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

Civ VI ...Huge disappointment

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Manol0, Apr 16, 2017.

  1. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,613
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    4N4C0ND4 likes this.
  2. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    3,970
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I very much disagree with your statement that you can cruise to victory by simple warmongering, let alone saying that it's fun to do that every game again (or are you playing single player games to win, instead of meaning to spend your free time in an enjoyable way?), but even assuming that it is easy and fun, I do not see how that means that "the district system, dual tech trees, unique great people, unique city states, amenities/happiness system, movement rules, AI being able to walk and shoot in one turn, variable policies, traders building roads, the builder system instead of workers, the agenda system (even if annoying, at least you know why someone hates you) and the unique-ness of every civ" are all worse than Civ V. If warmongering is too easy, well, there's already mods out there that add Civ V-like penalties to cities. Which I'd personally never play because I think it's terribly unnatural, but that's not a discussion for this thread.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  3. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,133
    Part of my problem is that I'm an apparent outlier in comfortable play speed, but part of the problem is that civ 6 has tons of mandated IBT waiting and even worse during-turn objectively terrible UI (in terms of #inputs required vs #inputs a competent UI would require).

    Civ has regressed twice since civ 4 UI in terms of unnecessary input spam, and 4 wasn't that good...

    Hiding rules in a strategy game is not okay. This is non-negotiable. The core gameplay/concept of strategy is that you're making decisions based on the game system. In hiding rules, a strategy title is actively undermining its core gameplay outright in favor of fake difficulty.

    How war weariness is computed is a game rule. A position where it's "okay if we're not told" is incoherent unless you are also willing to say you'd be okay with hidden unit/building :hammers: cost, not knowing how much science it takes to research techs, and not knowing how many movement points your units have remaining. War weariness accrual is a baseline mechanic precisely identical to those in scope; it has a consistent, choice derived component for its accrual, removal, and consistent consequences...but they're all hidden/not readily identifiable in-game because reasons.

    I acknowledge that civ has had this flaw in every iteration (vassal mechanics in 4 were pretty awful until you knew the hidden rules). Civ 6, however, is the worst offender. Earlier titles had manuals and hid rules, but the number of hidden rules was fewer and they were more obscure than something you get in nearly every game.

    You can make a reasonable case that the player should not receive notification of new barb camps. That would be incomplete information by design, similar to not knowing where all civs are located on turn 1. However, giving the noise, knowing that this means it's spawning somewhere the player can see it if he scrolls around to search, but NOT allowing player to zoom there is inane and indefensible. There is no logically coherent argument for that implementation in a strategy game and it's one example among many of the complete indifference to player experience from a UI perspective (having gone several major patches without major UI improvements, I am comfortable saying this). You either hide it, or if you're not actually hiding it then make it convenient to interact with the mechanic.

    That the market actually accepts this game as a finished product is just as much a disappointment as the alpha-level controls and limited number of meaningful decisions per unit time playing. The former contributes to eroding the chances of the latter improving. Why bother with that when they can just add more bells and whistles people will buy?
     
  4. MantaRevan

    MantaRevan Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,537
    That one's tricky, because I'm not sure that the market does accept Civ 6 as a finished product. Like I said, look at fan reviews on steam or metacritic. A lot of positivity about the game is based on the fact the Civ 6 has laid a solid foundation for a solid Civ game once expansions and the like are added. The general outlook seems to be more "this will be a really good finished product" than "this is a good finished product." That might lead you to ask why people are buying it, and I think the answer is that even as a somewhat unfinished product, the game is fun and it's something new for Civ fans. Most people on this forum know that they're going to want that finished product sooner or later, and I think some people like to see that progression and enjoy themselves in the meantime.

    Also, play on Quick speed. Standard is too slow to be the default. I don't think you're an outlier there.
     
    c4c6 likes this.
  5. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    3,970
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    "Play on Quick speed" is, imo, not good advice. There's a lot of difference in preferred game speeds between people. I myself typically play normal but sometimes go for epic, there's also people out there that only play marathon, and on the other end there's people who play online only. After all, that's why they're all in the game. For me, game speed is actually a bit out of balance; I would prefer playing building costs on quick and techs on epic. As that's not a possibility however, I'm going with a mod that slows down techs and a manual change (basically a self-made mod in the game files themselves) to district cost increases so that they scale a bit less.
     
    Allinuse and nzcamel like this.
  6. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,133
    Quick speed has some design problems (in contrast to some of my other gripes, speed tuning has been a problem in every civ game). Tech rate vs unit move rate/healing is so skewed. Online speed even more so. Once I wrap up some EU 4 spam on the new patch I might see if the civ 6 UI mod has made the game sufficiently playable to give the alleged improved AI another look on deity. Civ 6 is definitely more egregious on time sinks in-turn than IBT so maybe it'll be enough.
     
