Civ6 June Update Video

[Lily_Lancer]

Something I am trying to say is:
1. Some people want to play Deity because they expect the game will be challenging for them. Some people not. NOT EVERYONE IS A MINIMAXER LIKE YOU!
2. Your skill cap is growing over time. So more you play basic difficulties become easier. I give you my example the First time I beat a certain difficulty level (starting from the emperor ) was quite a challenge. After more and more games it just becomes more routine and less challenging. It is the case of deity difficulty level for a small number of people here. I will never say its piece of cake but it is manageable for me. The more you play more the game becomes less challenging.
3. The game is already complex and quite difficult for new players when you play on Deity you probably won't be able to notice this problem. But if 40% of players beat the game on settler it means half of the possible playerbase was bounced off the game. So yes. There is a problem of overall level of difficulty (or maybe to be more precise complexity for casual players). And the game needs new players and casuals for its own health!
4. For some hardcore players, the game become not challenging over time. Their recept is increasing overall difficulty ridiculously easy for them to get rid of exploits (is selling goods and Diplomatic Favor to AI an exploit or just a catch-up strategy in a early game? You will always have similar ones one way or another). This solution affects everyone.
What can Firaxis do with this problem?
a) add a new difficulty level over Deity.
b) increase general difficulty of the game by pump up AI or get rid of some exploits and balance this with some catch-up mechanics on lower difficulties. Increased production, more settlers etc.
c) totally redesign the game and break the meta and enforce people to explore it from the beginning. But this is not a card game where you can buff, or nerf few cards, rotate some set from the game and add a bunch of new cards. So we shouldn't expect this kind of meta shaking.

I don't think it is a possible and elegant option on the table in near possible future different than adding a new difficulty level over Deity. If someone wants to catch a rabbit feel welcomed. Just say clear: I need more challenge rather than cover behind talk about exploits, balance etc.

It seems that you don't understand what I'm talking about.

What I mean is that YOU CAN ALWAYS PLAY ON A LOWER DIFFICULTY IF YOU FEEL THE "OVERALL DIFFICULTY" IS TOO HIGH.

As long as there exist settler difficulty and you can win on it, I see no point "increasing overall difficulty" may harm.

 

[Starwars]

What does it mean more balanced for you? Equally good? So where is a strategic choice in this approach if you have every option the same viable. Your decisions are not meaningful in this case scenario. Is this the way how strategic game should be built?

They don't need to be equal. Civ VI is a game of different playstyles where you can win through science, culture etc. So different strategies are completely fine by me, different ways to go through the game. The problem is that no matter what civ I was playing, no matter what I was doing, even if my gold per turn was bad, I would STILL choose Choral music over Religious Community any day of the week.

And not to dive into details here, but gold in this game is VERY plentiful. I can't recall how it was in the early days but as it is now, well... I can't remember the last time I went into negative GPT. So if you ask me, there needs to be a larger balance pass to make it less easy to get. But since that in all likeliness won't happen, the few coins you're going to get from Religious Community is just so... incredibly miniscule in the grand scheme of things.
And this illustrates the point where people wonder if the devs actually play the game. Because I cannot for the life of me imagine that anyone who actually looked at the numbers of the game would feel that the GPT from Religious Community would actually be meaningful in any way, no matter how you're going to play the game.

Especially since you need way more things to make it work for you in the first place (trading capacity and traders).

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

It seems that you don't understand what I'm talking about.

What I mean is that YOU CAN ALWAYS PLAY ON A LOWER DIFFICULTY IF YOU FEEL THE "OVERALL DIFFICULTY" IS TOO HIGH.

As long as there exist settler difficulty and you can win on it, I see no point "increasing overall difficulty" may harm.

You still dont understand what I mean . It is always better and easier to make a new game mode/ difficulty for rather small group of players than to change it for all! This is the problem of elite selfish approach. I can manage deity and I dont have a need to decrease difficulty level for ME. But why change the game for new players and those who are not minimaxers or those who just dont need additional challanges? Can you understand this?

