Does anyone else hate the constant patches and rebalances?

[Pietato]

No.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

If anything, I don't feel they are tweaking it enough. Right now we are having pretty monthly updates, but updates that come out with new contents only introduce new civs and leaders with barely any changes to existing ones, so they don't really count in this situation. Free updates change the status quo so little that I never feel anything too significant.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

From a player perspective it's great to have monthly updates. The new content and balance changes can breathe fresh life into the game. The downside is that there are greater risks of introducing bugs and incompatibilities into the system that take time to be corrected. I've also noticed increased instability (i.e. game crashes) since the first NFP DLC was released.

From a modder (or someone who uses mods) perspective, I don't particularly like the frequent updates at all. On the surface, each update may not appear to make any significant changes, but under the hood they can be significant. Personally, I'd rather have updates bimonthly, or even better, quarterly. Because of my limited free time, it can sometimes take a couple weeks to check, update and adjust all my mods after a patch, and by that time another new patch is already on the verge of dropping leaving very little time to even play the game. I'd rather have a bit more breathing room in between updates like pre-NFP.

 

[Xur]

There was a time when Firaxis basicly ignored their fans and we never knew if there was ever going to be another patch. I hope we never go back to that arrogant behaviour. I very much prefer the current approach to patching. Their QA team could do with an update though. It seems every patch introduces a new bug. Many of the bugs are obvious.

 

[Gedemon]

From a player perspective it's great to have monthly updates. The new content and balance changes can breathe fresh life into the game. The downside is that there are greater risks of introducing bugs and incompatibilities into the system that take time to be corrected. I've also noticed increased instability (i.e. game crashes) since the first NFP DLC was released.

From a modder (or someone who uses mods) perspective, I don't particularly like the frequent updates at all. On the surface, each update may not appear to make any significant changes, but under the hood they can be significant. Personally, I'd rather have updates bimonthly, or even better, quarterly. Because of my limited free time, it can sometimes take a couple weeks to check, update and adjust all my mods after a patch, and by that time another new patch is already on the verge of dropping leaving very little time to even play the game. I'd rather have a bit more breathing room in between updates like pre-NFP.

Well, not only modders, but themselves too need more breathing room between patches, they're introducing bugs and instabilities faster than they can fix them.

There was a time when Firaxis basicly ignored their fans and we never knew if there was ever going to be another patch. I hope we never go back to that arrogant behaviour. I very much prefer the current approach to patching. Their QA team could do with an update though. It seems every patch introduces a new bug. Many of the bugs are obvious.

There could be monthly communication without monthly patching.

 

[Zegangani]

I'm all in for balance changes that enable new strategies and nerf OP stuff. Don't see anything wrong with that approach. And I want these updates as soon as they are ready.

Ideally, I also want these updates from Firaxis, not from modding community.

I would prefer that they would update and balance things that can't be fixed by Modders (Like the Trade and Diplomacy/Deal Systems) first. Although it's their Job and not of Modders, but still they can update them after everything else (Pantheon Exploit and the GP flanking bonus were fixed by Modders way before Firaxis opened their Doors to The Community's Wishes/Suggestions and Complaints).

 

[tsf4]

I enjoy the frequent updates, but I can see how it’s frustrating for modelers or mod players. But for people like me who are playing no mods, it’s fun and breathes life into the game compared to a game which releases dlc and never patches.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I enjoy the frequent updates, but I can see how it’s frustrating for modelers or mod players. But for people like me who are playing no mods, it’s fun and breathes life into the game compared to a game which releases dlc and never patches.

Aa a person who uses many mods, I don't mind the updates at all. As long as they don't make the game more buggy, I'm fine with it.

 

[Abaxial]

I would be happy if they just fixed all the broken things, instead of adding new broken things.

 

[anonxanemone]

I would be happy if they just fixed all the broken things, instead of adding new broken things.

Engineers...er...Firaxis believes that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.

