Civ6 June Update Video

[oSiyeza]

Where is the improvement of AI combat tactics? I didn't see it in the video. And this is important to me.

Usually AI changes appear only on the patch notes. However, I don't expect langer AI changes than in previous patches.

 

[Gedemon]

Usually AI changes appear only on the patch notes. However, I don't expect langer AI changes than in previous patches.

Except for a bigger focus than usual for the Red Death AI maybe (with changes that could hopefully be used in mods for the base game too)

 

[tedhebert]

AGAIN ! There are NO stats for people PLAYING in steam. The stats are are for people who have WON games !!!

 

[oSiyeza]

AGAIN ! There are NO stats for people PLAYING in steam. The stats are are for people who have WON games !!!

That is not correct, achievements are available stats not dependant on winning games. Regardless of how many caveats you want to put. And even if some achievements are precisely about that.

Using caps and exclamations does not make you less wrong.

And still you can use the stats on how many people has won the game in each difficulty to argue about how easy or how difficult the game is. So i dont understant what is your point at all.

 

[MrRadar]

AGAIN ! There are NO stats for people PLAYING in steam. The stats are are for people who have WON games !!!

Consider the screenshot in the spoiler. This is top 15 most common achievements at the moment:

Spoiler :

Only 4 of those 15 are for the players who won the game. Others are awarded in the process of playing, without necessarily winning in the end. They can give you some more general picture.
For my part, I'm bloody astonished by the 37.4% share of those who tried multiplayer. That's a lot. And that is still a lock icon for me.
(Edit: Red Death is probably responsible)

 

[oSiyeza]

Consider the screenshot in the spoiler. This is top 15 most common achievements at the moment:
Only 4 of those 15 are for the players who won the game. Others are awarded in the process of playing, without necessarily winning in the end. They can give you some more general picture.
For my part, I'm bloody astonished by the 37.4% share of those who tried multiplayer. That's a lot. And that is still a lock icon for me.
(Edit: Red Death is probably responsible)

Exactly, and you also know how many people has not won any game. Which is not data of people who has won

the question then becomes: where are those 57% of players who never WON a game ?

Good question, but you cannot assume these are players that were not able to win any game.

They can be modders with the achievements disabled, players that have the game but never played it, players that did not like the game enough to finish any match or players that get bored in the late game and restart before the end of the match. You dont know, and therefore you cannot make any assumption about them.

If anything, the data posted by Mr. Radar clearly suggests that an important part of the players did not play long enough to complete a game. You also need to understand that statistics allow you to make inferences from samples to populations. The steam players who have won games are most likely a representative sample of the people who is playing the game with any significant commitment.

 

[AsH2]

..
I'm bloody astonished by the 37.4% share of those who tried multiplayer. That's a lot. And that is still a lock icon for me.
(Edit: Red Death is probably responsible)

I have a brother that insist on playing MP games as team against AI. I bet we're not the only ones..

 

[oSiyeza]

I have a brother that insist on playing MP games as team against AI. I bet we're not the only ones..

My cousin lives abroad, and we are both old time civ fans. Playing together in MP is great. Reminds me when we played together the first civ as children, both in the same computer, each one managing his own set of cities.

 

[tedhebert]

That is not correct, achievements are available stats not dependant on winning games. Regardless of how many caveats you want to put. And even if some achievements are precisely about that.

Using caps and exclamations does not make you less wrong.

And still you can use the stats on how many people has won the game in each difficulty to argue about how easy or how difficult the game is. So i dont understant what is your point at all.

you're taking this out of context

Of course most of the achievements will trigger whether or not you win...

the original discussion was on those stats about % of peeps by level played... Those stats are specifically for winning a game at a specific level, ex: Diety... then people stated quoting those stats as meaning SO many people don't even finish their games... well it's very possible to finish the games and NOT win (caps alert)...

If the conversation has flipped to all the achievement stats, then sorry I didn't get that ! But I'm pretty sure it hadn't flipped all that much

 

[Thormodr]

Zero interest in playing a Red Death or anything to do with zombies or aliens.

A Fall from Heaven type thing, though...

Overall, kind of meh.

At least they fixed a few exploits. Never used them or was even aware of them but it’s good they are gone.

