I admit I haven't delved too deeply into the wiki yet, but I can't find the place where it tells you what you will be doing with real money in the game, if anything. Anyone else see it?
From what I read, it sounds like they're planning to allow you to purchase:
- Extra harvests (essentially free turns of production/research/growth)
- Extra turns in the "technology maze" (essentially free techs)
- Extra turns with the "great art puzzle" (essentially free great people)
- Quicker play in the "caravan game" (essentially free gold = free units)
Now it may not be as bad as I'm fearing, but I do worry that these things put together will cheapen the game for anyone trying to play competitively. You can't really have a competitive game if people have the option of what is essentially a "cheat button".
Maybe I'm worrying about nothing, and there'll be an option to play in a "no purchases allowed" competitive environment (would 2K really go for that though?). Or maybe they're just not worrying at all about the game being competitive, and are just trying to make it fun (though imbalanced).
To be honest I'm still not sure quite where they're coming from on that front. 2K will be looking for profit, no doubt, but will the developers be looking for balance? We'll have to see, I guess.
One of my fears as well. I read the same thing as Parkin. It won't really affect the main gameplay directly, but if someone drops $100 on this game, I could see them getting a serious advantage over everyone else.
Though I'm not sure if it will really help the Civilization win the era, or just help that individual be King within his Civilization...
Rest assured, I will never pay money for a Facebook game.
One of my fears as well. I read the same thing as Parkin. It won't really affect the main gameplay directly, but if someone drops $100 on this game, I could see them getting a serious advantage over everyone else.
Indeed. The thing is, even though most players are unlikely to spend much (or anything) on the game, the few people inclined - for whatever reason - to spend a lot will potentially break the game for everyone else. That'll hardly be fun for the guys trying to play competitively with their friends.
Though I'm not sure if it will really help the Civilization win the era, or just help that individual be King within his Civilization...
Well from what it sounds like, spending money will make it a lot easier to be king - since stuff like getting techs first gives medals that help you become king, and spending money gets you techs first (through extra harvests/maze game). So essentially, the line goes: spend the most money -> become king the longest -> get the biggest fame point multiplier -> skew the eventual end-of-game player rankings highly in your favour.
I can't see any easy way of getting around that, without somehow scaling down the end-game rankings for players who "purchase" (cheat) a lot. But then, what's the point in purchasing stuff in-game?
Maybe have separate games available specifically for those who want to play competitively with "purchasing" disabled? But then how is that in the interests of the marketers (i.e. 2K)? Hmm.
Guess I'll just have to hold my judgment and see once I've played the game a bit. But I'm dubious about how the conflicts of interest are going to be resolved between competitive players and money-seeking marketers.
Rest assured, I will never pay money for a Facebook game.
Oh, me neither. I'm too much of a stinge.
Plus, as a general concept I'd rather pay a lump sum upfront for a multiplayer game where everyone's on the same footing, than get into a game where the few who spend more money get to "cheat" their way ahead.
So essentially, the line goes: spend the most money -> become king the longest -> get the biggest fame point multiplier -> skew the eventual end-of-game player rankings highly in your favour.
Yeah, but it might not help your Civ to advance, neccesarily. You can be King of a podunk little nation of people that resent you bribing your way to get the kingship, while a coordinated team in another Civ works together without paying a cent and is competitive in most eras.
Yeah, but it might not help your Civ to advance, neccesarily. You can be King of a podunk little nation of people that resent you bribing your way to get the kingship, while a coordinated team in another Civ works together without paying a cent and is competitive in most eras.
True, I guess. That puts a bit more of an optimistic light on it.
Still, the way that fame is presently produced, even if their civ is fairly puny, the people who spend more money will gain more medals and auctions, which gives them more fame and presumably a higher end score.
It looks like the little green cash symbols are probably the "real money". They are not mentioned in the wiki as far as I can tell, but they seem to confer context sensitive advantages in nearly all parts of the game.
Right now it looks like we are being given an allowance of this resource, but I can't tell yet how much I'm getting how often.
Perhaps that's why everything seems to be moving so fast and accumulating so easily, if the developers have turned on some "auto-cheat" option or something...
Yeah, I can't imagine they would make the Alpha testers pay real money for the real money features. giving us each an allowance makes sense for testing purposes.
One thought about the conflict of interest with purchasing in-game vs competitive play. Perhaps it could be possible to set up exclusive games with in-game purchases disabled by paying a small fee (50 cents, a dollar?). Not sure what the market would be for that, but surely some people would be keen on competitive play and be willing to pay a small fee to have cheat options disabled. Maybe in such an exclusive game you could pick the people you wanted in it, or at least prevent unwanted people from joining.
I'd post this on the Alpha forums, but I haven't got access yet. Sounds like it could be a reasonable compromise between competitive play and making money, though.
Comments
- Extra harvests (essentially free turns of production/research/growth)
- Extra turns in the "technology maze" (essentially free techs)
- Extra turns with the "great art puzzle" (essentially free great people)
- Quicker play in the "caravan game" (essentially free gold = free units)
Now it may not be as bad as I'm fearing, but I do worry that these things put together will cheapen the game for anyone trying to play competitively. You can't really have a competitive game if people have the option of what is essentially a "cheat button".
Maybe I'm worrying about nothing, and there'll be an option to play in a "no purchases allowed" competitive environment (would 2K really go for that though?). Or maybe they're just not worrying at all about the game being competitive, and are just trying to make it fun (though imbalanced).
To be honest I'm still not sure quite where they're coming from on that front. 2K will be looking for profit, no doubt, but will the developers be looking for balance? We'll have to see, I guess.
Though I'm not sure if it will really help the Civilization win the era, or just help that individual be King within his Civilization...
Rest assured, I will never pay money for a Facebook game.
Well from what it sounds like, spending money will make it a lot easier to be king - since stuff like getting techs first gives medals that help you become king, and spending money gets you techs first (through extra harvests/maze game). So essentially, the line goes: spend the most money -> become king the longest -> get the biggest fame point multiplier -> skew the eventual end-of-game player rankings highly in your favour.
I can't see any easy way of getting around that, without somehow scaling down the end-game rankings for players who "purchase" (cheat) a lot. But then, what's the point in purchasing stuff in-game?
Maybe have separate games available specifically for those who want to play competitively with "purchasing" disabled? But then how is that in the interests of the marketers (i.e. 2K)? Hmm.
Guess I'll just have to hold my judgment and see once I've played the game a bit. But I'm dubious about how the conflicts of interest are going to be resolved between competitive players and money-seeking marketers.
Oh, me neither. I'm too much of a stinge.
Plus, as a general concept I'd rather pay a lump sum upfront for a multiplayer game where everyone's on the same footing, than get into a game where the few who spend more money get to "cheat" their way ahead.
Perhaps I'm just a cynic though.
Yeah, guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Yeah, but it might not help your Civ to advance, neccesarily. You can be King of a podunk little nation of people that resent you bribing your way to get the kingship, while a coordinated team in another Civ works together without paying a cent and is competitive in most eras.
Still, the way that fame is presently produced, even if their civ is fairly puny, the people who spend more money will gain more medals and auctions, which gives them more fame and presumably a higher end score.
Right now it looks like we are being given an allowance of this resource, but I can't tell yet how much I'm getting how often.
I'd post this on the Alpha forums, but I haven't got access yet. Sounds like it could be a reasonable compromise between competitive play and making money, though.