FORCING POLICIES WITH NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

from GalCiv4 Forums

Why does this game force the player to choose from a limited number of policies that have negative consequences?  There's a positive aspect but the negative aspects are crippling, it's usually a -5 or -10 percent to Approval, Research, Manufacturing, etc.   Why can't the decision to fill that slot be delayed until the player has more advantageous choices without the negative connotations or at the very least affording the player the capability to absorb the penalty when the empire is strong enough to handle the blow?  Again, this is a time sink, it's an integrated game design method to hamstring the player and slow down empire development. 

The player is forced to choose before the next turn can commence, it's b.s.. IF I had just bought this game on STEAM I would refund it when I ran into this forced mechanic.  Stellaris doesn't do this,  Humankind doesn't do this, Civ V and VI do not do this. 

galactic civilizations iv
24,876 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Yeah I posted about this before also. I'm really not a fan of being forced to pick something that sucks, just to be able to advance to the next turn. It is extremely counter intuitive to "advance" to a new better technological level, and then be forced to screw yourself over when you have supposedly just done something that should make your empire "better".

It seems like an extremely horrible idea to punish the player for researching something new that should be improving their civilization, but actually forces them to be worse. Bad design, bad implementation.

Imo.

Happy Thursday !

 

Reply #2 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

While I agree with you to some extent, I can't disagree more that it's a problem that would cause you to rage quit and demand a refund. There are relatively easy ways to deal with approval penalties, for example. Some of the really negative policies are there for use only in drastic situations.

Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

I don't think any of these policies should have negative effects, personally.  The negative effect is: you are using a policy slot.  All you do when you put negatives on the policies is make half of the choices uninteresting to take.  If it were all positives, then you'd actually have a swath of things people would be interested in taking.

The same goes for the Control Executive actions or whatever they are called.  The negative is: you have spent control.  Stop with the, oh now you're causing inflation bull.  No.  I spent control.  Give me money or research or whatever the bonus is.

Reply #4 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Personally, I think that positive choices having a cost (negative), make the game more interesting strategically.  You really have to understand what you're doing to your economy/manufacturing if you take all the research perks, but isn't that how real life works?

I agree that it would make more sense to allow us to hold open policy spots until we're ready to fill them.  Filling Factions isn't mandatory, and we can recruit leaders without assigning them if we want to hold them for just the right job (someone with a 20% increase in food production needs to be placed on a good farming world).  

Reply #5 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Civ 5 does do this unless you check the save policy toggle. Which is something they hopefully see an add I haven’t been forced to take a bad policy yet but you should be able to hold the slot open.

 

The policies allow great customization  and can be swapped at anytime. If they had no drawbacks those of us being super cereal are gonna easily abuse them in a way the AI won’t be able to do. It’s balancing I already have x5 the credits of any of the AI I have met im about to start running roughshod over them. If control points had no drawback I’d probably be over x15 their credits. Control would also be a resources that would be very powerful.

Reply #6 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Quoting scifi1950, reply 4
Personally, I think that positive choices having a cost (negative), make the game more interesting strategically.

I fully agree with you, making everything positives with only "opportunity cost" make for a bland game. Having drawbacks allow for designing more powerful effects, and I really enjoy the whole "balance/counter-balance" mechanics that they provide, allow interlocking different options. For example, losing loyalty for taxing the rich, and using that money to pay for universal healthcare. In game design, allows "converting" loyalty to approval and growth. So you can see which resources you have a surplus of, and base your choices around them.

So yeah, I can't disagree more with this whole trend of "only positives because seeing a negative makes the player feel bad".

Reply #7 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

My takeaway here is that we need to give players more breathing room on policies before choosing them. Leaving blank open policy spots should give you room to decide what kind of civ you're building.

To clarify on the intent: Policies are not supposed to be just a simple improvement of your civ. They are also "side choices" where you can min/max what your civ is good and bad at. This allows you to play for example the Terrans in multiple styles. One of the issues we found with the previous game is that most players didn't really bother playing different aliens. This way we can bring some of those mechanical options and style of play into any civ and players can decide for themselves who they are.

+1 Loading…
Reply #8 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

The issue here isn't that there should never be a negative consequence to a policy.  It's that the player should have a choice to decide if, of the policies available, does the cost of choosing it outweigh the benefit.  That is normal. But the player should also be allowed to choose to do nothing.  So we should be able to proceed to the next turn without being forced to fill the slot at that time.

Reply #9 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Quoting Coggy, reply 8

The issue here isn't that there should never be a negative consequence to a policy.  It's that the player should have a choice to decide if, of the policies available, does the cost of choosing it outweigh the benefit.  That is normal. But the player should also be allowed to choose to do nothing.  So we should be able to proceed to the next turn without being forced to fill the slot at that time.

Exactly.

 

Reply #10 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Quoting SchismNavigator, reply 7

My takeaway here is that we need to give players more breathing room on policies before choosing them. Leaving blank open policy spots should give you room to decide what kind of civ you're building.

You nailed it.

+1 Loading…
Reply #11 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Quoting Coggy, reply 8

The issue here isn't that there should never be a negative consequence to a policy.  It's that the player should have a choice to decide if, of the policies available, does the cost of choosing it outweigh the benefit.  That is normal. But the player should also be allowed to choose to do nothing.  So we should be able to proceed to the next turn without being forced to fill the slot at that time.

 

Perfectly stated.

Reply #12 from GalCiv4 Forums Top

Some light positive only policies would remedy this. Heart of empire is one that gives only positives. But in general it is a much more interesting decision when policies have positive/negative results and some of the negatives don't matter so much depending on you current situation. I think it should cost control to enact/switch policy though.