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

[GS] The most liked and disliked features of Civilization VI (Results)

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by oSiyeza, May 21, 2020.

  1. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    430
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    So...

    You dislike my proposal because if would feel forced or inconsequential.

    But also you dont mind being forced into these decissions, and feel that if you can chose not to participate is inconsequential. So you think these decissions should be forced...

    But you dislike being forced on decissions, at least on behalf of "others players". Cause you should be able to chose not to participate.

    But you also dislike that you could chose not to participate. Cause it will feel inconsequential. So you think these decissions should be forced...

    So...

    Are you just trying to argue with yourself? Or are you expressing pretty much that you are opposed to everything?

    You know, as pointed out to you before. That this is not true.

    This is very disrespectful, not everybody is a Modder and any player, including me, has the right to ask FXS to improve on a system. Furthermore, you are not arguing anymore, at this point you are plainly refusing “any improvement” on the religion system. That position automatically excludes you from having any polite conversation on the subject.

    I dont know if you are just being too emotional about this, in any case, please note that I will not address you any more on these issues.
     
  2. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,723
    My goodness, you really do assume I am an idiot, don't you? I am saying there is a middle ground which your current proposal is offering but the original one isn't. Having multiple steps which allow you to slowly shift away or toward a World War is neither forced nor inconsequential, because you have the option of avoiding it but it takes effort to do so. Perhaps you are imagining that opting out will take effort, but you did not say so, so that is why I am debating this point.


    Re: Emergency system
    I don't know what happens in your games, but I get Emergencies declared against warmongers all the time, and the AI participates. So if I was trying to conquer the world I would have many civs attack me in an Emergency, and if someone else was trying to take over the world an Emergency would be declared against them which I could join. This happens to me, and if it doesn't happen to you, then that explains why you are adamant it does not happen, to the point of thinking me a fool for claiming it does.


    Holy moly, that is not what I said at all. I don't see how it is disrespectful either, but it seems you are trying to find something to be offended about at this point. I'm sorry for starting this conversation off on the wrong foot.

    I am not saying you should stop complaining because you could mod it, nor am I saying that you should be expected to mod it, nor am I saying Firaxis should not listen to you because you don't mod, nor am I saying you should just do it yourself, or any number of potentially rude interpretations I cannot even fathom.

    All I am doing is telling you that the changes you desire *are* moddable. I am just informing you. If you want them, now you know they are doable. You can ask someone else to do them, you can learn to do it yourself, hell I might be willing to do them for you if you asked.


    As far as not being appropriate for polite conversation, perhaps we just have different ideas of what the conversation is? It seems to me like you are making requests for actual changes by Firaxis. My opinion that no such (feasibly small) changes are worthwhile is totally relevant and appropriate for that conversation! I don't want Firaxis wasting their time making small changes to the Religious game when they could be making changes to the World Congress, or Espionage, or making Growth of cities actually useful, which is totally relevant to the topic of making requests of Firaxis. My request is for them to not waste their time on Religious game unless they are reworking it entirely. That is in direct opposition to your request, which makes them part of the same conversation.

    If you are just trying to talk about what *should* be done theoretically, then you are right that my statement is totally irrelevant to that conversation. As I said, I would be happy to have a theoretical discussion if you want. I haven't stated what changes I think should be done because the conversation did not seem to enter that territory.

    How am I being too emotional? I have expressed my logic for my statements, responded to your queries, and used a factual tone (which has been interpreted as cold, for which I apologize). But if you don't want to continue, then I won't expect it of you.
     
  3. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    430
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    I did not say anything about that, you assumed it didnt, demanding a level of depth no system in the current game has and contradicting your own reasons in the process.

    That is not how reason works. Being forced to take multiple steps is as forced as having to take one. And not being forced to take a side is the opposite of being forced.

    Emergencies are declared on warmonguers but are not large scale wars. And certainly not World Wars.They are emergencies. And it is not the same.

    Yes, you said that. When arguing on why improvements on religion should not be made. And yes it is disrespectful. More after saying that your reason to not agree with my proposal is that you dont want any improvement on the religious system at all.

    That is not how offense works. I called you on arguing in a dishonest way. Im not offended by it.

    Maybe, so lets end here.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2020
  4. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,723
    Why should I assume you *did* mean that? Again, this seems like a language issue, but the way you stated your proposal implied that it was as cut-and-dry as I made it out to be. When I then pointed out that I think it should be more nuanced than that, if you had meant that in the first place, then you should have said "yes of course it should be more nuanced, I was imagining it that way" or something to that effect.

    Most of the systems are that deep. Diplomacy has many different modifiers that go into your relationship before the war breaks out. Tech advancement has many different sources of science and Eurekas, aside from choosing which techs to get in which order. Combat has units, which have positioning, promotions, health, range, etc, and also has terrain which interacts with districts and improvements.

    The World Congress' depth is in the many ways to generate Favor, and then choosing how to vote. But each proposal is something small, which is the design, because (as I was stating) the small incremental changes allow you to have influence enough to avoid things you don't want, but with the cost of appropriate effort. A "World War Resolution" that you were proposing is completely out-of-line with this pattern. If you want to debate whether or not that is a good thing, fine we can debate that instead.


    Is 30 turns not a long war? With 3-5 out of 7 players joining not large scale? Perhaps I am imagining something different from you for the World War then.


    That is your interpretation. I have elaborated on what I meant and why I don't think it was disrespectful. You cannot choose whether what I say is disrespectful or not, only whether you feel disrespected by it or not. And for that feeling I already apologized, as it was not my intent.

