April 2021 Update - Patch Notes Discussion

[MrRadar]

I unsubscribed two of them and they STILL kept saying they were loading, even after I deleted their workshop folders. So now I'm uninstalling Civ6 and reinstalling it. Obviously not my day.

Should've been enough to delete the Mods and ModUserData folders and Mods.sqlite file from Sid Meier's Civilization VI folder in Documents>My Games or so, and then verify the game files on Steam on top of unsubscribing, for the game to completely forget your mods.

 

[The Civs 6]

So I load my game to play with some of these new toys - great!

Oh right, the whole game is literally just beating the sub 50 turn AI rush. No point in any early game build that alternates from rushing out archers and warriors.

 

[slavaskii]

Hype was stirred up by whom? Obviously when they released the video, they needed to exhibit and put emphasis on the biggest and most major changes, that is called "marketing." And what about the word count of the patch note? Have you thrown the patch into a word counter and the number of words turns out to vastly different or something?

What criticism are you talking about? This thread has like 100 people commenting, there are like 3 or 4 of you who are entirely negative.

Source?

Let me get this straight: There is one important thing that all of you seem to forget: this is free, all of these contents come for free, for everyone, with no condition. The reason why @InsidiousMage got so much flak above was because he called this "a bait and switch" in one of his comments, but you backed up him because there are like 4 of you in the entire thread, thinking you are voicing on behalf of the majority or something. Imagine someone giving you a free gift, he gives you a few teasers about things that you may like, you hype yourself up about the entire thing and then get disappointed and begin criticizing the gift, which, again, is FREE, and your friend isn't obligated to give it to you in the first place, or can charge you money for it. And then to add salt to the wound, you call the gift to be "a bait and switch" scheme. So maybe, before you dish out further criticism that you deem to be valid, curb your sense of entitlement a little bit. Am I happy with all the changes? No. Do I want more changes for things I think need some changes? Absolutely. Do I think the devs over-promise and under-deliver and thus should be criticized for not giving out enough free stuffs to satisfy myself? Unfortunately, I have a sense of gratitude and realism, so no.

Implying the "four of us" have no sense of gratitude and realism is highly inappropriate. We absolutely do. But I would like to remind you that I, like many of us here, have paid the full price for the expansions, meaning I've spent well over a hundred dollars on Civ VI. Many things have been broken by updates, such as Scotland, which got hammered hard when amenities were adjusted a few months ago. We were hoping for a change to Scotland and some of the other, older civs which have been left behind as newer ones, which are far stronger and better in many regards, have been introduced to the game. Portugal, for example, is the best trade civ in the game. What's wrong with wanting others, like Egypt, to hold a candle to them after the balance update?

Please do not suggest I'm ignoring the fact this is a free update. I am appreciative of it. But please return to pages 1-3 of the thread to see how the initial reactions were very much different than the ones now. We are voicing our opinions because we love this game and want it to be the very best it can be, like everyone else here. That's why the ones unhappy (myself and others) aren't just complaining, we're also saying what it is exactly we feel wasn't right. If that's not what the majority thinks? Fine, I have no problem keeping that to myself. But from what I've observed in this community, there were things lacking and that shouldn't be swept under the rug because we need to be thankful for everything.

And as an aside: I'm not entirely negative, I've stated here before I love the changes to Maya in particular. It would be inappropriate of me to lambast the entire update because of things I don't like without justifying my reasoning. We all have differences in opinions, and as someone here best stated, we should really feel for the development team which tried hard to fit a lot of different desires into this update. If we can all agree on that and hope there's another patch coming to address the remaining concerns, we should all be happy imho.

Edit: My last two sentences really summed up my opinions on the patch today so I'm going to stop responding to the thread. Moderator is entirely right that there's much more to discuss than what's happening here, and we need to really give the game time to see if our concerns play out. Have a good night and have fun everyone!

 

[mrwho]

Just saying. It'd be nice to not get this thread locked over silly internet arguments.

 

[JifMoose]

To my mind, gratitude (or, conversely, entitlement) is a bit of a dysfunctional stance towards a profit-making game developer that's part of an enormous unfeeling corporation. It should be obvious that none of this exists for "free".

Rather, there are widely accepted norms and expectations in delivering professional software. And one of those is that advertised features will work and bugs will be fixed.

I like a lot of the new content. But I find it really disturbing that not only have long-standing bugs not been addressed after multiple major patches, but new content has just been layered on top. Are we really going to be dependent on a hacky (but ingenious) workaround from a modder for a heavily-trailed feature to work? Will we get any further bug fixes?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Did anyone else notice that the Vampires got nerfed somewhat?

 

[InsidiousMage]

So how is that a bait and switch? They said 2/3 civs would receive changes, weren't they considered changed when their units got changed?

Because things like the Mamluk upgrading into the Cuirassier should have been in the game when GS came out, not two years later. Introducing new units and then not having the older unit be properly integrated into them is bad game design that should have been fixed years ago.

 

[bengalryan9]

So I load my game to play with some of these new toys - great!

Oh right, the whole game is literally just beating the sub 50 turn AI rush. No point in any early game build that alternates from rushing out archers and warriors.

Canada seen laughing in the distance...

 

[iammaxhailme]

So I'm playing a game as new spain. On quick speed, on turn 19, I'm getting a trade route with a city state that gives 3 production, 12 gold, and 6 faith. I spawned near a continental barrier, which is not super rare considering Spain now has a bias towards geothermals which spawn on continental barriers. This is nuts, that's such a powerful trade route this early!

