deleted

[reddishrecue]

Pretty sure. To flip a city, any city, you have to have it start the owner's turn in negative loyalty. That means it has to be losing loyalty anyway because it gets reset out of negative at the beginning of the turn (if I'm remembering correctly). That would apply to a capital too.

I can see why they did it, but it is annoying. It seems like Indie promotion etc is kinda pointless - they only speed up defections, they can't create them.

Yeah I was like it's Okay another SV and then my capital becomes a free city for 2 turns. I probably lost the space parts because I didn't continue

 

[steveg700]

No, they did “fix” this in a prior patch, so a city will only flip to you from indie bands if its loyalty is in the negative. A city with positive loyalty will not flip, even from three indie bands or ten cultists.

Do AI cultists ever actually try to flip cities? All I ever see them do is mill about by the dozen and generally getting in the way.

I can see why they did it, but it is annoying. It seems like Indie promotion etc is kinda pointless - they only speed up defections, they can't create them.

Well, I'm all for speeding up a flip, given that they often result in chain reactions.

 

[MrRadar]

Do AI cultists ever actually try to flip cities?

No. When they just appeared, they used to do completely nothing except blocking tiles, after much complaining on the forums they have been made a bit more active and now they may try to do strictly one attack on a city per turn (just one cultist out of the whole crowd), for a grand total of 10 loyalty hit per turn which usually means nothing. In AIs hands they are useless AI faith sink, existing there just to look intimidating without actually being such.

 

[reddishrecue]

I've seen cultists on my cap but I just watched and see what they did and they did nothing.

 

[Abaxial]

They seem to be pretty useless except for generating relics.

 

[steveg700]

No. When they just appeared, they used to do completely nothing except blocking tiles, after much complaining on the forums they have been made a bit more active and now they may try to do strictly one attack on a city per turn (just one cultist out of the whole crowd), for a grand total of 10 loyalty hit per turn which usually means nothing. In AIs hands they are useless AI faith sink, existing there just to look intimidating without actually being such.

Right. So that makes a certain sense. They don't contrive any specific conditions for the loyalty drain to be applicable, which is another way of saying they didn't civ's a a means to proactively defend against it. Since nobody can defend against it, they don't let the AI employ it work at all.

 

[MrRadar]

Since nobody can defend against it, they don't let the AI employ it work at all.

You can defend against it by blocking access to city centre with units in the respective layer or by declaring war and killing the cultists with military units. How much more action it would bring to the game, to cause and respond to such tensions and fight forced wars! But that would require to actually code some sensible AI behaviour, which, sadly, isn’t among their priorities.

 

[steveg700]

You can defend against it by blocking access to city centre with units in the respective layer or by declaring war and killing the cultists with military units. How much more action it would bring to the game, to cause and respond to such tensions and fight forced wars! But that would require to actually code some sensible AI behaviour, which, sadly, isn’t among their priorities.

I mean, if they were going to patch one of their modes, it'd need to be Monopolies & Corporations so the AI will actually improve luxuries before Economics or whatever it is.

 

[uhu]

How much more action it would bring to the game, to cause and respond to such tensions and fight forced wars! But that would require to actually code some sensible AI behaviour, which, sadly, isn’t among their priorities.

Yep!! But why should they? As far as I hear, the numbers are excellent.

We could overcome our egoistic views and show more appreciation to their goals -- and that is now (mainly) not at all to make a good product or just sell a lot of licenses, but maximize the number of hours played (online).
Interestingly enough, this way they can feature one month a specific, unbalanced theme and with the next patch hype another weird "topping" -- maybe with opposite parameters: no need for a time-consuming consolidation and ultimate fine tuning ... or, as shown, they need not even do the full coding ... GaaS is great.

When the show is over, they have not an again and again painstakingly improved product, but a difficult to survey pile. No problem, next showtime they just start from scratch ... and do it ALL again THAT is what the majority of the customers want.

