Are we being too greedy in regards to future content?

[blackcatatonic]

Something to look forward to each month...really, what's not to like?

For me, the something to look forward to each month has come at the cost of the cohesiveness that you get with an expansion. I think I'd have preferred that to the drip-feed approach.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

No doubt we are being greedy. Most developers would not bother releasing new content for a game as old as Civ VI. I am grateful for anything we get and always want more.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Yes, we are definitely being *too greedy*. We basically got a third expansion which has never happened before in the Civ Franchise, yet are openly salivating about a *second* Frontier Pass to satisfy all our needs (although... another FP wouldn't satisfy our needs either, bank on it.) If that isn't greed, then I don't know what is.

 

[AriochIV]

Again, I think the root of the problem is just (1) it’s not really an expansion, and some people wanted an expansion or something like an, and (2) the game modes have ended up a bit underwhelming for some people.

It's not really an expansion... and yet we're paying the price for a full expansion.

I'll be the first to admit that people here often feel entitled and over-expect... but this is not one of those cases.

I've been very pleased thus far with the new civilizations, but the rest of the content that one would expect for this price has been sadly lacking. It's frankly embarrassing. We're seeing silly one-play throwaway modes alongside regurgitated, previously abandoned concepts. This is a return to the Civ V $5 per addon civilization scheme. It was unacceptable then, and it's unacceptable now.

Good thing they got their money up front blind, because there's no way I would have paid actual money for this if I knew what it contained.

Congratulations, Firaxis marketing department. You won't fool me again.

 

[Meluhhan]

Why did we invent economics?

Because There are Limited firaxis resources trying to satisfy Unlimited CivFanatics wants and needs.

This will make a great quote for an Economics 'tech' in Civ VII.

 

[AntSou]

Nobody is saying that Work Ethic is not a really powerful belief now, nor that Gran Colombia is not a beast.

Gran Colombia and Work Ethic are pretty obvious. But what about Maya or the changes to City-States and the new Diplo Quarters? I think more time on the game in-between changes lets players properly absorb the content.

Maybe, your original post implied (to me) that you wanted the same model but spread over longer period.

That's not what I intended to say so apologies if that's how it came across.

I'm happy with the amount of content in NFP. I would be happy with the same amount of content over an equal period of time (12 months), but with less frequent updates. So 6 chunkier updates. Imo it gives players time to digest the update, play and enjoy the game, then hit us with a new update.

Right now it's rapid fire. They went from a 8 month(?) hiatus, which is pretty bad, to announcements/updates every three weeks. In a few days we'll get Byzantium and Gaul. Then three weeks later, likely on the 15th, we'll get a patch announcement, followed by the patch the following week. Then three weeks later... and so on.

Personally, I prefer this season pass approach to nothing for about a year then a full expansion.

Well, absolutely agree.

In any case, I LIKE the NFP DLC model, I just think it's currently too fast and split into too many chunks. We could get the same amount of content, over the same period of time, but in half the amount of updates (6 updates).

Something to look forward to each month...really, what's not to like?

Like I said. Mods/Saves breaking for one and ending up actually playing less Civ because I'm not starting a new save a week before the patch.

In my opinion regular updates is definitively a good thing, but 2-3 months feel like the optimal spot.

 

[UWHabs]

Gran Colombia and Work Ethic are pretty obvious. But what about Maya or the changes to City-States and the new Diplo Quarters? I think more time on the game in-between changes lets players properly absorb the content.



That's not what I intended to say so apologies if that's how it came across.

I'm happy with the amount of content in NFP. I would be happy with the same amount of content over an equal period of time (12 months), but with less frequent updates. So 6 chunkier updates. Imo it gives players time to digest the update, play and enjoy the game, then hit us with a new update.

Right now it's rapid fire. They went from a 8 month(?) hiatus, which is pretty bad, to announcements/updates every three weeks. In a few days we'll get Byzantium and Gaul. Then three weeks later, likely on the 15th, we'll get a patch announcement, followed by the patch the following week. Then three weeks later... and so on.



Well, absolutely agree.

In any case, I LIKE the NFP DLC model, I just think it's currently too fast and split into too many chunks. We could get the same amount of content, over the same period of time, but in half the amount of updates (6 updates).



Like I said. Mods/Saves breaking for one and ending up actually playing less Civ because I'm not starting a new save a week before the patch.

In my opinion regular updates is definitively a good thing, but 2-3 months feel like the optimal spot.