They don't need to be equal. Civ VI is a game of different playstyles where you can win through science, culture etc. So different strategies are completely fine by me, different ways to go through the game. The problem is that no matter what civ I was playing, no matter what I was doing, even if my gold per turn was bad, I would STILL choose Choral music over Religious Community any day of the week.

And not to dive into details here, but gold in this game is VERY plentiful.

Dont you think that this is your problem or maybe to be more precise your approach to the game? Not the game itself that just gives you option? Maybe just try one time choose Religious Community and try to win this way I bet it is managable and at the end probably more satisfying

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: there is no need to be yelling, this is a general warning to everyone to please stop attacking other forum members or their may be thread bans or more given out

 

[CivLuvah]

Why are you talking like we're 9 months into New Frontier? That would be a reasonable comment to make then, not now.

This is a very good point that has been completely overlooked in this discussion

No it's not cheap to use recycled animations.

In fact it's understandable in these current circumstances that they do use recycled animations.

 

[Karmah]

It's a good and valid question, but it seems you and most everyone who quoted your message seem to equate FINISH with WIN !!! the stats are for those who WON a game, not for those who FINISHED a game.

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

In my mind, that's an important nuance. It's still way too many players, but might it mean that the game isn't SO VERY easy to win ???

Real question , how trustworthy are the steam figures ? Because from a long experience of playing with their API (who changed a lot over the years) , and testing out evolution by having batch of keys at hand for that ,I don't trust them at all in the 'own the game' population. And that's the divider in every of those stats . Reading discussion on those figures is always painfull for me.

 

[The Civs 6]

Why does it look like that?



No, people in game development work 60 hours a week in unhealthy company cultures because of unhealthy company cultures.



Also a lot of rubbish content, which would be nice to mention if you're using Paradox to make a point. Imperator Rome?



Why are you talking like we're 9 months into New Frontier? That would be a reasonable comment to make then, not now.



No, that was your decision. The packs are available individually and the total cost will not be that different in the end.



No it's not cheap to use recycled animations.

The two big features you mentioned were revealed with the New Frontier Pass. You're not excited for any of that stuff and somehow still thought it wise to buy the pass. I don't know what to tell you other than the obvious.

It's all about expectations at the end of the day. Meanwhile, Valve created a great free game, while Paradox is willing to give you hundreds of hours of content (in exchange for hundreds of dollars). Where does Firaxis fit into this picture? Civ 6 is a worse game than Civ 4 (I know because lately I have been opting to play Civ 4 rather than Civ 6). Frankly, the Civ 6 expansions added hardly anything to the game. Now, they are doing this bizarre model of making me wait for the same features, that when I bought an expansion previously I got the moment I installed the game. They are also more interested on including Georgia, Canada, and Hungary than balancing the game or making the AI functional.

I had a ton of blind faith in this company because the Civ series has been a part of my life since I was 5 years old. But every series loses its creative power over time, and it's starting to look like Firaxis has lost its magic.

Civ is becoming a "look at all these cool things I can do, and cool toys in the toybox" type of game, like a Maxis game, and not a good strategy game.

 

[bengalryan9]

instead of focusing on random forum discussions such as praising Canada for diplomatic victory or Macedon for domination.

Because clearly Firaxis didn't design Canada to be focused on diplomacy or Macedon to focus on war... are you serious?

As you've been told thousands of times on here by several different posters, you have every right to play the game however you want, but that doesn't mean that a) it's typical of how most other players approach the game, or b) it's how Firaxis expects (or wants) the game to be played.

A Civilization game designed by listening to people who play the game how you do isn't one I'm at all interested in playing, quite frankly.

 

[WillowBrook]

Real question , how trustworthy are the steam figures ? Because from a long experience of playing with their API (who changed a lot over the years) , and testing out evolution by having batch of keys at hand for that ,I don't trust them at all in the 'own the game' population. And that's the divider in every of those stats . Reading discussion on those figures is always painfull for me.

