Civ6 June Update Video

[oSiyeza]

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.

What observation? Do you have any data?

 

[The Civs 6]

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.

I just don't agree with that, based on having played both games recently. But anyway, the reason this relates to the latest patch is because of the general concern with adding more and more stuff, like new game modes and city states, rather than addressing problems with the core game or at least balancing the game. I'm still waiting for the Brave New World type addition to 6, and it hasn't come yet.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But anyway, the reason this relates to the latest patch is because of the general concern with adding more and more stuff, like new game modes and city states, rather than addressing problems with the core game or at least balancing the game. I'm still waiting for the Brave New World type addition to 6, and it hasn't come yet.

What specifically are you looking for? I wouldn't get your hopes up because it looks like they are done with full fledged expansions. All the major mechanics are here.

 

[Elhoim]

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.

This is the view I agree with regarding balance. Of course, it should never be the goal of making each perfectly desirable. But for example, that new one in which you get 2 gold from international trade routes (requiring both shrine and temple, so it's not an early thing). There are so many more ways to get much more gold, so it's kinda pointless as a choice. I see the current state of the game of too many complex rules and systems overlapping each other too much but actually don't interacting between them. Again, the religion choices. They could be interesting by themselves, but then you see all the other systems for yield generation and they are clearly lackluster. They would need to make a pass over EVERYTHING in the game regarding yield generation so that options become meaningful again, but it may be too much work for very little gain.

I like the approach Humanking is taking, with very simple rules, but that interact with each other. The events and civics modify the "values" which in turn modify yields (8 extreme options with scale in the middle). Districts are simple, but clear in their interaction (they affect 1 out of 4 yields), with simple adjacency rules, and then the emblematic are the ones that bring something different to the table. And of course this is affected by the values system. The number of choices are kept to a manageable level, and all systems weave into each other. Very elegant. Base Civ VI was quite good in this regard, but everything they kept adding never took into account what was there to begin with, so as I said right now is a bit of an overlapping mess.

 

[The Civs 6]

This is the view I agree with regarding balance. Of course, it should never be the goal of making each perfectly desirable. But for example, that new one in which you get 2 gold from international trade routes (requiring both shrine and temple, so it's not an early thing). There are so many more ways to get much more gold, so it's kinda pointless as a choice. I see the current state of the game of too many complex rules and systems overlapping each other too much but actually don't interacting between them. Again, the religion choices. They could be interesting by themselves, but then you see all the other systems for yield generation and they are clearly lackluster. They would need to make a pass over EVERYTHING in the game regarding yield generation so that options become meaningful again, but it may be too much work for very little gain.

I like the approach Humanking is taking, with very simple rules, but that interact with each other. The events and civics modify the "values" which in turn modify yields (8 extreme options with scale in the middle). Districts are simple, but clear in their interaction (they affect 1 out of 4 yields), with simple adjacency rules, and then the emblematic are the ones that bring something different to the table. And of course this is affected by the values system. The number of choices are kept to a manageable level, and all systems weave into each other. Very elegant. Base Civ VI was quite good in this regard, but everything they kept adding never took into account what was there to begin with, so as I said right now is a bit of an overlapping mess.

Yes, one time I listed all of the mechanics that exist in Civ 6 and there are over 30. And think about some like appeal that, in many games, will basically do nothing.

And compare that to religion in Civ 4: it gives you culture generation (when that is hard to get really early game) for your cities; it gives +1 happiness (increases number of tiles you can use by 1, which can be important); it completely disrupts the diplomatic game. Those little bonuses are very impactful, but getting a religion can be very difficult. It's an elegant subsystem that presents hard choices (do I risk religion early or do I try to get it later, or never get it?), but also will likely affect your game even if you don't go for it.

By the way, what about diplomacy? In previous games diplomacy made sense, it felt like power politics. in this game... someone is yelling at me about not having enough boats, or praising me for my people being happy.

Edit - just to bring it back full circle, the big features we got are an incredibly OP civ, an incredibly underpowered Civ, and an optional game mode.

 

[leandrombraz]

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.

