Unique Civs is a Big mistake. Re-introduce traits.

[kolpo]

I don't think that unique civs are the biggest issue but that instead 1 unit per tile is. Moving a single stack to a certain location is a far easier thing to do for the AI then moving a carpet of doom. Even a slight mistake in the movement of this carpet of doom can cause the AI to lose the war. The civ4 mod fall from heaven also had unique civs but the AI was better in that mod then in current civ6.

 

[Kozmos]

See, I know people too, and in my experience the complete opposite is true. I guess it must be a matter of perspective and context, as supposed to wholesale fact.

Really? I've been watching this industry slowly slide into the gutter for 10 years. Now, even the Japanese devs are turning to hacks. It's a matter of standards ultimately. Market experience has shown people will gladly buy broken, untested games as long as they look pretty. Personally I just see a bunch of laziness that can be fixed with a few simple clicks in the editor. It's not a coincidence modders make better versions of games than developers do.

 

[Ikael]

Getting rid off uniques would be a regression. More unique civs means more replayability, more flavour, more different strategies, more different games. In short, more value for the player. If the AI can't handle uniques, then build a better AI, there are already precedent of games with unique systems / factions able to employ these properly.

 

[Nefelia]

I don't think that unique civs are the biggest issue but that instead 1 unit per tile is. Moving a single stack to a certain location is a far easier thing to do for the AI then moving a carpet of doom. Even a slight mistake in the movement of this carpet of doom can cause the AI to lose the war. The civ4 mod fall from heaven also had unique civs but the AI was better in that mod then in current civ6.

The Civ V modding fixed the issue in a mod. Either the same thing will happen for Civ VI, or the devs will surprise us and get it fixed before we have to mod it ourselves.

Stacks were lame. Let them stay dead.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions.

 

[Gorbles]

Really? I've been watching this industry slowly slide into the gutter for 10 years. Now, even the Japanese devs are turning to hacks. It's a matter of standards ultimately. Market experience has shown people will gladly buy broken, untested games as long as they look pretty. Personally I just see a bunch of laziness that can be fixed with a few simple clicks in the editor. It's not a coincidence modders make better versions of games than developers do.

As a modder, historically, I can say emphatically we don't. We just make things that look bigger and better, and people lap them up. Similar to your criticism of consumer culture, actually.

Nobody cares how much work something took to make, they just care what it looks like or what bias it fulfills on the behalf of the user. Which is why it's all the more important to recognise the work that does go on, instead of pretending it doesn't exist just because you can't (or don't want to) see it yourself.

I have no doubt that modders will fulfill all sorts of community requests for Civ 6, just like the ideas in this thread. But that's because modders can make optional pieces of content that can be targeted at specific demographics. The developers have to make something that appeals to a far wider demographic, and that means sometimes the detail won't suffice for certain element of their (potential) playerbase. This is one of the most basic differences between the quality (and difficulty) of what developers do vs. what modders do. There are plenty more.

I mean, are you a modder? Even if you're not, what things with regards to Traits, or civilisation design, would you fix in Civilisation 6?

 

[Roald Amundsen]

When i play civ4 i usually go random civ, and in my experience i have to adjust playstyle alot according to the civ i get to play. Also i'm not a reloader/reroller so i'm stuck with what i get. The traits in my opinion is a good way og giving me opportunity to follow many different paths without being too narrow or gamey like unique Civs in civ5 and especially 6. I also feel IT gives me just about the right constraints so i'm not totally free and must consider a lot of other ingame factors. In my opinion unique Civs is a regression because as of now, IT makes for a much less elegant game design.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

The Civ V modding fixed the issue in a mod. Either the same thing will happen for Civ VI, or the devs will surprise us and get it fixed before we have to mod it ourselves.

