[R&F] Next patch?

Improve the poor diplomacy (at least can protect CS)

Nerf either Magnus or harvest yield or harvest pantheon or overflow

More variable era time
 
I hope they speed up the later eras and also give more era points. The moon landing should NOT be ONE era point...

Also some unit balance would be nice.
 
1. I assume they'll fix the bugs in AI behaviour that were found recently (Yeild instead of Yield and that era thing).
2. Hoping they'll increase Golden (and maybe Normal) Age thresholds or maybe make them scale with difficulty.
3. Hoping they'll increase Era Points in the last Eras; some big things like space race things and national parks should really grant more than 1 and 0 era points respectively. In fact I would argue First Moonlanding would be worthy of being a 5 Era Point moment, like first circumnavigation and being the first to meet all other civilizations. First National Park being 3-4 Era Points and later National Parks being 1-2 Era Points wouldn't be bad either, also considering they're quite expensive (seriously, you need to build a seperate Faith economy if you want National Parks).
4. Did they fix the bug where there are far too many support units already?
5. Also more civ-specific balances changes. Imo they've been too light on that in all patches in the past.
 
The might play around with Free Cities a little more - they don't seem to be working quite as intended.

I'd like them to rebalance some Civs, but I'm not hugely hopeful.

In terms of timing, maybe something after Easter?
 
acluewithout said:
The might play around with Free Cities a little more - they don't seem to be working quite as intended.
Click to expand...

Good point. They really need to fix the "capital of Free Cities" bug, which essentially makes a semi-random Free City much 'stronger' than it should be because it gains bonus loyalty.
 
I hope they:

1. Revert the changes to how strategic resources work. You should not be able to produce outdated units in cities without an encampment. Makes upgrading with gold way too easy and doesn't require any sort of planning.
2. The combination of Magnus and overflow broke the game. You can build everything in 1 turn, including wonders. If you only nerf Magnus, people will still abuse him and the overflow mechanic. The mechanic is the real problem!
If it's possible forests/jungles etc. should give a flat amount of production scaled by techs/civics as usual but multipliers from policies should be disregarded. Period. It shouldn't matter what you produce.
 
I hope they'll add a 'victory report' at some point, closing the history timeline. Something along the lines of: "The tremendous success of <insert_victory_condition> ensured <insert_civ_name> a glorious tomorrow". It doesn't need to give any era score, but it'd be a nice touch IMHO.
 
Aspyr's comments when R&F was released on their platforms indicates we will be having another patch for PC at some point. All the patches after vanilla were on around the same day of the month as vanilla came out. So the next patch will probably be around the day of the month that R&F released. And now that the 1 month patch is out of the way, we should be looking at a spring patch. Maybe around April 8th or May 8th.
 
Immediate issues I hope are addressed this patch:
  • Correction of the miscellaneous code issues identified recently, not just the "YEILD" ones but the others that have been raised.
  • Some love for England to offset the excessive nerfing of England since R&F.
  • City State survivability: giving them the same difficulty combat boost as major civs might improve their likelihood of staying independent at higher difficulty levels.
  • Magnus: 100% boost at the first tier is too much, even if chopping is otherwise nerfed.
  • Harvest Pantheon: flat bonus for chopping (+20 faith?) instead of the insane amounts of faith this pantheon provides now.
  • Tweaks to what gives Era Score: digging up artifacts gives way too many point. Space race and national parks give far too few.
  • Difficulty Level Adjustments to Golden Age Thresholds: make Golden Ages harder to get at Immortal/Deity level. Don't adjust Normal Age thresholds, though, so you don't make it too easy to get the Dark Age bonuses :)

