Am I the only one disappointed that this "big" patch barely fixed any bugs?

[user746383]

It’s even called triage at companies, so you’re spot on! All I’m saying is triage doesn’t add up to a vision.

 

[Taefin]

Fixing the bug so that you can now deploy units on the commanders space was a truly good surprise though, and really helps with gameplay. That said, changing it so that deploying 2 units drops one on the commanders space and not both in front of the commander means I don’t use that feature anymore. Perhaps a little parable of this larger conversation.

Has anyone else noticed performance issues after patch? I played my first long ages game after the patch (I am boosting AI unit production by 120% and using AI mod that might have reduced the number of wars to kill off those units), but by halfway through exploration the game lags a little every time I click on a unit. I now also notice that it deselects the unit after using part of its movement, so that I have to reselect the unit to attack (maybe it always worked like that and the lag is just interrupting my muscle memory).

 

[Leyrann]

Fixing the bug so that you can now deploy units on the commanders space was a truly good surprise though, and really helps with gameplay. That said, changing it so that deploying 2 units drops one on the commanders space and not both in front of the commander means I don’t use that feature anymore. Perhaps a little parable of this larger conversation.

Not a bug, a change in functionality. I'm pretty sure it was working as intended at all times.

As for where units should go, an automated system will never be able to properly guess the player's wants. Personally I always used manual unpacking at all times anyway.

 

[Gorbles]

However, I think we can both agree that just because something takes time and effort, that doesn’t mean everything is acceptable. And that’s exactly what we’re discussing here—what is acceptable and what is not.

I guess I'm struggling to understand who's saying bugs are acceptable?

Inevitable in large codebases, yes. But due fixing regardless? Also yes.

If you want to talk about specific bugs seemingly not receiving priority, that's a very different argument (and dependent on realities that none of us are exposed to, as none of us work for Firaxis or 2K). We can speculate of course, but speculation goes back and forth. Person A disagreeing with Person B's speculation isn't Person A "accepting" the state of the product.

 

[bumpyglint]

I guess I'm struggling to understand who's saying bugs are acceptable?

Inevitable in large codebases, yes. But due fixing regardless? Also yes.

If you want to talk about specific bugs seemingly not receiving priority, that's a very different argument (and dependent on realities that none of us are exposed to, as none of us work for Firaxis or 2K). We can speculate of course, but speculation goes back and forth. Person A disagreeing with Person B's speculation isn't Person A "accepting" the state of the product.

Sorry, but I can't tell if this is a language barrier or if you're continuosly misinterpreting everything I say.

Where did I ever talk about "people who think bugs are acceptable"?

A few lines later, you write, 'If you want to talk about specific bugs seemingly not receiving priority, that's a very different argument.' But that's EXACTLY what I've been discussing from the very beginning—it's not a different argument at all!!! Finally, it seems like we're on the same page.

We shouldn't just accept the actual situation, that's my main thesis. Firaxis needs to know that it's unacceptable for bugs like the ones I reported to still be in the game after weeks. And IF WE'RE LUCKY, we might get a patch—adding just a few lines of code, because few lines are the fix needed for many of these bugs — only by the end of March.

This despite a test on some mods already out and a copy-paste of their few lines of codes would be enough.

Once again, to be absolutely clear: I'm expressing my frustration that these bugs still haven't been addressed so I want to express my disappointment in them not yet been prioritized as they should (while in the meantime a 30$ DLC introduced similar new bugs that received 0 testing and/ or have been tested and ignored, BECAUSE I REPEAT, they happen 100% of the time, not only under some rare circustamces). I'm talking about what you thought to be "a completely different argument".

Hope that's clear now.

 

[James_Champagne]

Did they fix the whole "game doesn't tell you what your city just finished producing" thing? Because I found that REALLY annoying.

 

[thejoyofciv]

Did they fix the whole "game doesn't tell you what your city just finished producing" thing? Because I found that REALLY annoying.