Stacks were lame. Let them stay dead.

i guess if 1upt was fixed or not is a matter of opinion. For me it never clicked and felt too much like playing some tedious tetris clone, and i genuinely feel it was a huge setback for the series and i'm sorry they didn't fix it in six. Tastes differ.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

Disagree. If only for the fact that the AI doesn't 'understand' anything; it's a collection of program subroutines. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "too hard for devs to design"; it's in the game, so it's already been designed. I also disagree that it's "too complicated for the AI to handle"; this is a matter of programming and can be improved if necessary. Civ 5 and 6 are quite different from their predessors; that doesn't man the game doesn't work or is 'unbalanced' (again, if it is, it can be improved).

If you don't like how Civ 6 is designed, don't play it. Easy enough to do. Otherwise make helpful suggestions (I know, it's much easier to simply complain about something, but that isn't helping anybody).

i'm not sure why you would call the suggestion not helpful? I'm not complaining, just saying i think a few directions the series Are taking Are wrong. Because a feature is New does not nescesarily mean it is better? If you changed the abilities og the pieces in chess do you autimaticly get a better game? I guess you didn't understand my post I'll elaborate: by develop i mean develop properly. In my opinion there is no point in throwing to many tools at the ai as they cant handle them. Also if IT is a system not ready for releasen needing years of improvement the system isn't really elegant is it? What i'm proposing is going back to traits which were part of an overall game design, were elegant and thoroghky thought through at launch.

 

[Nefelia]

In my opinion there is no point in throwing to many tools at the ai as they cant handle them. Also if IT is a system not ready for releasen needing years of improvement the system isn't really elegant is it? What i'm proposing is going back to traits which were part of an overall game design, were elegant and thoroghky thought through at launch.

The point is that unique civs are great fun for the player. If the AI can not use them well, then Firaxis can work on the AI.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

The point is that unique civs are great fun for the player. If the AI can not use them well, then Firaxis can work on the AI.

My point is firaxis should already have done that. And not all players find them funny. I find them gamey and restrictive.

 

[MooFreaky]

Actually I am playing Civ4 and greatly prefer IT to this New abomination to the franchise. And btw the whole go back and play civ4 comment is getting a little old.

People said exactly the same about Civ4. It just takes time to actually get used to the changes and that things aren't the way they used to be. People get comfortable and really grow accustomed to a game like Civ. When things change it makes you want what you grew up with, or were attached to. Nothing wrong with that, but labelling something an abomination is a bit harsh.

If I do remember right, they did fire a bunch of AI devs after IV. Which really explains why there are the same AI bugs in V and VI. They are probably using interns as bulk of their workforce with QA being composed of basically one game not played to the end.

Why? The AI in Civ4 vanilla was trash. Why is it so essential to have them? Plus the mechanics of the game change with every generation, so you can't just tweak the AI it has to be built from scratch.

Really? I've been watching this industry slowly slide into the gutter for 10 years. Now, even the Japanese devs are turning to hacks. It's a matter of standards ultimately. Market experience has shown people will gladly buy broken, untested games as long as they look pretty. Personally I just see a bunch of laziness that can be fixed with a few simple clicks in the editor. It's not a coincidence modders make better versions of games than developers do.

Modders don't make better versions (no offence to modders, as they do great work!) it's just that they don't have the inherent limitations of the developer. Firaxis need to be able to make changes to the AI as they patch, launch expansions and DLC. If they AI is too specific then there is a good chance it will need a complete overhaul with some of these changes because it will just be incompatible. They want the AI to be as good as possible, while making it capable of being updated and changed easily. Telling an AI that it needs to act in this way and do these things in this circumstance may make a more competitive AI for now, but when the values it runs on change (potentially drastically) it can just implode. Or worse, be incompatible with said changes and need to be redone almost entirely.

The reason gaming quality is falling (generally) is an economic one. Games still sell for the same price as a decade or two ago, but cost a lot more and have much higher demands of them. Small-mid developers are at a risk of collapse with each game, the bigger ones play it safe and do yearly instalments (see EA). This means that most people working on a non-indie game (although I know a lot of indie peeps who still suffer this) have poor pay, horsehocky hours and horrible work-life balance. Want to help fix that? Be willing to pay double for top quality games, prepared to fork out for good expansions and DLC. Make the gaming industry profitable enough to get proper investment and high work standards. But that isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Sometimes I like traits and sometimes I like unique Civs. I'm glad there are good games with each.