I only trust them as providing comparisons - e.g., roughly twice as many people have built 6 improvements as have completed a game. Or more people have won as Trajan than any other leader. We have no idea what the base number is. Also, it won't include game copies acquired from any source other than Steam. So if people on consoles are playing significantly differently from PC players, we can't see that.

 

[DWilson]

Civ 6 is a worse game than Civ 4

I want to be clear that this is far from a ubiquitous opinion. I rather dislike trying to play Civ IV. The mechanics are mostly good, though I wouldn't say notably better, while the visuals and UI are attrocious.

 

[The Civs 6]

I want to be clear that this is far from a ubiquitous opinion. I rather dislike trying to play Civ IV. The mechanics are mostly good, though I wouldn't say notably better, while the visuals and UI are attrocious.

That might be true, but I can truthfully say that a monarch skill game of Civ 4 is still quite a challenge, while watching Civ 6 in emperor is still like watching monkeys you-know-what'ing a football. There are just so many games in 6 where I'm like, "I didn't really have a great game so far, but I can grind out X victory if I set my mind to it."

 

[Killer Rabbit]

Meanwhile, Valve created a great free game, while Paradox is willing to give you hundreds of hours of content (in exchange for hundreds of dollars). Where does Firaxis fit into this picture? Civ 6 is a worse game than Civ 4 (I know because lately I have been opting to play Civ 4 rather than Civ 6). Frankly, the Civ 6 expansions added hardly anything to the game. Now, they are doing this bizarre model of making me wait for the same features, that when I bought an expansion previously I got the moment I installed the game. They are also more interested on including Georgia, Canada, and Hungary than balancing the game or making the AI functional.

I had a ton of blind faith in this company because the Civ series has been a part of my life since I was 5 years old. But every series loses its creative power over time, and it's starting to look like Firaxis has lost its magic.

Civ is becoming a "look at all these cool things I can do, and cool toys in the toybox" type of game, like a Maxis game, and not a good strategy game.

Saying “Civ 6 is worse than Civ 4” is your opinion. I disagree, as do most people in this Civ 6 forum.

Also the idea that the Civ 6 expansions added nothing is completely ludicrous.

And say what you will about the expansion pass model—I’m happy so far but we can evaluate at the end of the year—but you cannot deny that FXS was very clear about what this was. Why did you buy the pass if you were unhappy all the content wasn’t dropping at once? You could have waited!

And the AI discussion is so tiring. The AI is not broken. Could it be better? Probably. But for the vast majority of players it’s completely fine. It makes perfect business sense that FXS develops it the way it is. (And it does get better every patch.) Would it be nice if they released the DLL so that you min-maxers could get your crazy challenge? Yes—but at the end of the day you all are a very small portion of the fan base. This gif still sums up the AI discussion best:

The game is a strategy classic, in my and many others opinions. But also: at the end of the day this game is being supported after almost 4 years of being out. Can’t we just be happy about that?

Also, since I know FXS reads these—count me as one person who loves the fact that they don’t use the Paradox model! Millions of tiny DLC pieces with no explanation for new users. No thanks!

 

[Sherlock]

Agreed. We had the Diplo changes last month, but I'm interested to see the upcoming patch notes.

Red Death S2 sounds interesting.

It's a scenario, right? Was there a Red Death S1?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Because clearly Firaxis didn't design Canada to be focused on diplomacy or Macedon to focus on war... are you serious?

Everyone knows Alexander was the real diplomat in history, achieving peace by uniting the known world.

Saying “Civ 6 is worse than Civ 4” is your opinion. I disagree, as do most people in this Civ 6 forum.

Also the idea that the Civ 6 expansions added nothing is completely ludicrous.

I've never played Civ 4 so I can't comment on that. I've mostly heard that the Civilization game went down with 5, but has now picked back up. And I at least agree with that.

Now things that Civ 5 doesn't have that Civ 6 does is Dark ages, loyalty/flipping, governments/civics tree, natural disasters, future era etc. Yeah they added in new things and it makes the game even more exciting. I'm optimistic about what's to come.

