1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[NFP] I really hope New Frontier isn’t the Final Frontier

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by acluewithout, Oct 19, 2020.

  1. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    1,518
    I really hope that the reason we are seeing so many returning and highly requested civs that I didn't really want or need, is that the devs have an expack planned with seven bonkers new civs plus Portugal.

    Civs like Oman, Berbers, Burma, Bulgaria, might not sell well on their own, but that wouldn't matter because Portugal would sell the whole pack by itself.

    I do hope that the reason we aren't hearing from Beach is that he is indeed working on a third expack instead of civ vii. With all the multi-platform support and a regular development cycle in place, I think it would be supremely dumb to stop adding content to VI and have to start the long slog uphill again (again) with VII. Civ should always have been a long-form release game that kept building on itself, instead of retrodding the same territory every installment.
     
  2. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,932
    I think you bring up a valid point, and it just goes to show that more is not necessarily better.

    I won't deny that a lot of the complaints brought forward on this community leave Firaxis in a damn-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. People complained about no religious victory in Civ5. Then they add a religious victory in Civ6, and now people complain about religious unit spam and it being tedious. People complained about the World Congress forcing you into some weird decision for eternity in Civ5. Then they add proposals in Civ6 to only last for one cycle, and now people complain that World Congress is inconsequential. People complained that you could abuse AI by paying them to do war for you in Civ5, and now someone in this thread complains that you can't bribe AI into a war in Civ6. People complained about local happiness in Civ5, and now they complain about global happiness in Civ6 not being hard enough to manage. Etc. etc. etc.

    When that's said, I do think there are some fair points of criticism of Civ6 compared to Civ5 (and I will not go back to former chapters, because those don't stand so clear in my memory). To give just some overall lines:
    1) End game is just dead boring. Frankly, if you are not going to war, all eras after Industrial are just endless managing production queues - and talking about that, how on earth have they still not made a proper queue in the game? - and clicking next turn forever. They addressed this issue by reworking scientific victory ... by adding more techs and another era. Eeh ... not exactly the fix that was needed? Civ5 did a very good job with ideologies to add some refreshing new elements in late game, all we get in Civ6 is a diplomatic penalty for "different governments" because AI chooses to stick with their medieval government. Ugh.
    2) World congress is objectively a mess in Civ6. You are left more or less completely clueless with regards to what the AI will vote and how many votes they will throw after a specific suggestion, so you can either a) memorize fixed AI behavior, b) save scum, or c) guess blindly. To add further salt to the wound, the way that vote cost escalates means that when more than about 4-5 AI civs are alive, they can always outvote you no matter how much diplomatic favor you work to accumulate. I know people complained about vote monopolizing through buying city states in Civ5 (which was indeed an issue), but new system is just worse.
    3) Cultural Victory has become completely nontransparent. The way tourism works is a complete enigma to all but the very most dedicated players. I've read guides on it here on this forum, and I still don't understand it. They may have added rockbands and I know not what, but in Civ5, it was extremely easy to understand: Your tourism more than all their culture. In Civ6: Well, you do stuff and at some point, you may win ...
    4) Poor balancing. They are working a lot on this, and credit to them for that, but look at something like Secret Societies. How on earth can anybody who plays this game just moderately well think that something like Voidsingers (here, take massive amounts of free faith in early game, then take free boost to science and culture in mid game, and then a unit that can make enemy cities rebel without any defense in late game) is balanced with Hermetic Order (take a blind guess that you may get these map lines, except you may not get them, or maybe they are placed so they screw up your district placement, and even if you get them, the benefits from them are mediocre until late game)?

    I'm not saying I don't like Civ6, I have fun with the game and have played many hours, but it does strike me as underachieving compared to its potential.
     
  3. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,453
    Location:
    Toronto
    A lot of this is essentially my complaints with civ 6. I think it's a pretty great game overall, but my big flaws with it are that there feels like there should be a lot more that you can do with it.