 

[CivLuvah]

I'm not going to diminish your own game philosophy, even though you seem bent on diminishing that of harder core strategy gamers (although I think it is hardly controversial to say that the core of a good strategy game should be, well, a good strategy game)

Sometimes I feel like there is a disconnect between what harder core strategy gamers expect to have in their games, and what most players want to have in their games. To give an example to prove my point, let me use Amplitude's Humankind because bringing up an example from another game seems fairer.

I've been watching a lot of preview videos of Humankind ever since they released their alpha footage, and so far most of the videos I watched were very intrigued and very positive about the game. Except for Marbozir's, who has played Civ6 so many times through thousands of hours. One of his biggest reservations of the game that struck me the most is how the game would be balanced or how consistent would a player's strategy be in changing cultures. Meanwhile, most of the people who had access to the demo had little focus on that at all - they focused on the major mechanics and what you could actually do with them. Granted, Marbozir was skeptical with one major game mechanic but the way he emphasized balance issues and strategies just made me feel disconnected from what he was trying to say, and it felt disconnected from what everyone else was talking about the game.

Of course, Humankind is a game in development, but I wanted to focus on the attitude to prove my point. Some players have this attitude towards games that rubs the wrong way and makes them sound, well, elitist. Sure, they can be experts on pointing out small balance flaws, but the average player doesn't actually bother with them.

 

[GrumboMumbo]

Sometimes I feel like there is a disconnect between what harder core strategy gamers expect to have in their games, and what most players want to have in their games. To give an example to prove my point, let me use Amplitude's Humankind because bringing up an example from another game seems fairer.

I've been watching a lot of preview videos of Humankind ever since they released their alpha footage, and so far most of the videos I watched were very intrigued and very positive about the game. Except for Marbozir's, who has played Civ6 so many times through thousands of hours. One of his biggest reservations of the game that struck me the most is how the game would be balanced or how consistent would a player's strategy be in changing cultures. Meanwhile, most of the people who had access to the demo had little focus on that at all - they focused on the major mechanics and what you could actually do with them. Granted, Marbozir was skeptical with one major game mechanic but the way he emphasized balance issues and strategies just made me feel disconnected from what he was trying to say, and it felt disconnected from what everyone else was talking about the game.

Of course, Humankind is a game in development, but I wanted to focus on the attitude to prove my point. Some players have this attitude towards games that rubs the wrong way and makes them sound, well, elitist. Sure, they can be experts on pointing out small balance flaws, but the average player doesn't actually bother with them.

This makes a lot of sense. However, it's possible these youtubers have been paid to give their first impressions. Either that or because they have been given early access they feel the need to praise the game. I find it hard to trust reviews like that, but I understand what you are saying about the spectrum of different players, your point still stands.

I think we have a spectrum of different players, some people play just to have fun and see what happens, and some like to get down to the hard numbers and deep puzzle solving. And probably most people fall somewhere in the middle of those two.

But when Firaxis makes very fine balance tweaks, (which is mostly what this thread is about) Who are they trying to please with these minor tweaks? My guess is that it is for the people that lean towards the more hardcore end of the spectrum. Last year they made two very large balance patches, which I think were met with much praise from the community. Those balance changes were the thing that made me buy Gathering Storm, because before that I wasn't happy with the balance of the game and I felt like GS on it's own didn't do much to remedy that. I think people are looking for similar results to those patches, and so far generally people don't seem too enthused about what they have presented. Obviously we need to wait to have a bigger picture, but we can only go off what they are presenting so far. Which the overwhelming consensus seems to be that it's kinda meh.

 

[oSiyeza]

you're taking this out of context

Of course most of the achievements will trigger whether or not you win...

the original discussion was on those stats about % of peeps by level played... Those stats are specifically for winning a game at a specific level, ex: Diety... then people stated quoting those stats as meaning SO many people don't even finish their games... well it's very possible to finish the games and NOT win (caps alert)...

If the conversation has flipped to all the achievement stats, then sorry I didn't get that ! But I'm pretty sure it hadn't flipped all that much

It is possible to finish the game without winning, and it is possible to win and not finish, and it is possible to not have oppened the game and be on that % of the players who did not beat it and many other scenarios including not liking the game or being a modder with the achievements disabled ... The 57% of players that never beated a single game give you no useful info at all.

The point is, you can use the max difficulty level beated by players to argue about difficulty. You cannot use non-data to argue about anything.

Zero interest in playing a Red Death or anything to do with zombies or aliens.