Idk about IV, but for me, the main difference between V's and VI's AI now is that Civ VI's AI can't snowball. In Civ V, you might see an AI Civ grow bigger and bigger as it conquers other AIs. In Civ VI, the AI rarely eliminate other Civs, limiting itself to maybe capture one or two cities, usually City-States. Combine that with the fact Civ VI doesn't have a proper backstab mechanic, since friendships/alliances block denunciation and war declaration, and the effect this has in the experience is that the AI doesn't look as threatening. The AI in both games are easy to beat once you learn how to do it, but in V the AI feels more alive and there's always a possibility that it might come knocking on your door, while on Civ VI there's some turmoil in early game, then things settle and nothing happens anymore, unless you make it happen. If it wasn't for the emergencies system, which can be almost completely blocked by friendships/alliances, the game would become completely lifeless by midgame. Civ V's AI isn't necessarily better, but it knows how to put a show better than VI's AI.

Do you find re-playability to be a strength for Civ 6, as compared to other incarnations of Civ?

Yes, despite the AI. Civ VI has the most unique civilizations in the franchise and a lot of different ways to play it. I really enjoy trying different strategies with every Civ in the game, but I'm mainly competing with myself. I see the AI as an obstacle/resource and I don't play to beat it, I play to try to win in a certain way each time, so, even though I like when the AI is improved, my enjoyment of the game don't rely on the quality of the AI or how easy it's to beat it.

 

[Kwami]

Idk about IV, but for me, the main difference between V's and VI's AI now is that Civ VI's AI can't snowball. In Civ V, you might see an AI Civ grow bigger and bigger as it conquers other AIs. In Civ VI, the AI rarely eliminate other Civs, limiting itself to maybe capture one or two cities, usually City-States. Combine that with the fact Civ VI doesn't have a proper backstab mechanic, since friendships/alliances block denunciation and war declaration, and the effect this has in the experience is that the AI doesn't look as threatening. The AI in both games are easy to beat once you learn how to do it, but in V the AI feels more alive and there's always a possibility that it might come knocking on your door, while on Civ VI there's some turmoil in early game, then things settle and nothing happens anymore, unless you make it happen. If it wasn't for the emergencies system, which can be almost completely blocked by friendships/alliances, the game would become completely lifeless by midgame. Civ V's AI isn't necessarily better, but it knows how to put a show better than VI's AI.

1. I've seen the AI snowball plenty of times in my games.

2. It doesn't matter, anyway. In both games, if you survive the first 50 turns and play decently well, then you'll win.

I say "in both games", but Civ IV really wasn't any different, either.

 

[oSiyeza]

Right now, half the mechanics of the game are broken, pointless or barelly functional.

We have a disfunctional AI, meaningless diplomacy, pointless tedious religious combat, a totally inconsequential and meaningless WC, an inefficient UI, and a world builder that does not work. And this talking only about major game systems.

4 years after launch have passed already. And we got 2 expansions, 15 patches and updates, 6 DLCs... And now we are getting another 6 patches and 6 more DLCs worth the price of a nother full expansion. And not one of the problems with the game have been fixed.

The sad thing is... fixing the game is actually not hard to do. We don't want more graphics, animations, music or anything hard to implement. We dont want more of anything. We just want functional meaningful game mechanics. They could even take a dozen of systems away and nobody would even care as long as they fix the important stuff.

And what do they do? More content, more mechanics and more features that are also incomplete or do not work properly.

And still here we are, most of us seeing the enormous potential the game has, and keep paying for every piece of content Fxs decides to release with the hope of the game being fully realized one day...

Are we being played?, does FXS even care or has the intention to fix any of the problems with the game? I'm afraid we already know the answer and are just refusing to see it.

 

[Kwami]

Right now, half the mechanics of the game are broken, pointless or barelly functional.

We have a disfunctional AI, meaningless diplomacy, pointless tedious religious combat, a totally inconsequential and meaningless WC, an inefficient UI, and a world builder that does not work. And this talking only about major game systems.

4 years after launch have passed already. And we got 2 expansions, 15 patches and updates, 6 DLCs... And now we are getting another 6 patches and 6 more DLCs worth the price of a nother full expansion. And not one of the problems with the game have been fixed.

The sad thing is... fixing the game is actually not hard to do. We don't want more graphics, animations, music or anything hard to implement. We dont want more of anything. We just want functional meaningful game mechanics. They could even take a dozen of systems away and nobody would even care as long as they fix the important stuff.

And what do they do? More content, more mechanics and more features that are also incomplete or do not work properly.

And still here we are, most of us seeing the enormous potential the game has, and keep paying for every piece of content Fxs decides to release with the hope of the game being fully realized one day...