    You have a lot of very interesting systems, you have a lot of new setups, but they seem to get about 75% of the way to a cool system, and then it just, kind of, stops. Like with secret societies - cool concept to add sort of a separate uniqueness/religion system, where you choose your option early and get some scaling benefits over time with it every couple eras. Neat, okay, but as you say, it comes in essentially very unbalanced, and then also just alters too much of the game with those 2-4 extra early governor titles, that it makes it a very polarizing setup.

    Or you take spies, which is another system with a lot of potential. You have all the spies, you have some unique promotions, there's a little strategy in how to arrange them. But in the end, it kind of just ends up being a sort of tedious way to do something else, while you end up having to guess randomly where to "counter-spy", and you never really know if what you did has any effect.

    Religious combat is another system which is new, heavily changes the way you can spread religion, but in the end, just ends up spamming the map, and in some cases, just encourages you to randomly suicide these units just so that I can create relics out of them. Granted here is a case where I don't 100% know what the right fix is, not like we need "siege" religious units or something like that, but it's like sort of making its way to this fun, cool, unique, new system, and then just stops right before the end.

    Dramatic ages I still need to test a little more with, and so far, I'm fairly happy with the setup. Although it still feels like the system could use a little more balance I do kind of feel that the first era ends too fast in it, meaning you often will have a golden age with no bonus since it can take too long to get a wildcard spot, or else you get an early dark age which just means I need to restart the game, since losing 50% of my cities or so at that point of the game is just too much to handle that early. Too often everyone goes golden, which kind of defeats a lot of the point of it, although again, I only have a couple game experience with it, so that might skew my take on it.

    Even some stuff with districts could probably use a little refresh. There's a lot of nice things they have done to tweak and adjust things, but there's still a lot more that could do to help them out. And it's still too imbalanced if you happen to get lucky and have a +4 or +5 campus site near your capital, that alone just has a crazy impact on your empire at such an early stage of the game that it has too much impact.

    But as I said, I still play the game, and overall I do still find it fun. But there's just so many features that are still in the "so much potential here" phase that it frustrates you thinking what could be.
     
    sonicmyst and Kmart_Elvis like this.
  4. OzzyKP

    OzzyKP Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,696
    Location:
    Washington, DC USA
    I check this forum every so often and am always quite struck by the ingratitude and whining by most of you.

    You all need some perspective. Civ3 had two expansions. Civ4 had two expansions (plus Civ4:Colonization). Civ5 had two expansions (plus Beyond the Earth).

    This is the first time that Firaxis has done any major development of the base game after the second expansion. The first time. And yet everyone complains it still isn't enough.

    Civ1 had 14 civs, Civ2 had 21 civs, Civ3 had 32 civs, Civ4 had 34 civs, Civ5 had 43 civs, and Civ6 so far has 47 with another 3 to be released from NFP. I'm not going to bother to count, but I bet there are more wonders, more city states, more... everything than every previous game. Yet people complain.

    Are there balance issues? Sure, but there have always been balance issues. Is the AI subpar? Sure, but it always is.

    People complain about optional game modes. Why? Would you like to see Secret Societies or Dramatic Ages be part of the core game? No? Would you like to have seen a Colonization or Beyond Earth game where you could play vampires or pirates or something as a standalone game in place of NFP? Cause that's the alternative. They did something special in making a third expansion for the base game instead of making a separate game/expansion-ish thing.

    There are so many systems in Civ6 if they add more it'll just get overstuffed. The fact they make these things optional is a pretty great feature, so we can spice up our game here and there without bogging down the base game. Kind of like Firaxis-made mods.
     
    King Rad, nauberry, CivLuvah and 3 others like this.
  5. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    5,254
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I doubt we will see another full-fledged expansion considering they mentioned they didn't want feature overload.

    The best hope I think maybe is Ed Beach is currently working on a final frontier pass. Even then I'm not sure it would be as much content as this. I mean I wouldn't mind 58 civs but I can see maybe them go half that number, though with more other content perhaps as bigger game modes.