 

[uhu]

I forgot to mention above a quote from 2K's light slate belies bigger ambitions President David Ismailer discusses publisher's plans to grow, how it evaluates development partners, and thoughts on esports betting

"You go to an amusement park, the more rides they have, the longer you stay there. Then sometimes the amusement park has a nighttime event and I stay until that event; they keep me in there. And occasionally they build a new roller coaster, and I come back to experience that roller coaster. We're building our games in the same way. We need live events, we need post-launch content, we need to keep the consumer engaged once they get in." - 2K president David Ismailer

I understand, that such an approach works well in general, but know it won't suit me fine, personally.


Soren Johnson mentioned in his latest interview with FilthyRobot (link), they'll support OldWorld continuously, if sales of DLCs allow. Events pack, campaigns ...
I like, that they pick up on another strong point from PanzerGeneral (along with 1upt @ longMoves & enough space between cities (actually I second here FilthyRobot's point in the interview) and petting of core units in contrast to expendable auxiliary units); fix handmade deployment of AI troops provided great puzzles, can now spiced up even more with well timed scripted events ...

Still. Despite in civ6 many games are abandoned before modern times it contains a magic promise: play the whole history.
Homo habilis was the first hominin who made tools for a specific purpose (Oldowan stone-tool industry), not just a fetched stone or anything crashed onto a nut or shell to open it ...
I believe, one of them raised his eyes to nightly heaven and experienced the magic idea of somehow using a tool to travel to the stars. (Ikarus was much later, but with wax & bird's feathers not a lot further)

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

@uhu - could I ask, in your opinion, what the difference is between Ismailer's "live events, post-launch content" that doesn't suit you, and Johnson's "sales of DLCs... events pack, campaigns"? Just trying to tease out what you like and what you don't.

 

[Solver]

Just dropping by to say the discussion is especially enjoyable to follow since I've had the pleasure of getting to know, if briefly, Andrew Johnson and am working for Soren Johnson, so reading about the development differences of the two Johnsons is fun

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Oh I'm just the writer/historian here. Not a designer, lead or otherwise! But I do read these to try and figure out where the sentiment is.

 

[Solver]

Yeah I know, I'm an old Frankensteiner, but now you're just killing the joke

 

[uhu]

difference between Ismailer's "live events, post-launch content" and Johnson's "sales of DLCs... events pack, campaigns"?

Just looking onto the packages you can find A DLC is a DLC is a DLC. The difference for the gamer is in how they are made.

Anton said in his last video, NFP as a whole delivered good results in terms of hours played. In what can be measured by STEAM, the NFP DLC Pack is good; Ismailer can be happy.
Have a look into the civ6 bug report subforum. NFP is in no good shape from a quality point of view. As is civ6 as a whole with such an endpoint.
Clever marketing can partly substitute expensive development time. Real communication deemed expendable ...

Soren plays and talks with players in the genuine desire to make the game better. And thinks A LOT about alternatives; finds usually excellent results. You can see this by looking onto the details of his games. Very good product quality.
As seen, Mohawk's communication is fine. (Dale is in holiday )

Just in case there is any doubt -- they should find a workaround to the stars ...

 

[Pfeffersack]

@uhu - could I ask, in your opinion, what the difference is between Ismailer's "live events, post-launch content" that doesn't suit you, and Johnson's "sales of DLCs... events pack, campaigns"? Just trying to tease out what you like and what you don't.

IMO, the extend of polishing and work on the AI which is done in the shadow of those content releases ...Old World feels very rounded (not a wonder with all the constant patching, we are at #91 IIRC) - all the parts seem to work together in a very thoughtful manner. It may come at the price of missing some stuff (like later eras) or offering "less in numbers" (civs, wonders etc.) And the first DLC which showed up didn't mess up this impression for me - even with an 8th civ added it still feels that "round".

Civ6 is different. As much as I like most of the stuff added in the two big expansions and the NFP itself, not everything we got appears as polished. There are quite a number of bugs left (and hope dwindles that we will see another patch...), from small (e.g. outdated Heureka descriptions) to big (e.g. gamebreaking policy card in Dramatic Ages mode) and the AI struggles heavily with some of the new content (e.g. effective cultists, monopoly mode), while it wasn't free of flaws before (e.g. tactical combat). I know that Civ6 and Old World are in different stages of their product life cycle (Civ6 is finished, while OW will likely still receive payed content), but my feeling is in the end OW will have less bugs and a better AI. I can't predict how long OW will get supported after the last DLC is released, but the amount of patching it has received so far together with the shape it is currently in makes me optimistic.