Longer term issues I'd like to see fixed, not necessarily in this patch:
  • Air units: So the AI can/will build them and use them regularly in late game combat. AA units, too, while we're at it.
  • Free cities: this whole mechanism needs some work. I'd like to see their state of way against everyone last for a limited number of turns, say 10, after which they get a new status based on how influenced they are by nearby civs. It could be joining their most influential neighbour if sufficiently influenced, else reverting to City State status if they are a former city state, reviving a formerly defeated civ if they were originally from that civ, or else getting a new, neutral City State status that works like current city states but without a special bonus for suzerainty.
  • Balance between chopping/leaving: Ideally I'd rather see this be fixed by boosting the yields of intact resources through new buildings, policies, etc., but if they aren't going to do that, then reduce the rate at which chop yields increase by about 50%. So in other words, leave the initial chop amounts as they are, but have these increase over time at half the rate they currently do.
  • Research rate: I'd leave the current min - max number of turns for game eras, but make ahead-of-era techs/civics cost significantly more than they do now to keep the player's tech closer to the game era. Also give a boost to behind-era techs/civics to help the AI not fall too far behind.
  • Unit upgrading: Currently having one strategic resource, building the old era unit, and upgrading to the modern unit is significantly cheaper than building a new unit. Fixes could include allowing upgrades to the modern unit only if you have two copies of a strategic resource, or if you have only one copy, then require that you be in an Encampment. I'd be fine with making it easier for the AI to upgrade so that this doesn't prevent them from upgrading regularly.
  • Cost of modern units: Even with the above, the game is tilted towards building units early, then keeping them alive and upgrading regularly. That saves a huge amount of production over the course of the game compared to hard building units later. This hurts the AI (who loses more units than humans), the usefulness of Unique Units that aren't part of an upgrade chain, and air units. I'd like to see a system where an investment in infrastructure (Walls, Encampments, Harbours, Aerodromes, augmented by policies) allows you to build a certain number of military units at a significant discount to current costs. Then building units above this level goes up to the current costs.
  • Specialists: Population working in the fields get more productive over time. Population working in Factories, Markets, etc. stay at the same level forever. And that level is significantly lower in terms of total yield compared to almost all field tiles. There's a lot of things that could be done here, including increasing Specialist yields based on the number of specialists in that district (so 1 Specialists in an IZ gives 3 production, 2 give 7 production, 3 give 12 production) which would also be a boost for tier 3 buildings. Could also eliminate the ability to mine normal hills, so that you can only mine resources just like you can only mine flatland if it has a resource, as this would reduce the number of powerful field tiles. Could also include policies to benefit Specialists.
  • Loyalty: Would like to see this expanded beyond just being linked to relative population sizes. A link to religion would be logical. Some historical memory of ethnicity would be ideal.
  • More Building Choices: this is firmly in DLC/expansion territory, but I'd like to see more if/or building options for various tiers. And I'd like to see buildings give more varied effects. For example, Workshops give bonuses to iron/copper/stone resources in the city while a new Woodworker building gives bonuses to old growth forests and jungles in the city. Or instead of just the Hanger giving a boost to air units, you could instead build a Passenger Terminal to generate tourism/gold.
 
Trav'ling Canuck said:
Research rate: I'd leave the current min - max number of turns for game eras, but make ahead-of-era techs/civics cost significantly more than they do now to keep the player's tech closer to the game era. Also give a boost to behind-era techs/civics to help the AI not fall too far behind.
Click to expand...

In my experience (at least Emperor, typically Immortal and Deity) AI doesn't fall behind, but stays even with Era or even gets ahead. I also feel like it's mostly techs post-Renaissance being too cheap, so maybe they should just increase the exponential scaling costs through the tech tree some more.

Trav'ling Canuck said:
Cost of modern units: Even with the above, the game is tilted towards building units early, then keeping them alive and upgrading regularly. That saves a huge amount of production over the course of the game compared to hard building units later. This hurts the AI (who loses more units than humans), the usefulness of Unique Units that aren't part of an upgrade chain, and air units. I'd like to see a system where an investment in infrastructure (Walls, Encampments, Harbours, Aerodromes, augmented by policies) allows you to build a certain number of military units at a significant discount to current costs. Then building units above this level goes up to the current costs.
Click to expand...

