1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Swordsman buff - Why were unique units not buffed as well?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Pietato, Feb 28, 2017.

  1. teks

    teks Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Florida
    Oh, yeah I'm sure this was intentional
    *Rolls eyes*

    Skipping that bait trap, why did swordsmen get a buff anyway? Weren't spearmen in a bad enough spot?
     
    HF22 likes this.
  2. HF22

    HF22 Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    203
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    The idea bugs, or better here unintentional oversights, are epistemologically unknowable is untenable.

    If we have an undocumented change, with unintuitive outcomes contrary to the design principles of the game (here being UUs are better than std units), the operating assumption must be its unintentional.

    As to QA, I'm not arguing about which employee or team is responsible. I'm saying if you don't have a system for catching 2nd level implications of balance changes, you have no business developing a Civ game.

    This was a fact recognised back when Civ 1 was being designed.
     
    TheMeInTeam likes this.
  3. MadDjinn

    MadDjinn Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,554
    Well unless the dev who did it wanders out and tells you, your reasoning is completely flawed that it's not within your power to understand that calling it a bug (find the real definition of that) is wrong.

    Simplest explanation - precisely 1 xml entry was changed. Done on purpose, too small to bother patch noting it.

    I am amused that you somehow believe that you presume to know the design of the game better than the designers. It changes and the people who make those changes are the ones who added this change.

    There is no 'must' wrt assumptions. That's literally running headlong into conflict 'must vs assumption'.

    @tmit I definitely won't argue the QA point. It's been obvious for a while that there's a quality control gap. Who's fault/problem that is happens to be a different discussion.
     
  4. Pietato

    Pietato Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,453
    Location:
    New Zealand
    The point is, that as soon as QA saw the new Swordsman strength, they should have realised the implications. So either they missed it, or it was some last minute change which was not tested.

    As for whether the Swordsman needed this upgrade or not, I believe it did. It was totally outclassed by Horsemen before, and now they have a proper use. The problem is that it was the ONLY unit balance change outside of air units (poor Spearman..).
     
  5. teks

    teks Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Florida
    I was blessed with pattern recognition at a young age and it has allowed me to make this determination without hand-holding.
     
    HF22 likes this.
  6. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,648
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    It's funny how often people see patterns that aren't there.
     
    MadDjinn likes this.
  7. KmDubya

    KmDubya King

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    632
    Location:
    Nong Bua Lam Pha, Thailand
    If this is intended they should give the ability to build non-UU as well as UU. That way Rome could build the cheaper and just as powerful Swordsmen instead of the much more expensive but not any stronger Legion.

    They should make similar strength reductions to all UU for every civ, since the resourceless aspect is deemed so valuable now.

    With the changes both Rome and Kongo will lose against a melee heavy attacker who happens to have iron (Rome loses on cost and Kongo just gets stomped by stronger unit) This seems to fly in the face of how civ is designed.
     
    Craig_Sutter likes this.
  8. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,872
    Location:
    Lucerne
    If commented on Kongo before, and I will say something similar for Rome: The Legion is more expensive, yes. But also much better than a normal swordsman, and that not just because of iron. It might feel cheesy to some players to do this, but when you see an enemy force coming at your legion, just build a fort. It helps a lot (except against range, because then you have to leave the fort). And the fact that you can pillage all you want and then easily repair stuff after conquering without the need to move vulnerable builders around helps, too. It sure isn't the best UU out there, but it's still better than the swordsman, even with the higher price tag.
     
  9. Pietato

    Pietato Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,453
    Location:
    New Zealand
    If I had iron, I would most definitely prefer the new Swordsman as Kongo.
     
  10. CaiusDrewart

    CaiusDrewart King

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2015
    Messages:
    834
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    The Berserker was already a horrifically bad UU. For a laugh, compare it to the Knight in cost and capabilities. And now it's barely better than a swordsman! Yikes.

    And yes, Kongo's UU clearly needs a strength bump and the Legion clearly needs a cost reduction (and maybe a small strength bump--maybe +2 or something). No question.

    Melee units definitely needed a buff though, so it was the right idea even if they screwed up the implementation. Ultimately for this system to work I think they're going to have to crank up infantry to 3 move though.
     
    HF22 likes this.
  11. KmDubya

    KmDubya King

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    632
    Location:
    Nong Bua Lam Pha, Thailand
    The ability to build a fort, which has to be in your own territory does not in any way make up for the extra cost to make Legions. Previously it was worth the cost as you had +5 strength but now it is pretty bad.

    Kongo gets +5 strength versus ranged attacks compared to normal Swordsmen and are at a -5 strength deficit against everything else.

    This is obviously a mistake on the part of the QC team and should be fixed via a hotfix patch in short order. We should not have to wait several months to fix their screw up.
     
    HF22 likes this.
  12. Siptah

    Siptah Eternal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,872
    Location:
    Lucerne
    I don't think Firaxis ever did a hot fix for a balance feature.
    As I posted before, there is a chance that they are going through the balancing process like (presumably from my side) before release and try to nail down the standard units in strength and cost and when they've finished that (completely or neighboring era-wise) adjust the UUs to that. Not that I prefer such a course, but it doesn't seem too unlikely a way to go in my opinion.
     