    That being said considering that Anton took over the lead for the first expansion and this DLC pass maybe he might end up being the lead designer of Civ VII?
     
  6. pokiehl

    pokiehl Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,158
    My presumption is that Ed Beach and the bulk of the team are hard at work on VII while Anton and a smaller team take care of remaining VI content.
     
    Cooleatack and Ondolindë like this.
  7. The Civs 6

    The Civs 6 Prince

    Joined:
    May 27, 2020
    Messages:
    334
    Location:
    A certain someone is a narc!
    I don't hate anything they've done but I am disappointed by the lack of attention to game balance and updating weaker civs. Seems out of step with the video gaming world of 2020.

    I hope this is the case, and if so, I am fine with how NFP has been going. The more I think about it the more I like a lot of the ideas of VI but greatly dislike their implementation. I'd like to see them reflect on the successes and failures of VI and give us the Civ IV to VI's Civ III.
     
    Cooleatack, 679x and 8housesofelixir like this.
  8. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,361
    Exactly.

    Here’s the thing. It’s true that Civ 6 has had much more content and support than any previous version of Civ. Civ 6 includes “pretty much” everything from Civ V, and a smattering of stuff from earlier games, and does all of it better.

    eg
    • Hexes, One Unit per Turn, and Play the Map, but now with limited unit stacking, better Workers (Builders) / Improvements, Districts, One Wonder per Tile, and Adjacencies.
    • Religion but more fleshed out and its own victory condition.
    • Civ IV style “swap in and out governments”, but expanded with policy cards and more distinct mechanics.
    • Civ V Social Policies, but reworked as Governors so they’re more balanced and more situational.
    • Culture Victory, but more involved and balanced (although I agree with the comment about transparency).
    • Better City State Mechanics, proper Leader v Civ splits, better Great People.
    • And then there’s stuff like splitting the Tech tree into Tech and Civics, or Loyalty, which are largely just new mechanics that work really well.
    NFP is then a great addition to all that. So, like, what’s the problem?

    I think the problem is pretty simple. The back half of the game is still missing.

    Indeed, after GS, the back half feels even worse, because FXS extended the tech trees but didn’t add much to the end game, so it feels like there’s even more empty space than before.

    And then that’s the rub with NFP. NFP on its own terms is awesome. But if you’re someone who feels like the back half of the game is missing, then NFP really doesn’t address that.

    There’s a bunch of small things I think the game is still missing, like Spies as Ambassadors, Reformation Beliefs, Corporations and just a few more units. But if I was going to identify one big thing that’s missing, it’s Ideologies.

    Yeah, I know we have Democracy and Communist Governments or whatever. But by themselves those government options just don’t cover it. As I’ve said, Civ V Social Policies came back into the game as Governors. The game just doesn’t have a similar equivalent of Civ V Ideology in Civ 6. No equivalent tree of tenets, no ideological pressure, no unique Ideological units or wonders etc.

    It’s weird, because Civ 6 feels like it has all the pieces to make a really strong end game that leans into Ideology and Ideological Pressure like Civ 5 did with BNW - you’ve got the Governments, Governors, Loyalty, Tourism, extended tech tree etc - but FXS seem to have just... not done it. Instead, vampires.

    I like the vampires. And the zombies. And the Pirates. I really do. And I really don’t want to seem ungrateful. But I’m sorry, I know Civ 6 has had a huge amount of development by FXS, but the game still really feels “not done”.

    My hope is we get something that splits the difference a little. Like a mini-expansion that adds Ideology and Ideological Pressure and a few other bits and bobs, and then perhaps mixes that with 3 to 4 new game modes. That would be perfect if you ask me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
  9. The Civs 6

    The Civs 6 Prince

    Joined:
    May 27, 2020
    Messages:
    334
    Location:
    A certain someone is a narc!
    ^

    How about tourism having an in-game effect as opposed to being a mere victory point thing, like it did in Civ 5? But it's not just any one factor. Civ 5 had interplay between everything - technology, great people, ideologies, tourism, trade, just little things that made the game feel tight. I've said it a million times, but Civ 6 has a lot of stuff but lots of it - like appeal, anything involving global warming, feel like these one-note things that don't add up to much.

