[GS] Future Update?

[pokiehl]

You can`t introduce brand new mechanics within DLC scope.

Says who? Just because Firaxis hasn't done it for Civ YET doesn't mean it isn't possible or doable. Other games (eg, Paradox titles) do this.

Any further content past a second expansion is uncharted territory for the modern Civ franchise. It's shortsighted to rule anything out.

 

[Kwami]

You can`t introduce brand new mechanics within DLC scope.

Right. That's the second problem that I posted about. DLCs are fine for new leaders, wonders, scenarios, and so on. But, they're no good at all for new mechanics and systems and other big changes. Expansions are still the way to go for Civ, I think.

 

[Kwami]

Says who? Just because Firaxis hasn't done it for Civ YET doesn't mean it isn't possible or doable. Other games (eg, Paradox titles) do this.

Any further content past a second expansion is uncharted territory for the modern Civ franchise. It's shortsighted to rule anything out.

Yeah, and it's terrible. You end up with a whole slew of one off mechanics that don't interact with each other because they have to support every possible combination of DLCs.

 

[pokiehl]

Yeah, and it's terrible. You end up with a whole slew of one off mechanics that don't interact with each other because they have to support every possible combination of DLCs.

Whether you like it or not isn't the point we're considering though.

 

[Kwami]

Whether you like it or not isn't the point we're considering though.

It kind of is, though. There's no point in saying that something can be done if the result is going to be terrible. Why should we care, then? Better to just do something that's not terrible and not worry about things that are possible, but terrible.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Yeah, and it's terrible. You end up with a whole slew of one off mechanics that don't interact with each other because they have to support every possible combination of DLCs.

That makes zero sense

There is literally room for a "Plague" DLC, a minor system introducing Health and adding a handful of new buildings such as Hospitals and Medical Labs. It could be done, and it doesn't need to "support every possible combination of DLCs".

It's also a huge misnomer since Expansion packs ARE DLCs inherently (Downloadable Content), it's just DLCs became its own thing once the internet took off since people realised they can make more money with minor additions, in the event of Civ, new leader/maps/wonders.

You are making a lot of assumptions that something is going to be terrible without any data to necessairly back it up.

 

[Kwami]

That makes zero sense

There is literally room for a "Plague" DLC, a minor system introducing Health and adding a handful of new buildings such as Hospitals and Medical Labs. It could be done, and it doesn't need to "support every possible combination of DLCs".

It's also a huge misnomer since Expansion packs ARE DLCs inherently (Downloadable Content), it's just DLCs became its own thing once the internet took off since people realised they can make more money with minor additions, in the event of Civ, new leader/maps/wonders.

You are making a lot of assumptions that something is going to be terrible without any data to necessairly back it up.

Sure, you can introduce a minor DLC that includes plague mechanics. Go for it. But, what happens when you want to introduce another DLC that enhances the plague mechanics or introduces new systems that assume the presence of plague mechanics? Then, you have a few options and none of them are good. You can give everyone the plague DLC for free (lost revenue, potentially upset buyers). Or, you can include the plague mechanics in the new DLC (same problems as before, plus a "useless" DLC hanging around). Or, you can provide fall back mechanics for players that don't have the DLC (potentially not possible, depending on what the mechanics are). Or, you can limit thew new DLC's audience to only those players that bought the plague DLC (lost revenue). All of those options kind of suck. Paradox usually goes with the third option and it's made a mess of their big games. And, yes, they do have to balance for every possible combination of DLCs. How else would it work?

Anyway, I think there's a pretty clear distinction between Civ DLCs and Civ expansions. If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to tell you. There's no sense in parsing words for technicalities.

The original idea was to provide a full expansion in smaller DLC packs. I'm arguing that that simply isn't going to work. A single plague mechanic is not a full expansion.

 

[ssbflak]

noon EST and no announcement. to thursday!

 

[RohirrimElf]

noon EST and no announcement. to thursday!

my hopes for this week are low. I think it will take another 2-3 weeks till mid februari

 

[bbbt]

Sure, you can introduce a minor DLC that includes plague mechanics. Go for it. But, what happens when you want to introduce another DLC that enhances the plague mechanics or introduces new systems that assume the presence of plague mechanics? Then, you have a few options and none of them are good. You can give everyone the plague DLC for free (lost revenue, potentially upset buyers). Or, you can include the plague mechanics in the new DLC (same problems as before, plus a "useless" DLC hanging around). Or, you can provide fall back mechanics for players that don't have the DLC (potentially not possible, depending on what the mechanics are). Or, you can limit thew new DLC's audience to only those players that bought the plague DLC (lost revenue). All of those options kind of suck. Paradox usually goes with the third option and it's made a mess of their big games. And, yes, they do have to balance for every possible combination of DLCs. How else would it work?

Anyway, I think there's a pretty clear distinction between Civ DLCs and Civ expansions. If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to tell you. There's no sense in parsing words for technicalities.

The original idea was to provide a full expansion in smaller DLC packs. I'm arguing that that simply isn't going to work. A single plague mechanic is not a full expansion.

If they released them as separate DLC that had to be purchased definitely. I.e. if they released a Plague DLC followed by a Trade Update DLC that people could buy separately, they'd have to either
a) Have plague and trade not affect each other
or b) Have all permutations (Plague with and without the new trade mechanic DLC; New trade mechanic DLC without or without plague mechanic DLC) designed/programmed. A challenge which would scale with more DLC.