  13. HF22

    HF22 Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    203
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Yes, I know what a UU is supposed to be, and its relationship to standard units. As do the great majority of the player base.

    And indeed the Devs when it occurs to them to considered it, as will be shown when they get around to fixing this unintentional balance mistake.

    Trying to defend the error is silly. They made a boo boo. Its not the first nor the worst. Lets accept that, make enough noise so they are aware of the problem, and move on.
     
    4N4C0ND4 likes this.
  14. Cymsdale

    Cymsdale Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    397
    They ****ed up. Any explanation to the contrary is simply wrong.
     
    gimper42 likes this.
  15. View619

    View619 Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    109
    Gender:
    Male
    To add another strength of uu vs swordsmen, they don't require iron to heal. So while tactical strikes vs enemy iron mines can cripple a swordsmen army, uu armies don't have a resource that they need to protect in order to maintain fighting condition.

    This does look like an oversight though. Probably focus narrowed down to the issue of horsemen being flat out better than swordsmen before.
     
    greygamer and Siptah like this.
  16. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,318
    It also varies significantly developer-to-developer, sometimes even game-to-game and is rarely 100% assignable to a single decision-maker making the "blame" (insofar as there is any) noisy to measure.

    I'm not convinced they intentionally put UU swordsmen weaker than generic ones as a whole given past trends of how they handle UU, but I wouldn't rule it out. There are some past examples of intentionally weaker base strength UU given other bonuses. The cases of legions and Kongo's UU don't fit that profile too well though, especially not legions. So if I had to guess, I'd say "oversight, forgot to change the UUs" is a bit more likely than "intentional", but we won't know for sure until later.

    As for what is "too small", you could easily make a case that notes receiving their own line were less significant, but at least this is a mechanical change that is easy to see otherwise. The worst are the undocumented changes to mechanics that the in-game UI doesn't let you see either, requiring players to re-memorize new information that should never have required memorization in the first place.
     
  17. MadDjinn

    MadDjinn Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,554
    [QUOTE="TheMeInTeam, post: 14674258, member: 136315]
    I'm not convinced they intentionally put UU swordsmen weaker than generic ones as a whole given past trends of how they handle UU, but I wouldn't rule it out. There are some past examples of intentionally weaker base strength UU given other bonuses. The cases of legions and Kongo's UU don't fit that profile too well though, especially not legions. So if I had to guess, I'd say "oversight, forgot to change the UUs" is a bit more likely than "intentional", but we won't know for sure until later.

    As for what is "too small", you could easily make a case that notes receiving their own line were less significant, but at least this is a mechanical change that is easy to see otherwise. The worst are the undocumented changes to mechanics that the in-game UI doesn't let you see either, requiring players to re-memorize new information that should never have required memorization in the first place.[/QUOTE]

    kongos UU has two bonuses that more than make up for the 5 combat strength loss. Since they aren't weak elsewhere, it's ok that they don't have an OP war machine. It actually fits with more flavour this way.

    Legion wise - production costs for u it's need a relook across the board, and clearly the samurai and berserker are far worse off atm. So yeah, the legion gets forts two eras ahead of everyone else. That is clearly worth more than the differencial in cost/strength change.

    As per units more generally being treated? How about introducing battering rams and siege towers, but then at the same time allowing archers to wipe cities anyways? Purely looking at one tiny portion of the unit meta when thinking about how this change affected the game is why some are kneejerking to bug.
     
  18. Cymsdale

    Cymsdale Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    397
    Who cares about the semantics of "bug"? A boneheaded design decision? An overlooked secondary effect of a change? Bad balancing? Incompetence?
     
  19. Janskey

    Janskey Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    359
    Location:
    Finland
    So often that the phenomenon even has it's own name; apophenia.

    Don't know how intentional the change was, but Kongo's UU got relatively stronger, because I've seen the AI actually build ranged units now.
     
  20. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,318
    You have made a decent case for Kongo (it's okay if some UUs are not amazing too). For this one I'm not so sure access to forts are "clearly" worth more than the differential. Them + ignoring iron might though, considering that Rome is pretty strong overall and doesn't need a god tier UU.

    I still suspect oversight if it wasn't in the patch notes though. But like I said, just a guess.

    SP or MP unit meta? Units haven't been balanced in a civ game since...maybe civ 2? Probably not but at least I don't remember the balance back then. 5 more base strength with GG is certainly more daunting against cities in same-era, if you can actually move the glaciers close enough. I'm not sure this is how I would address the ranged spam but we'll see how it plays out. I do like that civ 6 makes you actually defend yourself a little.

    None of those are clear in this case. These are still uniques with some options on otherwise strong civs. It might be an oversight, or it might be intentional.

    If you want to call out Firaxis for incompetence it would be better to go after the pre-alpha UI, not this. This might bring upper-tier civs down to middle-of-the pack, which isn't exactly game-breaking.
     

Share This Page