So for me the difference is that the (in context with the games we are talking here about, Civ6 and OW) the former statement sounds to be directed more to shiny/flashy content, which might cought you immediately...until you might discover bugs...and before they get fiyed, the next release comes (plus that I'm just not really interested in life events or e-sports). The latter statement is (in my ears) more a general hint on that further paid content comes. Maybe less exciting on paper ("only one new civ?"), but if I know that its fits in that nicely I'm happy, as I can rest assured that nothing will get fundamentally broken. I know, thats a quite subjective interpretation of two statements which aren't that far apart in that wording...but no statement lingers around without the backround it is aired in.

I concede that comparing Civ6 and OW is not entirely fair...alone the scope of time both games cover sets them apart. Civ6 is a content monster and it is probably just not realistic to have the ressources to polish it up to the level OW is on. But looking on a potential Civ7 I would prefer a focus on AI and polish...and above statement rises doubt that this will happen (e.g. if the focus is E-Sports it doesn't make a better AI a priority, as the focus is MP)

 

[Linklite]

@uhu - could I ask, in your opinion, what the difference is between Ismailer's "live events, post-launch content" that doesn't suit you, and Johnson's "sales of DLCs... events pack, campaigns"? Just trying to tease out what you like and what you don't.

If I may chip my thoughts in.

The quote from Ismailer concerns me. NFP had great potential and on paper was great, but it never actualized it. It became a bunch of fancy add-ons that sound great, but doesn't actually really improve the game. Each pack sounded great and grabbed attention, he were really just bolt-ons that didn't really do much for Civ 6.

I love expansions, extras and all those things. That's why I caved and bought NFP fairly early on (after the second pack if my memory serves). If I enjoy the base game, I'm certain to buy those extra goodies. I love how they alter the game, improve it, bring it closer to perfection. However, NFP was just a series of attention grabbers to keep the fan base engaged - it didn't serve that same purpose that I see in XPs, to change how the game works and for the better.

Perhaps now you can see the connection that I'm making and what really concerns me. I don't want stuff bolted on as a desperate attempt to keep us looking at Civ 6. I want stuff that changes up how thr game plays, that isn't just an extra carousel put in in the hopes that we might use it and then wander back into the park. No, I want a overhaul. Something that fundamentally changes and improves the amusement park. R&F and GS did that (some may argue about AI, but in terms of mechanics the game was improved), NFP didn't. Obviously, civs etc can be DLCs, but while originally I was a big proponent of modularity, NFP showed that it just isn't going to work well enough to do things M&Cs.

Ismailer's quote implies that same bolted-on approach of NFP is part of Civ's vision of the future. That concerns me, and it concerns me a lot. I'd rather have a renovated and upgraded park that on with IDCS - Infinite Discrete Content Sprawl. Whatever DLC released (excluding individual civ packs etc) needs to be good enough to be considered indispensable to the game. The quote instead implies that everything will be about persuading us to come look at this new flashy bolt-on.

 

[uhu]

@uhu Just trying to tease out what you like and what you don't.

Hhmmmpff! Is 2k threatening us with NFP2???
You could do a poll (civ7 / NFP2 / "only" consolidated civ6) ... but be warned, NFP is just the very visible part of the iceberg -- the foundation isn't rock solid either:

I played Vanilla for a long time, not really getting GS until about 6 months ago, and I still play Vanilla.
The difference between the two is striking and somewhat frustrating in terms of Single Player. Overall, I find Vanilla games more challenging and "fun", even though there are many aspects of GS that are more interesting and "fun".
[...]
But many of the new mechanics and features in GS are quite fun and add a lot of depth to the game, the problem is that in spite of all that, the game feels less competitive. It feels less like a game and more like a Sim. V still feels more like a 4X strategy game, whereas GS feels much more like playing Sim City with lots of disasters and such to deal with. I find this disappointing because I'd like to play with the new features of GS in the way that the game feels in Vanilla.