I would tend to agree with a lot of this. While it's awesome getting new updates every month, as someone who doesn't just power through games all the time, it can take a while to "catch up" to the various modes and additions. Like I finished my last game in the middle of last week, but now I know there's a couple new civs coming in an update this week, so I don't really want to start a new game now, otherwise it might be a week or two before I can get to trying out the new game mode and new civs. And then by the time I actually give them each a chance, the update next month is upon us.

I think had they simply given the pass as slightly larger patches every 2 months, with a combination of free updates/balance changes/DLC, it would have made things a little more stable to play with. But given this is new for everyone, I'm sure the folks behind the game will gather feedback and know what works or doesn't work. For all I know, this season pass is selling like hotcakes and will have as many or more sales as any of the previous expansions. Or maybe there's only like 20 of us on these boards who have bought it and they'll go back to the old tried and true model.

 

[acluewithout]

On the updates. I totally get FXS aren’t going to give away lots of free stuff in the community updates. And that’s totally fair. But it also means some of the updates haven’t been able to really fix some problems with the game.

A good example is Religion. The rebalancing of beliefs was great. But. Part of my gripe with Religion is that it’s missing some diversity. It also maybe needs another “late game” set of reformation beliefs (like they had in Civ V). There was none of that, so the religion polish sort of felt like they were playing at the edges a bit.

There’s going to be a similar problem with any unit rebalancing, because without filling unit gaps there’s just a limit to how much better balance can be.

I’m happy to pay for content. I’m not expecting new units eg for free. But my point is that, currently, except for the Diplo Quarter and one more new district, and a few new wonders, we’re not really getting any new base game content so neither the dlc or updates are addressing these sorts of problems.

It's not really an expansion... and yet we're paying the price for a full expansion.

No, it’s not a backdoor expansion. I wanted a third expansion, but that’s just not what we got.

Thing is, while I still would very much like a Third Expansion in the sense of more base game content, I do equally think the whole season pass / game mode thing is a great idea. On it’s own terms, NFP seems like pretty good value to me.

For me, the only problems are (1) the game modes are good, but they need just a little bit more work - mostly, just a bit more depth and or trade-off - but they’re otherwise spot on, and (2) yeah, I still want an actual third expansion that fills out all the end game stuff etc.

I really hope FXS keep going after NFP. I think something a bit in between an expansion (with ideology etc) and more optional content like NFP would be perfect.

My quiet hope is that NFP is a bit of wheel spilling before we get something more like a third expansion. But yeah. Not holding my breath.

 

[Casworon]

I'm not entirely sure Civ VI needs a another expansion. What I think it needs more is all its game mechanics being better integrated with each other. Give tourism a use other than simply being a cultural victory counter, etc etc

At the moment the game has loads of mechanics but they all feel like different buckets that need to be filled up that have little connection to each other. Which makes each style of run feel kind of the same. Also it needs the level of challenge scaled up by around 999%.

I was hoping the updates with NFP would address this. But instead it's still keeping most of the game mechanics separate, but occasionally giving one a balance pass or offering an alternative way of one of the mechanics running

 

[kaspergm]

Again, I think the root of the problem is just (1) it’s not really an expansion, and some people wanted an expansion or something like an, and (2) the game modes have ended up a bit underwhelming for some people.

It's not really an expansion... and yet we're paying the price for a full expansion.

I'll be the first to admit that people here often feel entitled and over-expect... but this is not one of those cases.

I've been very pleased thus far with the new civilizations, but the rest of the content that one would expect for this price has been sadly lacking. It's frankly embarrassing. We're seeing silly one-play throwaway modes alongside regurgitated, previously abandoned concepts.

I actually agree very much with both of you here, I think you both sum up very well why I've been thoroughly disappointed with the ... whatever-we-call-it, so far. To throw in one more thing that annoys me, their approach to "balance" with everything offered in this package - and that goes for game modes and civilizations both - seems to be to think that if everything is just turned up to max, it's probably going to be fine. We have already two blatantly overpowered civs (Gran Colombia and Ethiopia), and we have another one at least bordering on that in the pipes (Byzantium). And similarly, the Secret Societies - which I actually think has the core of a really great addition to the game - just seems to offer tons of bonuses with no drawbacks, while Apocalypse mode and Dramatic Ages seems to be game turned on steroids.

 

[Futumch]

I don't think we're being too greedy. We have a realistic expectation of some value for the money we outlay for the pack. Firaxis have been up-front about what's coming, how much it costs and so on. I have not really liked the new game modes very much, but I still consider that the new civs are probably worth it. The pacing seems about right for me. Every 2 months something substantial, and the months in-between something just to mess around with and a few tweaks.

