Gathering Storm Over-hyped?

[Ziad]

That's arguing to one extreme. The opposite would be to say that if that's how you feel, then presumably you're okay with a Civ game in which the AI never builds any buildings or moves any units?

Well that's not a comparable situation, as the AI still exists even if one does play multiplayer. I'm not proposing we eliminate AI.

However I just don't find an opinion on gameplay features based on how the AI uses them to be thorough or fair, as ultimately you can play multiplayer and form a different conclusion. Just because an AI can't use a feature to its full extent, doesn't mean it's a bad feature. It just means the AI is bad at it. There's a distinction to be made, one I often see people ignore.

Someone saying they aren't hyped for GS because AI can't use a feature with the same level of detail as a human would is just weird to me.

For almost all of those players, though, there would, at some point, be a level of AI decision making which would interfere with their ability to feel immersed in the world and enjoy their empire-building experience.

Let me put one thing straight. I'm literally the last one to talk as there has never been a game where I did NOT download some AI mod after being dissatisfied with the base AI of the game whether it's an RPG like Skyrim or a strategy game like Civ5 (VP) or Rome Total War 2.

But that's the thing. You describe how everyone has a different viewpoint about how things should be, forgetting that some things like AI are a universal experience. Everyone uses the same AI. AI that plays better does not translate to better games for everyone. I'd argue the opposite actually. The standard AI plays like a casual player, and most players are casual, unfortunately for us.

It's why I'm OK with some base features not having months of devoted tuning done to them. I can't expect that from the devs. It took a small team YEARS to make Civ5 at the state where it should be (through VP) and people are STILL not satisfied with its state (well it's almost at gold!)

 

[Ziad]

I think GS looks great. The new mechanics are welcome, but aren’t going to radically change the game. .

World Congress, strategic resource modifications, and new units change way more than one initially expects.

 

[WillowBrook]

To address the title of this thread only, no, I think the hype is pretty much what I would expect it to be for a second expansion of a civ game. The marketing has been pretty standard (well, maybe except for that strange stormy livestream to start things off). The discussion on these boards has included lots of praise for certain added and revised mechanics along with ample concerns regarding some things and the inevitable complaints about the AI. The added civs have generated plenty of discussion in every direction. Screenshots have been carefully dissected to identify changes and additions. Pretty much par for the course.

As for after it comes out, my predictions are boring. Most people who are reasonably happy with civ VI now will happily play GS. Some people who aren't happy with it now will start playing it more; others won't. A good portion of Civ V players will try the new expansion or check out the reception here or watch livestreams; some of them will switch to playing VI while others won't.

 

[Leathaface]

From YouTube videos it's not hard to see that Civ 6 GS has a lot of old and new flaws. A lot of players will only play GS for a while, and then go back to Civ 5 Vox Populi.
It's going to take a lot of modding to make Civ 6 GS competitive, balanced and fun...

Hopefully the DLL source will be released for Civ VI so we can get mods like Vox Populi for it.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Glancing at some of the letsplays hardly inspires you. When you see quill18, who is enjoyable but not a great player, start an expansion which hasn't been released on the hardest level, without breaking a sweat, you know this is dumbed down. Was hoping to eventually move on from Civ V but won't be for awhile by the looks of things. The cartoon look doesn't help.

Lost far more cities in Civ 6 than in any of the previous games. Just a shame that it is rather limited to the early phase of the game.

 

[tiamats4esgares]

We won't know for sure until GS is out and we get actual player feedback, but I very much expect that:

a) people who have enjoyed Civ 6 so far will be really pleased with the new toys provided in GS; and,
b) people who have been disappointed with Civ 6 so far will continue to prefer Civ 4/Civ 5/something else.

My take on GS is that it is "more" of the current Civ 6 experience. Tweaks some things, tries to improve some things, adds a bunch of new mechanics, etc. But it's still Civ 6, which is either a great thing or a "meh" thing depending on what you're looking for in a game.

Well I sure hope you're wrong. I've been disappointed in Civ Vi so far, but the expansion seems great and I bought it and plan to enjoy it. One of my main issues was the lack of a diplomacy victory, so at least that has been fixed. The resource system will also be more like V. I don't like the fact that wide > tall 100% of the time, and that no civ feels as fun as V's Mongols, but hoping that Canada will feel FUN to expand. And Nubia might be fun sorta. Hoping. Haven't played them yet as in waiting for GS but I have bought the DLC.

 

[acluewithout]

World Congress, strategic resource modifications, and new units change way more than one initially expects.

I hope you’re right. There’s definitely potential.

