mobster_san wrote:

Science mode has been changed to not take food production and therefore stagnate the city (also define "broken")

"Broken" in the sense that it allows you to research an entire era worth of technology with very little downside (5 turns of production/city development loss is negligible in contrast). Of course, the real issue in Lucy was production scaling. Even my wife, who is a beginner-level Civ player, managed to have hundreds production in her city on her first playground, by basically randomly plopping down quarters. 

It is a bit difficult for me to clearly put my worries in words as I haven't spend too much time on accurate analysis, but I would summarize it by "volatile gameplay". Situation in the game can change extremely quickly. It can take  one turn to double the city's production (e.g. by attaching territories or building upgrades). Same goes for territories changing hands. I don't think these kind of massive, rapid changes are a good thing to have in a grand strategy game. And while they can be balanced and limited (e.g. by capping production output by population), the problem I see with Humankind is that this kind of volatility is part of the base rules — which would need to be changed significantly. And I just don't think it can be done  in the brief period of time left. 

I just came from the video and relogged into my account for the first time in 2 years to see what the reaction was... But I think you're spot on. Its the mechanics that give rise to the problem. The numbers are too high. In comparison to any other 4x game I would say the early bonuses are obscene. The model of the game though has you essentially playing several different civs simultaneously, and that appears to have exactly the outcome you'd expect. A game where everything is dialed up by that multiple. Spiff plays 3 cultures, wins 3 times as fast. It's jarring when compared to the other endless games. Especially Legend which it looks most alike. 

consilio wrote:

I just came from the video and relogged into my account for the first time in 2 years to see what the reaction was... But I think you're spot on. Its the mechanics that give rise to the problem. The numbers are too high. In comparison to any other 4x game I would say the early bonuses are obscene. The model of the game though has you essentially playing several different civs simultaneously, and that appears to have exactly the outcome you'd expect. A game where everything is dialed up by that multiple. Spiff plays 3 cultures, wins 3 times as fast. It's jarring when compared to the other endless games. Especially Legend which it looks most alike. 

There is no "winning" implemented in Lucy, except having the highest fame at the end of the scenario, which is a fixed length.

FlamingKetchup wrote:

consilio wrote:

I just came from the video and relogged into my account for the first time in 2 years to see what the reaction was... But I think you're spot on. Its the mechanics that give rise to the problem. The numbers are too high. In comparison to any other 4x game I would say the early bonuses are obscene. The model of the game though has you essentially playing several different civs simultaneously, and that appears to have exactly the outcome you'd expect. A game where everything is dialed up by that multiple. Spiff plays 3 cultures, wins 3 times as fast. It's jarring when compared to the other endless games. Especially Legend which it looks most alike. 

There is no "winning" implemented in Lucy, except having the highest fame at the end of the scenario, which is a fixed length.

Having the highest Fame at the end of the game IS the "Winning" condition -- and the only winning condition they've announced.

BobWilson wrote:

I blocked the spiffing Britt quite annoying to take the fun out of life by doing what he does, I am sure some are entertained by his antics but a lot of people don't find it amusing or productive in anyway.  most people don't devote their lives to finding exploits in every single video game so his videos are useless except to a small percentage of people that want to goc at that nonsense. 

I don't think the Devs or anyone should take him seriously when it comes to game development, its humorous to watch maybe.... maybe. but nothing serious or productive comes out of any of his videos other than what can be achieved by devoting all your energy to exploiting videos games.... and for what reason? pure ego entertainment on his part

While i disagree on the "annoying" part (we all have different tastes), i agree that the devs should not take SpiffingBrit's video seriously... apart from the fact it may point to glaring issues.

As said above, several of us have managed to soundly beat the AI using the Hun/Mongol combo.

gigaudobaix wrote:

BobWilson wrote:

I blocked the spiffing Britt quite annoying to take the fun out of life by doing what he does, I am sure some are entertained by his antics but a lot of people don't find it amusing or productive in anyway.  most people don't devote their lives to finding exploits in every single video game so his videos are useless except to a small percentage of people that want to goc at that nonsense. 

I don't think the Devs or anyone should take him seriously when it comes to game development, its humorous to watch maybe.... maybe. but nothing serious or productive comes out of any of his videos other than what can be achieved by devoting all your energy to exploiting videos games.... and for what reason? pure ego entertainment on his part

While i disagree on the "annoying" part (we all have different tastes), i agree that the devs should not take SpiffingBrit's video seriously... apart from the fact it may point to glaring issues.

As said above, several of us have managed to soundly beat the AI using the Hun/Mongol combo.

I think the problem is too much synergy. It's far way from 4X Games, but when RWBY: Amity Arena was in development, they had the issue of whether they should or shouldn't add bonuses to making "theme" teams. Huns + Mongols fits a theme very well and it creates a playstyle that plays too well. Whether balance changes made affect the value of their bonuses, the core mechanics of the civs or maybe adding a randomizer/play restriction that prevents you from making certain choices. Like if you created a highly militant society, with low science outputs, you wouldn't be able to advance to a pacifist and/or scientific society. That way, advancing isn't simply gaining a new ability but rather showing the natural progress of your society.

SpaceHoboJoe wrote:
I think the problem is too much synergy. It's far way from 4X Games, but when RWBY: Amity Arena was in development, they had the issue of whether they should or shouldn't add bonuses to making "theme" teams. Huns + Mongols fits a theme very well and it creates a playstyle that plays too well. Whether balance changes made affect the value of their bonuses, the core mechanics of the civs or maybe adding a randomizer/play restriction that prevents you from making certain choices. Like if you created a highly militant society, with low science outputs, you wouldn't be able to advance to a pacifist and/or scientific society. That way, advancing isn't simply gaining a new ability but rather showing the natural progress of your society.

Going that route blocks your civilization from attaching outposts and creating new cities for 2 eras, a major anti-synergy. Huns and Mongols are redundant in many other ways. You will likely have conquered a large chunk of the world already as the Huns, anyways.

I think the main reason to take Mongols after Huns is if you are still far from conquering your own continent, to

1. Ensure your military is still strong enough to continue conquering. Hunnic Hordes can be upgraded into Mongol Hordes if you have the money
2. Prevent your target from taking Mongols. I predict that going Mongols vs. Huns will be very powerful, as the Mongol Hordes can fairly easily beat the Hunnic hordes and rapidly multiply off of them