I think that isn't even the point. Firaxis have, for Civilization VI, chosen to go with very formulaic production costs (all costs are based directly on the point in the tech/civic tree the buildings and units are to be found) and it just isn't working out. Production costs scale too hard into the endgame and do not properly take into account the exact strength of items you're building, as well as not providing enough variation. I would say, drop the production cost formula and just examine every single unit and building and give them their own cost that feels appropriate. Oh, and reduce district building costs some more while they're at it, or maybe (but that's more of an "improving for Civ VII" kind of thing) make districts be 1-turn build choices that by themselves do not do anything except reserve the spot for buildings, and include adjacency yields (as well as normal yields) in those buildings.

Trav'ling Canuck said:
Could also eliminate the ability to mine normal hills, so that you can only mine resources just like you can only mine flatland if it has a resource, as this would reduce the number of powerful field tiles.
Click to expand...

Very much disagreed here. If you cannot mine normal hills, they're useless until you can build farms on them. Also, the high power that mined hills have in this game is also caused at least in part by the high production costs later in the game.

You got a bunch of very good points though, it's just that good points don't make me want to quote it and give my own thoughts. :)
 
Leyrann said:
Very much disagreed here. If you cannot mine normal hills, they're useless until you can build farms on them.
Click to expand...

Starting off, flat grassland with a farm is 3 food. Plains with a farm is 2 food, 1 hammer. Normal hills will still match the total yield of starting flat land after it's been improved with a farm, so I don't think they'd be useless. If there's a forest on the normal hill, it would be 1 hammer better still. So hills would still be your best starting location, which I find very odd. Civilizations generally started on flat lands adjacent to navigable (and irrigable) rivers. Hills shouldn't be the ideal start position they are in the current game. Even with this nerf you'd still want to start in hills, it just wouldn't be quite as overpowered as it is now.


Leyrann said:
Also, the high power that mined hills have in this game is also caused at least in part by the high production costs later in the game.
Click to expand...

Very much agree that taking mines away from normal hills would need to be accompanied by compensating changes elsewhere. My preference would be to see a boost to specialists in Industrial Zones and a boost to resources that are left intact and not chopped.​
 
Trav'ling Canuck said:
Starting off, flat grassland with a farm is 3 food. Plains with a farm is 2 food, 1 hammer. Normal hills will still match the total yield of starting flat land after it's been improved with a farm, so I don't think they'd be useless. If there's a forest on the normal hill, it would be 1 hammer better still. So hills would still be your best starting location, which I find very odd. Civilizations generally started on flat lands adjacent to navigable (and irrigable) rivers. Hills shouldn't be the ideal start position they are in the current game. Even with this nerf you'd still want to start in hills, it just wouldn't be quite as overpowered as it is now.
Click to expand...

While you can argue long or short about whether the system of hills just granting straight +1 production is good for the game or not, leaving half of the tiles in the game unimprovable for the first half and only improvable with the most common improvement for the second half just isn't good for diversity.
 
Leyrann said:
While you can argue long or short about whether the system of hills just granting straight +1 production is good for the game or not, leaving half of the tiles in the game unimprovable for the first half and only improvable with the most common improvement for the second half just isn't good for diversity.
Click to expand...

We'll just have to disagree here. What do you get when you put a farm on a plains tile? A grassland hill. Hills basically come pre-improved. Diversity in civ 6 comes from your mix of tiles with resources. In past civ games, the diversity came from your mix of grassland, plains, and hills surrounding terrain, but that's out the window in the current system since hills trump flatland for everything except the placement of certain wonders.
 
Just played 2 games with straight golden ages the entire time. Ive had 1 dark age playing Immortal/Deity since R&F released. They need to scale the era points big time. Normal age feels like a dark age and dark ages are simply unheard of
 
Trav'ling Canuck said:
Immediate issues I hope are addressed this patch:
  • Correction of the miscellaneous code issues identified recently, not just the "YEILD" ones but the others that have been raised.
  • Some love for England to offset the excessive nerfing of England since R&F.
  • City State survivability: giving them the same difficulty combat boost as major civs might improve their likelihood of staying independent at higher difficulty levels.
  • Magnus: 100% boost at the first tier is too much, even if chopping is otherwise nerfed.
  • Harvest Pantheon: flat bonus for chopping (+20 faith?) instead of the insane amounts of faith this pantheon provides now.
  • Tweaks to what gives Era Score: digging up artifacts gives way too many point. Space race and national parks give far too few.
  • Difficulty Level Adjustments to Golden Age Thresholds: make Golden Ages harder to get at Immortal/Deity level. Don't adjust Normal Age thresholds, though, so you don't make it too easy to get the Dark Age bonuses :)