    And just a side effect of that is when you have so much stuff, certain things end up being super broken. Just think about all the niche mechanics involving appeal that end up being super broken - Bull Moose Teddy, Earth Goddess or whatever - when generally people agree that the main point of appeal, which is to build national parks and sea resorts, isn't the optimal way to achieve the victory condition it was intended to support. And even if you tell me that appeal is just as much about the former things as the latter, those things are so niche that only one player will get them in a game, or a handful of Civs/city-states that have things that interact with appeal.

    Whereas in 5, even if you were going for science victory you had to think about tourism just because you would get torn apart in the late game if you didn't. And I'm not even going to touch 4 - where the AI was actually a threat to win at lower difficulty settings even if you had a good game.

    I don't want to pick on appeal though. There are other aspects of the game, like the spying system, diplomatic visibility (except for the Mongols), religious pressure (which is now all but obsolete due to missionaries), and others I can't think of.

    6 didn't totally screw it up. One of the mechanics I sense that people like - trade routes - does have this feature. A trade route can build a road, or distribute resources in your empire, or gain gold, or help with tourism. They can be plundered. And I don't think I need to say that all of the benefits of a trade route are inputs into all sorts of other integral functions for the game. I sense that people generally like to play around with trade routes because they present lots of interesting decisions. I know I do.

    Yeah I didn't intend to write this much, but what you said, to me, touches on this exact point. I was saying this once I dove into 6 and nothing about my hundreds of hours of gameplay have changed my opinion.
     
    Cooleatack, Elhoim, Bosque and 2 others like this.
  10. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    5,254
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    My main things I would like to see is pandemic/diseases and corporations. There's a good chance that hopefully we are getting the latter with the January "alternate economy" game mode. Of course they might just use religion mechanics for it if they do implement it, which honestly the current religion mechanics make more sense for that.

    I do admit I'm also excited to see what the heroes and epics game mode holds. I'm more or less on the fence about adding ideologies considering they kind of already feel like we have them in the game with the late game governments. I guess if they became more unique it with a governor and bonuses it could work.
     
  11. _hero_

    _hero_ King

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    777
    I've observed this myself before. More specifically for me, the back half of the game is extremely tedious. When you reach the point that you know you're going to win, but you're still 50-100 turns from winning the game really starts to turn unpleasant. I've left plenty of games unfinished because of this. This has kind of always been the case in Civ games, strategy games in generally really, but it's worse in Civ 6 I agree.

    There are a wide variety of reasons for this. There are some smaller reasons such as the fact that there's not a proper victory scoring system like previous civ games had. You don't gain extra points by winning faster. Really the best way to maximize your endgame score is to just max our your pop in your cities. This creates a situation where once you've achieved your primary goal of securing a future victory, you don't really have anything else to work towards. At least in previous civ games you could see a benefit in pressing to win faster to get that high score.

    Another small reason is the lack of a proper city automation system. The building queue helps, but being able to simply hand control over some of your cities to the AI reduces the amount of tedious things you had to do between turns in the late game. That was in old civ games and isn't now.

    Aside from just giving you more motivation to finish the game and more tools to automate stuff late game, they could also introduce mechanics that involve internal strife to the game. So what if you're the world's superpower if in-fighting and unrest have become the biggest threat to your victory? As long as there's some threat to your victory, the late game doesn't feel completely dead. This is risky though because it could instead make the late game feel even more tedious if it's not implemented in a fun and compelling way.

    Ultimately, I'm not sure what they should do though. For me, it's the late game features they've added that make me like the late game less. Instead of simply winning by launching your spaceship, now you have to wait for it to land. Instead of winning in the information era, I have to go through the future era.