  7. MantaRevan

    MantaRevan Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,537
    What do you mean? Tech moves too fast to take advantage of timing pushes?
     
  8. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,133
    You still can, but the game is super forgiving to everybody. In the time it takes to get an army from point A to point B, you can gold rush/faith buy/hard build several of the same unit in a decent sized empire.

    Coupled with the stalling nature of city defenses + occasional encampment, this makes the game overwhelmingly forgiving on the defender. Civ 5 had that problem too, but it shackled the utility of conquest so much it barely mattered.

    On slower speeds a nation caught flat-footed with units out of position or low on units is much less able to conjur up a 10 man army in the time it takes to bring one city down.
     
  9. Leyrann

    Leyrann Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    3,970
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Without mods, it feels like, in later eras, the era is over before you have time to enjoy it. However, slowing the game speed (which would of course help with that problem) would mean that it takes extremely long to build districts, which I don't enjoy either. Additionally, in the early eras the game speed feels about right, so slowing it for the later eras would make the early ones too slow. Most mods that change science and culture costs actually use an exponential increase: no increase for ancient era, x1.1 for classical, etc up to something like x3 for information era.
     
    c4c6 and MantaRevan like this.
  10. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,706
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    1UPT aside; can you elaborate on this claim? I'd like to know what you define as strategy that used to be in the series, and is no longer.

    Yes, and no. Like I said, not all of us want as much layed out as others do. I agree that too much basic info is missing. There's that whole thread we did on the leader relationship icons in the diplomacy screens, and who is the subject of those views. We shouldn't have had to puzzle that out... it really only ended finally once more than one Frankenstein group member confirmed who is the subject (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/relationships-between-ai-civs.612317/)

    That information should be available right here, in this sub catagory (diplomatic relationships) or one of the two sub catagories above it:
    Spoiler :


    Diplomacy civilopedia.PNG


    Where as the exact calculations for war weariness isn't something I think that players should have at their finger tips to manipulate. We make our decisions based on the ends we want to met, and offset said decisions by thinking of our experiences and when we went too far in the past. That to me is more accurate to real life than knowing exactly when our subjects are going to go over the edge. Each to their own, but I do not think that most of us want that dry a game.
     
  11. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,133
    You can not make this statement in a logically coherent way unless you would be similarly fine playing without knowing how much food it takes to grow a city, how many hit points a unit has, how much adjacency bonus you will get, and how much yield you get from each trade route.

    If you are not willing to claim that you would be fine if the exact values for all of those are hidden, the assertion that war weariness isn't something the players should know is irrational and incoherent.

    I will change my mind if you can tell me what standards consistently separate the concepts. I could use the rationale below:

    To 100% identically apply to any of the concepts above.

    It is not "yes and no". You are applying standards in an inconsistent fashion. To that, it is just "no". If there is a valid, self-consistent rationale why it's okay to hide this rule, you have yet to present it.

    I instead assert that playing without knowing when your city will grow or how much research you're making/techs cost would hinder the strategy and planning of the game, and see no reason to privilege one rule as worth hiding over another or why war weariness is better hidden.
     
  12. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,706
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Now I can see how you think some of the options in your first post are reasonable, and others aren't lols. You want everything to be handled identically regardless of context :hmm:

    Lets say we compare food yield to war weariness. Setting aside that the exact consistency of yields in a game like Civ are unrealistic especially for older eras....A ruler could get bureaucrats to do a stock-take each season on the farms in their areas, which over time paint a picture of the likely average yield over time. Whereas while a leader experienced in long campaigns ideally will have some experience of how far his people can be pushed; said subjects are still likely to be less than honest with their rulers over their true opinions in a time where disagreement with authorities could easily cost you everything. The ruler isn't a mind reader.

    The context of objectively measurable vs subjectively unmeasurable makes enough difference for me for one to be known, and the other to be unknown.
     
  13. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,133
    Nothing but straw.

    I do find it amusing that you're quoting someone who succinctly portrays the issue with the barb camp spawns though. Unless you think playing where's waldo is an appropriate time-sink minigame in an alleged strategy title? I'd be interested to see what meaningful choices playing where's waldocamp adds to the game.

    I'm not "MyOtherName" btw. I do strongly agree with the case presented, but I can verify that we are different people.

    I was looking for an honest rationale, not an assertion that a single ruler could ask his bureaucrats to make accurate long-term projections of average food production over the next 300-1000 years while also consistently and accurately getting information from them as to how their accurate-to-hundreds of years prediction projects to population growth in each city. These bureaucrats also seem to have realized a way to make food surplus translate to growth identically in every city! But when these AMAZING bureaucrats are asked to make an estimate as to how upset people will be if the military does X action or Y action over the next 5-10 years? NOPE. COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE. Rough, vague estimates at best, and mostly after the fact!