Are we being played?, does FXS even care or has the intention to fix any of the problems with the game? I'm afraid we already know the answer and are just refusing to see it.

Have you considered playing a game that you actually like instead of posting hyperbolic opinions in a thread about the next patch? There's also a suggestion forum.

 

[oSiyeza]

Have you considered playing a game that you actually like instead of posting hyperbolic opinions in a thread about the next patch? There's also a suggestion forum.

I didn't say I don't like the game. And if you look at the recent poll of the most liked and disliked features of the game. You would see that all the concrete criticisms I pointed out are actually non controversial opinions at all, and shared by many people here.

Also all those criticisms have been commented in the suggestion forum many times and asked for improvements from several people for many years.

If you disagree you are wellcome to share your oppinion on how the World Builder is completelly functional, the AI is good enough for the game, the WC is a meaningful mechanic, the religious combat is fun, or how the UI allows you to play efficiently. But if you just want to say im wrong and attack me instead of discussing about the problems I talked about, go on.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Right now, half the mechanics of the game are broken, pointless or barelly functional.

We have a disfunctional AI, meaningless diplomacy, pointless tedious religious combat, a totally inconsequential and meaningless WC, an inefficient UI, and a world builder that does not work. And this talking only about major game systems.

4 years after launch have passed already. And we got 2 expansions, 15 patches and updates, 6 DLCs... And now we are getting another 6 patches and 6 more DLCs worth the price of a nother full expansion. And not one of the problems with the game have been fixed.

The sad thing is... fixing the game is actually not hard to do. We don't want more graphics, animations, music or anything hard to implement. We dont want more of anything. We just want functional meaningful game mechanics. They could even take a dozen of systems away and nobody would even care as long as they fix the important stuff.

And what do they do? More content, more mechanics and more features that are also incomplete or do not work properly.

And still here we are, most of us seeing the enormous potential the game has, and keep paying for every piece of content Fxs decides to release with the hope of the game being fully realized one day...

Are we being played?, does FXS even care or has the intention to fix any of the problems with the game? I'm afraid we already know the answer and are just refusing to see it.

You make it sound like FXS is EA... that sort of thing is what I hear from Sims community. And Civ 6 is NOT as problematic as sims 4.

 

[The Civs 6]

Right now, half the mechanics of the game are broken, pointless or barelly functional.

We have a disfunctional AI, meaningless diplomacy, pointless tedious religious combat, a totally inconsequential and meaningless WC, an inefficient UI, and a world builder that does not work. And this talking only about major game systems.

4 years after launch have passed already. And we got 2 expansions, 15 patches and updates, 6 DLCs... And now we are getting another 6 patches and 6 more DLCs worth the price of a nother full expansion. And not one of the problems with the game have been fixed.

The sad thing is... fixing the game is actually not hard to do. We don't want more graphics, animations, music or anything hard to implement. We dont want more of anything. We just want functional meaningful game mechanics. They could even take a dozen of systems away and nobody would even care as long as they fix the important stuff.

And what do they do? More content, more mechanics and more features that are also incomplete or do not work properly.

And still here we are, most of us seeing the enormous potential the game has, and keep paying for every piece of content Fxs decides to release with the hope of the game being fully realized one day...

Are we being played?, does FXS even care or has the intention to fix any of the problems with the game? I'm afraid we already know the answer and are just refusing to see it.

I sort of have to say it again - Civ 4 (a game that came out in 2005) Monarch difficulty is a real challenge in 2020. Civ 6 emperor AI is a joke. However you feel about design philosophy, how does that happen?

Also, Frontier Pass and recent expansions in some sense do feel like Sims kind of expansion in its reliance on memes rather than substance (Canada with hockey rinks, etc.)

 

[oSiyeza]

You make it sound like FXS is EA... that sort of thing is what I hear from Sims community. And Civ 6 is NOT as problematic as sims 4.

The thing is, all the points I commented about major mechanics that have substantial problems are, I think, accurate.

I'm not saying the game is not worth playing, or that fxs is stealing money from the players. I just said that they could have addressed those issues and they haven't.

Many people here are feeling dissapointed by some of these problems (and others) not being addresed so far. And still place their hope on Firaxis addressing them in the future. Which probably will not happen.

Besides stating that, I did not made any personal interpretation or placed any opinion on the motives or business model of the company. So I hardly can be acused of being too emotional or hyperbolic.

