[NFP] October Update Video Thread

[Wielki Hegemon]

As I have written above. More buildings in early Neighborhoods. Buildings providing varied income (science, production, culture etc.)
Plus more tools that would make a return on investment in more cities with one needed specialty district not so dominant strategy.
Something like this:
City Planning Extra yields from buildings in Neighborhood + 50% if City has at least 15 population + 50% if City has at least 4 housing

 

[Time Tested]

Does population above 10 really do nothing? What about loyalty pressure, for instance?

Don't know about the specific code behind it, but pop size definitely increases loyalty pressure (1 base loyalty pressure per pop in a normal age). I'm not a min/maxer by any means, but something that keeps me engaged in the late game is actually trying hard to boost my pop in border cities and running Breads and Circuses to try and flip enemy cities without going to war.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Don't know about the specific code behind it, but pop size definitely increases loyalty pressure (1 base loyalty pressure per pop in a normal age). I'm not a min/maxer by any means, but something that keeps me engaged in the late game is actually trying hard to boost my pop in border cities and running Breads and Circuses to try and flip enemy cities without going to war.

I mean, more pop does do SOMETHING, but the returns for the investment really drop off beyond 10 in most cases. It's not that it's worthless to get 30 pop cities, but the benefits aren't that large. Compare with Civ V, where you'd just get straight "more people = more science" from libraries (libraries, which are cheap and don't require an expensive district for either)

 

[UWHabs]

I mean, more pop does do SOMETHING, but the returns for the investment really drop off beyond 10 in most cases. It's not that it's worthless to get 30 pop cities, but the benefits aren't that large. Compare with Civ V, where you'd just get straight "more people = more science" from libraries (libraries, which are cheap and don't require an expensive district for either)

Yeah, the big flaws too are that if you grow too tall, you usually run into amenity issues. Plus, generally speaking, the bigger you grow, the less valuable those last few citizens are. So depending on your goals, the first 7-10 pop can work the fields and mines to give you base yields, and then you probably don't mind a few citizens working campus slots or something, but after that you probably have citizens working either unimproved tiles or less desirable citizen slots. There's no benefit to grow an extra pop if all he's doing if working a random water tile or being placed in a shrine, and could be negative value if it drops your city from being happy to only being content, since you lose the boost to yields at that point.

 

[oSiyeza]

Are we talking now about civ VII? We may not have a civ VII functional game in other 5 or 6 years, even if they are planing it already, which is the best case scenario, and there is no warranty that it will be better than this one.

Personally, I will not be waiting for a game that we may never get.

 

[The Civs 6]

Civilization VI was a half-baked game turned into a good game, not a great one.
Now it's turning into a platform for minigames.
Whatever Firaxis' vision for the future, it definitely includes me not participating.

Mini-games and meme additions like rock bands, ski resorts and forest fires. A solidly good game, not a great one. Certainly not a great value game in comparison to other options on the market.

Just to add context to this opinion, I have been playing a lot more Civ IV lately than Civ VI (and I have over 200+ hours on both games). At least I am more tempted to play VI than V. To give VI credit it added a lot of gameplay options to what now looks like a very stale game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Mini-games and meme additions like rock bands, ski resorts and forest fires. A solidly good game, not a great one. Certainly not a great value game in comparison to other options on the market.

Are forest fires considered memes? In that case let's meme in earthquakes!

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Earthquakes would be a terrible and unfun mechanic. Just a random event you cannot play around it. You will be hard punished, but what would be a benefit of them? Of cause people want earthquakes because they think it's fun and "realistic" but if they will get it suddenly everyone would realize how bad it is. Just like world congress and diplomatic victory.
And unfortunately, this kind of request is a very tasty bite for devs. Easy to do, fun demanded, but overall bad and unfun for the game. This is a very easy and tempting way for developers, but also very dangerous. Please Firaxis do not follow this path

The best feedback we can give is saying what is unfun in the current game. Let's keep it that way and let them figure out how to solve it. Demanding certain content is good when it comes to the Civs. That's all

 

[UWHabs]

Earthquakes would be a terrible and unfun mechanic. Just a random event you cannot play around it. You will be hard punished, but what would be a benefit of them? Of cause people want earthquakes because they think it's fun and "realistic" but if they will get it suddenly everyone would realize how bad it is. Just like world congress and diplomatic victory.
And unfortunately, this kind of request is a very tasty bite for devs. Easy to do, fun demanded, but overall bad and unfun for the game. This is a very easy and tempting way for developers, but also very dangerous. Please Firaxis do not follow this path

The best feedback we can give is saying what is unfun in the current game. Let's keep it that way and let them figure out how to solve it. Demanding certain content is good when it comes to the Civs. That's all

You could tie earthquakes to geothermals, so that an earthquake hits a fissure pillaging/destroying everything around it, but increasing yields on the fissure itself, if you wanted a "positive" impact. But yeah, having them as a pure negative with no positive effect wouldn't be much fun (which is why they changed hurricanes and blizzards to fertilize tiles to at least give you something positive out of them).