No, but I just noticed that someone modded that in.

K

Thread 'Completed Production'

Mar 5, 2025

Displays the last completed item on the city production screen on the turn it is completed. This should be compatible with all mods that are modifying the production screen.

Download:

• KayleeR
• Replies: 8
• Forum: Released Mods

• 

 

[Gorbles]

Where did I ever talk about "people who think bugs are acceptable"?

Right here, again:

We shouldn't just accept the actual situation, that's my main thesis.

Maybe we're talking past each other, I don't know. My PMs are always open. It just seems like you're saying people are doing X when nobody is actually doing X.

So why say things like "we shouldn't accept the situation"? Who is? Who is "we"? Who is "everybody"? It's just very confusing to me, because nobody seems to be accepting anything. There are various levels of leeway being given - is that what you mean? Because even then I don't think anyone is accepting that the issues should never get fixed.

What you seem to be claiming simply isn't happening!

r.e. DLC and bugs, again, different priorities. DLC was committed to (and paid for), so it needs delivering. Was that choice a mistake? Maybe! Would it still have been a mistake if launch had been more polished? Probably not. The state of the game is feedback looping into the DLC strategy (and understandably so).

 

[Auraiz]

Fixing the bug so that you can now deploy units on the commanders space was a truly good surprise though, and really helps with gameplay. That said, changing it so that deploying 2 units drops one on the commanders space and not both in front of the commander means I don’t use that feature anymore. Perhaps a little parable of this larger conversation.

Has anyone else noticed performance issues after patch? I played my first long ages game after the patch (I am boosting AI unit production by 120% and using AI mod that might have reduced the number of wars to kill off those units), but by halfway through exploration the game lags a little every time I click on a unit. I now also notice that it deselects the unit after using part of its movement, so that I have to reselect the unit to attack (maybe it always worked like that and the lag is just interrupting my muscle memory).

The power consumption on my laptop skyrocketed to where Civ7 would completely drain the battery in 30 minutes where it was prepatch around 3-4 hours. Which was already extremely high compared to humankind (6-7 hours) and humankind didn't change. I could possibly figure it out but feels like a waste of my time and I just uninstalled civ7 and will wait for next major expansion with mechanics.

 

[LilBudyWizer]

Once again, if players accept releases in this state—where either no testing is done or issues are identified and completely ignored—then developers will keep doing it. A +20 combat unit is undeniably game-breaking,

That seems a bit extreme to me. The only game breaking bugs I've seen were in mods, but they got fixed. Game breaking to me is literally can't play the game, it isn't this leader is overpowered. Don't play it. I don't play multiplayer though so there it might matter. I won't play Diablo any more due to my experience with hackers while playing single player, WTH. I'll never play another EA game due to my experience with SimCity. Most of the games that left me saying f' that where made companies no longer around. I'll reward Fireaxis for this. Eventually I'll buy all their DLC and the next game too. It's a fun game. Does it have bugs? Certainly. It's the fun part that matters.

 

[bonafide11]

I read the updates and saw nothing about a military view where I can see my units and decided I'd wait to play again. I'll likely play this game for a 1000+ hours but I don't feel the urgency to play yet where the game will make me more mad than it's enjoyable. Right now that's how it is for me. I don't want to fall in the hater class either, but a basic view to find where my military units are is essential. Until it's available, I'll wait.

 

[bumpyglint]

Right here, again:

Maybe we're talking past each other, I don't know. My PMs are always open. It just seems like you're saying people are doing X when nobody is actually doing X.

So why say things like "we shouldn't accept the situation"? Who is? Who is "we"? Who is "everybody"? It's just very confusing to me, because nobody seems to be accepting anything. There are various levels of leeway being given - is that what you mean? Because even then I don't think anyone is accepting that the issues should never get fixed.

