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. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,343
    hahahah!... the more you play this game the more comfortable it gets... I wish the idiots would stop slagging off an unfinished product... cope with it and get on with it , report things in a better way than CIV IV is better than VI and other such pointless comparisons.

    You either like the game or you do not, people who give it a few goes often say that it is improving... bu there will always be whiners who just do not like 1UPT and are pedantic... I just ignore some of them because they got samey... nothing new to add.
     
  2. antimony

    antimony Warlord

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    192
    If the cost of building a city from scratch didn't increase with the general progress of a civ., it would just be too easy to build a powerhouse city in the late game. And that's in a game that some people argue already has little constraints on expansion.

    The empty districts are not more powerful through time, but the buildings and bonuses they enable (e.g. trade routes) get better as you accumulate policy cards. So perhaps it feels wrong that all the extra cost falls on building the empty district, but after that you can buy everything in it with gold and it catches up quite fast.
     
    c4c6 and Photi like this.
  3. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    For the record, I typically play a peaceful builder, who might go to war early in the game to get some elbow room for expansion but generally doesn't go for a domination victory, and I don't often exploit the AI/city-states to get all the benefits I could. But district scaling still bothers me, because it's so weird and out-of-place. I don't understand why districts provide such small benefits compared to buildings/Wonders but it's the districts that scale with cost and not the other things. I understand that it's a point that districts essentially "gate" buildings so you need to build districts before you can get the Wonder/building in question, but it encourages weird gameplay (not finishing vital techs/civics--again, saying you don't have to play this way is not a defense) and is largely a mechanic that is hidden from the player.

    If there was some sort of district scaling mechanic, then I think from a game balance perspective there are other mechanics that would at least make more sense, like a turn-based scaling (which would suck, but at least remove most of the weird gameplay issues), or scaling with the number of districts in a city, or scaling with the number of that particular district in your empire. Or hell, even scale based on the distance between the city and the district.

    Conceptually, it's an odd choice in my mind, and the fact that some defend it as "working" doesn't change how bad it feels to some. To me, while I certainly don't mind focusing production and sending some trade routes to a new city to get it up and running, I think the game would be better if later buildings that gave the most benefit would simply cost more production as opposed to the districts that house them. The benefit of having a developed city shouldn't be "well I already have my district, so I don't have to pay that cost when I unlock a new building", it should be "my developed city is very productive and will produce the new building more quickly and benefit from it more". Granted the latter part is difficult because the vast majority of bonuses in VI are flat bonuses rather than %-based bonuses, another design decision I don't agree with, but I think the point still stands. The way it's handled feels artificial and weird to me.
     
    ZubieMaster likes this.
  4. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,343
    Districts are not the only thing that scales this way are they?
    You have not discussed the fact it may have been designed so those lagging behind in science and culture get cheaper buildings which seems like a brilliant reason to keep it.

    I suspect they will keep this as its fairly core and I can see why. Yup all have a good complain if you feel uncomfy. I hate the unfinished techs gamey way of playing so do not use it but I do place build so I am a bit of a hypocrite
     
    MooFreaky likes this.
  5. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    4,016
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    There's a reason Texel doesn't have a big city on it, even though it's theoratically big enough for one (almost as big as Amsterdam in size). One tile islands aren't meant for cities.

    As for 320 turns to be built... Yeah nope. That's never going to happen. You're looking at a size one city with a total of 2 production (1 from city, one from worked tile). Some 10 turns later, it'll grow, probably get another production, and 100 turns disappear from the estimated time. Again 10 turns later it grows, and another 50 turns disappear. You're now looking at a total build time of some 150 turns, and that's after only 20 turns and without any outside help (at this point I refer to my post on the last page or maybe the one before that, reminding everyone that real life new cities aren't built without outside help either).

    As for internal trade routes impossible... I've never seen that. And I play on Huge maps only.
     
  6. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,343
    lol, you scraping the barrel there @agonistes ?
     
    MooFreaky likes this.
  7. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    Why should those who lag behind get a benefit? You reward players for progress, you don't reward them for lack of progress.
     
  8. Felis Renidens

    Felis Renidens Prince

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Israel
    To keep the game interesting. Rewarding progress sounds fine in theory but it means that once a player went ahead they're unstoppable and the game is just dragging itself to a forgone conclusion.
     
  9. rschissler

    rschissler King

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    788
    Location:
    So. Cal, USA
    So, AFTER 20 turns its ONLY 150 turns now? :undecide:
     
  10. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    If you're looking to stop the "snowball" system I think you picked the wrong game.

    But seriously, if you're going to include "catch-up" mechanics, there are a number of better ways. Tech costs that get cheaper with each other Civ that discovers the tech is a good example, as it allows Civs that pursue different paths through the tech tree to remain competitive (same applies to civics in the case of Civ VI), but doesn't unfairly reward them for being behind in general. To say nothing that applying it to production costs in this manner just feels wrong. I shouldn't become worse at building when I become more advanced. You could accomplish this goal in a way that feels more natural and "fair".
     
    ZubieMaster and agonistes like this.
  11. agonistes

    agonistes wants his subs under ice!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,490
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vermont
    Well, arguing one point is not arguing the other. I'm all for mechanics that bolster laggers. Seems like every civ game has a point at which you burst through and are from then on blowing away the competition. You've got to set some hard meta- handicaps to keep it competitive. I've mentioned a few ways to do it here and there.

    Leyrann... I just have no response. Well, a brief one. If you are Russia, and you settle on an island east of Australia for an amenity, because all of Soviet Russia has maybe 4 amenities, and you have 80 cities, how are you going to reach one of your other cities with a trade route?

    You may not be aware, but trade route completion time scales up too... . One route can take an entire age to complete.

