Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by mmenphis, May 7, 2019.
The last 4 have all been the 2kqa_a build. It looks like they are finishing up.
Mac and Linux internal QA branches both updated this morning. If we get no more updates in the next few days, that's a good sign of a patch Soon(TM).
Last patch they put out a preview video 2 workdays prior to the patch. If they do that again, we could see it as early as tomorrow.
The 2kqa_b branch has upgraded two hour ago. Hence I assume patch will not release before next Thursday.
Darn. I was really hoping for it this week.
This week is not completely excluded, but is less likely in light of this update.
Seems like a gargantuan effort just to correctly spell Ballarat and propagate it through all versions.
I hope that there are some other changes too.
Every time I upload something after the first build I think, "Well, this is going to disappoint some Fanatics."
I would like:
Automated builders : Choice between improve luxuries/resources or repair stuff. The weather just adds a bunch of micromanaging.
Modify world congress : E.g. how can a congress decide to get more trade from a religious city for example? Or it costs more to buy with faith or production? How is that enforceable?
For coastal starts - rivers are compulsory - allows extra housing, water mills and better commercial districts. Ability to build harbours on reefs. Units should be able to be based in harbour districts as fortifications.
Make diplomatic wins possible before CV!
Option to request/trade for peace against CS.
Generally, we are looking at the PC updates at this point. We are operating on the assumption that Mac and Linux won't get a patch on the same day as PC.
I'm sure we'll get some diplo victory rebalance, Firaxis can't have missed all the feedback/forum griping (justified!) about how slow it is
As it is, I find DV to be more akin to an Economic Victory than a Diplomatic one. It would be more interesting if there were more aspects to. For example, there could be a diplomatic reward for not being a warmonger and/or a diplomatic penalty for being one. I suppose DV needs a complete rework. But it also has to be able to work in multiplayer. If all it comes down to is other players voting for you, it's not really MP viable. I'm not sure how to introduce a new DV system, but I hope Firaxis is.
As to DV being "money victory" that's kind of true. It was like that in Civ 5 too (even moreso).
I think a good way to get DV points would be arbitraring a peace deal between others, while neutral. Perhaps this could be a world congress emergency, and if you successfully get the parties to negotiate a peace, you get a DV point? This sounds sort of complex to implement, though. And that's the problem... anything I can think of that would be "DV-worthy" would be pretty complex, or something you can make too simple, such as maybe being the host of the UN like in Civ 5, but that's just pure voting.
For me.. a rational way to "fix" DV would involve recognizing dynamic conditions as they develop & re-balanced diplomatic events while re-allocating points as status follows through any given direct interaction (when Peace/War has global repercussions beyond Alliance or lackthereof.. for example).
The problem isn't really located into WC variables but rather shifted by&with AI unstable pre-defined behaviors. Similar in scope as what we had to witness with the Trade/Gold wreck & ridiculous offers/demands. Furthermore.. it's a logical set of parametric weights that simply fail to register under certain situations. Think of it as the AI Hidden Agendas -- we're not supposed to know everything at once.. yet, the AI already has the edge of constant algorithmic truths about worldwide probabilities.
Go right ahead and blame the 'puter lethal egde of almost infinite perfection instead of stacking the deck on whatever bad design decisions within the ruleset. Good luck finding the proper solutions.. that holy grail has been sought for years -- hopelessly.
They've updated the "send to 2K" builds for Mac and Linux. Based on my current theory, they are final approvals. And since we haven't seen the PC qa builds fire in a few days after their flurry of activity last week, I would say it's in the end game.
I don't know that tomorrow is still feasible at this point, but next Tuesday is on the table. And as long as the Mac or Linux qa build doesn't update again (indicating approval was rejected), it will almost certainly be next week.
I hope we someday get a complete overhaul of national parks. It's silly you can't build a national park just anywhere. I mean, the Germans have a national park that's basically "coastal lands" (sandbanks etc), a park that's on hills and forests, the Dutch have a national park that's basically marsh lands, the US has a national park that's mostly desert (Arches), so why can't we do the same in Civ VI?
"Unspoiled" land (aka land that has never been improved) should just get an appeal bonus similar to old-growth forests later. On that note, maybe also decouple appeal and housing from neighbourhoods.
I don’t much care for how they distributed appeal in the game, which greatly affects things like national park placement. In a game where many of the natural wonders are either desert- or jungle-based, appeal is too low for these areas, even though both can be quite beautiful.
I get that the point of the low “appeal” is not so much aesthetics based, but rather the fact that these places are inhospitable to large-scale settlement, but I wish we could decouple appeal from national park placement.
Separate names with a comma.