When do we get a warlords epic?

[mbuna120]

Sweet...

[Kronoz]

I have had so much trouble resolving the technical issues with vannila CIV, it has just been a couple of months now with problem-free gaming. So for me the Warlords expansion is a bit early, I want to explore the core game more......however, I would be interested in reading reports from warlord-events, and so I support the idea of an adventure or two in the near future.

Intrestings reports may be just what I need to go out and by warlords myself.

[T-hawk]

I fully support waiting for Warlords. At the least, it hasn't reached a stable patch level yet; the vassal states feature seems to have some seriously problematic behavior.

I think the resistance is mostly a matter of timing, but I think that's entirely legitimate. The scope of Civ 3 was just smaller, so by the time the first expansion came out and got its patches, everybody was ready for a fresh shot of content. Civ 4 has reached no such plateau yet. It isn't "solved" to nearly the extent that Civ 3 was, because it's a bigger game, and because the expansion came sooner. I'm in no rush to expand the game. And the $30 is a legitimate issue for some, especially after being burned by PTW which was $30 at first but essentially free a year later.

It's unfortunate that we have a fracture in the community over this. But I would submit that the players most vocally pushing for Warlords here are not the players who most fully flow with the RB variant experience. There's loads of variant territory yet to explore in vanilla Civ 4. We aren't about pushing on for the newest - biggerest - leetest games. We make our own path. Adventure Thirteen is a totally fresh experience compared to anything else I've yet played.

I don't think the deficiencies in 1.61 present any real reason to move to Warlords. We've lived with integer economic truncation, the AI combat misestimation, and the whipping bug for nearly a year now. Their impact on the actual game is minor, and the whipping bug can be voluntarily not abused (though I confess that I actually do make use of it with intent.) Sure, it'd be nice to have one more vanilla patch to fix those, but the actual glitches are the proverbial molehill to the mountains of argument over game design and customer responsibility.

"Just one game" is a slippery slope. Once players have gotten used to the new units and civs and gameplay fixes, there just won't be any going back, and I fear the rift will only deepen.

[mostly_harmless]

A business is still a business. If you take an enterprise's ability to make money away, who will own a business and provide a product? I don't fault companies for trying to make a profit.
Walk a mile in another's shoes to better understand their motives.

No need for walking in someone's shoes here. Motive is MONEY. And I have no problem with that.
I am, personally, not at all blaming anyone ever of making a profit.
My statement said "one COULD argue...". Just to put that right.

And vanilla was patched before warlords.

As for vanilla being patched before Warlord, I see it this way. Once someone said "lets develop and sell civ4 since the market is ready for it", these guys thought "Expansion" right from the beginning as a valid way for their business plan. So, I think Warlord was already being worked on, when the vanilla hit the stores.
And I have no clue about the actual sales of vanilla and warlords, but if there is a second expansion, it will be worked on already.

They didn't sell a faulty product on purpose and refuse to fix it.

Well, not on purpose, but developers knew about certain bugs, but were pressed to meet the release date pre-Xmas.
After that it's just weighing the costs and gains of spending money on patches or new expansions.

My view.

[sooooo]

I don't know why the debate turned to whether putting out warlords this early is morally the right/wrong thing for Firaxis to do. Simple fact is: it's here. No one can change this. Do we play with it, or not?

"Just one game" is a slippery slope. Once players have gotten used to the new units and civs and gameplay fixes, there just won't be any going back, and I fear the rift will only deepen.

Personally if I load up a game to play on my own for fun, I do it on vanilla, not warlords. I dislike the vassals and the trebuchets. So I don't think you have much to fear about here. I was just voicing my support for an event with warlords because Sirian was asking if there was any interest. I'd play a warlords event if one appeared.

It's unfortunate that we have a fracture in the community over this. But I would submit that the players most vocally pushing for Warlords here are not the players who most fully flow with the RB variant experience.

It's OK to think this, but a bit rude to say it aloud.

[Sirian]

It's OK to think this, but a bit rude to say it aloud.

Why do you think that?

What's rude about observing that interest level in variantism varies from player to player? I think it's a legitimate observation to make that variant players would squeeze more out of an existing game, while players closer to the mainstream would be readier to move on.


T-hawk fears a split, but I see it as inevitable and not to be feared. It's OK if some players play only Warlords, some only Vanilla, and some do both. It's the same equation that says it's OK if some play only Gentle Adventures or maybe an easy Epic, some only Extreme Adventures and the hardest Epics. Our tent has grown a bit larger. If nobody were playing the Gentle Adventures, we'd stop offering them. If turnout is particularly low for either Warlords or Vanilla, that will guide where our attentions get placed.