 

[Time Tested]

Earthquakes would be a terrible and unfun mechanic. Just a random event you cannot play around it. You will be hard punished, but what would be a benefit of them? Of cause people want earthquakes because they think it's fun and "realistic" but if they will get it suddenly everyone would realize how bad it is. Just like world congress and diplomatic victory.

I think disasters are good mechanic because they increase the challenge, especially if it causes a major setback. I had a recent game where I was going for a science victory and a massive sandstorm caused by climate change hit my production powerhouse late in the game and killed off a lot of population, production, districts, improvements, etc. It was an "all hands on deck" situation to get everything restored in the right order and it took me a dozen turns to do so. Yes, it's frustrating when this happens, but a unknowable event that requires action obviously does drive a strategic response. My only real issue with disasters is the UI issue that you can't always tell what was damaged, esp if it completely removes an improvement.

I don't think we really need more disaster types, but I also don't think it would be unfun.

 

[Kmart_Elvis]

So they mentioned balance tweaks for the first two DLC packs, which are Maya + Gran Colombia and Ethiopia + Secret Societies.

We know GC is getting nerfed, as per Kevin, and that's fine, I think everyone is in agreement that it's long overdue.

I'm hoping they give another look at Maya's maluses, particularly the malus towards settling outside the six tile radius. I know it's part of the design to get players to bunch up their cities, but there is currently a carrot-and-stick approach, and all they really need is a carrot. Just give the bonus to cities within six tiles, but drop the malus. That will open up Maya to being able to be a domination civ. Science civs naturally go hand in hand with domination, but Maya are uniquely punished by having their captured cities suffer permanent penalties. That alone caused them to be rated one of the worst civs for Dom in an elimination thread. As of now, they're pretty much only good for science, which is boring because they only have one strong route to victory. Also maybe they can go a little easier on their housing problem. Maybe make it coastal housing equivalent. They're already a tricky civ to get off the ground and the #1 civ that requires re-rolls.

Please don't nerf Ethiopia. They're strong but nowhere near OP. They're perfectly fine as they are and one of my favorite civs.

Secret Societies needs a rebalance heavily. Hermetic Order is crying for a buff. A simple, effective fix would be them being able to work their ley lines much sooner. Owls and Vampires seem to be alright where they're at, but they could do with some minor changes. Voidsingers could probably go with a nerf, maybe with their monuments or with the way they generate relics.

 

[CoconutTank]

I personally think Owls and Voids are fine. Owls are pretty good imo and Gilded Vaults being an era late is a fine drawback. The first two Void titles are already super great, and I've never felt compelled to invest into the latter two titles unless I was playing as Eleanor.

I would argue that Vampires are on the slightly weaker side of things. The Vampire units themselves may get crazy strong, but they're easy to contain and mitigate due to being melee and having base 2 movement. Vampire Castles can buff up the capital city a lot, but the benefits go to 1 city only. The airlifting ability comes way too late to be useful. Altogether, Vampire benefits tend to be very concentrated in specific pockets and places, and Vampire units themselves are incredibly boring.

Hermetic Order probably needs a buff, though I'll admit I've played them far less than the other 3 Secret Societies. The other 3 SSes can already do some very powerful things with the first 2 titles as is though, so hopefully the HO will be buffed to a similar state.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You could tie earthquakes to geothermals, so that an earthquake hits a fissure pillaging/destroying everything around it, but increasing yields on the fissure itself, if you wanted a "positive" impact. But yeah, having them as a pure negative with no positive effect wouldn't be much fun (which is why they changed hurricanes and blizzards to fertilize tiles to at least give you something positive out of them).

I like this idea. My initial idea was that they would have an outside purpose instead of just causing catastrophic damage like the ones in Apocalypse Mode.

My initial idea is that they could also reveal hidden resources by possibly changing the landscapes but that might be harder to implement. I think Geothermal fissures would be an excellent place that they could spawn or start.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Just give the bonus to cities within six tiles, but drop the malus. That will open up Maya to being able to be a domination civ.

That will open up Maya to be absolute bonkers This is how they work. I have said that before already. The two things I would improve are. First one: starting bias. They should avoid seas, tundras, and deserts as much as a map type enables. The second thing is the 6 title ratio. This is ok up to the small map. But on Large, Huge and perhaps even a Standard Map Size this range should be slightly increased because on bigger maps you need more cities than on smaller ones. The rest should be left as it is.