    Using that as an example is a disingenuous hand-wave. Do you have a coherent rationale for this or not? By the way: you didn't even *try* to set standards for which rules are okay to hide :).

    Food --> growth in a consistent, objectively measurable manner is playing pretend. That's not easy to estimate today, let alone most of the game's timeline. The game massively abstracts the factors, and that squarely destroys their alleged "objectivity".
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2017
  14. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,706
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Rotfl!

    @TheMeInTeam and @MyOtherName; I am sorry for mixing you both up in my hurry! :blush: I feel like a right plonker at the mo :hammer2::run: I'll leave the post there as is for the threads sake; but I will have to redo it. My apologies.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2017
  15. Irene Attolia

    Irene Attolia Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    6
    FWIW, when I bought the game, I hadn't played a Civ title since III, so I was really looking forward to playing. But so many things seemed wrong, and I was seriously disappointed. I checked out the Steam forum to see if I was crazy, and it was nice to know I wasn't alone in my frustration.

    That said, people replying to those threads helped me keep going, and also led me here. I've been lurking on this forum for a few months, and have gotten so much good advice. Now I'm really enjoying the game.

    So sometimes it pays to complain (or at least read complaints), but only if you read the responses with an open mind.
     
    4N4C0ND4, c4c6, Victoria and 2 others like this.
  16. gettingfat

    gettingfat Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,417
    Only if the devs really give a daxn, which I don't think so. While I understand the difficulty in improving the AI (which is still very subpar now), it's hard to explain why basic features like hall of fame and restart button are still missing after so many patches, and the most obvious one is the devs put these basic stuffs in their expansion to increase the saleability.
     
  17. Balkans

    Balkans Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    270
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    BosniaAndHerzegovina
    From your posts i understood that you are someone who played older versions of civ right? If this is true i find it quite funny and peculiar that you are someone who needs an explanation how strategy in TBS game like civ became marginalized part of civilization experience. But i'll give you at least something.
    For example, you have a quest from juicy city state that will benefit your income of whatever a lot - this is not strategic decision it's common sense, you want more of everything, you just do the task and here's a cookie. No need to think about alternatives.
    You got the concept of tech and culture tree and eurekas and inspirations with 50% bonus if you do something - are you telling me that you need strategic decision to realize that it's optimal if you do every single one of them? It's all just tasks that make you snowball. It's all tactics, no strategy. Although this is whole another discussion about what's the difference between the two. That's why i say it's a game that calls you to play optimally, not strategically, what ever of many tasks you can fulfill, you will reap a lot of benefits and leave AI in the dust.
    Someone would say, how's that different form let's say civ iv? Maybe not a lot, but i remember that you just couldn't have it all, you would risk with strategic decision of emphasizing something in order to possibly gaining something else and you could feel what you are risking and what you could possibly gain. For me, in civ vi, this feeling just doesn't exist. It's almost completely bland feeling of any way you want to go about the game, all i feel is that you kinda have to seize every opportunity, but the opportunity isn't something that you actively seek it's given to you in form of some trivial task, or obvious situation, and combine that with bunch of other cheesy gamey tactics of getting more of everything you have the new civ vi. Turn based strategy game, that isn't quite about strategy. I realize that 99,99% of community disagrees with these kind of opinions, but that's OK, this is probably the best i can express about this in a hurry...

    But i was thinking about playing one game and write a decent wall of text while i go along of everything that i find good and bad about the new civ vi...don't think it would make a difference, or anyone would care but i would like to format my own thoughts and conclusions about why i think something potentially great was produced as mediocre. The game wasn't finished, they seem to have some weird policy about relations and communication with community, so after all the hype and expectations it was a hard pill to swallow that civ vi did't rise to the promises they offered. Again, my opinion, i'm fine with people claiming that it's the best civ game ever. And quite strategic as well.
     
    DutchJob likes this.
  18. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,706
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    There is always a need to think about alternatives. There is always an opportunity cost - i.e. what ever resource you devote to the CS side quest could have been devoted to something else. Hey, maybe it's at a quiet point in the game or maybe you were likely to make a similar move so it does feel like you are being rewarded for nothing. But that will not always be the case, and the same offer is being made to everyone else in game.
    I cannot agree with your premise - Deciding what is worth your resources most can be a strategic decision. Or if it is tactical, it is in the true sense of having tactics that will best fulfill a predetermined strategy.

    I don't think that tactics is any more the right word for prioritising a side quest or not, vs the word strategy. It will depend on the context of the game, and how much of your game revolves around utilizing the strengths of that city state or that technology/civic. All civ games have struggled with optimal decisions especially in the tech tree, long before V and VI. Often it has been a no brainer which tech to go for. The difference in VI is that the situation at any point in the game can change what is optimal. Once again, like CS quests, there is opportunity costs to achieving many Eureka's and Inspirations. Though yes, not always - the build a pasture, get a discount off horse back riding isn't an opportunity cost at all. But it is immersive and logical. Other Eureka's and Inspirations do have opportunity cost attached. A common one I miss is the boost you get when settling on the coast; because I am usually not willing to invest an early settler in that.