 

[The Civs 6]

Saying “Civ 6 is worse than Civ 4” is your opinion. I disagree, as do most people in this Civ 6 forum.

Also the idea that the Civ 6 expansions added nothing is completely ludicrous.

And say what you will about the expansion pass model—I’m happy so far but we can evaluate at the end of the year—but you cannot deny that FXS was very clear about what this was. Why did you buy the pass if you were unhappy all the content wasn’t dropping at once? You could have waited!

And the AI discussion is so tiring. The AI is not broken. Could it be better? Probably. But for the vast majority of players it’s completely fine. It makes perfect business sense that FXS develops it the way it is. (And it does get better every patch.) Would it be nice if they released the DLL so that you min-maxers could get your crazy challenge? Yes—but at the end of the day you all are a very small portion of the fan base. This gif still sums up the AI discussion best:

The game is a strategy classic, in my and many others opinions. But also: at the end of the day this game is being supported after almost 4 years of being out. Can’t we just be happy about that?

Also, since I know FXS reads these—count me as one person who loves the fact that they don’t use the Paradox model! Millions of tiny DLC pieces with no explanation for new users. No thanks!

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). I think you ought to look outside of the Civ franchise and see what other publishers are doing. I love the Civ approach on a basic level compared to other types of "grand strategy". That is why I could never truly replace Civ with a franchise like CK2. Plus, I have been with Civ my entire life. There is a certain comfort level. But maybe that comfort is a problem, and it has allowed us as customers to give Firaxis a little too much slack.

Another question I'll leave for you to ponder is this: how much of your enjoyment of this game comes from the many moments of little instant gratification that this game offers (like getting a message that you got an era score with the applause)? Is that a good kind of joy or is it kind of cheap, like Farmville?

 

[IvoryPavane]

That might be true, but I can truthfully say that a monarch skill game of Civ 4 is still quite a challenge, while watching Civ 6 in emperor is still like watching monkeys you-know-what'ing a football. There are just so many games in 6 where I'm like, "I didn't really have a great game so far, but I can grind out X victory if I set my mind to it."

Honestly, it sounds like your time with Civ VI might be done then? We are nearing the end of the games cycle I imagine and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to make a radical shift in how it’s designed. And I don’t think any amount of presenting your opinion on IV vs VI as fact is going to change that.

I went through something similar with an MMO I used to play. It moved into a more casual design that I didn’t enjoy, and so I had to move on. It was pretty sad, but a lot of the friends that I made there really loved the changes so I can’t say they were wrong. It just wasn’t for me.

 

[The Civs 6]

Honestly, it sounds like your time with Civ VI might be done then? We are nearing the end of the games cycle I imagine and it doesn’t seem like it’s going to make a radical shift in how it’s designed. And I don’t think any amount of presenting your opinion on IV vs VI as fact is going to change that.

I went through something similar with an MMO I used to play. It moved into a more casual design that I didn’t enjoy, and so I had to move on. It was pretty sad, but a lot of the friends that I made there really loved the changes so I can’t say they were wrong. It just wasn’t for me.

That reminds me of an old MMORPG called Star Wars Galaxies...

 

[oSiyeza]

Real question , how trustworthy are the steam figures ? Because from a long experience of playing with their API (who changed a lot over the years) , and testing out evolution by having batch of keys at hand for that ,I don't trust them at all in the 'own the game' population. And that's the divider in every of those stats . Reading discussion on those figures is always painfull for me.

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.

 

[mielony84]

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

 

[Gedemon]

I only trust them as providing comparisons - e.g., roughly twice as many people have built 6 improvements as have completed a game. Or more people have won as Trajan than any other leader. We have no idea what the base number is. Also, it won't include game copies acquired from any source other than Steam. So if people on consoles are playing significantly differently from PC players, we can't see that.

Or how modders play. (activating the Firetuner disable achievements)