Civilization 5 Announced

[luddite]

Usually all changes are considered nerfs/buffs . Afterall thats what happens. Every change can be interpreted as a nerf/buff.

that's not true at all! Suppose they made a change like: Maritime states give +20% food production, with an increase in later eras. Right now they give only a fixed + 2. so the 20% is more if you're producing more than 10 food, otherwise less. It's not a buff or a nerf, it's just a change.

Admittedly that would still tend to be a nerf overall, but you can think of other examples that just completely change how something works.

[Rowain]

Admittedly that would still tend to be a nerf overall, but you can think of other examples that just completely change how something works.

If you make a change that has any effect at all then it is either a nerf or a buff else it wouldn't be a change.
There are ofcourse changes that include both for example a nerf for early ages and a buff for later and so on but still any change is a buff/nerf.

or to use your example it is a buff for big farmed cities and a nerf for size1 holes

[Kylearan]

If you make a change that has any effect at all then it is either a nerf or a buff else it wouldn't be a change.

Do you consider the change from square tiles to hex tiles a nerf or a buff?

[Rowain]

Do you consider the change from square tiles to hex tiles a nerf or a buff?

Since it reduces the possible moves a nerf

edit and it reduces also the number of tiles immediatly workable by the city.

[luddite]

Since it reduces the possible moves a nerf

edit and it reduces also the number of tiles immediatly workable by the city.

you have a very strange definition of "nerf" then.

[Tredje]

I have to agree with the negative comments about this list of changes. Some of them, like the nerf to horses and insta-heals, were indeed warranted, but balance issues such as these are not the reason why Civ5 has failed to impress a sizable portion of their old fans.

In addition I have to add that I find the separation of changes into the two simple categories of nerfs/buffs an extremely reductionist view. Sure, you can view it as such, just as you can view anything from a black/white perspective, but I don't think it's conducive to a rewarding discussion. If a game for instance made changes solely based on whether it would become easier or harder, you would be missing out on lots of other opportunities. I certainly hope that this is not the way the Civ5 developers think about their game. Seeing as several of the forum members here have been involved in the testing of games, I am sure they can offer different views of conceptualizing implementations. You could for instance ask: "How can we make tiles and improvements more interesting/diverse? Will these changes make exploration and settling new lands more or less rewarding? How can we make the player want a building, while at the same time ensuring that other buildings/workers/units remain viable choices? Can we make it so that the player will want an early social policy, while waiting for a later one also has its benefits?"

[Rowain]

you have a very strange definition of "nerf" then.

In addition I have to add that I find the separation of changes into the two simple categories of nerfs/buffs an extremely reductionist view. Sure, you can view it as such, just as you can view anything from a black/white perspective, but I don't think it's conducive to a rewarding discussion.
If a game for instance made changes solely based on whether it would become easier or harder, you would be missing out on lots of other opportunities.

We can discuss semantics if you like but one can use nerf as synonym for 'reduces' and buff for 'increases' for example. Mind you I do not use these term as values per se. Nerfs can be good things and buffs can be bad things. Besides as I mentioned changes can be Buffs/nerfs at the same time depending on the situation and sometimes also on pov. It has little to do with easier or harder

You could for instance ask: "How can we make tiles and improvements more interesting/diverse? Will these changes make exploration and settling new lands more or less rewarding? How can we make the player want a building, while at the same time ensuring that other buildings/workers/units remain viable choices? Can we make it so that the player will want an early social policy, while waiting for a later one also has its benefits?"

And if you think abit about your ideas you will realize that they include changes which will buff tile-yield or buildings or early policies etc

[Tredje]

And if you think abit about your ideas you will realize that they include changes which will buff tile-yield or buildings or early policies etc

I am not challenging your argument that any change can be perceived as a nerf/buff. I also wouldn't attempt to convince a devout believer that human actions aren't necessarily either sinful or virtuous. What I am challenging is the convenience of your categories. Yes, adding a new improvement can be interpreted as a buff/nerf, but is it fruitful to use such categories of thought? I would rather view such a change as increasing the complexity and strategic depth of a game. Then we can discuss if this is desirable. In a similar vein you could argue that adding or reworking diplomatic options "buff" diplomacy. To me such a conception is stretched and not at all beneficial to discussion. Rather I would focus on something along the lines of adding meaningful and sensible interaction with the AI civs. This is not to say that no changes involve buffing or nerfing, just that all of them don't.

[Adlain]

The Bit that gets me about all this is because of steam i cannot even choose wether or not to patch my game with these new condtions or keep it in its current state. Im forced to patch it wether i like it or not.

[Serdoa]

I am pretty sure you can tell Steam not to update your games automatically. Not sure where to find the option exactly, but it is there.