Thanks to the production team for making changes in a day or so and fooling us fools

[Mahi]

The patch is not of importance at all, that much I can agree on. It may be a "free" update but there's nothing in there that improves the gameplay. It's just unnecessary gimmicks that could have been tweaked in the xml files by the individual user. Although I appreciate an update, this is probably the most boring update I have seen in a while.

 

[sukritact]

The patch is not of importance at all, that much I can agree on. It may be a "free" update but there's nothing in there that improves the gameplay. It's just unnecessary gimmicks that could have been tweaked in the xml files by the individual user. Although I appreciate an update, this is probably the most boring update I have seen in a while.

We're also getting a Natural Wonder Selector and a Random Tech Tree game mode. The Amenity changes ARE lot less exciting than the Belief changes were though, though I don't know if it's fair to say it doesn't improve gameplay. Just because it isn't flashy doesn't mean it's not meaningful.

Also, literally the same thing could be said of the Belief changes in the June Patch. IMHO the Work Ethic changes were a badly thought out idea given how easy it is to make a Holy Site more useful than an Industrial Zone.

 

[oSiyeza]

NGL, reminds me slightly of that Dudley scene from Harry Potter

Like do they need to continuously match or one-up their previous work for you to be satisfied? Maybe they're working on something bigger down the line? I'd give them the benefit of the doubt instead of just saying they're going sloppy.

And like, it's a free content patch every two months, are you really expecting a new brand scenario or whatever with a bunch of bells and whistles every two months? Especially since they're literally GIVING THIS OUT FOR FREE TO EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER BOUGHT THE BASE GAME SINCE 2016?!?!

There are a lot of things to potentially complain about, but not getting a shiny new thing for free should not be on the list.


laughs in modder

Maybe it's true enough for a tiny indie studio, but at mid-size studios it just isn't that simple. I can make art, text and value changes on a whim without having to worry about "Does this break when used in tandem with Y?", "Does this mean I have to get all this text re-translated into a bunch of languages" (and remember that a single change in number can mean that everything has to shift from singular to plural or whatever, so this does matter), "does this mean I need to as the art director to meet with me so we can discuss if we have the manpower to add 3-5 more assets?", "I want to add a reference to Cthulu, so I'll need to contact legal to get that approved."

Modders can get small things done much faster than a whole studio. A studio has more manpower to throw at big tasks, but there's a fair amount of red tape to get through for every change you make, and it adds up.

I don't have to get approval, I don't have to worry about cost in time or money, I don't have to worry about people going "This is OP, plz fix". If I'm collaborating and something is taking too long or isn't to my standards, I can just say "whatever, I'm not dealing with this", and just DIY without worrying about anything more than bruised egos.

I did not say I want the same content. I said releasing a patch without new content after a patch with a lot of new content is dissapointing.

Also I did not say time, I said work. And I was precise enough explaining how the QA would work for a patch, or how the release process is not scaling with the ammount of changes.

While the time required for a small change of a modder is less than the required for the studio. That does not imply more work for the people implementing the change per line of code. Just an overhead for the release. Also if you think modders do not test and improve and rethink and remove bugs you are wrong. They just need to do it in a non efficient non estructured way, that only allows you to save time for small changes, but more often than not, may even require more time to achieve the same quality.

Also changing a 1 for a 2 in a config table. Which is the extend of complexity of the changes in the patch will not interfere with any game systems and does not require meetings with the art director.

If would help if want to express that you disagree with me, that you actually disagree with points I made. Instead of misrepresenting and strawmanning what I wanted to say.

 

[AntSou]

It may be a "free" update but there's nothing in there that improves the gameplay. It's just unnecessary gimmicks that could have been tweaked in the xml files by the individual user.

Just a bunch of contradictions in that statement.

1. The changes to gameplay are the most substantial we've had since GS for the base game. Have you even bothered starting a game?

2. "gimmicks" seems to be the go to word used whenever somebody wants to be critical for the sake of it. You don't need to put any effort into your criticism, just call it gimmick and you're good to go.

3. "could have been tweaked by the individual user" is correct in regards to the Amenity changes, but it does not follow that small changes can't have a large impact on gameplay. And no, the individual user can't make a shuffle tree mode.

