1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Came back after a few months, district cost formula still kills the game

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Tomice, May 4, 2017.

  1. PendragonWRB

    PendragonWRB Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2002
    Messages:
    311
    Gender:
    Male
    A harbor gets me another trade route which is certainly useful.

    Late game cities can add trade routes for science, and a place to upgrade units for your military if going domination, or just preventing an AI culture/science victory. They can also add amenities to keep unrest down as your expanding. Captured cities have even more production issues with occupation penalties and generally crappy existing districts with few land improvements.

    There is a cap on number of trade routes, you only get one per city so you need more cities for more trade routes. Also only 'good' cities can host a trade route. A new city returns almost nothing on trade unless you build districts.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2017
  2. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I don't see that big problem with such exploits. Yes, you could gain some advantage through counter-intuitive min-maxing, but it isn't huge and it has it's cost. So, come on, civ series seen much worse min/maxing.

    Speaking about mechanic itself - I found it very fun layer of planning to not build everything everywhere.

    Only regional bonuses from factories don't stack. Industrial zones still provide bonuses for the city which built it.
     
    c4c6 and nzcamel like this.
  3. Photi

    Photi Governor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    700
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington
    get yourself a couple of population points before you go building a district two. how many villages in real life have a commercial district? a late-game city with 2-3 population points can bang out districts quick enough.

    personally i haven't critiqued 6 much, there was an impulse to right at the beginning, but then it quickly became apparent that so many who were complaining about the game were doing so in a hyperbolic manner. in my opinion all the exaggerated complaints have drowned out genuine critique (and people like TheMeInTeam are usually offering up good criticism), there's an echo chamber of complaints around here that offer nothing but noise. District scaling is one people drum on about, and even if it needs adjustment (i've not encountered the issue), people seem to lose all perspective about it. "Districts" in later eras intuitively cost more than districts in earlier ears and basing that off techs/civics is much more intuitive than basing it off number of turns since wo/man walked upright.

    On the one hand, people complain about the easiness of the game, and then complain about its difficulty. So what is it, do people want the game easier or harder? Seriously, with all the stupid handicaps the AI gets at higher difficulties, if they were any better at their job winning at deity would be impossible. The game already compels me to make war when playing to win at deity, it's dumb though to try to turn deity into the level where domination is the only possible victory.
     
    Victoria and nzcamel like this.
  4. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    4,016
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Imagine, though, that a state in the present day would say to some 2000 people "build a city there and start developing it" (assuming a state can do that, of course). How long, like, seriously, how long would it take until it can compare with even a mid-sized 200 000 population city that way? Wherever you see new cities being built in the present day, there is a lot of developing coming from outside the region itself. I would say that trade routes and chopping aren't so much a work-around as well as how it actually works in real life.
     
    c4c6, MyOtherName, Victoria and 2 others like this.
  5. Photi

    Photi Governor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    700
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington
    in late game, when you are pulling in 500-1000+ per turn in science, does the added trade route for science contribute anything significant? Besides, by this time you should be pulling in plenty of gold to be able to buy a builder or two for any new cities. a couple of late-game farms and late-game mines will get the city up to speed in no time.

    a captured city works just as well for upgrades and healing. pillage wars and spies work great to slow down an impending AI victory. settled late game cities are for seaside resorts and pumping up the score.
     
  6. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    4,016
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Just saying, the hard part of a science victory is the production. Which you can boost a lot through trade routes.
     
  7. Photi

    Photi Governor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    700
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington
    i agree, but how much added production does two or three trade routes give? one to two turns off victory date? anyway, i get that trade routes are quite useful, but five turns to build a late game district to then buy a trader does not make the game more difficult, nor does it have much correlation to reality. like you said, new cities in the current era if intended to be economic/shipping hubs are developed with major resources outside of the city itself (im thinking Dubai). The point is a) district scaling is inutuitive and meshes with reality (yes Civ is not a real life sim) and it b) prevents the game from being easier than many say the game already is. i think a justifies b.
     
  8. Pietato

    Pietato Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,804
    Location:
    New Zealand
    It scales with the wrong thing, is the problem. It should be turns or population.
     
  9. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,343
    Yeah but it's clearly not important if @PendragonWRB "cannot be bothered"
     
    c4c6 and MooFreaky like this.
  10. MooFreaky

    MooFreaky Meatbag Destroyer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Messages:
    332
    This isn't a problem with the game design and can't be labelled as an issue. It's like saying "well by late game I know I am stronger than all the other Civs, it's just so damn annoying to go an conquer them so they should just concede to me"

    But both of these will make it harder for Civs that are further behind (or are in a rich agriculture but poor mineral location). If you find yourself in early wars, often you have lower science and culture, but still good population levels, so suddenly you are even further behind because you can't get districts down effectively. It means peaceful players will snowball more and more.
     
    nzcamel and Victoria like this.
  11. Felis Renidens

    Felis Renidens Prince

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Israel
    Also tech\civics are the most straightforward measure for advancement and the thing that makes your improvements more effective, allowing you to increase production and mitigate the scaling cost.
    I really don't understand in what way population or turn is better than tech. Total number of cities\districts can make sense but will not solve the "problem" and is not better than tech. Same with distance from center or corruption\waste which is the equivalent mechanic.
     
    Victoria and MooFreaky like this.
  12. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,343
    To me, the only real reason you would want it changed is if you were ahead on the tech/civic path compared to other civs and felt it unfair you should be punished for doing well

    I suspect the main reason is purely that when you lay down a settler later and see a district will take 150 turns you freak and say its unfair without having the foresight to understand that that is quickly changed.
     
