[GS] June 2019 Patch Details

[WillowBrook]

As to the comments that they were making a 'first pass' at some of these changes, I read that as saying they haven't finished adjusting this patch yet, not that this was a promise of future support.

This patch is set for the PC; nothing will be adjusted in the current patch beyond possible further work on the Mac and Linux versions (but hopefully not!) They asked us, for example, to let them know if we found any issues with the new tooltip for units or had suggestions for improvement; clearly they anticipate at least one more patch.

 

[criZp]

sub 200 vic comments, gimme a break. Can't they share the forum in peace? What have SP players who like the challenge of fast victories done against anyone else. And if the claim is abusing the rules to their benefit, try MP.

they can do whatever in their game, when did I say otherwise?

 

[PhilBowles]

This patch is set for the PC; nothing will be adjusted in the current patch beyond possible further work on the Mac and Linux versions (but hopefully not!) They asked us, for example, to let them know if we found any issues with the new tooltip for units or had suggestions for improvement; clearly they anticipate at least one more patch.

As I said, I fully expect further limited patches, but I don't see those comments as confirming it. We don't know when this patch is due or whether it is yet final, and suggestions that it is seem to be based simply on hope that it will be released ASAP. If they're aiming for a release next Thursday, the turnaround on past projects suggests they'd have time to make adjustments.

Like most stream preview content it could well have been streamed in time to incorporate feedback into the main PC release. The things, like the tooltip, they asked for feedback on are things they showed in full in the stream - they were likely just asking whether anyone watching had requests on things they wanted added to the tooltip.

 

[Gedemon]

As I said, I fully expect further limited patches, but I don't see those comments as confirming it. We don't know when this patch is due or whether it is yet final, and suggestions that it is seem to be based simply on hope that it will be released ASAP. If they're aiming for a release next Thursday, the turnaround on past projects suggests they'd have time to make adjustments.

Like most stream preview content it could well have been streamed in time to incorporate feedback into the main PC release. The things, like the tooltip, they asked for feedback on are things they showed in full in the stream - they were likely just asking whether anyone watching had requests on things they wanted added to the tooltip.

that's very unlikely.

 

[Kwami]

Well yeah, it can be pretty lame, but at least this adds something to that final Dark Age. The alternative would be adding some repeatable era score mechanic (National Parks would be all placed by now).

But the new cards are passive. They don't do anything except make Dark Age better than Normal/Golden Age for winning the game. Which, thematically, sucks.

 

[S1AL]

But the new cards are passive. They don't do anything except make Dark Age better than Normal/Golden Age for winning the game. Which, thematically, sucks.

Normal ages are already worse than Dark Ages in every way except for corner cases involving loyalty.

 

[Ziad]

I think that's intended? The challenge is to aim for a Dark Age or two to get those sweet Heroic Ages.

I can see how that's game-y though. Maybe they should make Dark Age penalties harsher. Not that I ever care about loyalty *laughs in Phoenicia*

 

[criZp]

I think that's intended? The challenge is to aim for a Dark Age or two to get those sweet Heroic Ages.

I can see how that's game-y though. Maybe they should make Dark Age penalties harsher. Not that I ever care about loyalty *laughs in Phoenicia*

it's very silly when the game incentivice you to aim for a dark age instead of a golden age.

bad design, I would call it.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Personally I think they should just get rid of heroic ages. I don't think there should be incentives to go for dark ages. Not sure what to do about the dark age policy cards though. I think they should be mandatory and randomly selected to make a dark age more punishing. And maybe make the downsides more severe

 

[acluewithout]

it's very silly when the game incentivice you to aim for a dark age instead of a golden age.

bad design, I would call it.

Personally I think they should just get rid of heroic ages. I don't think there should be incentives to go for dark ages. Not sure what to do about the dark age policy cards though. I think they should be mandatory and randomly selected to make a dark age more punishing. And maybe make the downsides more severe

I really disagree. Good design is that situationally you do want to hit dark ages, so that ages actually become a strategic consideration rather than just another bucket to fill.

If there are flaws in the current design, it’s that there’s no way to lose era score (which would help you steer towards a dark age if you needed to) and there are no real negatives to golden ages (beyond making era score harder to earn), so golden ages don’t really have much risk / reward.

I really like the new Dark Age cards. It will be very tempting to go Dark later in the game, which will be deliciously evil...

 

[Chocolate Pi]

The main issue with Dark Ages is how wonky it is to actually try and pursue one.

It basically requires you to have memorized a long, undocumented list of era score events and actively play around them--all of which is contrary to normal game goals. Unless the player both has this knowledge and plays in deliberately obtuse ways, they have no control over the system.

