Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Aussie_Lurker, Sep 10, 2019.
But then you have to wonder if they made it subpar to begin with in order to sell the upgrade.
This should all be part of a free update. The way you get more free updates, i.e., continued support, is by releasing new paid content.
I agree... I think the last thing the game needs right now is whole new mechanics. *Maybe* something new to do late game, but there's already a lot on your plate early on as is.
I agree that what is coming next is not a full XP #3 - based on the achievements, and the fact that Firaxis dev seems to be on hold at the moment (based on the lack of SteamDB updates). Or, to be more precise, their external delivery is on hold. I would expect that the developers themselves are moving forward on a branch of code for whatever release is coming after the one we are currently tracking and waiting on. My guess is that this delivery freeze (in part) goes back to the desire to line up delivery across as many platforms as possible all at one time.
I also agree that their plan seems to have shifted over the past 12 months, and that hopefully we will still end up with the equivalent of (at least) a 3rd XP regardless of how they deliver it to us. I realize some people will grumble about the cost being higher (which it would be over time) but it also keeps the Dev team funded for a longer period of patches and other support.
i can accept the idea of a string of DLC's with new content ( a few new units , a scenario , a few leaders etc ) as long as everyone even those that dont buy the DLC get the improvements and tweaks as a free patch. If firaxis needs those devs paid for their work to deliver an ever improving quality product , i am all for it. If they dont radically improve the AI , the late game in general , not only naval&air but combat in general however than i am unsure if i want to support that model.
As a Guild Wars 2 player (former player, actually), I'm skeptical of any studio's ability to deliver an expansion worth of content incrementally.
Aside from cost, the other big problem with delivering an expansion in smaller increments is that it's nearly impossible to implement anything really substantial. You can't add new systems and mechanics that build on other systems and mechanics because you don't know which bits of DLC any given player will have and you'd therefore have to balance for every combination. This is exactly what's wrong with Paradox DLC, for example.
Remember the news from 2018 that Firaxis is working on a third franchise (to add to Civ and Xcom series) ? https://www.hardcoregamer.com/2018/07/24/firaxis-games-working-on-new-ip/306885/
Maybe many people from Civ team like Ed Beach, Anton Strenger etc. have their hands full with that now and they will release only minor DLC for Civ 6 done with a smaller team?
I think that's what Sarah is working on. I noticed they're also hiring a new character designer lead. So it sounds like they're mostly expanding the core staff to accommodate the new IP rather than diverting resources from Civ.
I think I have just realized something.
Most of people here, me included, stated the need of third expansion. But the most popular motivation was... Addition of new civs (and, if 8 were adres as usual per expansion, achieving round number of 50). And especially: addition of few Necessary civs apparent in each iteration -
Maya, Babylon, Portugal, Byzantium, Ethiopia, some North American natives, personally I think something from Maghreb...
But I have never had any idea what MECHANICS should be added in exp 3. The only thing I could come up with is re implementation of the entire civ5 Ideologies stuff to shake up end game. Maybe few more units. Otherwise I have actually thought the game is already too bloated with too many separate mechanics, minigames, points, currencies, bonuses, broken combos etc...
But... Few more civs can be released in DLCs, they don't need separate expansion. The only ones really considered as necessary by most people are Maya and Portugal. Only one big new mechanic, mainly taken from civ5 and only for late game, could be reintroduced in a patch. Firaxis never did three expansions before. They are silent way too long.
And this year 4 years pass since civ6 release (BNW was released 3 years after basen game and 3 years before new game). So they'd either have to
- release third xpac in 2020 and next game only one year later (seems crazy)
- release third xpac in 2020 and new game in 2022, two years later (seems to long, especially considering incoming Humankind)
- or do no third expansion and release civ7 in 2021
Still, no third expansion and ending civ6 dev casually with some patch would feel underwhelming. Especially if we don't get DLL modding capabilities. Even besides that issue, civ6 modding is hilariously poor when compared with amazing civ5 modding.
The big mechanic that many people have been suggesting other than ideology (which I know @acluewithout has been pulling for) is an economic victory/corporations added to the game. That's somewhere they could also try to pull from a la Civ IV, but they are running out of mechanics ideas, I agree.
Nobody notices corporations kind of clash with ideology system (and religion system as it is)?
1) One of three ideologies, communism, would be obviously not using them, not interact with them and just want to completely destroy ideologies allowing them (I have no idea if vague autocracy flavour should use corporstions or not). So you spend a lot of effort adding na entire large mechanic to the game, which is explicitly contrary to the nature of roughly 1/3 of endgame routes (and civilizations in the world). Not only communism has no other equivalent fun mechanic, not only it by its very nature is unbreakable wall to corporstions and money of 'capitalist' civs. But its existence makes also any economic victory besides vague-fitting-all-ideologies-idiotic-get-x-gold limited to, again, only 1-2 of 3 endgame ideologies.
2) Compared to this issue there is also a smaller one: corporations from civ4 are very similar to religions from civ5 and civ6.
- Limited amount of Cs and race towards them
- Holy city/headquarters city
- Spreads to cities and competes with other religions/Cs
- Gives you bonuses to your own city and benefits from converting others (and yes, religion is ofc often money making)
I think corporations and economic victory are impossible thanks to civ5 mandatory ideology system (in civ5 it would be even worse in practice because AI loved communism and like half the world took it in my games )
and very heavy overlap with religion system and religion spam victory.
Environmentalism? Completely covered by GS.
Civil wars and revolutions? Some sort of it covered by ideologies. Split states are impossible for civ because each nation needs to have animated leader...
Big future era? Covered by GS.
Missing civs? Truly obligatory ones could be covered by 2-3 DLCs.