 

[Karmah]

It's not really an expansion... and yet we're paying the price for a full expansion.

I'll be the first to admit that people here often feel entitled and over-expect... but this is not one of those cases.

I've been very pleased thus far with the new civilizations, but the rest of the content that one would expect for this price has been sadly lacking. It's frankly embarrassing. We're seeing silly one-play throwaway modes alongside regurgitated, previously abandoned concepts.
I actually agree very much with both of you here, I think you both sum up very well why I've been thoroughly disappointed with the ... whatever-we-call-it, so far. To throw in one more thing that annoys me, their approach to "balance" with everything offered in this package - and that goes for game modes and civilizations both - seems to be to think that if everything is just turned up to max, it's probably going to be fine. We have already two blatantly overpowered civs (Gran Colombia and Ethiopia), and we have another one at least bordering on that in the pipes (Byzantium). And similarly, the Secret Societies - which I actually think has the core of a really great addition to the game - just seems to offer tons of bonuses with no drawbacks, while Apocalypse mode and Dramatic Ages seems to be game turned on steroids.

I'll judge at the end the result of their experiment. But so far I preferred expansion since they had far more thematic coherence. But we still have quite a lot of patches and something like three more releases to go.

 

[IvoryPavane]

The only thing I dislike about this model is that when you have individual Civ DLCs (like we have here, in addition to the bundle), they tend to be overtly strong to motivate sales.

Previous individual DLC brought us Australia and Nubia, and now we have Ethiopia and Gran Columbia.

And ultimately I wasn’t entirely fussed as any game is always going to have entities that are obviously strong, but Gran Columbia has really taken it to a somewhat grotesque level and for me, really highlighted what a poor practice it is.

Still not seeing Byzantium “OP” hype though

 

[Aurelesk]

Does that mean ‘Columbia is broken’ or ‘let Columbia be broken?’

It means 'Gran Colombia must be destroyed'.

Cato the Censor was ending all his speech with "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed). At the time, nobody was wondering if Carthage was a threat: it was. He just wanted to push for action.
I don't want Gran Colombia to be destroyed. I just want to push for action (balance)! But if I said "Gran Colombia mutare debet" / "Gran Colombia must change", nobody will see the link with Cato the Censor!
Also I am a little rusty on latin so I am not even sure the sentence is correct, I don't even speak english well in the first place.

Second, and I know this is hard, but the game modes need to be a bit better. Not lots better. Just a bit better. [...] But the game modes haven’t clicked, and that really hurts the value proposition - particularly when there is otherwise basically not base game / expansion-like content - and I think has been what’s generated most frustration.

Basically, game modes are an excellent idea. I really like the optionality, and the way FXS can add stuff that’s more challenging or more out there or less balanced, without worrying they’ll screw up or over complicate the base game. And the current game modes all have excellent ideas and mechanics. But so far, they’ve all been “near misses” and so somewhat underwhelming, because they’ve been too OP (SSM Governor titles), or lacked some depth / too RNG (AM and SSM), or buggy (SM) or just ditched too much stuff people like (DAM).

I agree: the Game Modes were so close to be perfect. I was not expecting something huge, but at least a complex mechanic with some depth with high replayability. Their "near misses" kind of ruin the balance of the game. I am not a fan of Natural Disasters, so I can't talk fairly of Apocalypse mode. My main problem is some disasters are helpful (floods, eruptions, wildfire) and some are just harmful (drought, tornadoes), and some kind of in the middle (hurricaine, dust storm, blizzard).
Secret Societies was so close to be great. The 4 free early governors titles is changing considerably the balance of early game. I was expecting something different, like being able to choose a SS at some point, leading to a skill tree comon to all civilization in the same SS where you could vote for the next tenet for each era (instead of a linear path). This could lead to some internal battle inside a SS to push toward Faith or Culture in Voidsingers, Trade Route or Suzerain in Owl of Minerva, War or Support in Sanguine Pact, or even being Useful or a Joke in Hermetic Order!

My main fear with Dramatic Ages, is that they go only on overpunishing Dark Age and overrewarding Golden Age, while Era Score is already linked on how well you did. A "the rich gets richer" mechanic. On the contrary, I hope the Dark Age would be the catch-up mechanic and the Golden Age the reward toward progress. If you are behind, you can't allow yourself to be in Dark Ages and widen the gap with the top players. Therefore, the Dark Age should help those who are behind. But, for those who are leading, they would want to avoid being in Dark Age because, since they are leading, there is nothing to catch-up.
Basicly, I fear Dramatic Age do not propose any depth except doing everything you can to prevent going into Dark Age while witnessing the AI sink and lose cities after cities.