The fact is that regardless how you chose to interpret what I said, and despite the many good things the game has. The major problems of the game are still there. And if by placing them all together sounds like I'm being too harsh on Firaxis, maybe is because they actually need a call of attention.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

The thing is, all the points I commented about major mechanics that have substantial problems are, I think, accurate.

I'm not saying the game is not worth playing, or that fxs is stealing money from the players. I just said that they could have addressed those issues and they haven't.

Many people here are feeling dissapointed by some of these problems not being addresed so far. And still place their hope that they will do it in the future. Which probably will not happen.

Besides stating that, I did not made any personal interpretation or placed any opinion on the motives or business model of the company. So I hardly can be acused of being too emotional or hyperbolic.

The fact is that regardless how you chose to interpret what I said, and despite the many good things the game has. The major problems of the game are still there. And if by placing them all together sounds like I'm being too harsh on Firaxis, maybe is because they actually need a call of attention.

They are adressing it through in between patches. Right now they seems to be focusing on religion ( mainly cause eithiopia next civ is going to be a religious civ) I am sure they will touch diplomacy on next patches. Just be glad that FX are listening and giving us free patches between new civs.

 

[Kwami]

I didn't say I don't like the game. And if you look at the recent poll of the most liked and disliked features of the game. You would see that all the concrete criticisms I pointed out are actually non controversial opinions at all, and shared by many people here.

Also all those critizisms have been commented in the suggestion forum many times and asked for improvements from several people for many years.

If you disagree you are wellcome to share your oppinion on how the World Builder is completelly functional, the AI is good enough for the game, the WC is a meaningful mechanic, the religious combat is fun, or how the UI allows you to play efficiently. But if you just want to say im wrong and attack me instead of discussing about the problems I talked about, go on.

You're really missing my point, though.

1. We've been over these things a thousand times. Go find one of those threads if you want to keep complaining about the AI or the World Congress.

2. None of that is relevant to the specific patch that launches on Thursday. All of it is off-topic. If you want to make suggestions for future patches, then there's a suggestions forum for that. If you just want to continue complaining, then see #1.

3. I would, in fact, take exception to almost all of your complaints. The World Builder isn't finished, but it's also not used by probably 99% of the players, so it's a low priority. The AI and the WC are mostly fine and the AI gets better with every patch. The UI is mostly fine, too. It's lacking in detail and sometimes it's a bit misleading, but it's hardly "broken" or "unplayable" or whatever. You can certainly play efficiently with the current UI and even better with some minimal mods.

But, again, we're off topic. So, let's just stop.

 

[oSiyeza]

They are adressing it through in between patches. Right now they seems to be focusing on religion ( mainly cause eithiopia next civ is going to be a religious civ) I am sure they will touch diplomacy on next patches. Just be glad that FX are listening and giving us free patches between new civs.

I hope they will. But I dont share your optimism. Regarding religion, they have rebalanced some pantheons, but still are leaving the religious combat and the fundamentals of the mechanic untouched. This is not the first time nor the second or third they balance the pantheons. So I dont think we actually have reason to think they will change anything in a deeper way.

I'm just saying that I will not place any hope in any future major changes in the game unless I see a clear intention of those changes happening. Instead I will try to enjoy it as the glorious mess that it is. And Im not saying this with the intention of keeping beating Firaxis, but to adjust my expectations to reality.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I sort of have to say it again - Civ 4 (a game that came out in 2005) Monarch difficulty is a real challenge in 2020. Civ 6 emperor AI is a joke. However you feel about design philosophy, how does that happen?

Also, Frontier Pass and recent expansions in some sense do feel like Sims kind of expansion in its reliance on memes rather than substance (Canada with hockey rinks, etc.)

What is wrong with that when they gave Scotland a golf course. Unless you saying civ 6 is ruined from very first expansion.

 

[Gedemon]

3. I would, in fact, take exception to almost all of your complaints. The World Builder isn't finished, but it's also not used by probably 99% of the players, so it's a low priority.

I disagree, they did a lot of marketing for the WB, especially compared to the other modding tools, surely they don't have the same number.

 

[The Civs 6]

What is wrong with that when they gave Scotland a golf course. Unless you saying civ 6 is ruined from very first expansion.

In a strict sense nothing, but it's a matter of taste. It's a bit goofy.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

And we got 2 expansions, 15 patches and updates, 6 DLCs...

To be accurate we've had 17 updates (18 Thurs.) & 7 DLCs to date.