 

[sukritact]

Also I dis not say time, I said work.

#TimeIsAnIllusion

Deadlines exist. Time Matters.

I did not say I want the same content. I said releasing a patch without new content after a patch with a lot of new content is dissapointing.

You literally called it lazy and sloppy for not including new content the same way the June patch did.

Also changing a 1 for a 2 in a config table. Which is the extend of complexity of the changes in the patch will not interfere qith any game syatems and does not require for 6 meetings with the art director.

True, but guess what, new content does! So they’d have to deal with all that in addition to the things that do apply to the small minor changes. Getting approval for those changes, playtesting, getting those changes localised, etc.

 

[oSiyeza]

Deadlines exist. Time Matters.

Indeed, so? are timelines more restrictive when realeasing less content?

You literally called it lazy and sloppy for not including new content the same way the June patch did.

I think you missed the context. I critisiced this parch for having no new content, and significantly less care and resources into it than the previous patch. I explained why I think that and I never said I want the same exact amount of content or even implied that. I you did not understand what I wanted to say, I am happy to clarify.

True, but guess what, new content does!

Im not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that that this patch with no new art required more meetings with the art team or other departaments compared with the previous one that had new graphics, voices, network content and so on?

My entire point is that we should not be indulgent with Fxs, as if less work takes more time than more work. Which is implied in most of the justifications i read. And in addition added some context on how using invisible work to justify the lack of visible work in the patch is not reasonable in my opinion in this case.

 

[sukritact]

I direct you to my original comment.

Maybe they're working on something bigger down the line?

They might not have enough time to make as much for the August Patch as they did for the June Patch is what I’m saying. Especially since there was a fair amount of lead up time to them announcing NFP. In which case it’s reasonable for them to release a smaller patch and use the leftover development time towards the next free patch. Less content doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lazy, it might just mean resources are being allocated differently.


It is fair to call this patch disappointing. There IS less stuff. The changes ARE less high-profile. Calling it lazy and sloppy because you’re not getting new content every single patch however honestly comes off as gamer entitlement.

 

[oSiyeza]

They might not have enough time to make as much for the August Patch as they did for the June Patch is what I’m saying. Especially since there was a fair amount of lead up time to them announcing NFP. In which case it’s reasonable for them to release a smaller patch and use for leftover development time towards the next free patch. Less content doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lazy, it might just mean resources are being allocated differently.

You maybe right. All I said is that this patch was dissapointing for me. I think that if true, Fxs should have said something on the matter and be more clear on what we can expect in the future.

 

[AntSou]

You maybe right. All I said is that this patch was dissapointing for me. I think that if true, Fxs should have said something on the matter and be more clear on what we can expect in the future.

I don't feel like I've been misled in regards to the free patches. In fact, I was fully under the impression in the beginning that they would be mainly tweaks to yields, etc, not adding new modes in these patches.

 

[Morgawr]

Perhaps one thing we can agree on is that shuffle mode was the headliner in this month's update but being a game "mode", it has less widespread appeal and thus is more polarizing. It is fascinating that I had the best time of my civ 6 gaming last night and absolutely LOVE this mode and think it's the best thing ever happened to civ6, while others are so disappointed.

Just the give the game a try if you haven't in a while and you may be pleasantly surprised

 

[thecrazyscot]

I don't think anyone here has an issue with being constructively critical of Firaxis and the Civ 6 dev team. Feedback about what does not work and what needs to be addressed is critical in improving the game and hopefully also will inform future titles.

However, I think what many people are reacting to here is that the criticism is not constructive. Constructive criticism has 2 major hallmarks which are missing in most of the negative feedback in this thread (and in most of the negative feedback in general):

1. Specific, actionable suggestions on how to improve the perceived failing
2. Presented in a respectful, encouraging manner rather than an insulting, derogatory manner

If you cannot provide criticism in a way that does not incorporate both #1 and #2, don't be surprised if your feedback is dismissed out of hand.
If you cannot provide criticism in a way that does not personally insult the subject of your criticism, then you need to take a step back and learn how to provide constructive criticism.

Here are examples from this thread which are not constructive:

The insincere August thriller update is meaningless and boring. The person in charge should be criticized.

