Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Bibor, Aug 15, 2016.
I don't think that's actually necessary. Always consider the source.
That would be fitting. Again, consider the source.
Unrelated, I just realized how little interest I have in picking up the next Civ title.
Civ4 is about a decade that way <-----------------
4X is now all about the tactical variation (ie the RNG elements which wreck your strategic planning). Really, it's consuming the larger strategy genre. I've been playing a bunch of Total War: Warhammer lately, and their devs made many of the same mistakes.
You seem to understand that the Civ4 approach, embracing the strategic side of the game, was the superior option. What the community thrives on is sharing strategy. Undermining strategy with empty RNG mechanics only serves to undermine the community. This website might be the greatest testament to how misguided the current design trends are.
you're talking about civ 5 my man
in any case your idea of what a game should play like is, again, personal opinion not self-evident truth. your entire argument comes from this point: "Lacking any need for motoric skills, Civilization games are games for the mind." which is completely meaningless. there is no real systematic development of this point, we are just expected to believe it.
"Mind games are, by default, based on decisions (choices)."
what? you just previously stated that mind games are 'by default lacking motoric skills'. are there no decisions to be made in motoric-based games? there is no logical connection between these points, just some sort of feeling that they are connected. this is lazy thinking. maybe you've been playing civ 5 too much -- that would also explain why you can't separate 5 and 6 in your mind. you conflate the two out of intellectual laziness then wonder why no one can follow what you're saying.
Out of curiosity, is Civ6 radically different from Civ5? Because anything less probably won't be enough. If it's only slightly different from Civ5, it'll still be the same generic 4X mess that Civ5 was. Probably will be as poorly optimized, at that. And always-on DRM care of Steam, no less.
Can't say if he likes Civ, but he does like the CivFanatics off-topic forum.
I'll happily be eating this mod action.
My understanding is that their main goal is to force more active planning. The eureka system is intended to encourage extra thought into your decisions, though I highly suspect it will become routine within the first few months as it become clear which techs the eurekas are worth going out of your way for. The spreading out of cities (with wonders and districts occupying individual tiles) should increase opportunity costs in a way that is reactive to the rng terrain, so I'm more optimistic about that. But those are the two mechanically fundamental changes.
Gameplay wise I think their current ultimate goal is to lessen those moments in civ 5 where you are just waiting for something to happen, as well as make the game world feel more reactive with the eureka moments and the more visually responsive cities.
tl,dr; The main differences in gameplay will be a little more active thought required, with fewer turns just pressing the 'end turn' button
Then they likely already got it wrong.
There were perfectly viable, community-building strategies in Civ4 which relied heavily on a great deal of passively hitting End Turn.
And when I say community-building, I mean the community spent a great deal of time and effort in discussing and analyzing them. As in, this site was really active, over a strategy which relied heavily on hitting End Turn.
That takes some real development skill.
Thanks for the reponse, at any rate. Sounds like they're making an effort to at least put some curtains on Civ5 before repackaging it as Civ6. Clearly, there are a bunch of mechanics I need to read up on, because I could barely make heads or tails from your response (given how unfamiliar I am with Civ6).
Could swear Shaffer was trying to do the same thing. It did not end well, at all.
systematic is correct
You are correct, sir. I read that in the wrong way.
Indeed. If you're looking for a return to civ 4 I'm highly pessimistic of civ 6 satisfying you. I don't expect a paradigm shift from what I've read.
To expand on the two changes I've mentioned.
Eureka moments are boosts to tech research (about 40%) based off your actions in the game. Settling next to the coast gives a boost to sailing; Building a wonder gives a boost to Architecture, etc. My expectation is that this will be initially fun until a meta emerges saying 'Machinery is not worth it, but you MUST get education'.
Cities now consist of a City Centre and Districts. Districts are similar to improvement built by a city rather than a worker, specialising in specific yields (Science, Productio, Faith, etc) and a required to produce their respective building chains. Wonders likewise also occupy a tile (wonders often have very specific requirements. Stonehenge needs flatland next to stone). Both will often produce yields in amounts that react to the terrain and structures around it. This introduces opportunity costs in a degree that does not really exist in civ 5, and the specifics will vary from map to map, so like I said, I'm more optimistic about this latter change.
Thank you, very much.
I agree with your assessment. Sounds like a novelty mechanic, which will eventually be reduced to one or two "correct" choices. Though even two choices would be an acceptable improvement over Civ5, frankly.
Could be fun, likely falls flat on its face. Oh well, if it's mainly associated with improvements and wonders, you can always build the improvements, and on harder difficulties, the AI will always build the wonder one turn before you, so the fact that optimal gameplay pushes you away from building virtually any wonders isn't really a big deal.
Still, that sounds like alot of development effort focused on a (relatively) gameplay neutral mechanic.