    MooFreaky likes this.
  13. MyOtherName

    MyOtherName Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,526
    Getting another trade route is useful.

    Spending 500 cogs for another trade route? Maybe not.
     
  14. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    4,016
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    If you get 2 turns per trade route, then a trade route shaves off about 1% of your time to win. That's more than half as much as reasearching a tech, which takes about 1.5% of your time to win, as there's some 60 techs (is that correct?) in the tech tree.
     
  15. agonistes

    agonistes wants his subs under ice!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,490
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vermont
    I'm no historian... but quite a bit of correlation, isn't there? Even to this day, you have major trade hubs. Or were you being sarcastic?
     
  16. Photi

    Photi Governor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    700
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington
    well, first of all i am not really arguing against the game mechanic of being able to transfer traders from one city to the next. it makes for a fluid economy and presents the player with many interesting choices.

    i'm no economist, but it seems unrealistic for a major modern empire to have only one trade hub (which the game mechanic allows). Take for instance the US, it couldn't function like it does if NYC was its only major port, and it would be majorly bad governmental administration is Trump all of a sudden decreed that all trade must pass through the jurisdiction of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. So the game mechanic doesn't seem entirely realistic.

    Another detail of being able to stack all this trade with no upper limits on number of trade routes a city can host, why do none of the trade benefits go back to the origin city? If the ability of a city to maintain a trade route represents raw materials from that particular region, shouldn't that city get benefits when they begin exporting those materials? Are those benefits represented in tile yields? Maybe they are, but the yields don't change when a city earns its trade slot.

    All this digresses from the OP, district scaling. A late game city with no inherent production value and left to its own accord shouldn't be able to build a district in a relatively short amount of time. Being able to send raw materials to that city (in the form of assigning a trader unit to that city) is a logical, reality-based solution. Alternatively, a city that does have inherent growth and production value (in the form of good tile yields) can be developed fairly quickly with a bought builder, which is another way the game allows for the redistribution of resources and is again logical. My resistance towards those who are saying the scaling cost is too high has to do with balance issues that reducing district costs would create. Reducing costs (and the costs are logical and reality-based) would make the game less challenging, and i think most of us want a more challenging game. And probably more than a few of us want "challenge" not in the form of all war all the time, but challenge in the other victory conditions as well.
     
  17. gettingfat

    gettingfat Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,417
    The declining sales, mediocre fans rating at steam and metacritic, the quietness of this board (versus civ4 and civ5) all indicate that there are real serious issues in this game. You can't just brush aside the majority of the criticism as over-reaction.
     
    ZubieMaster likes this.
  18. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    4,016
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    "quietness of this board (versus civ4 and civ5)"?

    ???

    Last post made on the bottom thread on the general discussion forum of Civ 6, Civ 5 and Civ 4 (the time a thread takes to fall off the front page):

    Civ 6: Monday at 8:02 AM (May 8th 2017)
    Civ 5: February 4th 2017.
    Civ 4: February 14th 2017.

    Amount of threads posted in today on the general discussion forum of these games:

    Civ 6: 21
    Civ 5: 1
    Civ 4: 3

    Make sure your facts are correct before you press post.
     
  19. Photi

    Photi Governor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2002
    Messages:
    700
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington
    According to steamspy.com/app/289070 , there are 1,825,325 owners of Civ VI. We are now seven months into a game with about a 6 or seven year lifespan. There are currently about 10 million owners of Civ V. So 6 is at almost 20% ownership of 5, and we still have 91% of 6's lifespan left, as well as probably at least two expansions, and we all know the expansions generally make the game better than it already is. Considering the great new elements in 6 and the further optimization of these new elements that are undoubtedly already taking place, and i think we can expect great things in the months ahead. 1.8 million owners means the game has grossed 108 million dollars, give or take because now it is on sale at steam, plus income from DLC content.

    There are probably better stats/graphs to compare sales historically next to 5, but i'm at work (but i am my own boss, so i can't get into too much trouble).
     
    MooFreaky and Leyrann like this.
  20. agonistes

    agonistes wants his subs under ice!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,490
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vermont
    These opinions are coming from folks who play on standard speed, probably average maps. Fairly narrow vision.

    I settle a 1 tile island. No choppy choppy. No city to trade to. Even with the Auckland bonus in industrial, I'm looking at 50+ turns for a harbor. No Auckland? Hmmm.

    Look, I try to be gentle, but c'mon... in pursuit of better gameplay they came up with a fairly bad mechanic. There are many other and better ways to slow expansion and/or create balance (I am against slowing expansion btw). They didn't even think to cap the scaling?

    "Hey guys, uh, I just realized, its going to take 320 turns for this to be built under conditions X."

    "Ah, thats fine. Conditions X will never happen."

    Don't throw this tree chopping plan at me. You can't chop desert. And sometimes internal trade routes are impossible.

    So don't settle there?

    Hey... argue all you want about various mechanics... at the end of the day, settling is, more than almost ANY mechanic, a core aspect of Civ. As is the fact that as you progress, time speeds up. Scaling is bat-ass backwards. It should get progressively easier to build infrastructure, so that a new city can participate. Not be - build a city, that city is dead to me for 100 turns. Thats dull. Boring. A new city should always be significantly and positively consequential.

    District scaling is a cop out.
     

Share This Page