Problem: attacks developers motivations without knowledge of those motivations, and assumes ill intent without basis.

While the undisclossed changes are potentially interesting, they are also potentially lazy inconsecuential stuff.

Lets be honest, the full patch looks like 2 days of work of an intern...
...
This is not a dramatic reaction or complaining for the sake of it, this is just calling atention to a lazy careless work.

Im not saying changes dont need to be playtested. But they are so small that I dont think they have being tested much. Which I also say based on the observation of how broken were the Aid requests and the volcano activity in the apocalypse mod in the first place, or how broken the DF penalty is, or how useless the sootsayer is. That reinforces my belief in they not using a lot of effort in the new content.

Minimum effort is less than I expect from Fxs, that is all Im saying.

Problem: personally attacks developers and the level of effort they put in without knowledge of how much effort was actually required. Minimum effort would look like a lot less than what we got.

If it is difficult, I believe all fans can understand. However, it is difficult to ignore and put down the self boasting, exaggerating and a certain degree of laziness.

Problem: attacks developers' characters and motivations.

I am in agreement with oSiyeza and the OP. I have to say that the 'balance/polish' is very underwhelming compaired to the changes that got made last summer (also for "free"). I also dont believe content is ever 'free'. It is designed to hype us up, show they care about supporting the game and get more people to buy GS or NFP. This patch fails heavily for me at doing that, and even worse shows me again that they don't understand and/or care for the game. I actually think this might be on purpose at this point, putting in just enough effort to convince people to keep paying for overpriced content, but not too much, after all they dont want to make a finished/polished product, because then we will have less of a reason to buy civ7, very clever I guess...

Overall I think the NFP is overpriced for what we are receiving. I know some people will jump in here and say 'well this is only 1/12 of the content. But we are now 1/3 the way in, and I personally don't think that it is worth 1/3 of the asking price.

I am not whining at all, I really care about the game, that is why I am here. I want the best for the game, I don't think we are getting that, so I am disappointed. That is all

This is an interesting bit of feedback, because it includes valid concerns ("what we got was underwhelming and I'm concerned about the value proposition for what we are getting") with personal insults and ad hominem attacks. Why would you ever assume that the developers of the game (who are self-stated superfans) don't care about the game? And if you think that developers don't want to release the most polished product possible, that shows how little you know about developers in general.

Look, wanting improvement is good. But if you can't provide criticism in a constructive manner, you really should take a step back and learn how to do so. Communicating criticism effectively is a skill that most of us haven't learned very well, and it's worth practicing to help in personal and professional communication. People respond better when they're not personally attacked.

I don't believe you when you say you care about the game if everything you say about the game is derogatory and is just you venting your spleen on the people who are creating this thing you claim you love. Your feedback really should be more than minimum effort...

 

[oSiyeza]

I don't feel like I've been misled in regards to the free patches. In fact, I was fully under the impression in the beginning that they would be mainly tweaks to yields, etc, not adding new modes in these patches.

Well fair enough.

The only thing we have to judge are:

• The advertisement. They told us to expect (literally from the web and video) free patches containing free content including new maps, scenarios, balance changes, quality of life updates among other surprises.
  
• The previous one, that in my opinion was more than generous on quality content.
  
• The price.
  
• The statements of the devs on the videos. Where they use words such as major new features.

I don't consider this to be a scam. But I think is fair to consider the patch underwhelming and lacking in content. Granted expectations may play a role, but I don't think is unreasonable to judge the patch in terms the eexpectations they created.

I would be totally satisfied if they expanded the Natural Wonders filter, to exlude regular wonders or civs or added options to separate intensity and frequency of disasters, or if the balance changes were more substantial or more deep, or if they addresed more bugs...

I just have the impresion delivered the bare minimum when there is so much they could have done.

Im glad many people finds it good enough, But being dissapointed is not being toxic or overreacting. There were legitimate reasons to hold them to a higher standard. And I dont think being called over an oversitive toxic player that wants to ruin the experience for the rest and should leave the comunity is a healthy reaction to funded critizism (which are some of the cool comments I received so far).

Problem: personally attacks developers and the level of effort they put in without knowledge of how much effort was actually required. Minimum effort would look like a lot less than what we got.