First, resources + loyalty has the potential to make the game way more interesting. Loyalty is a great mechanic (which, frankly, FXS could do a lot more with - hint, hint), but it doesn’t quite slow the game and make expansion or conquest harder as intended because you can ignore it by rolling the AI. Is resources make it harder to build units, so you have less units overall, then that might make it harder to roll the AI and allow loyalty to really shine.

Second, some of the diplomatic changes could make interacting with the AI more reward. The Grevience system has the potential to make the AI more intelligible diplomatically. And Diplomatic Favour (and how you earn it from Allies and Suzerain, making those elements more valuable) and changes to Democracy (buffing Trade Routes to Allies) may create more incentive to court the AI.

All the pieces are there. But the let’s plays aren’t hugely encouraging so far. But the game may be better tweaked before release, and they’ll probably be a few patches too to get things right.

And. You know. A Third Expansion and then some dlc would really give FXS a chance to nail it.

 

[Gorbles]

That's arguing to one extreme. The opposite would be to say that if that's how you feel, then presumably you're okay with a Civ game in which the AI never builds any buildings or moves any units?

No, they're not making any argument to any extreme. An extreme would be not having SP at all, because the AI doesn't exist, and focusing solely on an MP experience.

Saying that for the incredibly limited subset of players who can excel on Deity, perhaps they should look at MP for a challenge, is not an "extreme" argument. If said players don't want to do that, then that's absolutely fine. But then likewise they need to recognise exactly where they sit in the population of the game vs. the actual difficulty of building something that caters to them in that regard.

I mean, to make this not about the daemon of AI discussion, this applies to a lot of popular feedback on any game, and it's absolutely up to the developers (and whomever the developers answer to) to parse and weight that feedback. Personally, I think, with the Gathering Storm? Firaxis are absolutely doing that. Like you said originally - it's more of what makes VI good, for the people who find VI good. It'll help persuade those that were on the fence, who didn't think the game was complete enough. For those who don't like the base design, or the art style, then this game will never match up, and it's kinda silly to expect that it ever would. Just like expecting Firaxis to change CiV into a completely different style of Civ. game in an expansion would be similarly silly.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

But then likewise they need to recognise exactly where they sit in the population of the game vs. the actual difficulty of building something that caters to them in that regard.

So here's a summary of the things that I'd like to see. This may not encompass the expectations of all players who can win at Deity, but I'd guess it's a reasonable subset:

a) the AI should be able to use air units as well as it could in Civ 5
b) the AI should be able to use naval units to escort land units when launching naval invasions
c) you should not be able to completely ignore all diplomacy with your neighbouring leaders, have them all hate you, and still have them ignore you during the late part of the game; there should be at least as much incentive to engage in the diplomacy game as there was in Civ 4 and 5
d) late game wars should be at least as dangerous as Civ 5 (ideally as dangerous as in Civ 4, but at this stage, just getting to Civ 5 level of threat would be a positive step forward)
e) the diversity in behaviour between the different AI leaders should be closer to earlier Civs, so that the game plays differently depending on who your neighbours are
f) the time it takes the AI on Deity and Immortal to win the game should, vis-a-vis experienced players, be in the same range as it was for Civ 4 and 5, not 100 turns slower

And for clarity, I'm not talking about post-mods AI in Civ 4 and 5. All references to 4 & 5 above are the Firaxis-issued versions. I've never played mods for past versions of Civ.

If you want to argue that the above is economically unfeasible and I should play MP, that's fine, but I disagree. I personally think Firaxis will get the AI up to these levels before the Civ 6 development cycle is complete, but as it seems a third expansion is coming, that's not going to be for GS.

 

[ferretbacon]

Many of the buildings in the game have pretty boring abilities or simply don't seem to be worth the investment to construct. Tier 3 buildings for districts could have some more unique ability rather than just give a flat resource bonus to be more interesting. You know, like Military Academies and Seaports let you build Armies and Armadas directly for example is a good and unique ability, but like a Stock Exchange or a Research Lab are pretty boring design-wise

Maybe tier 3 could transition into the return of National Wonders? You choose one of each respective district to play host to a very powerful unique building.

 

[Gorbles]

So here's a summary of the things that I'd like to see. This may not encompass the expectations of all players who can win at Deity, but I'd guess it's a reasonable subset:

a) the AI should be able to use air units as well as it could in Civ 5
b) the AI should be able to use naval units to escort land units when launching naval invasions
c) you should not be able to completely ignore all diplomacy with your neighbouring leaders, have them all hate you, and still have them ignore you during the late part of the game; there should be at least as much incentive to engage in the diplomacy game as there was in Civ 4 and 5
d) late game wars should be at least as dangerous as Civ 5 (ideally as dangerous as in Civ 4, but at this stage, just getting to Civ 5 level of threat would be a positive step forward)
e) the diversity in behaviour between the different AI leaders should be closer to earlier Civs, so that the game plays differently depending on who your neighbours are
f) the time it takes the AI on Deity and Immortal to win the game should, vis-a-vis experienced players, be in the same range as it was for Civ 4 and 5, not 100 turns slower

And for clarity, I'm not talking about post-mods AI in Civ 4 and 5. All references to 4 & 5 above are the Firaxis-issued versions. I've never played mods for past versions of Civ.