EDIT Third thing that comes to my mind is some anti strategic resources RNG catch up mechanic, because they may suffer a lack of aluminium sometimes. Perhaps Trade Routes to City-States provides 1 copy of strategic resource per turn from each improved strategic resource in that City.

 

[oSiyeza]

Earthquakes would be a terrible and unfun mechanic. Just a random event you cannot play around it. You will be hard punished, but what would be a benefit of them? Of cause people want earthquakes because they think it's fun and "realistic" but if they will get it suddenly everyone would realize how bad it is. Just like world congress and diplomatic victory.
And unfortunately, this kind of request is a very tasty bite for devs. Easy to do, fun demanded, but overall bad and unfun for the game. This is a very easy and tempting way for developers, but also very dangerous. Please Firaxis do not follow this path

The best feedback we can give is saying what is unfun in the current game. Let's keep it that way and let them figure out how to solve it. Demanding certain content is good when it comes to the Civs. That's all

Earthquakes would be a bad mechanic if they are done badly.

The only reason why some disasters feel repetitive and unfun is because the repair mechanics Fxs put into the game suck!

For starters, more types of disasters does not mean more disasters. What if tsunamies and earthquakes are rare events that change the geography of the land, breaking continents or flooding some areas?

There is simple no point in saying an abstract mechanic that does not exist needs to be forcefully done in a bad way. They could just add another disaster that increases variety making other disasters less frequent, and the game would already be better for it.

They can add earthquakes as a special disaster that turns down walls for five or ten turns (no repair needed) and it would also create an interesting mechanic...

Honestly, there are a lot of things they can do with disasters, they just did not do it. But that is hardly an excuse to say that cool disaster mechanics are not possible.

 

[UWHabs]

That will open up Maya to be absolute bonkers This is how they work. I have said that before already. The two things I would improve are. First one: starting bias. They should avoid seas, tundras, and deserts as much as a map type enables. The second thing is the 6 title ratio. This is ok up to the small map. But on Large, Huge and perhaps even a Standard Map Size this range should be slightly increased because on bigger maps you need more cities than on smaller ones. The rest should be left as it is.

I think giving them a base housing bonus would be helpful, so treating everything like a coast, would at least not completely destroy the early growth. Yeah, having that radius scale by map size - maybe 6 tiles for small maps, 8 for standard maps, 10 for large maps, etc... would help too. The rest I would say is fine - avoiding tundra or desert would help too, or perhaps adding in a bias for farming resources so they don't get stuck with only mining resources nearby.

 

[8housesofelixir]

That will open up Maya to be absolute bonkers This is how they work. I have said that before already. The two things I would improve are. First one: starting bias. They should avoid seas, tundras, and deserts as much as a map type enables. The second thing is the 6 title ratio. This is ok up to the small map. But on Large, Huge and perhaps even a Standard Map Size this range should be slightly increased because on bigger maps you need more cities than on smaller ones. The rest should be left as it is.
EDIT Third thing that comes to my mind is some anti strategic resources RNG catch up mechanic, because they may suffer a lack of aluminium sometimes. Perhaps Trade Routes to City-States provides 1 copy of strategic resource per turn from each improved strategic resource in that City.

Maya already have a starting bias of Grass tiles, Plain tiles, and a bunch of Grass-based luxuries.

I think give them +3 housing everywhere is adequate enough (currently the no-freshwater situation only give them +2), early growth is crucial for any civs.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

What if tsunamies and earthquakes are rare events that change the geography of the land, breaking continents or flooding some areas?

Probably you would be delighted if they randomly affect the titles with your biggest city

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The rest I would say is fine - avoiding tundra or desert would help too, or perhaps adding in a bias for farming resources so they don't get stuck with only mining resources nearby.

I think having start biases towards only the plantation based luxury resources and farming resources (rice, wheat, maize) instead of the mining luxury resources would work.

 

[oSiyeza]

Probably you would be delighted if they randomly affect the titles with your biggest city

Why do you think I was talking of them affecting any tile? Talking about something that does not exist and asume it would be done badly and therefore is better not to have it is not useful, as you could make the same point about anything just by imaging it will be done in a way that you dont like.

And, I could actually like more a big disaster that ruins my city or even splits a city in two cities, and as a result changes the game in a interesting way but happens rarerly, than pressing repair every 5 turns.

What i would not do is add a new mechanic that is just another mechanic on a pile of mechanics that all do the same thing but really means nothing and just makes the player lose some time in repetitive chores every x turns. Which seems to be one of the recurring ideas of Fxs for the game.