When I say that I expected more than minimun effort or when I use the word "they" is not my intention to attack anyone personally. I reffer to the entire company and their decission making, and is not a personal comment on the people, as I think should be clear for the context where I constantly explained that Im talking about a matter of the used resources, and cuting costs. Critizism should not be taken out of context to discredit the critic, when the context and actual meaning is clearly explained in the first place. Regardless, I have no problem in further clarifying that I never doubdted the commintment of the people that works in the game, but the time and resorces Fxs is using in the game right now.

I don't believe you when you say you care about the game

I want to add finally that while I disagree with the emotional mood of the OP, using these personal refferences is equally out of place.

I dont think there is anything else I want to say on the matter.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Finally when I say that I expected more than minimun effort is not my intention to attack the devs. I reffer to the company and their decission making, and is not a personal comment on the devs, as I think should be clear for the context where I constantly explained that Im talking about a matter of the used resources, and cuting costs. Critizism should not be taken out of context to discredit the critic, when the context and actual meaning is clearly explained in the first place.

I dont think there is anything else I want to say on the matter.

Your comments are public record, and the sections that I have highlighted are perfectly in context. If your meaning was different, that's on you to communicate that more clearly. As it is, they stand as personal attacks against the people who put in the work for this patch (i.e. the developers!).

Let me be clear, I don't want you to stop providing feedback! I think you do enjoy and care about the game, and I think your feedback, if presented in a constructive way, would be very helpful!

This is not meant to be patronizing, and I hope it doesn't come across that way, but I wanted to demonstrate how your initial post could have been reworded to be constructively critical rather than insulting and derogatory:

While the undisclossed changes are potentially interesting, they are also potentially lazy inconsecuential stuff minor updates with little impact.

Lets be honest, the full patch looks like 2 days of work of an intern I'm underwhelmed by the contents of this patch based off what was advertised: Change some values in the in the amenity tables, put a small function with a random line in the code for the trees, some minor changes in the UI that add next to nothing and some tuning in some of the broken apocalypse mechanics to make them a bit less broken... Some other number tunning and ready to go.

This was advertised as a meaningful contet update in the season pass, and the team referred to this as having two major features added...

If this is not trying to advertise an empty featureless a minor update as something worth a month of work for a AAA dev team dont know what it is.

It is only more frustrating, because the previous free update (like it or not) added a lot of new content. And it seems they put less and less effort in each subsequent patch of the pass each subsequent patch is smaller and smaller.

This is not a dramatic reaction or complaining for the sake of it, this is just calling atention to a lazy careless work bad expectation management from Firaxis, which could be solved with better communication and more thorough patch notes.

This avoids insulting the effort that the developers put in, clearly communicates the specific failing you are addressing, and suggests a solution to avoid the problem in the future.

 

[oSiyeza]

Your comments are public record, and the sections that I have highlighted are perfectly in context. If your meaning was different, that's on you to communicate that more clearly. As it is, they stand as personal attacks against the people who put in the work for this patch (i.e. the developers!).

I clarified my intentions and the meaning of my words. And I think is quite obvious when Im saying lazy content im not speaking of workers not doing their job but about the ressources and effort the company used.

And you are right, my comments are public record:

I dont care about the ammount of resources they use in other projects when I critisize the lack of resources they use for this one.

If this is not trying to advertise an empty featureless update as something worth a month of work for a AAA dev team

Minimum effort is less than I expect from Fxs, that is all Im saying.

Agree, and I think that despite of using my personal assesment of what is reasonable to expect from a AAA studio that employs hundreds of people.

My critic was based only on the effort and care Fxs is using and the ammount of content.

Overall what concerns me is that I perceive a lack of care, a lack of effort from the company, like they have cut time and resources in many fronts to make the game more profitable, while saying they care and support the game.

I think they provide enough context to gran that Im using "devs" ocasionally to adress in general the dev studio and by extension the people making the decissions on firaxis.

A basic rule of an honest conversation is not to misrepresent or vilify your oponent, and when he clarifies what he means, address what he wants to say instead of undermining his image shaming him for opinions he does not hold.

Of course my post could be more accurately worded, English is my 3rd languaje, but I dont think my words grant at all the interpretation that Im using personal attacks against anybody.