What you seem to be claiming simply isn't happening!

r.e. DLC and bugs, again, different priorities. DLC was committed to (and paid for), so it needs delivering. Was that choice a mistake? Maybe! Would it still have been a mistake if launch had been more polished? Probably not. The state of the game is feedback looping into the DLC strategy (and understandably so).

Sorry, but saying "people think bugs are acceptable" and "we shouldn't just accept the actual situation" are two completely different things. The "actual situation" I was referring to is not simply "people think bugs are acceptable" as a broad or absolute statement, which obviously would be absurd. Maybe I should have made it clearer, but I never meant to suggest that anyone believes these issues should never be fixed.

As I've stated in my previous messages, my concern is about the level of tolerance people have regarding when and how these bugs will eventually be fixed, I don't get how after all my messages this still is not clear.

For example, I feel that messages #7, #10 and #26 in this thread reflect a different "level of tolerance" than mine. I see them as more accepting of the situation than I am. Being complacent about bugs that were either never tested or tested and completely ignored—despite their impact on customers—won't help change this situation, where maybe these issues will finally be addressed after nearly two months. This is what I meant with "If everyone will keep accepting this this will never change", despite I OBVIOUSLY think that none of these message meant "we are accepting that the issues should never get fixed, ever and never"

I hope this finally clarifies my point.

That seems a bit extreme to me. The only game breaking bugs I've seen were in mods, but they got fixed. Game breaking to me is literally can't play the game, it isn't this leader is overpowered. Don't play it. I don't play multiplayer though so there it might matter. I won't play Diablo any more due to my experience with hackers while playing single player, WTH. I'll never play another EA game due to my experience with SimCity. Most of the games that left me saying f' that where made companies no longer around. I'll reward Fireaxis for this. Eventually I'll buy all their DLC and the next game too. It's a fun game. Does it have bugs? Certainly. It's the fun part that matters.

Maybe I'm exaggerating saying this is "game-breaking" —I can agree with that—but if I'm not mistaken, Civ VII has removed a feature from Civ VI that allowed players to exclude certain civilizations from the opponent pool. As a result, you can now encounter them in-game without any control over it. This is especially problematic with Songhai, a civilization known for strong combos that I avoid using to prevent breaking the wars.

In multiplayer, my friends and I have adopted a house rule that bans Songhai/ Cartaghe for now. However, this is far from an ideal solution—especially since Songhai is such a unique and powerful civilization in combos with some 1st age civ, that basically can't be picked too because otherwise they would have less choice in the next Age.

Instead unfortunately, in single-player, there's no workaround at all.

As I've mentioned before, this game has great potential and is genuinely fun, but these issues stand out to me.

 

[Leyrann]

Maybe I'm exaggerating saying this is "game-breaking" —I can agree with that—but if I'm not mistaken, Civ VII has removed a feature from Civ VI that allowed players to exclude certain civilizations from the opponent pool. As a result, you can now encounter them in-game without any control over it. This is especially problematic with Songhai, a civilization known for strong combos that I avoid using to prevent breaking the wars.

In multiplayer, my friends and I have adopted a house rule that bans Songhai/ Cartaghe for now. However, this is far from an ideal solution—especially since Songhai is such a unique and powerful civilization in combos with some 1st age civ, that basically can't be picked too because otherwise they would have less choice in the next Age.

Instead unfortunately, in single-player, there's no workaround at all.

As I've mentioned before, this game has great potential and is genuinely fun, but these issues stand out to me.

I think Civ VI only added that feature like, three or four years after release?

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Instead unfortunately, in single-player, there's no workaround at all.

You can choose your opponents - both leaders and civs. I do.miss the leader picker though!

 

[queenpea]

You can choose your opponents - both leaders and civs. I do.miss the leader picker though!

You can choose them for the starting age, but there is no mechanism to prevent a civilization from choosing Songhai in the age transition.

Isn’t that the point they are making? Or did I confuse things?