Longer term issues I'd like to see fixed, not necessarily in this patch:
  • Air units: So the AI can/will build them and use them regularly in late game combat. AA units, too, while we're at it.
  • Free cities: this whole mechanism needs some work. I'd like to see their state of way against everyone last for a limited number of turns, say 10, after which they get a new status based on how influenced they are by nearby civs. It could be joining their most influential neighbour if sufficiently influenced, else reverting to City State status if they are a former city state, reviving a formerly defeated civ if they were originally from that civ, or else getting a new, neutral City State status that works like current city states but without a special bonus for suzerainty.
  • Balance between chopping/leaving: Ideally I'd rather see this be fixed by boosting the yields of intact resources through new buildings, policies, etc., but if they aren't going to do that, then reduce the rate at which chop yields increase by about 50%. So in other words, leave the initial chop amounts as they are, but have these increase over time at half the rate they currently do.
  • Research rate: I'd leave the current min - max number of turns for game eras, but make ahead-of-era techs/civics cost significantly more than they do now to keep the player's tech closer to the game era. Also give a boost to behind-era techs/civics to help the AI not fall too far behind.
  • Unit upgrading: Currently having one strategic resource, building the old era unit, and upgrading to the modern unit is significantly cheaper than building a new unit. Fixes could include allowing upgrades to the modern unit only if you have two copies of a strategic resource, or if you have only one copy, then require that you be in an Encampment. I'd be fine with making it easier for the AI to upgrade so that this doesn't prevent them from upgrading regularly.
  • Cost of modern units: Even with the above, the game is tilted towards building units early, then keeping them alive and upgrading regularly. That saves a huge amount of production over the course of the game compared to hard building units later. This hurts the AI (who loses more units than humans), the usefulness of Unique Units that aren't part of an upgrade chain, and air units. I'd like to see a system where an investment in infrastructure (Walls, Encampments, Harbours, Aerodromes, augmented by policies) allows you to build a certain number of military units at a significant discount to current costs. Then building units above this level goes up to the current costs.
  • Specialists: Population working in the fields get more productive over time. Population working in Factories, Markets, etc. stay at the same level forever. And that level is significantly lower in terms of total yield compared to almost all field tiles. There's a lot of things that could be done here, including increasing Specialist yields based on the number of specialists in that district (so 1 Specialists in an IZ gives 3 production, 2 give 7 production, 3 give 12 production) which would also be a boost for tier 3 buildings. Could also eliminate the ability to mine normal hills, so that you can only mine resources just like you can only mine flatland if it has a resource, as this would reduce the number of powerful field tiles. Could also include policies to benefit Specialists.
  • Loyalty: Would like to see this expanded beyond just being linked to relative population sizes. A link to religion would be logical. Some historical memory of ethnicity would be ideal.
  • More Building Choices: this is firmly in DLC/expansion territory, but I'd like to see more if/or building options for various tiers. And I'd like to see buildings give more varied effects. For example, Workshops give bonuses to iron/copper/stone resources in the city while a new Woodworker building gives bonuses to old growth forests and jungles in the city. Or instead of just the Hanger giving a boost to air units, you could instead build a Passenger Terminal to generate tourism/gold.
Click to expand...

I wish these were patch notes for the next patch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_J
April Fool's: 2K buys Paradox, Millennia is the "next civ game in development"
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Quintillus
Quintillus
Chiss5618
[LP] May 2023 Update - Patch Notes Discussion
2
Replies
25
Views
6K
Chiss5618
Chiss5618
The_J
Youtube: An archeologist plays Civ, using only archeology for culture victory
Replies
0
Views
358
The_J
The_J
megabearsfan
Polycast episode 428: "Freedom?" is now available on YouTube
Replies
0
Views
358
megabearsfan
megabearsfan
E
Patching Good Old Games version of Colonization
Replies
0
Views
273
eondr
E
Top Bottom