Quick survey on what makes for good 4x/civ design

[Dp101]

If I was looking to actually sell the game, then yes, I would post it elsewhere as well. But, all we were told to do in the class was to survey our target audience, so, hardcore players.

[DaveV]

Number of decisions: Keep in mind that this also scales with the map size, so you can accommodate many different kinds of players here. I don't like having many small decisions, so I always play civ on tiny or small maps. Other people like playing on huge maps, for some reason I can't even begin to understand.

One of the great weakness of most 4x games is that the number of decisions also scales with size of empire, and with the turn number. In the early game when you have one city and a couple units to manage, the turns fly by. In the late game, it can be a chore to play each turn, even if you're on a small map.

[RFS-81]

Of course, but there was also a question about how far the number of decisions should scale up as the game progresses, which covers that.

[Brian Shanahan]

My current CS class is currently requiring students to do some research on our ideas for projects that we have come up with, and that includes talking to potential users of the projects we wish to make. Currently, I'm planning on adding an AI and procedural generation to a kinda-crappy civ clone I made last year, and I feel that RB would be a good place to get feedback on what kinds of ideas/design philosophies people want to see in 4x/civ style gameplay. Posting this here rather than in the gaming table because most of the questions are designed from a perspective of trying to make a game similar to civ, I hope that's ok. Survey is here. If you have any questions about any of the questions, let me know.

Should really cut the number of responses allowed per question. 1-10 is too high, it will be more likely to cause people to clump their answers to the middle. Though you are right to go with an even number, eliminates the "meh" answer to some extent.

For gradiations in answers, really 6 choices should be the maximum.

I'll probably come back with more.

Edit: What do you mean by "deep/complex" in your fifth question? Is it in the Sullla sense where complex is confused for complicated, i.e. where there are lots of steps to be carried out to perform a particular task, or is it in the true sense where the outcome is not necessarily evident from the the rules governing the inputs (see for example Langton's Ant). This is quite an important thing to differentiate, because the two ideas can lead to radically different goals and games.

High skillcap question is, I believe, a red herring. I'm among the lesser tier players here in terms of Civ IV yet that game can both cater for me and stronger players (though with the AI's ins and outs known, the stronger players probably need MP for a regular challenge). I'm going to assume, to answer the question, that what your asking is "how well does the AI play the game", and if it were a narrative question my answer would be "well enough not to have to resort to cheats at the high levels, but flexible enough that most players, with moderate practice, can beat it at the 'fair' level without too much effort expended learning the game".

[Dp101]

Deep/complex to me basically means there are a lot of rules/algorithms governing how something works, with some of the mechanics being calculations that the player does not see, and other parts being very visible and having clear ways to interact with it. For example, the Civ 4 maintainence system is an example of a fairly complex system, with some parts (inflation) being inscrutable and impossible for the player to interact with, and others, like city maintainence, having obvious ways for the player to interact with it (build cities to raise it, build courthouses to reduce it). I don't have a distinction between complex under-the-hood mechanics and complex surface mechanics, probably an oversight. Just pretend that they are the same for purposes of answering the question.

To me, a high skillcap does not mean "must play for 1k hours to beat the Ai ", but rather that the potential ceiling of optimal play is several times more efficient than that of a new player. It's completely distinct from the AI question.

[Japper007]

I disagree with conflating complexity and depth.

-A game can be extremely complex; but lack in depth, like certain Paradox strategy sims, basically they all come down to: get big to "win", while the interface/mechanics can take months to fully understand.

-or the other way around: the basic mechanics of chess can be taught in give or take an afternoon, while the strategic depth of the game can take years to grasp, and most people don't ever get so far as to really "get" chess.

[Psillycyber]

What I mainly like from a 4X game is the opportunity to pull off something that makes me feel like I'm "clever." A game that gets me theorycrafting just from reading a few other player reports and barely grasping the outlines of the game mechanics is usually a game that I can't help but buy shortly thereafter, in order to put my theorycrafting to the test...in the hopes that I'll pull off some "killer strat." And with each test of my theorycrafting, I learn more about the game and get a feeling of improvement. The immediate urge to theorycraft outside of the game (like, when I'm taking a shower or walking the dogs), especially a game that I don't even own yet, is the best indicator that the game is doing something right for me.

In the past 10 years, I can count on both hands the number of games that have given me that feeling:
*SMAC
*Civ4/FFH2
*Pinkpuff's Final Fantasy Negative One hack
*Sid Meier's Pirates
*MoO1
*FTL
*Stardew Valley
*Rimworld
*Minecraft (despite being an open-world sandbox game, there are a lot of "clever" things you can do in that game, and as I became more experienced at it, I was able to come up with all sorts of handicaps that kept the need for theorycrafting and testing alive. Like, for example, "No punching trees." So, how do I get starting wood? There are ways. Likewise, no mining with pickaxes. How do you get ores? There are ways. I had a lot of fun with that sort of thing, in addition to the cozy aesthetic feeling of building a safe, cozy fortress—a similar feeling I get from building a Rimworld base, or achieving a veto block in MoO1 and steadily extending my advantage).

[RefSteel]

As has been mentioned above, displaying critical information at the expense of volume of data in the main interface is generally a good thing, but that doesn't mean lots of sub-menus are required. For anyone who wants to dig beyond the main interface, other screens should be accessible where information density is much higher.

Relatedly, with the maps, a range of map-generation options should be available, as this is much of what drives the game's replayability. To the extent that balance and believability can't coexist in the same map script, there should be believability-focused maps for casual (or challenging variant) games and balance-focused maps for hardcore MPers and the like.

[Dp101]

As has been mentioned above, displaying critical information at the expense of volume of data in the main interface is generally a good thing, but that doesn't mean lots of sub-menus are required.  For anyone who wants to dig beyond the main interface, other screens should be accessible where information density is much higher.

Relatedly, with the maps, a range of map-generation options should be available, as this is much of what drives the game's replayability.  To the extent that balance and believability can't coexist in the same map script, there should be believability-focused maps for casual (or challenging variant) games and balance-focused maps for hardcore MPers and the like.

Ok, but say that hypothetically, there were not enough resources to create multiple map scripts, and you had to choose between balance and believability, which would be better? Because in the course of this project, I'll be surprised if I get even one halfway-decent map script done, so I'll definitely have to make the tradeoff.

[RefSteel]

Ok, but say that hypothetically, there were not enough resources to create multiple map scripts, and you had to choose between balance and believability, which would be better? Because in the course of this project, I'll be surprised if I get even one halfway-decent map script done, so I'll definitely have to make the tradeoff.

In that circumstance, the trade-off is kind of irrelevant. You need a mapscript that's playable in the sense that it actually has the terrains that are supposed to impact gameplay and the maps don't all look the same and there's something interesting to explore and expand to. Short of a "Totestra" on the one hand or mirrored script on the other, believability is more about the graphics than anything else, and the fastest way to get a balanced map is to create a script that builds a "believable" map that's (1/[# of players]) of the desired size and duplicate it [# of players] times a'la Seven's Mirrorland.