    If it didn't take 140 turns to pop a settler and get him down there, I'd give you a nice screenie.
     
  12. agonistes

    agonistes wants his subs under ice!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,490
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vermont
    He's also assuming there are tiles with production that can be worked.
     
  13. MyOtherName

    MyOtherName Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,526
    The more time you sink into something, the easier it is to delude yourself its worth your time.

    I'd rather play something I actually enjoy, rather than something I've merely convinced myself to put up with.

    I'm sure they will if it's ever finished.

    They do.

    And there will always be fanboys who swear by it and make excuses no matter how bad things are.
     
    ZubieMaster likes this.
  14. Felis Renidens

    Felis Renidens Prince

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Israel
    You are not worse at production (actually your improvements do better, you have factories and other stuff). But your civilization is more advanced. A commercial hub isn't just some tents and stalls, a harbor isn't just a few wooden docks and a wall. You have more facilities to build for it to be a proper district. That's how I explain the raising costs. What it does is make the player think when considering expanding in the late game. Do I want it just for the territory\resource and don't care about it's production? Do I want to invest traders and builders to make it a productive city or maybe not build the city at all. So it's not expansion expansion expansion. If it also stops snowballing - well good.
     
    c4c6 and MooFreaky like this.
  15. PendragonWRB

    PendragonWRB Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2002
    Messages:
    311
    Gender:
    Male
    If the districts are so much better that they should warrant higher costs then they should provide MORE benefits, but they do NOT!

    All you get is the same old bonus you got in your first city. You cannot use real world excuses to explain why they should cost more and then not get a better district.

    Now if they want to penalize or slow expansion then some kind of accumulating cost like workers/settlers would be more palatable.

    I think this was meant as an equalizer to let players behind in tech/culture catch up, but in application it does more smothering than enabling.
     
  16. rschissler

    rschissler King

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    788
    Location:
    So. Cal, USA
    Yeah, but when starting a city from scratch, you have none of that stuff. And the way the game is in the later stages, it's not maybe or "maybe not build the city at all," it's definitely don't build it. That's boring.
     
  17. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    4,016
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    "(at this point I refer to my post on the last page or maybe the one before that, reminding everyone that real life new cities aren't built without outside help either)"

    QFR:

    For this case you mentioned, it's already extreme in that you have 80 cities on a single continent (that or you didn't improve luxery resources, which I assume isn't the case), and on top of that it's extreme that you're going so far away. You can't put a city a bit to the south, in the Middle-East? You can't put one in China? You can't put one in Europe somewhere? And if the map is so full that indeed you can't, then maybe, you know, you could trade for amenities. But okay, let's say that everyone hates your guts and refuses to trade, yet you still don't feel fine just conquering your amenities, and you also don't have a place to put a city closer to your current cities. You put that city on the island. Questoin is, how big is the island? If it's one tile, I refer back once again to one of my previous posts - a huge city on a tiny island is something that doesn't happen. Neither in the game nor in real life. Maybe you'll just have to deal with it being a small city and just take the luxery resource. If it's more than one tile - well, I see production! There's several possibilities. First, plains tiles naturally grant production. But maybe it's all grassland. Well, there's still grassland hills, which grant production and you can build a mine too - that's 4 production per turn from a single citizen that also sustains itself in food. But, it might all be flat grassland. And then you just plant forests, put lumbermills on them, and still get what, 3 production from every tile? So, there's your production. And considering you're close to Australia, any chance you got Auckland? That's 2 production per water tile, while they also grant 2 food (more with resource) and some gold, so you can actually get a good city running there. Yes, that's after the harbor is finished. So yeah, just rush some builders and you got a city running anyways.

    And regarding trade routes, no they don't take an age to complete and no they don't scale their completion time. They only scale with length of the route. The longer the route, the longer they take to complete. Or else I wouldn't be reassigning a trade route per turn on average in the Information Era with some 20 total routes.

    I am assuming, by the way, that you are at least somewhere around the Industrial/Modern era, considering the building times you're talking about and the amount of cities you have.

    Yes I am. See above. If you have no possible production tiles, that means you're looking at a 1-tile island, which means you shouldn't be expecting a big city - once again, I refer to my point made a while earlier.

    Oh, one last thing, I wouldn't mind if you were a little less antagonistic. Would make for a much nicer read.

    EDIT: One more thing, you can still get +1 production from sending your trade routes to the right international cities, and you can then use the additional gold to partly make up for the production you lost by sending trade routes internationally. Plus those trade routes might also give the city a bit more culture, increasing border growth, which is never a bad thing. It's worse than internal trade routes, but it does give you stuff.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2017
  18. Felis Renidens

    Felis Renidens Prince

    Joined:
    May 25, 2016
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    Israel
    You should be able to buy builders easily and set a tread route. Also, planting a crap city just to get a resource is fine. Keep it under 3 pop and you won't have amenities problems. For those cities long building times are actually a blessing because I just want the resource with as little micromanaging as possible.

    Anyway, I find settling too many cities boring, For me it's more interesting to get a decent-size empire and then go to space. I don't need every 1-tile piece of land. So, it may be a matter of taste, not a problem in the game.
     
    c4c6 likes this.
  19. Magil

    Magil Monarch

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,618
    You say this, but there are many problems with this view. For example:
    If it's a better district being built out of more advanced materials then it should provide more benefit. Since it does not, this explanation does not work. From both a "realistic" perspective and a gameplay balance perspective, if something costs more then it should provide more benefit. The arbitrary tech/civic-based district cost scaling does not model this.

    For another problem with this logic, if you're trying to control expansion then it would make a lot more sense to have the district scaling based on number of similar districts instead of this model.
     
  20. agonistes

    agonistes wants his subs under ice!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,490
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vermont
    Push don't pull? Nothing wrong with that idea.
     

Share This Page