If you want to argue that the above is economically unfeasible and I should play MP, that's fine, but I disagree. I personally think Firaxis will get the AI up to these levels before the Civ 6 development cycle is complete, but as it seems a third expansion is coming, that's not going to be for GS.

These are great and specific comparisons. I have nothing against them. But I also have nothing against people saying "maybe MP at this point", either.

Personally, I really want to see how Grievances play out across difficulty levels. There's only so much you can get from a stream, regardless of who's playing.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

I definitely don't think it's particularly overhyped. Outsider a handful youtubers, I don't see much on it at all.

I think GS adds enough that it finally feels like a complete game (with a weak AI).

Beyond that, personally I think the games biggest problem is most of the civs are completely uninteresting, with a few OP standouts. I mostly fault the special snowflake abilities for this, as firaxis really has to reach to come up with something and it gets worse as they shovel more civs in. Though at least they aren't repeating the R&F standard of If X, you can War of <Blank> for 10 turns for Y bonuses. But still, most of the abilities don't feel representative of the cultures they're attached to in any way at all, just a pure gameplay gimmick, and I'd happily see the immortal god-king leaders and their abilities burned in a fire- I'd rather the focus be on the civilization as a whole rather than one or two individuals, many of whom had minimal impact on their society (or were legends with no substance).

 

[Breadsmith]

So here's a summary of the things that I'd like to see. This may not encompass the expectations of all players who can win at Deity, but I'd guess it's a reasonable subset:

a) the AI should be able to use air units as well as it could in Civ 5
b) the AI should be able to use naval units to escort land units when launching naval invasions
c) you should not be able to completely ignore all diplomacy with your neighbouring leaders, have them all hate you, and still have them ignore you during the late part of the game; there should be at least as much incentive to engage in the diplomacy game as there was in Civ 4 and 5
d) late game wars should be at least as dangerous as Civ 5 (ideally as dangerous as in Civ 4, but at this stage, just getting to Civ 5 level of threat would be a positive step forward)
e) the diversity in behaviour between the different AI leaders should be closer to earlier Civs, so that the game plays differently depending on who your neighbours are
f) the time it takes the AI on Deity and Immortal to win the game should, vis-a-vis experienced players, be in the same range as it was for Civ 4 and 5, not 100 turns slower

And for clarity, I'm not talking about post-mods AI in Civ 4 and 5. All references to 4 & 5 above are the Firaxis-issued versions. I've never played mods for past versions of Civ.

If you want to argue that the above is economically unfeasible and I should play MP, that's fine, but I disagree. I personally think Firaxis will get the AI up to these levels before the Civ 6 development cycle is complete, but as it seems a third expansion is coming, that's not going to be for GS.

As somebody that's won exactly 1 deity game, and only played enough at that level to get that win, I agree with all of this. The argument isn't "Make the AI better so it poses a real challenge." but rather "Make the AI able to play the game with the pieces and rules provided." It's like if a player in chess didn't know how to use Bishops or Knights, so just didn't.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Firaxis has been able to deliver new features in the past and then follow them up with balance patches. That's what i'm excited for so the hype is probably
at the right level.

If your expecting the AI to play well I recommend getting off the hype train.

 

[Tech Osen]

Looking forward to GS but I'm too old and jaded to be hyped.

 

[jokii]

As somebody that's won exactly 1 deity game, and only played enough at that level to get that win, I agree with all of this. The argument isn't "Make the AI better so it poses a real challenge." but rather "Make the AI able to play the game with the pieces and rules provided." It's like if a player in chess didn't know how to use Bishops or Knights, so just didn't.

I totally agree. Nobody is expecting miracle, but why the heck Civ 6 AI can't be as good as Civ 5 VP AI ?
It is the same 1UPT hex system...
I mean after two years from release of civ 6 :

-the AI doesn't protect his border cities, especially in early game
-the AI doesn't build (enough) units when in war and under siege
-the AI doesn't protect his archer units
-the AI doesn't know how to use air units
-the AI doesn't build (enough) naval units on high water coverage maps
-the AI doesn't know how to use naval units, protect embarked land units and launch naval invasions

Some basic stuff still doesn't work well.