T-hawk may be right about waiting for the next patch first, though. We waited with Vanilla for some things to get straightened out.


- Sirian

[mbuna120]

To mostly harmless: Points taken. We just have slightly different views.

As for this...

Originally Posted by T-hawk
It's unfortunate that we have a fracture in the community over this. But I would submit that the players most vocally pushing for Warlords here are not the players who most fully flow with the RB variant experience.

I hadn't seen this post, but I agree with sooo that it's a little on the rude side. I haven't been here on RB for long at all, I know. I am not asking the whole community to switch to Warlords... but I REALLY admire this site, and have found the games to be great fun. For the record, I am not bored with CiV4 vanilla at this point. But that doesn't mean I want to eschew the new expansion either. I would like to have both hosted on this site, which seems to be fair. Unfortunately, I appear to be the most vocal about warlords, so I take a little offense to that statement. The variants are great... and I'm sure they would be equally great on warlords.

[sooooo]

It's OK if some players play only Warlords, some only Vanilla, and some do both. It's the same equation that says it's OK if some play only Gentle Adventures or maybe an easy Epic, some only Extreme Adventures and the hardest Epics. Our tent has grown a bit larger. If nobody were playing the Gentle Adventures, we'd stop offering them. If turnout is particularly low for either Warlords or Vanilla, that will guide where our attentions get placed.

T-hawk may be right about waiting for the next patch first, though. We waited with Vanilla for some things to get straightened out.
- Sirian

Agree 100% with this .

[blid]

I don't think the deficiencies in 1.61 present any real reason to move to Warlords. We've lived with integer economic truncation, the AI combat misestimation, and the whipping bug for nearly a year now. Their impact on the actual game is minor, and the whipping bug can be voluntarily not abused (though I confess that I actually do make use of it with intent.)

I agree we can live with all the stuff you mentioned here. My main argument for launching an adventure on warlords is to experience the new AI behaviour because I felt it was better. I only played a couple games on warlords and experienced better resistance in my games. Sure it is not enough to deduce anything but what is better than an RB event to check it out ?

It's unfortunate that we have a fracture in the community over this. But I would submit that the players most vocally pushing for Warlords here are not the players who most fully flow with the RB variant experience.

Why do you think that?

What's rude about observing that interest level in variantism varies from player to player? I think it's a legitimate observation to make that variant players would squeeze more out of an existing game, while players closer to the mainstream would be readier to move on.

Honestly, I didn't take it that way. I think there's a value judgment here (hope I got the right wording). For myself, I'm far away from thinking that the variant experience is exhausted in vanilla CIV. I just think that warlords may offer a better gameplay experience with the improved AI. It's not about that shiny new unit or unvisited trait.
Waiting for a patch that solves the issues with vassal states and other minor bugs is legitimate though

...
There are five possible outcomes:

1. Not enough interest to produce a sufficient Approval Process. Result: We stick with the core game.

2. The RBCiv community concludes that Warlords is not as well balanced as the core game and would be a net drag on our events. Result: We stick with the core game.

3. The game turns out to have issues, which revolve around bugs or correctable mishaps. Result: We decide to "wait and see what happens from patches," postponing a decision.

4. Opinions are divided or the evidence is confused and unclear. Result: We run some expanded events but continue with vanilla events, too.

5. After due consideration, the product receives a glowing recommendation. Result: We move the RB tournaments to Warlords and never look back.

I am seeing here many reasons that can make the community stick with vanilla and understand them fully. But why is launching an approval process by itself creating controversy ?

[Sirian]

I am seeing here many reasons that can make the community stick with vanilla and understand them fully. But why is launching an approval process by itself creating controversy ?

If controversy is to be defined as differing opinions, then we are friends of controversy.

If you think is controversy, stay away from the general forum when RB elderly types are engaging no-holds-barred political or philosophical debates.

Seriously, what controversy?


By the by, I now have a copy of Warlords. (And also World of Warcraft). My eternal gaming benefactor, Chairman Kaga, has airdropped some software in to my lap. "No excuses for you!"

So anyway, after I get it installed (maybe not today, but certainly by Monday) I'd be equipped to sponsor a C4W Adventure. I was also thinking that if Vassalage is the only reason NOT to play an event, then it's not much of a reason. I can simply tick off that option when setting it up. (Don't jump out of your skin, Warlords Advocates. This wouldn't be starting right away). Are there other show-stopping problems for which a patch is needed?


- Sirian