Nares, it really sounds like you're asking for a completely different type of game here. You seem to want a game that promotes meta development. Where the REAL game is figuring out how the game works, but at a level so complex that it must be done through a community of people outside the game.
That's fine, its just not what I want. I want MY choices to affect the game, not the choices other people suggested. I want to figure out how to play the game myself, not contribute one small part and have other people build off of it.
And even if I did want that, I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to assume it is inherently better game design. Its just different.
And as for the Eurekas, I'm sure they can be figured out fairly quickly, but that doesn't mean all of the opportunity costs for getting those Eurekas will be figured out quickly. And even then, some of the Eurekas will be occasionally impossible to get, and you'll have to create a completely new plan. That will probably happen rarely enough that it will take awhile to solve those puzzles.
And maybe you wouldn't get bored of it so quickly if you didn't use the community to hive-mind a solution. Take the time to figure it out yourself, and you'll have many more hours of enjoyment.
I kinda get what Bibor is saying?? Maybe not? not sure.
The 5 victory conditions either feel like they're either too hard or too easy to achieve as most of them don't require heavy conflict with others (aside from domination of course).
Anyways, I do feel that there is a lack of meaningful choice in civ 5, which I hope are corrected in civ 6. Lots of which stem from broken exponential cycles or perhaps better named positive feedback loops.
Some prominent broken cycles are:
War and the production cycle. More cities mean more production, which mean you get more units which allows you to attain more cities. Happiness curtails it a bit. But even worse, typically you don't need to replace units or "repair" them with production. And unsurprisingly if you start off with more production your larger army is more likely to have units survive versus a smaller one. So every turn the warmonger just becomes stronger over time over the weaker one, as it accumulates units.
I really don't think they fixed this one in civ 6. Really wish repairing would cost something...
Science. I think this one is pretty obvious. More science => better buildings/bonuses => more science.
Thankfully they've mitigated this one with the culture/science split.
Also regarding the randomness factor. I think whats more needed isn't "randomness" itself but RISK! There's really not much risk and it hurts the game. That's why culture, science, and diplomatic victory are usually so boring. There's little risk typically. Its just add a building or wait until spaceship launches at X turns.
And its also why the few areas of risk in the game are so much fun! Like when you build a wonder and hope on the last few turns no one else builds it before you. Or go mad when someone else steals it away from you. Sure sometimes the other victories will be hectic, but that's the exception not the norm.
Anyways I think I kinda veered off topic..., but might as well make you guys read it.
Also I'm honoustly wondering in how far you've actually followed the devs in their promotiontalks of the game.
Civ VI appears to be full of meaningful decisions: districts, eureka's, trade routes (which can often be incentives to war for the AI), the depowerment of science with the introduction of culture tree, religion and the religious victory, governments, civs with more uniques than ever. Need I go on?
No no no.... worst idea ever.
I mean just look at the ideas and suggestions sub forum. Its completely void of people replying. It sounds kinda good to separate topics subforums but then no one ever checks the other subforums. And then no one posts in it leading to a death spiral of activity.
Besides, he does raise some issues (though his ability at conveying ideas could be better) and isn't just saying "CIV IS BAD" over and over again.
I'd rather have a few divisive threads than many threads all saying "how utterly good civ is" rather than pointing out some flaws.
Not really sure if you're talking to me?? But I didn't mean to list every single positive change made in civ 6. Just listing out some flaws I saw with civ 5.
From Gamespot interview:
Senior gameplay designer Anton Strenger: In Civilization V, we noticed though that players started to fall into certain patterns, especially more experienced players. I think a lot of them had certain routines that they fell into, like "I'm always going to try to build the Great Library wonder, or I'm going to try to research this technology path every single time."
So, starting very early on from Civilization VI, we thought about ways to mix things up and have players think on their feet more. And a large part of that were these two big design pillars of unstacking the cities and of active research.
If I'm not articulate enough, take Anton Strenger's words. However, Unstacking cities is *not* the solution to the problem. It's merely a nudge in the right direction. The same is true for active research. It's a nudge, not a full move in the right direction. If these two "big design pillars" make the game "leave its own legacy", then we differ on the definition of "leaving".
Bibor, Nov 30, 2010, 06:17 PM
I couldnt quote his post because the thread is closed. But i do remember that post and only took 5 min to retreive it. It resumes a bit what he's trying to explain.
And yet you can comment on a game that you haven't played?
Some people really listened to a 3 part podcast from someone who never laid hands on civ vi and seems to have hated civ v ? To then discuss if civ vi will be good or bad ? That s beyond me...
I completely forgot about that post. Holy crap that's almost identical what I am saying today.
Thank you Tabarnak, because I thought I was going crazy here. Notice how reader's reactions were completely different back then.
Separate names with a comma.