Not interested in aliens? your overlords are very displeased. How can somebody not be interested in aliens? Do you want GDR to play scrubble? Aliens make total sense in the current game, and anything that can spice late game, or give more variety to current disasters is a welcome addition.

And if you are not fan of the idea of having a new disaster type with a meteorite carrying a disease from outer space that unleashes a plague of zombie body-snatchers or thing like aliens... well i just boooo you and say you are not cool.

That said, the use of optional features is a nice thing to avoid forcing players to play with features they don't like.

I would also agree with you on thinking there are changes that the game needs more than these features, but hell they would be wellcome ones.

PS: I also want giant krakens lurking on ancient seas!, and earthquakes and tsunamies, and cool spy misions that allow you to block bridges, channels seaports and airports, get info of unit locations and sabotage nuclear silos to launch false flag attacks... And separated diplomatic options for, air, sea, land and civilian borders... And puppet cities.... And viable tall playing ... And meaningful WC resolutions ... And a better religious combat ... And more diplomatic options... And better enemy AI...

I cannot chose what they do, besides being very vocal about the problems of the game, which I have been for a long time. I'm just saying if they bring aliens to the game, they should at least allow us to face them in the main game as an optional new disaster type.

 

[Kibikus]

To me the most obvious things to be fixed with the game are not about difficulty (although I'd love for Firaxis to provide the tools for those who wish to create a more challenging experience). I'm sure that most of the Civ VI players find the AI at least adequate, so there's really no incentive for Firaxis to invest a lot of time and money in improving it.

But there are still a lot of balance issues and fixes that they can work on (and have slowly been working on), that I think most players would appreciate, regardless of their skill level. For example, last year they fixed the issue where all unit modifiers would be lost on upgrade, which was good, but come on - it took them 3 years.

Civ is famously a game about making interesting decisions, and there's still a lot of gameplay options that have been pointed out by players as being either not fun, too weak, or too strong, that there isn't really a meaningful choice to be made. Just as one example, I'd love to see data on how many times the Tier 2 Government Plaza building Foreign Ministry has been built in comparison to the other two. I'm willing to bet it's way less than 33%, because it's so weak and specific. There's plenty more such examples in the game, and I'm sure (or rather hope) Firaxis will have a look at them over the next year.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

It is possible to finish the game without winning, and it is possible to win and not finish, and it is possible to not have oppened the game and be on that % of the players who did not beat it and many other scenarios including not liking the game or being a modder with the achievements disabled ... The 57% of players that never beated a single game give you no useful info at all.

The point is, you can use the max difficulty level beated by players to argue about difficulty. You cannot use non-data to argue about anything.



Not interested in aliens? your overlords are very displeased. How can somebody not be interested in aliens? Do you want GDR to play scrubble? Aliens make total sense in the current game, and anything that can spice late game, or give more variety to current disasters is a welcome addition.

And if you are not fan of the idea of having a new disaster type with a meteorite carrying a disease from outer space that unleashes a plague of zombie body-snatchers or thing like aliens... well i just boooo you and say you are not cool.

That said, the use of optional features is a nice thing to avoid forcing players to play with features they don't like.

I would also agree with you on thinking there are changes that the game needs more than these features, but hell they would be wellcome ones.

PS: I also want giant krakens lurking on ancient seas!, and earthquakes and tsunamies, and cool spy misions that allow you to block bridges, channels seaports and airports, get info of unit locations and sabotage nuclear silos to launch false flag attacks... And separated diplomatic options for, air, sea, land and civilian borders... And puppet cities.... And viable tall playing ... And meaningful WC resolutions ... And a better religious combat ... And more diplomatic options... And better enemy AI...

I cannot chose what they do, besides being very vocal about the problems of the game, which I have been for a long time. I'm just saying if they bring aliens to the game, they should at least allow us to face them in the main game as an optional new disaster type.

While we at it why won't we just add Siege Worms! God I still shiver when I think about them.

 

[bbbt]

Civ is famously a game about making interesting decisions, and there's still a lot of gameplay options that have been pointed out by players as being either not fun, too weak, or too strong, that there isn't really a meaningful choice to be made. Just as one example, I'd love to see data on how many times the Tier 2 Government Plaza building Foreign Ministry has been built in comparison to the other two. I'm willing to bet it's way less than 33%, because it's so weak and specific. There's plenty more such examples in the game, and I'm sure (or rather hope) Firaxis will have a look at them over the next year.

Foreign Ministry is a great example. It's a little odd they didn't buff it with say some diplomatic favor generation now that they are doing it with pagodas.