I think the Ages system is terrific, but the missing piece is the ability to (even just sometimes) choose whether you want Era score or a different, minor, alternative benefit. ("You circumnavigated the world first! Do you want +5 Era Score, or +250 gold?")


Dark Age policies make a lot of sense as comeback strategies, "things a civ wants when they are on the backfoot"; I am not sure it makes sense to incentivize Dark Ages as a direct path to a victory condition.

Edit: I'll point out though that this isn't all that new--Robber Barons was always very potent.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I also don't like that normal and dark ages have the same dedications. Perhaps the dark age ones should be the same in terms of getting era score but also come with a downside, in order to stop dark age metagaming, but also aid recovery.

For example the "+1 era score each time you complete a trade route" could have the dark side malus of "trade routes can only go 75% as far as usual" or something (which actually would encourage taking shorter, faster routes, making it easier to get era score).

I'm sure it'd be hard to come up with a double edged thing for each dedication though.

 

[acluewithout]

I don’t think it would take much for Dedications to be a bit more “wow”. Same for a few other things, like the Government Plaza and GP Buildings.

 

[tab]

Would anyone summarize the changes in a single post or has it been posted somewhere? Just to see if we missed anything

 

[blackcatatonic]

I've always found Dark Ages to be nowhere near punishing enough. I don't really have a problem with the Dark Age > Heroic Age slingshot but it should be harder to achieve, and feel both like a very risky strategy and like a real coup when you manage to pull it off. I have never once achieved a Normal Age instead of a Dark Age and felt anything other than disappointment or frustration, when really that should elicit a feeling of "whew! we made it, pixel people!"

The main issue with Dark Ages is how wonky it is to actually try and pursue one.

It basically requires you to have memorized a long, undocumented list of era score events and actively play around them--all of which is contrary to normal game goals. Unless the player both has this knowledge and plays in deliberately obtuse ways, they have no control over the system.

I think the Ages system is terrific, but the missing piece is the ability to (even just sometimes) choose whether you want Era score or a different, minor, alternative benefit. ("You circumnavigated the world first! Do you want +5 Era Score, or +250 gold?").

This is very true. In my current game I was trying to engineer a Classical Dark Age since I had a weak start and I knew I wouldn't reach the threshold for Golden, but I kept being undone* by triggering events close to the end of the era that are so rare for me that I'd never triggered them before - stumbling upon a continent that no-one had ever seen before gave a whopping 4 era score, then finding a Natural Wonder first, and so on. I ended up having to delay placing my campus because the adjacency would have been high enough to trigger the one-off bonus for your first high-adjacency district of that type.

* Yes, I reloaded. So sue me

 

[Ziad]

The main issue with Dark Ages is how wonky it is to actually try and pursue one.

It basically requires you to have memorized a long, undocumented list of era score events and actively play around them--all of which is contrary to normal game goals. Unless the player both has this knowledge and plays in deliberately obtuse ways, they have no control over the system.

I can definitely agree with this.

I've always thought that there should be policy cards that you can use in Normal Ages that REDUCE your era score. This way you can only afford to use them if you want to control when you enter a Dark Age at the risk of reducing what amounts to a finite number of possible age points in a game.

A possible implementation might involving making Dark Age cards available in Normal Ages at reduced strength while having them decrease Era Score. I believe JFD's mod does this.

It might make Normal Ages a little more interesting too.

Alternatively, maybe make dedications optional, but that would make Normal Ages more uneventful.

 

[criZp]

I really disagree. Good design is that situationally you do want to hit dark ages, so that ages actually become a strategic consideration rather than just another bucket to fill.

ok, so what is the incentive to go for normal ages then?

 

[acluewithout]

ok, so what is the incentive to go for normal ages then?

Dark Ages and Golden Ages would just give you different things.

Golden Ages give you better loyalty and a dedication that gives you something. Maybe there would be a small negative, but still overall strong.

Dark Ages would also give you advantages, but maybe more situational. But less loyalty, and a bigger negative.

Isn’t that basically the model now? Golden Ages are mostly gravy, but they do make it more likely you’ll get a Dark Age - so there is some risk reward. Dark Ages clearly give you negatives but also bonuses (Dark Age cards).

 

[Haig]

I think during a Dark Age you should be forced to pick one Dark Age policy card.

 

[acluewithout]

I think during a Dark Age you should be forced to pick one Dark Age policy card.

That sounds messy and micro. How would it even work if you’re still in Chiefdom and don’t have a Wild Card slot.

I like the idea of having to take some negative in a Dark Age. But then make it part of the Dedication.