Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by bite, Mar 24, 2020.
We don't know for sure, but it is thought that the proving ground build is for qa testing mod tools.
Diseases, If tied to Housing ('Health') could work as Housing's version of Rebels If done properly. The question is If it's neccesary. But I feel like diseases could easily find their niché purpose and wouldn't feel forced. Alternatively it could be used to, in contrary, punish excessive spread (though that should be Loyality's job) as it would be easier to 'close yourself off the infection' for small civ. Plus large empires should have plenty of Trade Routes which would be logical way of enhancing spread.
Alternatively, they could literally just be aimed at being Emergency-inducing Global Catastrophe, like the ones from GS, but global. I feel like the disasters from GS are so random in their occurence, rewards, definition of whether they even have any rewards, damage, mitigation and consistency that pretending that pleague would be somewhat different is kinda funny. If people asked all these questions about disasters that they ask when they question relevancy of pleague mechanic, we wouldn' really have GS. Feel like there is both lack of creativity and bias here.
EDIT: We already have global emergency simulated when one guy goes nukey and conquery all over the world. Pleagues could be that, but against no specific player, emergency to spice up the game. No different than the disasters from GS.
That proving grounds arrival is exciting. Also the fact that the DLC depots have been added but then left without anything being added too them makes me think they are just a form of communication, so we shouldn't take the fact there are four of them too seriously.
The fact that there is an age review build makes me think we are getting a third expansion
This is exactly what I was thinking. What better way to win a Diplomatic Victory than to help leading the charge to cure a global pandemic?
And yes disease can be another type of disaster along with earthquakes at random like other people want.
I dont know why many of you have something against making it harder to play wide. Right know one of the game problems is if you conquer enough land you just click next-next-next until you win. Making loyalty more important and difficult, random events (like diseases) which can destroy you etc is good thing. You will be forced to fight for you empire just to keep it together as like you fought to make it. Pleague scanario is wonderful example of that, imagine you being 100 boring turns from victory in late game and then suddenly all hell break lose.
As soon as you said "May announcment" I thought "No way... That is so far off it is practically summer! How can I wait that long?" Then I realized that we are actually fairly close to May and I have just wasted much of my Spring waiting on news for the DLC. Oof...
Civ is not designed for waxing and waning of empires. Since the whole thing is a race to the end, progress at any point before that is only useful if it results in *more total progress* by the end. Aka: snowballing.
In order for players to enjoy waxing and waning, they must expect it, and the game is not designed for that. It is designed for endless waxing. Any true setback is antithesis to how the game feels to play.
If they kept track of power/accomplishments over time as the only victory condition, then they could allow empires to wane, because fighting against an even inevitable waning as well as you possibly can would still be worth something. As Civ stands, you should've instead never allowed your civilization to get into that state in the first place.
I'm also not too bothered about Portugal. It would effectively be just another variation on a Catholic European Empire with maritime bonuses. We have many European Civ's, including ones with maritime bonuses like Spain and England, we don't desperately need more.
We need more "Colonialist Legacies" type Civilisations (referring to the Civ V Mod pack).
I am particularly hoping for Vietnam. Southeast Asia does not have many Civ's right now.
Ethiopia would be nice, but I am kind of hoping that Vietnam could take its place as the master of defence.
The only European Civ I am looking forward to is the "one city specialist" Venice. That would be nice.
I also would not be opposed to a Communist Civ or two.
There are lots of great ideas out there. You could do some kind of Pirate Caribbean state, or you could add the Inuit who could have huge bonuses towards ice and tundra and have bonuses that go with the environmental feature of melting ice caps after climate change.
I would also like a new leader pack, adding a lot more secondary leaders for existing Civ's.
I disagree with Atlas 627. I'd love to see more mechanics that shake the game up and threaten you close to winning (or at any time). The game needs randomness and maluses to break up the boring snowball effect. I want to always be on my toes.
It depends on how it's implemented. The current "everyone hates you because you're winning" diplomacy penalty is super obnoxious. I find it incredibly annoying to watch my allies turn on me one by one in the late game.
In that case, I think those kinds of mechanics should probably scale with difficulty. I want to lose because of my own mistakes, not because the game decided so.
In case of domination victory though, this attitude kinda makes sense
Yeah lot's of people don't like this mechanic even though it is what you would face if you where playing against human players. Civ at it's core game design its a multiplayer pvp game with AI added in, which is played primarily single-player. I think many of the flaws of the 4x genre come from this.
The only solution i could think of is giving bonuses to espionage against players who are leading in victory conditions. In the real world allied nations still spy on each other so it wouldn't break the games theme. What shape this could take whether it be getting science for successfully committing espionage against someone leading in science victory, or culture for somone leading in culture victory etc. Or Espionage being more effective. Encouraging the AI to dogpile you with espionage even if they are allies.
Actually parts of the game such as this is why i am so excited by the prospect of another expansion. I think many of the decisions made by the Civ Vi team have been hits. So i am excited to see what idea's they have to target the games remaining flaws, and i am sure they know what they are
Snowballing is a big problem. Though with Civ Vi's general design so far seeming to be against penalties the way to deal with it would be stronger comeback mechanics to allow other players to catch up too a snowballer
I believe they removed that "you're winning" diplomatic malus with the last patch or so actually. It's been a complaint among some people here. I understand your point there though.
Specifically I was referring to events not diplomacy though. Like, if you've got a massive empire, then random insurrections or plagues should be a threat for the player to manage.
I think a slider, like the Natural Disaster slider from 0 to 4, should do the trick. That way gluttons for punishment (like me) and folks who don't like those elements (like you) can both be happy.
Yes, but I always play Science or Culture.
That's why I don't play against human players.
I really strongly disagree with this assessment. There are people who play that way, no doubt, but I see the Civ franchise as first and foremost a building game. On a spectrum of 4X games that emphasize conflict, I'd place Civ on the peaceful end.
I haven't played in half a year probably so it may well have changed since I last played.
That's why I said it depends on how it's implemented. The "everyone hates the winner" technique was clearly a poor decision. I'd love to see more ups and downs in the game because that's how good stories are made, but I don't want them to be arbitrary or frustrating.
That isn't what I said, though. I agree with what you said. Problem is *the game is not designed for that*. Like, at the very basic, core level of the game, any type of setback means you should've just avoided it in the first place. And if you can't avoid it no matter what, or even mitigate it, then why have it?
Now that Red Death is a thing, an alternative take on Civ for the fun of it, I'd love to see a "Survival Mode" gameplay (or a mod, really) that added a lot of Survival game elements as an optional way to play the game.
I didn't say anything about not being able to control or mitigate it. And I was disagreeing more broadly that "the game is not designed for that." Civ IV had such elements. I don't see why they wouldn't work for VI.
Snowballing euro kind of game is a Civilization core design from the beginning. This is the way how this game has always been and probably will be in the future. Actually I don't think snowballing is even the issue here. In my opinion, it is mainly a win condition design that makes the game dull and linear in a late game. If we want to spice it up in a late-game it has to be fixed (developing over time win conditions perhaps, or scored challenges selected each era from a set of random achievements. First who collects a certain amount of points wins ). You can still play around it, but it enforces you to be more flexible and makes the game less repeatable.
Separate names with a comma.