Scenarios? Devs don't care about them in civ6 (shame, I actually really like those in civ5)
Migration? I won't comment on this as I think it was stupid civ5 mod to begin with (any self respecting non democracy would just ban it, it is nonsensical before industrial era, the mod made game ridiculously unbalanced etc)
Any revolutionary mechanics? Too late for them, too many other systems they'd involve, the game got too complicated to rework fundamentals.
Diseases? I think if they wanted they'd introduce them in GS, not just scenario. Besides, civ6 devs are afraid to introduce any mechanic with only negative side (they had to add nonsensical bonus yields to every environmental disaster).
World wars? A matter of single new diplomatic option and under ideology system. Seeing insane way Congress works now (apparently in civ5 it was too realistic and dangerous) I don't even believe it would be introduced properly.
Based on how the latest expansion always comes with all mechanics from the previous expansion, I can't imagine Firaxis locking mechanics and any improvements behind small DLCs. If they release a string of DLCs, it will certainly contain only non-essential stuff (wonders, civs, leaders, city-states, scenarios). I'll be surprised if they don't release improvements as free updates along with the DLC containing non-essential stuff.
Paradox model is a nightmare. I cant get into paradox games because of that. Every time I go to the store page of one of their games, I get spooked by that huge least of DLCs with a ridiculous price tag, even after you apply a discount. There's more interesting games being made than I can play, so no, thanks. I can live without their games.
Lol, paradox expansions are almost always really damn optional stuff and you only buy they if they are your niche. Most of them are graphics packs, music packs, "mechanics for X part of the world / government" and so on.
I have played EU4 while having less than half of big expansion and it was great because most important changes and new mechanics are in patches anyway.
Buying all those DLCs is insane and nobody does that (in full price). People pick only few they like and there are like 6 separate Steam/Paradox grand sales every year with enormous 50-75% discounts.
I have spent less money on ck2 and eu4 and a swarm of their expansions than on civ5 normal edition + two expansions.
And unlike Paradox policy, where almost every expansion has really optional nature and everybody has different combination of them (or none at all), Firaxis expansions make previous version utterly outdated and you basically have to buy them if you want to remain "updated member of community", play with mods, multiplayer, not have half of civs and mechanics etc.
Combine this with weekly dev diaries compared with dead silence of distant firaxis gods and I'd take Paradox approach every time.
At least 4 of the DLC for EU4 are ESSENTIAL. I agree the price isn't as big as people make it out to be, since you're kind of expected to buy EU4 on sale, but neither is this image you're trying to sell of the DLC as being optional. Some are optional, others are as optional as toilet paper in a bathroom.
There's 0% chance of that, unless you're comparing Civ 5 full priced expansions with EU4 at a discount. Which would be an evidently dishonest comparison. Otherwise one need only do the math to conclude the statement can't be true.
Have you tried playing the game with all of them turned off? You might be surprised at what they keep behind a pay wall.
You mean new players don't do that. They get all the old stuff at a discount, but plenty of players buy new content at full price as it gets released. Stellaris and HoI4 have a strong player base who are not waiting around two years to get the DLC at half price. They get it when it comes out, the main expansions anyway. Same happened with EU4 and CK2. Plenty of players were invested from the start.
Your justifications for at least half of those are a bit lazy. You just dismissed everything in a off-handed manner without bothering to give any of it much thought.
This is from facebook. What do you guys think of this idea? Could it work, perhaps even in Civ6?
Not where I think we need improvement. You'd need quite a few of them as well. He named three, but I would like to see him do a full list . Plus one is a ship and the others are explorers. Columbus didn't do much settling, don't know about the other two.
There are other ways to play around with Settlers:
- Government Type or Plaza building, which makes your newly settled cities start at 3 or whatever;
- A Civ ability which gets +3 to cities settled on foreign continents or something;
- A couple of Great Admirals which allow you to settle a new city on the coast as a retiring action;
- A Golden Age bonus (which already exists).
I don't see the need for Great Settlers. There's enough design space to play around with the Settler unit, but probably not a priority imo.
Add me to the chorus that wants to see improvements to current systems much more than yet another currency to watch pile up on top of my screen.
Loyalty especially is in need of a comprehensive rework.
The thing is. If there would not be a third expansion. And just leader packs + a free patch. Perhaps coupled with extra content that does not add more game mechanics. I doubt civ 6 would end up as a must play civilization game. While still bring in enough cashflow for the developers to keep investing in the game. What this game really needs is not about content creators. But i’ll understand it must be cost effective to keep them occupied.
i really think civilizations life cycle model is just flawed. After a long time a new civ game gets announced. It is rather bare bones on vanilla compared to the last civ and does not have any mods under its belt. The modding community is not enthusiastic to create big overhauls because of the regular updates/expansions by the developers while in development. The result after 3 years since launch is that it is barely any better then the last one when pulling the plug and call it quits.
it takes a year to get from announcement till launch. Then it takes like 2 years before you can consider making the jump from previous civ to the new one. If you payed the full price. You basically pay extra while beta testing a game untill it is good enough to play. and one year later the game is barely better then the last one. It just plain sucks. Unless firaxis would release the source code and let modders do their thing. There might be hope. Or the game gets at least another year of development (probably 2) and fixing it flaws.
Absolutely. All I want to see is continued support. This is basically the warhammer model I mentioned earlier. DLC with new Civs and leaders along with free updates to improve the game.
I would still prefer a 3rd expansion, but as long as we're still getting updates to the game, I'm happy.
As for the cycle, I'm hanging on to the hope that Civ 6 cycle is different. There will be no civ rev nonsense, nor colonization, they'll just focus on Civ while a different team works on a parallel IP. Civ is on every platform now, seems a bit out of place to stop milking this cash cow. I'd be fairly confused by a release of Civ VII before 2022.
Separate names with a comma.