The first would lead to more complaints the Civ 6 mechanics are too isolated. The second would lead to more issues with balance and bugginess.
These are both already issues in Civ 6 with an expansion system where they literally give you all the previous mechanics in the most latest expansion. I can't imagine how they'd do with a bunch of separate DLC mechanics.

There have been some alternatives possibilities already posed however: a) Release the mechanics as free updates and only sell civs/content as DLC; b) Don't sell the DLC individually, but just as one 'season ticket' subscription.

 

[Duuk]

Or, they could do what common sense dictates they would do, because Firaxis doesn't appear to be run by morons, and introduce the plague mechanics as a FREE ruleset upgrade to Gathering Storm released concurrently with the Italy and Byzantine DLC.

Ergo, everyone that owns Gathering Storm would have the plague mechanics FREE and everyone that wanted to play with Italy and Byzantine would buy the DLC.

When they released the new trade mechanics they wouldn't need to worry about "people not having the plague mechanics" because EVERYONE (with gathering storm) has the plague mechanics.

Man, it's almost like this model works... where have I seen this model before...

Oh, and for those that don't WANT to play with the "plague mechanics": when you open your DLC management / Start a game you'll see that "Gathering Storm" is listed as a "Ruleset". I'm willing to wager that the new DLC will be modular rulesets that can be enabled/disabled like any other.

 

[Victoria]

and for those that don't WANT to play with the "plague mechanics":

Don’t build airports or harbours

 

[Duuk]

Don’t build airports or harbours

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please remember that this is a discussion forum and not an arcade. Thanks.

 

[RohirrimElf]

Don’t build airports or harbours

or roads/railroads. Pretty much anything involved with fast travelling.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

or roads/railroads. Pretty much anything involved with fast travelling.

Doesn't even have to be fast: the Black Plague spread by horseback and sailing ship all the way across Asia and Europe . . .

 

[sonicmyst]

I think DLC with specific rulesets looks complicated. And looking back at previous DLCs, what they do is a combination of either leaders, civs, wonders, or scenarios.

Rulesets are best included in an expansion or as a free update.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Sure, you can introduce a minor DLC that includes plague mechanics. Go for it. But, what happens when you want to introduce another DLC that enhances the plague mechanics or introduces new systems that assume the presence of plague mechanics? Then, you have a few options and none of them are good. You can give everyone the plague DLC for free (lost revenue, potentially upset buyers). Or, you can include the plague mechanics in the new DLC (same problems as before, plus a "useless" DLC hanging around). Or, you can provide fall back mechanics for players that don't have the DLC (potentially not possible, depending on what the mechanics are). Or, you can limit thew new DLC's audience to only those players that bought the plague DLC (lost revenue). All of those options kind of suck. Paradox usually goes with the third option and it's made a mess of their big games. And, yes, they do have to balance for every possible combination of DLCs. How else would it work?

Anyway, I think there's a pretty clear distinction between Civ DLCs and Civ expansions. If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to tell you. There's no sense in parsing words for technicalities.

The original idea was to provide a full expansion in smaller DLC packs. I'm arguing that that simply isn't going to work. A single plague mechanic is not a full expansion.

Actually, no. It is going to work, and it works pretty simple

They can use SQL to detect if Plague Mechanic exists

Let's for a second imagine that a a Plague DLC comes out, and EP3 comes out few months after with Italy or whatever that relies on Plague Mechanic for it's Ability.

A. They could just include it, like Isabella in God and Kings in Civ 5 and Statue of Zeus in BNW in Civ 5.

OR

B. Have 2 seperate abilities

Have a basic ability, non-relating to Plague Mechanic, but if someone owns the Plague DLC, have a ruleset update that updates their ability.

It's actually simple, and doable.

I do this when in my Agenda mod because I have to seperate the DLC/EP civs from the main set of civs, it's more lines of code but it's painfully easy.

But yes, I wonder when we'll be getting the update.

 

[RohirrimElf]

Doesn't even have to be fast: the Black Plague spread by horseback and sailing ship all the way across Asia and Europe . . .

still fast travel at that time period. . .

 

[AntSou]

Actually, no. It is going to work, and it works pretty simple

They can use SQL to detect if Plague Mechanic exists

Let's for a second imagine that a a Plague DLC comes out, and EP3 comes out few months after with Italy or whatever that relies on Plague Mechanic for it's Ability.

A. They could just include it, like Isabella in God and Kings in Civ 5 and Statue of Zeus in BNW in Civ 5.

OR

B. Have 2 seperate abilities

Have a basic ability, non-relating to Plague Mechanic, but if someone owns the Plague DLC, have a ruleset update that updates their ability.

It's actually simple, and doable.

I do this when in my Agenda mod because I have to seperate the DLC/EP civs from the main set of civs, it's more lines of code but it's painfully easy.

But yes, I wonder when we'll be getting the update.

Your post did not address the issue at all of multiple mechanics separated behind a pay wall. Option A is just a "what if" you created that dodges the question. Option B assumes a single DLC.

Great. So what happens when you have three or four DLC with different mechanics in each and you wanted them all to interact?

Are you going to code interactions for all possible combinations? Of course not. The solution is to make them not really interact, like Paradox does, which is the issue he was talking about.

This is why we're hoping we either get new mechanics bundled in a single expansion, or in case of DLC, the new/updated mechanics are part of a free update released along new DLC packs containing new Civs and Leaders.