    Over in this thread where we talk about desired balance changes (https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-future-patches-and-dlc.614211/#post-14727705) you'll see that we do talk about the balance of Eureka's and Inspirations, as I think some of them could do with being a bit harder.

    As I say, side quests still involve opportunity costs. You cannot have it all, all the time - that is just naive. In terms of wonder building the decision to risk building one is higher than ever in some cases as you get nothing back if you lose the race to building it. Other wonders, there is almost a little more certainly that you will have less competition as you know there are only limited spots where it can be built.

    So basically a strategy game for you involves a sandbox environment where others can not interact with you or impose on you? Where on earth does that happen? What meaningful strategic decisions happen in a vacuum? I mean, there's nothing wrong with having a more placid environment that lets you hang yourself, rather than trying to kill you at every turn...but I do not see one as strategic, and the other as not. And what is trivial to person A is meaningful to person B. That is life!

    You are entitled to your opinion...but I do not see that you have made a compelling case that the game does not involve as much strategy as it used to.

    Edit: I think we overstate how much 1UPT has brought tactics into Civ. Yeah there is some things in terms of how you arrange your units in any battle, but as this is a turn based game, much of what would be real life tactical decisions become irrelevant. Which, yes, is why turn based games traditionally stick to strategy. But from a real military perspective, i think it is almost meaningless. If you presented IV and VI to experienced military officers, and had feedback from them after playing both for a decent amount; I do not think they'd conclude that IV was strategic, and VI was less so. I suspect they'd see them both as different light simulations of strategy, with VI having a bit more tactical awareness in combat.

    Where as in a real time game where you can get actual army formations on a battle ground, tactics are genuinely represented in game.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
    CPWimmer likes this.
  19. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,706
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Right, so back to this. Take 2:

    Many games have rules that are obvious and mechanics that aren't. War weariness is a mechanic. Much like jumping Mario around is a mechanic. There is no part of the manual that tells you how high he jumps. You just practice and get used to how high he jumps and take risks off of that experience. Where as the example I gave of how leaders view each other - we are given information that shows us these opinions. But it was incomplete info, at least from the point of view that we didn't know if the subject of the view was the leader on the screen; or was it his views of the other leaders on that screen. Maybe it was deliberately left out. Maybe they wanted us to puzzle that out; though I can't see why for the life of me as the diplomacy and trying to keep unhappy civs on side is hard enough for most of us even if we do know which way around that information is being presented. It's a UI issue which I bet would have been spelled out in black in white in a manual in the good ol' days ;) . Whereas war weariness is a mechanic; and plenty of mechanics do stay behind the curtain because (like with Mario jumping) we are supposed to react to them from skill and instinct as well as calculation. Why? Because we are not gods who know the minds of our people.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
    CPWimmer and Sumorex like this.
  20. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,133
    Tech path variance in civ 6 is less than that of 4. Though to be fair, civ 6 has fewer techs. The eureka system is solid enough in principle, but 6 offers fewer choices in opening that are meaningful to the outcome than 4, while offering more than 5 (certainly more than 5 vanilla).

    There are fewer decisions meaningful to outcome on a per-turn and per-real life time basis. One of those being true could be salvageable, both being true sucks. Though I still consider 6 to be 2nd best in the series after civ 4 in this regard. Civ 5 kneecapped the military expansion consideration and much of the need to significantly invest in order to defend yourself, while earlier titles often turned into ICS pumpers. Civ 4 was somewhat damaged by the broken nature of tech trades though.

    Most people who say this don't know what tactics in civ 4 look like. There is an amusing writeup from Sulla a few years back in a MP game where his team got gangbanged by 5 other teams, and the tactical discussion and impact on outcome from unit movement and placement was game-changing. SP-only players in civ 4 don't know how to fight in civ 4. There are better tacticians out there than the Speaker/Sulla combo, but that should do plenty to dispel the notion that 5 and 6 added more considerations on that front.

    A visual representation of jump height is more clear than trying to give a measurement (what would you use, pixels? Mario heights?). Almost any method you could use to communicate consistently accurate anticipation of jump height would require more time than pressing "A". WW is not comparable to that.

    So you're saying you don't have a coherent rationale after all. From earlier:

    You have not done this, nor tried to do this. Quoting me and responding as you have is intellectually rude and is not engaging with the points I have made to this point. You don't seem willing to concede that it would be okay to hide food/growth or research costs, yet you also don't seem willing to come up with a functional logical framework to separate the mechanics. Instead you're trying to push a tangential reference to a game mechanic in a different genre that is disingenuous to use in comparison at best.
     

Share This Page