Personally I feel that with the exception of Barbarian Clans, basically every expansion made the game worse
As well as the well documented imability of the AI to handle any of this, I find most of the new mechanics irritating, broken, minimaxing munchkiny, and often all three.
Here is my recipe for Ultimate Vanilla:
[...]
Finally, as an option to make the game more challenging and alleviate the 1 UPT torture where you have to solve a sliding tile puzzle every time you move your units might I recommend Gran Colombia?

Agree, they all just promote insane power creep (like we needed more of that), and have features that are horribly broken.
Like when I see youtubers with their clickbait titles (like "turn 118 deity SV win!"), they are always just abusing these features, and turn their "deity" games into something more of an emperor game - where is the fun in that?
[...]
It's fun the first couple of times, but not when it helps ruin the late game.
[...]
One caveat though - random tech tree is absolutely brilliant, and has added so much replay value for me. Cookie cutter openings get thrown out of the window, or at least get shaken up considerably, and adds a lot more value to chasing eurekas to be able to plan ahead.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Thanks for your replies, all!

 

[tedhebert]

Thanks for your replies, all!

If it's not too late, I'd like to chime in a little, just add my little 2 cents.

I also, like many others here, feel strongly that the cohesive DLC history we've had with CIV has been very mostly positive, be it R&F and GS for 6 or those for the previous version that, in my mind, greatly enhanced the experience.

Have they been all perfect ? No of course not. But I think that they've all been positive.

NFP, on the other hand, was in my mind an experiment on your part. Partly because of the Covid situation, partly (and I may be wrong here) for trying out a completely different development process from what had been used before, that fits better with the working from home paradigm.

While I'm not AS negative as most people here on the results of that experiment, I also feel that this is NOT what I'm hoping the future holds for the CIV Franchise. And the reasons is exactly as described by most other contributors here:

1) It's not cohesive with the global game at all. They're mostly great to interesting ideas that could've added depth to the game, but in the end they mainly wind up uninteresting because they're either broken or the player gets a LOT better advantage than the AI can.
2) I feel the cycle was too fast for the dev Team, or at least the QA in the dev team. Being from the IT world, I understand how the new dev processes all promise magical automated testing, but the bugs we've seen in NFP mostly seem related to global breaking of ANOTHER system in the game, not the actual system put in place.

As a result, and I'm talking FOR ME only here, I wind up using tech/civic shuffles all the time (this should have been in the original game btw, as a simple yes/no box option at game creation), Secret societies most of the time because I just love owls and Sanguine pact... Still, even here, 50% that I DON'T use....
As for the rest, Heroes and Barbarian clans were fun for a while but I turned them off now, Dramatic ages and Apocalypse I tried once and never returned. Zombies I never even tried it, but hey, that's just me... Monopolies and Corporations was a fantastic idea, unfortunately badly implemented and unuesable because of
a never fixed bug... Still can't get over than one, honestly !

In the end, I'm happy about one and a half of the 8 modes offered, plus ALL the new civs (this must be noted... new interesting civs are important). AND the game wound up pretty bugged after NFP, so I feel it's quite normal that we all feel VERY concerned about the possibility of this pattern repeating itself for CIV 7. I can't think of any way that analysis of the results from NFP could be construed as positive; The game wound up in bad shape because of this, and the only game saver is that we CAN turn them off. I know money speaks, but you guys must also be wary of the fact that many people bought NFP but would NOT buy it again...

My personal opinion is that the CIV franchise magic lies on two pillars: 1) A wide offering of Civs and Leaders that have abilities, strengths and weaknesses that greatly differentiate them from one another and 2) A collection of systems/features that also greatly helps replay value; Distinct maps, tiles features, resources, districts etc...
I sincerely hope that you guys will not stray too far from those two ingredients.

Finally, thanks for being on the lookout for our opinions. Very appreciated. Hope we hear from you soon