The Civs have been uniformly strong, maybe some of the best designed Civs we’ve had so far.

A civilization doesn't need to be strong (or overpowered) to be tempting. For example, we all almost agree that Eleanor ability is kind of weak but one of funniest in the game. I could make Korea yielding 600 Science for each Seowon, which would be overpowered but not fun.
But as you said, those Civilizations must be well designed. Since all of them could be selled individually, you can't allow to have a new "Scenarios & Civilizations" DLC, with the highly impopular "Vikings Scenario" again, that lead Australia to be the least sold DLC, even if it is not the worst.

Personally, I don't count the free stuff because it's not paid for. It's a grey area, I know (would they have done it if NFP wasn't a thing?=

Grey aera indeed. The last update was 8 months before New Frontier (09/2019 to 05/2020). That last update was not empty:

• Red Death #1
• New maps: Mirror, Terra, Primordial, Titled Axis, Splintered Fractal, and Continents & Islands.
• Coastal cities balance (Veterancy for Harbor Great Admirals buffs, Harbor's building buffs (Lighthouse's Housing, Shipyard' Production), Reef's adjacency, Mausoleum, +0.5 Housing by Fisheries, +1 Production to Fishing Boats at Colonialism...).
• Rock Bands balance
• Better AI
• Better Perfomances (my computor is not melting anymore!)
• World builder
• Some fixes

But would the Entertainment Complex give +2 Culture to Theatre Square in Byzantium wasn't going to have the Hippodrome? Would we have some changes on Religion if Ethiopia wasn't going to be a religious civilization? Would we have some DF penalty for Capital if Gran Colombia wasn't going to be an overpowered domination beast? We can only doubt... Yeah, it is conspiration time!
I believe, when creating the new civilizations they tend to focus more on certain section of the game (Ethiopia → Religion). This leads the production team to be more aware of the current state of the game and more prone to give us some balance change.

I almost forget: 'Gran Colombia delenda est'
Just joking. This is the last time I am ending a post with that setence.

 

[AntSou]

similarly, the Secret Societies - which I actually think has the core of a really great addition to the game - just seems to offer tons of bonuses with no drawbacks, while Apocalypse mode and Dramatic Ages seems to be game turned on steroids.

I think it's worth waiting in regards to Dramatic Ages.

I agree with you on Secret Societies. I loved it when they were announced, and I still love the idea, but after playing the mode it felt less like "toppings on ice cream" and more like an electric mixer on ice cream. I was hoping for a mode that I could turn on regularly, rather than something that turns everything a bit bonkers. I'd have preferred the exact same game mode but with toned down bonuses. Also, I think it's very important to reduce the amount of governor titles to one, instead of the four you get for meeting each society.

This is why I love the Shuffle Mode and I can't see myself playing without it now that I have it, because it's genuinely something that manages to spice up the game without needing to break it.

Apocalypse is fine imo. It's what it says on the tin. The changes in the last patch were exactly what I needed to use the mode more often. Using soothsayers actually comes with heavy consequences, and the dullness of constantly having to repair volcanic tiles and frequency of aid requests have been toned down. Good stuff.

The big difference between Apocalypse and Secret Societies is that the latter changes the early game too much, making you overspecialise into a given path very early, which then snowballs into a wild gaming experience, whereas in Apocalypse it's more about new constraints and adapting/taking advantage of those constraints. Apocalypse mode ends in a blast, but the path towards that ending still feels fairly balanced, especially after the soothsayer nerf.

 

[acluewithout]

strong.

To be clear, I didn’t mean the new Civ have been “strong” in the sense of power levels. I meant strong as in they have a strong (ie good, bold, distinctive) design. The new Civs really have great designs, and are very playable and mostly require unique play styles. Sure, some are more powerful than others, but that’s not a big deal either way.

 

[Nerevatar]

The current release schedule is fine. I’d pay for another pass quite happily.

DLCs every two months is a good pace. Patch every two months is perfect, better than what we had. I’d be equally fine with the DLC and patch coming out at the same time, so you had drops every two months instead of every month, but I don’t care either way.

If FXS do a second pass or something similar, I’d make two suggestions. First, perhaps combine it with one bigger or “plus sized” DLC at the start or end of the season pass, which adds a bit more base content. I think a bit more for the base game (even if short of an “expansion”) and something a bit chunkier would have garnered a lot more good will. As it is, it’s felt like quite a few months before NFP had some momentum in terms of content,

Second, and I know this is hard, but the game modes need to be a bit better. Not lots better. Just a bit better. The pass is basically built around new Civs and game modes. The Civs have been uniformly strong, maybe some of the best designed Civs we’ve had so far. But the game modes haven’t clicked, and that really hurts the value proposition - particularly when there is otherwise basically not base game / expansion-like content - and I think has been what’s generated most frustration.