    Maybe your ideology idea helps or maybe it's just one more unnecessary chore in making the late game feel even more bogged down when you already know you've won.
     
    679x likes this.
  12. criZp

    criZp Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,800
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    You have gratitude towards people who take your money? I sure don't. The only reason people "whine", as you call it, is because they care about the game and want it to be the best possible, something the devs are making sure it isn't.

    More doesn't mean better. The future era is terrible with nothing cool unlocking, just stuff you need to build for the space victory and some generic policy cards. Religion in civ 6 is just domination except only four units throughout the entire game. Culture is a total mess involving a hidden formula and a yield that does nothing except fill a win meter. It's just poorly executed filler.
     
    Elhoim likes this.
  13. 8housesofelixir

    8housesofelixir King

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    948
    Totally agree. I feel like Trade Route is probably the most fun minigame within the current mechanism (besides good old planning out districts). It is not perfect (for instance, AI usually don't know how to make the most out of their traders as they basically run a closed economy), but it is enough.

    It can be a good point of reference of how to synergize different and even hidden mechanics.
     
  14. gunnergoz

    gunnergoz Cat Herder

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,287
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southern California
    My 2 bits is that this is it for Civ 6 and that the bulk of the developers are focused on Civ VII. I am encouraged by the innovations I've seen in the upcoming Humankind game and hope that Firaxis will be looking at it for potential inspiration. One of my frustrations with Civ as a series and 6 as its culmination to date, is that there is really no "culture." Yes, there are flavors of leadership and of government, and you can perhaps touch it up with policies and religious tenets, but none of those things pertain to the little people that are supposed to populate these nations. I have little sense of who they are, in the collective sense. I'd like to see some effort placed on designing cultures and perhaps evolving them over time, overlaying other immigrant/invading cultures into them, shaping them with laws and social norms that the player can come up with as the game progresses. I'm not sure I'm conveying my vision and desires well with these words, but that is what I'd like to see Civ evolve towards: a game that defines what makes civilizations great: that combination of leaders, ideas, and people, particularly people's culture and all that culture implies: tradition, character, values, quirks, even intangibles like superstitions and myths.
     
  15. Stilgar08

    Stilgar08 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,478
    Location:
    Zeven, Germany (Lower Saxony ;)
    That doesn't do anything for console players. I don't know how impactful that is but I believe that is one of the reasons moddability has suffered compared to Civ 5...
    A third expansion would be most welcome. Or a smaller approach for filling the gaps... I'm all with @acluewithout on this one...

    Absolutely right. That is the problem why I don't see another expansion. Civ 6 is packed, maybe even overloaded and what Civfanatics are looking for is filling the gaps and solving the existing problems...
    But from a sales and marketing point of view that might not be sexy enough to push sales... I hope I'm wrong though.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  16. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,638
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you please explain more detailed what you would like to see here. A Civ 3 that includes the successes of Civ IV - VI and avoids the failures of Civ IV - VI ??
     
  17. MrRadar

    MrRadar Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,464
    Wouldn't that break with the tradition of having a different lead for each new entry?

    I'd be leaning to a guess that Ed is either working on the Third Expansion (hallelujah), or is as good as retired to work on some board games, for example, and Anton, as future lead of VII (which is a long long time in the future, as they can keep adding civs to VI for quite a while), uses "his" expansions and NFP as a testbed for his ideas of what might work in VII.
     
  18. c4c6

    c4c6 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    438
    where he does vanilla & 2nd, while a new prince gets his feet wet on 1st exp

    Yeah! I'd suggest a new class of Civs, which are not playable, but for collectors look great in the setup screens and are a big enrichment in elimination games ... :D
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2020
  19. pokiehl

    pokiehl Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,158
    The extended development cycle also goes against tradition, no? And there's no indication Ed is retiring...
     
  20. criZp

    criZp Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,800
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    No stopping them from taking the most popular mods, and other ones that are otherwise good in their opinion, and publishing as a free collection update on consoles.
     

Share This Page