 

[leandrombraz]

If that was the case, we would have had a full expansion released in February 2020. They produce less (that would be fine if modders could fill the gap) but still sell it at the same prize.

I was talking specifically about changes and fixes, patch stuff. The amount of changes we're getting every 3 months is roughly the same.

It's just unnecessary gimmicks that could have been tweaked in the xml files by the individual user.

How many players tweak xml files? Of all the platforms the game was release on, how many even allow you to do that? Whatever modifications players can or can't do by themselves is completely irrelevant, since Firaxis is balancing the game not only to the ones that modify their games in such way, but to everyone. There are players that don't like to change the game, aside from UI and possible fixes (I'm one of those), there are players that don't have access to that, there are players that won't bother to look for such mods and that rely on the experience they find in the game as Firaxis presents it. It's nice that we can tweak numbers and balance it as we see fit, but Firaxis has to care for their own, official balance, which is what the majority of players will experience.

 

[oSiyeza]

There are players that don't like to change the game, aside from UI and possible fixes (I'm one of those)

I dont understand your position.

You think the game is perfect and cannot or should not be improved?

For example, would you be displeased If Fxs dds a vassal system, improves the AI or reduces the repetition in repair mechanics and religious combat, would you oppose more meaningful WC resolutions or additional diplomatic options or spy missons?

Im just curious on your opinion on the state of the game

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This thread either needs to discuss the topic or be closed. It is getting personal. Please address the patch issues, provide constructive criticism or move along.

 

[leandrombraz]

I dont understand your position.

You think the game is perfect and cannot or should not be improved?

No, I enjoy the game more if it has defined rules that I can't change as I see fit. For me, the Devs are the Game Master of the Civ experience. I want to experience the game as designed by them and I have little interest for the experience I or other players can create through mods. For me, "official" has weight and changing it feels like cheating. I'm not saying that it's cheating, btw, just that it feels like cheating, in a personal level.

 

[thecrazyscot]

In the interests of returning to the topic:

I am quite excited by the Tech and Civic Shuffle Mode. I think I will probably end up regularly playing with it, and it can dramatically impact each game in a different way, requiring different approaches to play. I think this is quite a significant change in itself.

The Natural Wonder Picker is not something I'm particularly excited about, but including it shows that Firaxis took player feedback about not being able to turn off mythological wonders into account. I'm hopeful they expand this to include exclusion lists for Civilizations and City-States, as I think those would be more useful and have greater gameplay impact.

The remaining tweaks are modest balance changes, which are always good to see, but aren't significant changes in themselves. I am frustrated by how there was not a UI update to better reflect the amenity changes, though, as -1 amenities is now not a bad thing (which doesn't make much sense). Either the UI really should be updated to be clearer, or the amenity scale should have been reworked to be more intuitive.

I continue to be frustrated by how opaque the patch notes are. I think it is safe to assume that Firaxis does have a comprehensive list of changes internally, and I'm not sure why these changes are not being shared with us.

My assumption is that the focus right now is on the next DLC, which is looking to be a bit larger than the previous ones, so I'm not surprised that the majority of the changes in this patch are small, but I think Firaxis can also do a better job setting expectations leading up to the patch. I think many of us (rightly or wrongly) still expect the updates that are not featured in the developer videos to be a little more extensive, and while the community needs to adjust our expectations, communication has never been a strength of Firaxis and improving that would help us adjust as needed.

 

[oSiyeza]

No, I enjoy the game more if it has defined rules that I can't change as I see fit. For me, the Devs are the Game Master of the Civ experience. I want to experience the game as designed by them and I have little interest for the experience I or other players can create through mods. For me, "official" has weight and changing it feels like cheating. I'm not saying that it's cheating, btw, just that it feels like cheating, in a personal level.

I think i know what you mean, and I agree with you to some extent. That said, there are mods that I think add value to the game or are aimed to what many people think are oversights.

Two examples the wildlife mod adds animals to the game that act like barbarians, real all disasters adds meteor showers and auroras to the base game, or Reduced Owned Capital Penalty rebalances the penalty for conquering capitals so you can be somewhat aggresive early game and still use the WC.

It is a personal thing, and I get what you mean. Thanks.