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Canada seen laughing in the distance...

Cyrus seen crying in the distance as well.

 

[Futumch]

That cold-climate boost for Canada is going to be great in later stages of the game. Quite often large swathes of tundra are vacant even in the information era.
I'm finishing off my regular Ted game before I jump into a game as Spain. I want to see how a big map with Spain, Portugal, Australia and Maori pans out.

EDIT: I didn't see the logic behind renaming the Eleanors, so I just changed them back : )
I suppose you could call them "sunny Eleanor" for France, and "soggy Eleanor" for England (due to the weather).

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Moderator Action: Post edited to remove personal insults. ~ LK

Because things like the Mamluk upgrading into the Cuirassier should have been in the game when GS came out, not two years later. Introducing new units and then not having the older unit be properly integrated into them is bad game design that should have been fixed years ago.

And even if you count out Arabia, you still have 2/3 civs receiving changes, as promised, unless you have problems with doing basic maths.

 

[Vargas1]

I have heard this before, and understand this defense, except it doesn’t match what my own experiences in game. I don’t know what’s different about your experiences, but I often see other civs conquering each other. While I understand it’s a little unpredictable, it’s quite common for one civ to lose cities to another through conquest, so I have triggered it in my Scotland games multiple times per game. For this reason, I have always rolled my eyes at people complaining “the AI can’t take cities”, because that’s not true in my games.

Do you play on smaller/tighter maps? And/or what level? I play mostly continent-type maps on emperor, and I would say on average I have 2-3 city states conquered (and maybe razed) and at most a city or two conquered by the AI from another civ. Rarely there will be one civ who just snowballs like crazy over their neighbor, which is really the best opportunity I’ve had to use the ability.

 

[InsidiousMage]

And even if you count out Arabia, you still have 2/3 civs receiving changes, as promised, unless you have problems with doing basic maths.

Arabia, America, Norway, India, Japan and so on only got changes to units that should have been in GS or were because of the new units that were introduced. I am literally only taking about the unit upgrade fixes counting as a civ getting a balance change as a bait and switch, what part of that are you not understanding?

 

[pokiehl]

Arabia, America, Norway, India, Japan and so on only got changes to units that should have been in GS or were because of the new units that were introduced. I am literally only taking about the unit upgrade fixes counting as a civ getting a balance change as a bait and switch, what part of that are you not understanding?

I think it’s important to remember the devs never said 2/3. That number came from a random 2k chat moderator during a livestream. I cautioned people here against overblowing it but here we are.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I think it’s important to remember the devs never said 2/3. That number came from a random 2k chat moderator during a livestream. I cautioned people here against overblowing it but here we are.

Thanks for the info but when you visit the forum enough seeing the "2/3rds" thread often enough it just sticks in the subconscious. Still through, Firaxis did a poor job of communicating what players should expect. They really should have said something to correct the wrong impression since it came from an official source.

 

[acluewithout]

I keep a running list of changes I’d like to see in Civ VI. I’ve updated these as at April 2021. Feel free to ignore, but if you’re interested you can find links in my signature.

I’m actually pretty thrilled how many things I’d hoped to see made it into the game - particularly Zombies (you can’t have an Apocalypse without Zombies), better Barbs and new units / rebalancing units.

I do hope FXS keep working on the game. There are still a few loose threads, and a few key mechanics I’d like to see added. But really, basically three expansions in and multiple updates, Civ VI is really just awesome fun and really does hit most of the right notes.

Guess we’ll see what happens.

 

[IvoryPavane]

Gosh this thread is getting kind of exhausting haha.

The other point of context I’ll raise is that we still don’t know the current status of Civ VI. There still may be still some more free patches of balances and bug fixes to come (or indeed another season pass).

As a community, we kind of tread an interesting line of trying to squeeze out leaks and teases, and try to see things in everything FX does. We then tend to be disappointed when the finished product doesn’t align with our expectations/hype.

We’re also prone to hyperbole. Particularly those lamenting “trash Civs” like “Norway” and “Georgia” who have actually been been good for a while now. (For the record, I don’t believe any Civ is “trash.” Some just require alternate play styles to unlock their potential)

That being said, no changes to Scotland is a MASSIVE miss. Especially for something called “Community Update” (yes I know it’s a naming convention ) because one of the FEW things we unanimously agree as a community is that Scotland could have used some updates to make it more inspired.

 

[Xandinho]

Cultural Domination provides ongoing effects:

• International Trade Routes to foreign cities you culturally dominate provide +4 Gold.
• Spy missions in foreign cities you culturally dominate are 50% faster to complete.
• Your citizens exert 25% more Loyalty pressure on foreign cities you culturally dominate.

I really liked that, finally tourism has some use outside of cultural victory. But still, this comes too late to have any practical effect.

To make this more useful, if your culture is 50% influential on a civ, you get extra gold, science and culture on trade routes for that civ, in addition to more successful espionage activities. If your culture is 100% influential (dominant), you get even more gold, science and culture on trade routes to that civ, more successful espionage activities, more pressure on loyalty, and that civ that has its dominated culture loses 1 amenity in all cities.
Maybe extra diplomatic favors and points of influence for each civ that your culture is dominant would be cool.

 

[tekjunkie28]

Are they serious with these patch notes? Something tells me they just dont pay attention to anything or they have no clue how to play the game. I guess this is what happens when you get a big dev with deep pockets....