 

[oSiyeza]

While we at it why won't we just add Siege Worms! God I still shiver when I think about them.

Edit: Since I may be stupid and don't know if you were being sarcastic, I will answer in a double feature:

Being Sarcastic

You know this is not an argument right?.

Fxs already added aliens and zombies. The option of includding then in the main game is not unreasonable nor would it be detrimental to any player.

The feature is already there, and the resources have already been used. Your comment sems to imply that since you don't like the idea, nobody should benefit from it. Which i would argue is not a reasonable way to have a discussion.

Not being Sarcastic:

Actually maybe those could be ported from BE without spending dev resources, so I would not oppose the idea either . But I'm also aware most players already feel the game is deviating too much from historicity. It may be a good addition for the apocalypse mode thought... So... Yes please....

 

[The Civs 6]

Sometimes I feel like there is a disconnect between what harder core strategy gamers expect to have in their games, and what most players want to have in their games. To give an example to prove my point, let me use Amplitude's Humankind because bringing up an example from another game seems fairer.

I've been watching a lot of preview videos of Humankind ever since they released their alpha footage, and so far most of the videos I watched were very intrigued and very positive about the game. Except for Marbozir's, who has played Civ6 so many times through thousands of hours. One of his biggest reservations of the game that struck me the most is how the game would be balanced or how consistent would a player's strategy be in changing cultures. Meanwhile, most of the people who had access to the demo had little focus on that at all - they focused on the major mechanics and what you could actually do with them. Granted, Marbozir was skeptical with one major game mechanic but the way he emphasized balance issues and strategies just made me feel disconnected from what he was trying to say, and it felt disconnected from what everyone else was talking about the game.

Of course, Humankind is a game in development, but I wanted to focus on the attitude to prove my point. Some players have this attitude towards games that rubs the wrong way and makes them sound, well, elitist. Sure, they can be experts on pointing out small balance flaws, but the average player doesn't actually bother with them.

Well at some point a 4X game's primary value is its re-playability. After all, Civ games aren't offering any sort of authored experience or narrative. I've never said that I didn't feel like I got my money's worth, because frankly I think if you put 20 hours into a video game that costs 60 dollars, you've gotten your money's worth. Having a game that lacks strategic depth doesn't help that value. Again, I repeatedly get to points in my game where I don't feel like I had a great game, my empire isn't really what I want it to be, I don't feel like I made any really interesting or important decisions, but I just happened to have Canada/Maori as my neighbors, so it's game over because I can just slowly get to rocketry/theocracy/whatever win condition.

By far the largest impediments to my victory are a) the enormous early game advantages the AI's get to compensate for their incompetence; b) barbarians.

I mean, I'm just going to ask you - I'm guessing you are someone who has put dozens, if not hundreds of hours into the game. Do you find re-playability to be a strength for Civ 6, as compared to other incarnations of Civ?

 

[Kwami]

By far the largest impediments to my victory are a) the enormous early game advantages the AI's get to compensate for their incompetence; b) barbarians.

But how is that any different than Civ V or Civ IV? They AI received massive bonuses to compensate for incompetence in both games. In both games, surviving the early turns and barbarians basically meant that you would win if you played at least decently well. Civ VI really isn't any different. The idea that either of the previous two games somehow had good AI is laughable.

All of this is really quite off topic, though. We're supposed to be talking about the latest patch, not whether you like Civ VI.

 

[Karmah]

Using steam stats is a completely valid way to argue based on facts. As long as you don't use made up interpretations of what those numbers mean.

For example, saying: "almost half of the player base not beating the game indicates the game is not easy" is an incorrect inference at best, a lie or manipulation at worst.

An aceptable inference would be: For every 100 players, a half has finished the game, but only 5 have finished it in deity, which is around the 10% of the players that have finished the game. If we assume that the steam figures are a representative sample of the players, that people who beated the game play mostly on their preferred dificulties, and that they have beaten the game at least on said difficulty, it could be assumed that 90% of the players that beated the game find deity either too difficult or not enjoyable for them compared to lower dificulties, and therefore steam stats do not indicate that the game is too easy for the average player.

As simple as that. Steam stats are one of the few objective data sources to know how players play. But there are as many ways of using numbers wrong as there are of using words wrong.

My point is , I don't think they are objectives. The way they count 'the total number of players' is not accurate from my observation.