 

[679x]

The yield inflation is unavoidable in any game with each expansion but it's way more palatable in this expansion pass. I'm planning on resetting my Hall of Fame with the final update when all the parameters are set.

Yield inflation became noticeable to me just yesterday when I had the natural wonders Piopiotahi and Paititi in my borders, and realized that Paititi, though it is unworkable and takes up 3 tiles like Piopiotahi, provides 2x the culture and 3x the gold of Piopiotahi, on top of giving major adjacency bonuses for theatre squares and commercial hubs, AND also gives bonus gold on international trade routes. Poor Piopiotahi.

I would welcome a balance change to buff Piopiotahi (and Cliffs of Dover, which is also vastly inferior). I like balance changes. My concern is not with frequent balance changes, but rather when balance changes only affect games with DLC despite the vanilla game also suffering from those same imbalances. I purchased DLC so it doesn't affect me but I still wish the base game got the same focus on balance.

People say that balancing the civs could take away from some of the fun of playing the civs because people might like to play the OP ones to stomp a game, and others might prefer to play the ones that are considered weak to give themselves a unique challenge. I partially agree with that.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Yield inflation became noticeable to me just yesterday when I had the natural wonders Piopiotahi and Paititi in my borders, and realized that Paititi, though it is unworkable and takes up 3 tiles like Piopiotahi, provides 2x the culture and 3x the gold of Piopiotahi, on top of giving major adjacency bonuses for theatre squares and commercial hubs, AND also gives bonus gold on international trade routes. Poor Piopiotahi.

I would welcome a balance change to buff Piopiotahi (and Cliffs of Dover, which is also vastly inferior). I like balance changes. My concern is not with frequent balance changes, but rather when balance changes only affect games with DLC despite the vanilla game also suffering from those same imbalances. I purchased DLC so it doesn't affect me but I still wish the base game got the same focus on balance.

People say that balancing the civs could take away from some of the fun of playing the civs because people might like to play the OP ones to stomp a game, and others might prefer to play the ones that are considered weak to give themselves a unique challenge. I partially agree with that.

You're forgetting the Eye of Sahara.

 

[pokiehl]

I love the frequent updates.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I love the frequent updates.

And you're a modder, so your opinion matters double the normal amount.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

To be fair, I don't hate the "constant balance changing" thing.

What I really hate is that every patch introduces a new bug, and the bug remains unfixed in the next patches. Eventually you get a lot of balance-breaking bugs unfixed, and just witnessing it becoming more and more.

 

[The googles do nothing]

I wish they would make more of the changes I want.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I wish they would make more of the changes I want.

Doesn't everyone?

 

[Leah and Rachael]

If anything, I don't feel they are tweaking it enough. Right now we are having pretty monthly updates, but updates that come out with new contents only introduce new civs and leaders with barely any changes to existing ones, so they don't really count in this situation. Free updates change the status quo so little that I never feel anything too significant.

I was just about to say this! Especially for certain things like natural wonders (e.g. the Cliffs of Dover 'buff' barely buffed them) and the amenities change.
Personally, I'm not too much into 'balance' because it just makes everything bland (by balance here, I mean making everything the same, like removing the river bonus for lumber mills. I'm still not over that, Firaxis!).
Making more drastic changes without making any elements useless not only makes the game more exciting, but opens up new strategies and changes the meta...

Yield inflation became noticeable to me just yesterday when I had the natural wonders Piopiotahi and Paititi in my borders, and realized that Paititi, though it is unworkable and takes up 3 tiles like Piopiotahi, provides 2x the culture and 3x the gold of Piopiotahi, on top of giving major adjacency bonuses for theatre squares and commercial hubs, AND also gives bonus gold on international trade routes. Poor Piopiotahi.

I think Paititi was made OP on purpose. It was part of the 'mythical' wonders, together with Bermuda Triangle and Fountain of Youth. Both, with the right conditions, are more OP than any of their similar counterparts.

And I think the wonder picker was partially inspired by the desire to give people who don't want these fantastical elements in their Civilization VI the ability to remove them