Very well said. I very much agree that the NFP should have started on a high note. The first three releases (may, june, july) was very underwhelming and set a bad example of what NFF actually turned out to be. I was personally very soured, since we had a very long drought, then came a small bugfix patch, then a somewhat unlikeable mode (most people on here says they have used it 0-1 times, according to the poll thread), and then a tiny patch with minor changes. I guess Red Death was the selling point(?) but it should probably have been something more core to civ6 that should have been the focus of those first releases. The re-used animation and lacking patchnotes might have been more forgivable for people if the release schedule had simply been shuffled around and we got some of the meaty stuff first.

On a personal note I think combining the "free" patches with the paid DLC and then just doing them bi-monthly is a better approach. Makes it feel more meaty, gives the dev more time to actually change the previous release if it turns out there were bugs or huge problems, and let the content fully sink in for the players.

 

[King Rad]

I like the current system with the monthly releases/updates. I enjoy looking to something new each month. I also find that I like the NFP approach much better than I thought I would. Like many people here, I was really hoping for a third expansion. However, with what's been offered so far, and what I think we can infer from various comments of the developers, while as someone said, we won't know for sure until it's all been released, this is very close to an XP released a little at a time. I especially like the optional nature of the game modes. I don't particularly enjoy natural disaster, so I don't play with apocalypse mode on. I've enjoyed the SS mode so far [on my fourth game and playing the last of the four modes currently] and anticipate leaving it on for most if not all future games. I'm on my first game started since the tech and civics tree shuffle came out, and again, I anticipate leaving that mode on all the time. I like not knowing the path to beeline a tech or civ from the 1st play of the game. I also anticipate that I will leave the new dramatic age mode on for all games, but will have to wait and see. bottom line, by being optional, you can customize the game to be more to your liking. As to the civs, I've played Gran Columbia once and will probably play it again sometime in the future if I go through all the other civs and reach them on the 2nd time around. I don't specialize in a civ, play primarily as a builder/expansionist, and use war generally to protect city states and/or allies. I don't care if some civs are OP. Gran Columbia has been nearly all my games since it came out - and it was hilarious when the Maya took them out! As someone said, I think in another thread, the civs don't have to be balanced - just fun to play, and the more varied, the better. And the new playstyles of each new civ have been excellent so far. Obviously, just by reading comments in this thread, people have very differing ideas on the NFP and on civ in general. Civ VI is a game; it's not perfect; it will never please everyone's wishes in every aspect; but it sure is fun to play! So, I'm happy with the season pass as currently done, and I will get the next one if they do another.

 

[_hero_]

It's not really an expansion... and yet we're paying the price for a full expansion.

I'll be the first to admit that people here often feel entitled and over-expect... but this is not one of those cases.

I've been very pleased thus far with the new civilizations, but the rest of the content that one would expect for this price has been sadly lacking. It's frankly embarrassing. We're seeing silly one-play throwaway modes alongside regurgitated, previously abandoned concepts. This is a return to the Civ V $5 per addon civilization scheme. It was unacceptable then, and it's unacceptable now.

Good thing they got their money up front blind, because there's no way I would have paid actual money for this if I knew what it contained.

Congratulations, Firaxis marketing department. You won't fool me again.

New civs are what the main selling point of expansions to most people. Features have always been secondary. Go back and look at past discussions on these forums for evidence. Whenever there is new expansion speculation, the vast majority of the discussion is about what new civs will be added. You may find paying for new civs to be unacceptable, but I am certain that a feature-filled expansion with 0 new civs would not sell nearly as well as a civ filled expansion with 0 new features. Damn them for giving the customer what they want the most. Damn them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

New civs are what the main selling point of expansions to most people. Features have always been secondary. Go back and look at past discussions on these forums for evidence. Whenever there is new expansion speculation, the vast majority of the discussion is about what new civs will be added. You may find paying for new civs to be unacceptable, but I am certain that a feature-filled expansion with 0 new civs would not sell nearly as well as a civ filled expansion with 0 new features.

Yes, I'm the sucker that would buy this if it came with nothing but civs, even a second pass.
I'll admit that I do get excited every two months. The month when the free updates come never excite me as much as the new civs or content personally.