August 2020 Update - Patch Notes Discussion

[AriochIV]

Look up a few posts. Some mods are conflicting with the new wonder picker.

Still not active with all mods disabled.
edit: Okay, it's working after a game restart.

 

[AntSou]

Still not active with all mods disabled.

Have you restarted the game after turning off YNAMP? (Or whatever mod that was)

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Nice change to the naturalists. They were absurdly expensive before.

 

[leandrombraz]

I'm not sure I see the point of removing the free Amenity for each city if the minimum Happiness thresholds are also reduced by one.

It puts you closer to a -10% penalty to all non-food yields, which comes at -2 amenities now instead of -3. People used to ignore that -5% penalty and take only the -10% penalty seriously, so in practice, having that -10% penalty earlier has more effect on how much players might care for amenities than having no penalty at -1. There's also a -20% penalty at -4 amenities now.

 

[cain3456]

How many natural wonders are usually on a typical map per size? I'm trying to set up a Roman Empire scenario, so I'm limiting the natural wonders to those the Roman knew about (+ Bermuda Triangle, just because I've never seen it in game). I have about 12, is that enough for a large map?

 

[JesseS]

It puts you closer to a -10% penalty to all non-food yields, which comes at -2 amenities now instead of -3. People used to ignore that -5% penalty and take only the -10% penalty seriously, so in practice, having that -10% penalty earlier has more effect on how much players might care for amenities than having no penalty at -1. There's also a -20% penalty at -4 amenities now.

Also, your capitol won't start off with +5% yields and +10% growth because the happiness threshold is higher.

 

[AntSou]

How many natural wonders are usually on a typical map per size? I'm trying to set up a Roman Empire scenario, so I'm limiting the natural wonders to those the Roman knew about (+ Bermuda Triangle, just because I've never seen it in game). I have about 12, is that enough for a large map?

6 on a Large map, according to this link: https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Map_(Civ6)

Though I was under the impression there were more.

 

[Weraptor]

... and still no Gran Colombia nerf despite the devs acknowledging its OPness

 

[8housesofelixir]

How many natural wonders are usually on a typical map per size? I'm trying to set up a Roman Empire scenario, so I'm limiting the natural wonders to those the Roman knew about (+ Bermuda Triangle, just because I've never seen it in game). I have about 12, is that enough for a large map?

If you are making a custom map then there is no upper limit of numbers of wonders.

Also, may I ask what the are the wonders you have chosen?

 

[Amrunril]

It puts you closer to a -10% penalty to all non-food yields, which comes at -2 amenities now instead of -3. People used to ignore that -5% penalty and take only the -10% penalty seriously, so in practice, having that -10% penalty earlier has more effect on how much players might care for amenities than having no penalty at -1. There's also a -20% penalty at -4 amenities now.

It puts you closer to the penalty because the penalty sizes have changed, which is definitely a good thing. With regard to the thresholds for these penalties, though, the two changes (removing the free amenity and lowering all the negative thresholds by one amenity) completely cancel each other out. A city that would previously have 0 net amenities (no effect) will now have -1 (still no effect). A city that would previously have -1 (triggering first level penalties) will now have -2 (still triggering first level penalties) The same continues down to the final -7/-8.

I honestly have no idea what the devs were thinking here. I would have loved to see the simple removal of the free amenity, which I think would have been a great balance change. If the devs didn't want to do that though, they should just have kept the negative thresholds and free amenities as they were before (they could still have made any of the changes they wanted to the effects of each amenity stage and to the thresholds for positive effects). Instead, they made two directly opposing changes, which make for less intuitive mechanics (why would anyone expect penalties to start triggering at -2 instead of -1), mess with the expectations of players who don't closely follow patch notes, and break any mods trying to achieve similar goals all while making no substantive change!

 

[Tuvok694]

Are you able to select a tech from the upper left corner that isn't available in the tree view? That would be fun...

No, that is not possible. But that bug definitely exists, I have seen it three times by now. The path to an already visible civic in the tree does not "match" the displayed civic in the main window.

 

[8housesofelixir]

IMHO we may only see the actual extent/effects of the amenity changes after a couple of playthroughs. In theory you can still semi-ignore the amenities without going into penalties but I haven't touched the game yet.

 

[leandrombraz]

It puts you closer to the penalty because the penalty sizes have changed, which is definitely a good thing. With regard to the thresholds for these penalties, though, the two changes (removing the free amenity and lowering all the negative thresholds by one amenity) completely cancel each other out. A city that would previously have 0 net amenities (no effect) will now have -1 (still no effect). A city that would previously have -1 (triggering first level penalties) will now have -2 (still triggering first level penalties) The same continues down to the final -7/-8.

I honestly have no idea what the devs were thinking here. I would have loved to see the simple removal of the free amenity, which I think would have been a great balance change. If the devs didn't want to do that though, they should just have kept the negative thresholds and free amenities as they were before (they could still have made any of the changes they wanted to the effects of each amenity stage and to the thresholds for positive effects). Instead, they made two directly opposing changes, which make for less intuitive mechanics (why would anyone expect penalties to start triggering at -2 instead of -1), mess with the expectations of players who don't closely follow patch notes, and break any mods trying to achieve similar goals all while making no substantive change!

They don't cancel each other, because the change in the penalty values has a direct impact on what these thresholds mean. First level penalty isn't the same thing it was before. Effectively, it removed the -5% penalty, moved the -10% penalty to -2 and added a 20% penalty at -4. You can't just remove that from the equation to defend that they cancel each other out. Losing that free amenity makes it harder to avoid that 10% penalty and harder to get a Happy/Ecstatic bonus. It isn't cancelled just because -1 doesn't have a penalty anymore.

I agree on it being less intuitive. It's the only thing that I didn't like in this change. Content at -1 is weird and it will confuse casuals.

 

[Daigotsu Max]

I've just started a new game and noticed the AI's were much quicker to dislike me and denounce me. Some rebalancing there perhaps?

 

[Lord Lakely]

Not on my end:

Teddy's and Eleanor's capitals are within ~10 tiles of my own.

 

[AriochIV]

I've just started a new game and noticed the AI's were much quicker to dislike me and denounce me. Some rebalancing there perhaps?

I noticed that too... two AI civs denounced me right off the bat prior to me earning any grievances. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with proximity... neither of the denouncers was close.

 

[agonistes]

I went with all the mountains as wonders.

Is it cheating if I firetune in warriors until I find one, and settle near it? Or you gonna make me reroll til Teddy finds Yosemite?

 

[Infixo]

Anyone tried loading savefiles from before the patch? The tech tree looks randomized for me. Super weird.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

I've just started a new game and noticed the AI's were much quicker to dislike me and denounce me. Some rebalancing there perhaps?

Doesn't sound new to me. I constantly encounter AIs who hate right put the gate. I don't like the unjustified hate, so I burn them down.

 

[Amrunril]

They don't cancel each other, because the change in the penalty values has a direct impact on what these thresholds mean. First level penalty isn't the same thing it was before. Effectively, it removed the -5% penalty, moved the -10% penalty to -2 and added a 20% penalty at -4. You can't just remove that from the equation to defend that they cancel each other out. Losing that free amenity makes it harder to avoid that 10% penalty and harder to get a Happy/Ecstatic bonus. It isn't cancelled just because -1 doesn't have a penalty anymore.

I agree on it being less intuitive. It's the only thing that I didn't like in this change. Content at -1 is weird and it will confuse casuals.

But you could do the exact same thing by just putting the -10% and -20% penalty values at the original -1 and -3 amenity levels. The penalty value changes are doing all the work here. The changes to the thresholds and free amenities are just adding unnecessary confusion.