle time if you only played one turn.
2. I think it can be off-putting for new players to meet neighbours right away. How motivating is it to be a little late and have your units start on others border? Or see that you have 5 active neigbhours bordering you? Personally I have no problem but I can imagine many players want to be able to at least settle down and get a few turns of development started before meeting other players.
If someone sends a warrior to the starter-pack, they really will have no chance at all as settlers don't move faster than warriors and warrior will just destroy the city immediately.
Other issues I would like to discuss.
1. Compensation for late joiners. Does this 30 gold compensation pr. turn calculate based on idle turns, or all turns. Could someone abandon a strong repbulic at turn 40, and a new player comes in at turn 52 and get 52 x 30 gold bonus? or would it be 12 x 30 ? I'm concerned about the balance between not being doomed for starting late, and not being able to buy lots of units and attack someone who has played well for 50 turns. This might or might not be an issue.
2. Could it be good to have some variations in the map topology? Personally I like maps with big ocean. Could be some kind of rotation-system for these games.
3. Are trade routes totally dead in longturn? It seems many people don't like it. The main arguments seems to be that it's not realistic to just get revenue pr turn from nothing. This argument is bad as marketplaces banks and stock exchanges just do that. Also It IS realistic to get revenue from trading with cities far away because of comparative advantages. The second argument is that it's harder for new players is a tiny bit better but CIV is complicated, and I don't see how trade routes are trickier than other features of the game like rapture or doing a good start towards a better government.
I think taking away trade routes makes the game less rich with less possibilities, and more boring. It is maybe the games most powerful feature. Taking it away is like playing a first person shooter restricted to only light firearms or FIFA without the top divisions.
I want to start the discussion with something from in-game chat. Many players seems to do just one turn and never come back. What can we do make it better? Here are some suggestions:
1. Make it more of a commitment. Make people check a box with "I commit to this game and have intentions of playing it" or something. Send email reminders to idlers. Make it less than 12 turns of idle time if you only played one turn.
2. I think it can be off-putting for new players to meet neighbours right away. How motivating is it to be a little late and have your units start on others border? Or see that you have 5 active neigbhours bordering you? Personally I have no problem but I can imagine many players want to be able to at least settle down and get a few turns of development started before meeting other players.
If someone sends a warrior to the starter-pack, they really will have no chance at all as settlers don't move faster than warriors and warrior will just destroy the city immediately.
Other issues I would like to discuss.
1. Compensation for late joiners. Does this 30 gold compensation pr. turn calculate based on idle turns, or all turns. Could someone abandon a strong repbulic at turn 40, and a new player comes in at turn 52 and get 52 x 30 gold bonus? or would it be 12 x 30 ? I'm concerned about the balance between not being doomed for starting late, and not being able to buy lots of units and attack someone who has played well for 50 turns. This might or might not be an issue.
2. Could it be good to have some variations in the map topology? Personally I like maps with big ocean. Could be some kind of rotation-system for these games.
3. Are trade routes totally dead in longturn? It seems many people don't like it. The main arguments seems to be that it's not realistic to just get revenue pr turn from nothing. This argument is bad as marketplaces banks and stock exchanges just do that. Also It IS realistic to get revenue from trading with cities far away because of comparative advantages. The second argument is that it's harder for new players is a tiny bit better but CIV is complicated, and I don't see how trade routes are trickier than other features of the game like rapture or doing a good start towards a better government.
I think taking away trade routes makes the game less rich with less possibilities, and more boring. It is maybe the games most powerful feature. Taking it away is like playing a first person shooter restricted to only light firearms or FIFA without the top divisions.