I think the trait system has a certain elegance to it, and I liked how different traits can combine in interesting ways. There are all the fun synergies like Aggressive/Charismatic or Expansive/Creative. And some traits play very differently depending on which other trait you pair them with.

Nonetheless, let's not pretend Civ IV traits are balanced. They are horribly unbalanced. That's OK with me--I don't think balance between Civs really matters that much, so long as every Civ is interesting and no Civ makes the game too easy.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

you're not wrong, but the entire civ5/civ6 gameplay is a mistake from the perspective of getting an AI to play it decently

I agree. I just wanted to present my view on the topic if unique Civs which i usually find greatly glorified and usually overlooked/not regarded as a problem on this forum.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

Sometimes I like traits and sometimes I like unique Civs. I'm glad there are good games with each.

I think the trait system has a certain elegance to it, and I liked how different traits can combine in interesting ways. There are all the fun synergies like Aggressive/Charismatic or Expansive/Creative. And some traits play very differently depending on which other trait you pair them with.

Nonetheless, let's not pretend Civ IV traits are balanced. They are horribly unbalanced. That's OK with me--I don't think balance between Civs really matters that much, so long as every Civ is interesting and no Civ makes the game too easy.

Yeah financial is definately the best one, but you could win the game with any of them! But then again , in civ6 it's impossible to loose whatever you do

 

[Agent327]

i'm not sure why you would call the suggestion not helpful? I'm not complaining, just saying i think a few directions the series Are taking Are wrong. Because a feature is New does not nescesarily mean it is better? If you changed the abilities og the pieces in chess do you autimaticly get a better game? I guess you didn't understand my post I'll elaborate: by develop i mean develop properly. In my opinion there is no point in throwing to many tools at the ai as they cant handle them. Also if IT is a system not ready for releasen needing years of improvement the system isn't really elegant is it? What i'm proposing is going back to traits which were part of an overall game design, were elegant and thoroghky thought through at launch.

Well, they quit Traits. That's a design decision, so they're not likely to go back on it. Therefore your suggestion is not helpful.

 

[Ryika]

I love the new Civs, and think they'll be even better when a balance patch has put the "standard strategies" into their place, hopefully allowing the Civs traits to become more important.

Yes, the AI can't handle them, but frankly... I don't care. Being rewarded for playing differently depending on which Civ you start with easily outweighs that downside for me.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

Well, they quit Traits. That's a design decision, so they're not likely to go back on it. Therefore your suggestion is not helpful.

Just trying to think outside of the box here. They wen't back to a govt system closer to civ4 and scrapped the poor impemented policy system in 5. How do you explain that?

 

[kornelm1978]

Agree with that. Game I believe should be built to let the AI make proper decisions, without extensive programing of every feature. I will give you the example, and you can find many of them in the game. There is a great general which supports you units in certain era and than gives you ironclad. So only for that general there needs to be programmed: 1. following the fleet, than when his era ends programing to go back safely with escort home. Lets imagine there is a naval battle with that general (hard too imagine, huh?). How large should be escort? Player knows, but AI cannot consider it during that battle - should it go immediatelly with one escort (which will leave battle)? Maybe two? Shall all escort him back, shall it wait untill battle is ended (let's programm now the end of the battle). Is the way back safe and shall we avoid bomarding cities?

I could give you much more rules which should determine the behaviour of that one single general. And there are hundreds systems like that which is not possible to program. Proper behaviour (similar to human decsions) would take huge amount of time and resources. And it coud be done simplier with the same result (not really diminishing gameplay). When era ends you have the ironclad appears in the port. So simple.

 

[Zaarin]

Sorry, give me a weak AI and flavorful civs. Vanilla Civ5 was playable only because the civs felt distinct, making going back to Civ4's generic civs difficult; Civ6 makes Civ5's civs look bland. If playing one civ feels the same as playing another, something is wrong with the game.