The only way to exclude Songhai in the game would be to choose an Exploration start and choose your opponents by hand, excluding Songhai from that Age.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Civ VII has removed a feature from Civ VI that allowed players to exclude certain civilizations from the opponent pool

No feature can't be "removed" by Civ7 from Civ6, because it's not an expansion, it's a new game, where all features are made from scratch.

Speaking about this particular example, separating civs and leaders and age split made this feature totally different. Owners of basic version have 10 civs per age, owners of more advanced versions have 11 per age and by the end of founders edition content flow we'll have 13 civs per age. With standard map now having 8 civs by default and larger maps coming soon in patches, ability to prevent any civs from appearing just will not work as before, because some map setups would eat all the available civs. It probably should make sense to block leaders, or maybe only allow it if duplicate civs are enabled... In any case, that's the feature which has to be planned from scratch.

Speaking about Songhai, I don't see them (or any other civ at the moment) as too overpowered to block. There are some bugs causing unexpected effects (like Carthage UU), but they are likely to be fixed soon together with some patches. So, the necessity of this feature in the coming future is quite questionable.

 

[Gorbles]

For example, I feel that messages #7, #10 and #26 in this thread reflect a different "level of tolerance" than mine. I see them as more accepting of the situation than I am. Being complacent about bugs that were either never tested or tested and completely ignored—despite their impact on customers—won't help change this situation, where maybe these issues will finally be addressed after nearly two months. This is what I meant with "If everyone will keep accepting this this will never change", despite I OBVIOUSLY think that none of these message meant "we are accepting that the issues should never get fixed, ever and never"

So your problem is that people have differing levels of leeway, and that this somehow translates into actionable efforts by the publisher wrt. allocating resource?

I think that regardless, a different level of tolerance is nowhere near acceptance, of any kind. Agree to disagree.

 

[LilBudyWizer]

Yeah, I think impact on multiplayer should play a significant role in assigning priority. If it hurts when you whack yourself in the head is a good deal different than it hurts when someone else does. I could see some just buy the game for multiplayer. I'm not sure how competitive multiplayer gets in this game, but I know it recaches extreme levels in some game, they have tournaments with big prizes. There I do feel balance is critical. My biggest annoyance is the lack of a fully implemented religious warfare. The exploration age seems a giant step backwards, just spam missionaries with no real way to defend against them. That's why I've most just worked on getting all the leaders through antiquity.

 

[queenpea]

No feature can't be "removed" by Civ7 from Civ6, because it's not an expansion, it's a new game, where all features are made from scratch.

Speaking about this particular example, separating civs and leaders and age split made this feature totally different. Owners of basic version have 10 civs per age, owners of more advanced versions have 11 per age and by the end of founders edition content flow we'll have 13 civs per age. With standard map now having 8 civs by default and larger maps coming soon in patches, ability to prevent any civs from appearing just will not work as before, because some map setups would eat all the available civs. It probably should make sense to block leaders, or maybe only allow it if duplicate civs are enabled... In any case, that's the feature which has to be planned from scratch.

Speaking about Songhai, I don't see them (or any other civ at the moment) as too overpowered to block. There are some bugs causing unexpected effects (like Carthage UU), but they are likely to be fixed soon together with some patches. So, the necessity of this feature in the coming future is quite questionable.

Their military bonus is pretty strong at the moment. It’s natural to want to exclude them from the game until the bug is fixed.

Outside of bugs, it’s quite normal to want to avoid X civilization for any YZ reason.

This would be a great toggle in the game setup, and I hope it’s included in the future.

 

[Krikkit1]

Their military bonus is pretty strong at the moment. It’s natural to want to exclude them from the game until the bug is fixed.

Outside of bugs, it’s quite normal to want to avoid X civilization for any YZ reason.

This would be a great toggle in the game setup, and I hope it’s included in the future.

Especially if it automatically enabled duplicate civs (which is probably something they need to happen with larger maps anyways for anyone who wants to play a larger map without enough DLC)