And now we are getting second expansion and question is ?
Does AI knows how play with all the new toys ?
-diplomatic favor, diplomatic victory, increased pillaging rewards, resource requirements for units and buildings, power requirements and climate change...

 

[Disgustipated]

I actually do feel it's overhyped. It's easy to get excited by new features. I just hope people aren't expecting the game to be radically different. The game looks pretty much the same to me. I just don't want people to get their expectations too high. It's the same game with new features. The AI is still abysmal, you can see that with the Let's plays.

That said, I'm still pretty excited about it, because I actually do want those new features. It's hard not to get excited since it's something new.

 

[Onii-chan]

Maybe tier 3 could transition into the return of National Wonders? You choose one of each respective district to play host to a very powerful unique building.

I was thinking more something along the lines of letting every stock exchange give you some interest on your current total of saved gold, or maybe a discount when purchasing things in that city and letting every research lab give a +x% extra of all techs for Eureka boosts for example

 

[acluewithout]

So here's a summary of the things that I'd like to see. This may not encompass the expectations of all players who can win at Deity, but I'd guess it's a reasonable subset:

a) the AI should be able to use air units as well as it could in Civ 5
b) the AI should be able to use naval units to escort land units when launching naval invasions
c) you should not be able to completely ignore all diplomacy with your neighbouring leaders, have them all hate you, and still have them ignore you during the late part of the game; there should be at least as much incentive to engage in the diplomacy game as there was in Civ 4 and 5
d) late game wars should be at least as dangerous as Civ 5 (ideally as dangerous as in Civ 4, but at this stage, just getting to Civ 5 level of threat would be a positive step forward)
e) the diversity in behaviour between the different AI leaders should be closer to earlier Civs, so that the game plays differently depending on who your neighbours are
f) the time it takes the AI on Deity and Immortal to win the game should, vis-a-vis experienced players, be in the same range as it was for Civ 4 and 5, not 100 turns slower

And for clarity, I'm not talking about post-mods AI in Civ 4 and 5. All references to 4 & 5 above are the Firaxis-issued versions. I've never played mods for past versions of Civ.

If you want to argue that the above is economically unfeasible and I should play MP, that's fine, but I disagree. I personally think Firaxis will get the AI up to these levels before the Civ 6 development cycle is complete, but as it seems a third expansion is coming, that's not going to be for GS.

It’s just my opinion, and I don’t have hard research to back it up, but game needs to be much more difficult, not just for Deity players, but for everybody.

The lack of difficulty is hurting the game - it’s a common criticism on various forums and in reviews, it’s one reason it’s not as popular a game to stream which cuts down the game's exposure, and it cut across the direction of (what seems to me) a trend of games being much harder overall.

Making the game harder is not just about improving the AI. But improving the AI is a big part of it.

... I think the games biggest problem is most of the civs are completely uninteresting, with a few OP standouts. I mostly fault the special snowflake abilities for this, as firaxis really has to reach to come up with something and it gets worse as they shovel more civs in. Though at least they aren't repeating the R&F standard of If X, you can War of <Blank> for 10 turns for Y bonuses. But still, most of the abilities don't feel representative of the cultures they're attached to in any way at all, just a pure gameplay gimmick, and I'd happily see the immortal god-king leaders and their abilities burned in a fire- I'd rather the focus be on the civilization as a whole rather than one or two individuals, many of whom had minimal impact on their society (or were legends with no substance).

I could disagree more.

After GS, we'll have a great mix of Civs, ranging from weak but fun to OP and fun, Civs that play to existing mechanics and meta and those that "break" the meta and play uniquely, and Civs that a good for all victories and those that are specialised.

A big plus of GS is not just the new Civs being introduced, but the way some older Civs are being reinvigorated either by direct buffs or underlying mechanics being improved.

Post GS, except for maybe shortcomings with the AI, I think we have the best version of Civ ever. That's why I hope we get a third expansion and then spin-offs and dlc - because FXS would then be building off such a strong base game.

But if Civ is really going to be genre defining, it absolutely has to get tougher, and that means the AI has to get a lot better. Hopefully, if development continues, FXS will focus on this more now that the game is so feature rich. I really hope FXS work with the community on that too whether by releasing dll or just speaking with key people behind the scenes.

 

[Civrinn]

Its pretty hyped right now but that doesn't surprise me. That being said personally I will wait for opinions before purchasing. The state of the AI currently is a real turn off for Civ 6. That being said, some of the new mechanics and things being introduced look interesting. I am excited to play Civ 6 when the AI can play the game as well beyond the first initial rush.