    It is not unreasonable to assume implications that I do not say, but once I explicitly say that those implications are not meant, then I don't see how you can still assume those implications.

    I put that statement as the last statement because it was not a direct response to anything you said. Everything else I responded to you in chronological order. I am sorry you thought that meant I was telling you to go mod it yourself *instead* of asking Firaxis for it. Maybe a few extra empty lines between the statements would've helped, or putting it at the beginning.
     
  5. Kmart_Elvis

    Kmart_Elvis Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2018
    Messages:
    565
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    California
    My absolute hated feature of Civ VI is undoubtedly the World Congress. Someone compared it to the lottery and it's such an apt comparison. You really have no way of knowing what other civs are going to vote. And the whole vote A, vote B mechanism is convoluted and sloppy.

    The big problem is that we have no way of knowing what other civs would vote, and FXS has admitted that's intentional. They are trying to center the game around multiplayer, thus they won't give single players gamers "hints". Even though Civ VI is primarily a SP game, but they have to ruin most of the game for us for the sake of multiplayer purity. Really, is it not so hard to give spies the ability to predict other civ votes? All that happens is that a bunch of pointless votes happen and I randomly pick choices because nothing even matters and I have no way of knowing what will pass.

    I've only won ONE diplomatic game in my 600+ hours. I have no desire to even play it. People criticize Civ V's diplomatic game, but that was at least so much better than the mess we have now.

    If I had one Civ wish it would be to re-do diplomatic victory. And I say this as a big Civ 5 Venice fan who won diplo victory more times than I could count!
     
  6. Mr Jon of Cheam

    Mr Jon of Cheam Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    501
    I really like diplomatic favour (big improvement over the gold based diplomacy of V) but agree that the WC is an irrelevance at best and a complete mess at worst. I think a few small tweaks would fix it: allow us to see what other civs are intending to vote and allow us to influence their choices (by spending diplomatic favour, by ensuring alliances affect voting choices); reintroduce a system that allows us to choose which proposals are on the agenda rather than having these selected randomly, i.e. give the player who is playing the diplomatic game effectively the chance to actually shape world events. I'm not sure on the best method for this second one but maybe even something as simple as giving the player with the highest total diplomatic favour at the start of the turn the chance to select proposals, or 1 proposal vote per suzerain.
     
  7. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    430
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    A thing I realized something when playing the new apocalypse mode.

    About the new unit, the Soothsayer, the idea is great... you can use it to unleash a disaster on your enemies... and also acts as a support unit, finally giving some interaction between faith units and regular ones. But...
    • They are very expensive units to maintain.
    • You can unleash a disaster only on your position, and any enemy can insta-kill you so most of the time you need to escort your Soothsayer, but if you do you will damage your own units… it is jut weird.
    • Disasters as implemented now are weak as a weapon, cause they are designed to be balanced and give long term benefits. Also, in the apocalypse mode, they are so prevalent that they are mostly annoying.
    • Of course, it is another limited charges unit so they get no experience, and you only use it to build more…
    • The support roles can only be used with promotions, that I think you can only obtain them by being second in the Appease the Gods competition and … being first is actually worse. Besides this, the Appease the Gods competition is only a sink of resources to get a bit faith that you will not be able to use anyway.
    • I have not seen the AI cast any disaster, but they seem to play Appease the Gods… It seems to be another system that handicaps the AI. But to be honest is a system that will handicap any player that uses it.

    The new unit has the same problem the WC has, it is over-balanced to the point is just boring.

    Almost all resolutions are something like: make luxury x count double, make a type of units cost ab it more, make a civ have more grievances. They change the number on the game, adding a small modification to something. On top of a game that has 100 other systems: from policies, to governors, to religion to wonders that do the same but better. Some of them are so inconsequential that I have no idea what option would benefit me more, because I simply don’t keep track of all the luxuries I have much less the rest of the civs. And the effect is so small that I don’t think I have ever noticed any effect.

    Then you have the guessing game, you receive points to guess correctly what other civs want. But, in practice this is just a lottery.

    Small Idea:
    Most resolutions should not have nested choices. Resolutions like chose a civ to give 50% more grievances should be all civs get 50% more grievances. Chose a luxury to apply an effect should be, all luxuries have an effect.This makes the resolutions more powerful and easier to understand and faster to vote.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  8. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    430
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    Also, I kept thinking about the Soothsayer, and the way it showcases many of the weakness of the religious units. I think, as a faith unit, the soothsayer could be integrated in the religious system. Improving both mechanics as a result. This gave me some ideas to improve religious combat. Keep in mind they are only suggested ideas, and therefore there will be things that are not fully thought, they are only a suggested direction the game could take to make religious combat, less of a chore. Any criticism and suggestion will be welcome. But I’m taking as granted that the religious combat can and should be improved.

    Suggestions for soothsayer:
    • Allow soothsayer to work as a religious unit, so you can normally fight it with a religious unit.
    • Replace the charge system for a cool down, or a mechanic to spend faith when casting a disaster. Charge bonus would turn into cheaper uses or faster cool downs.
    • Add a modern replacement for soothsayer. Is not ok to have a unit in a weird wooden charriot in the atomic era. Suggestion. A plain old modern chthulu-like cultist that could also have more mobility.
    • Allow escort formations with the soothsayer (correct me if you can already do this).

    Suggestions for religious combat:
    • Replace the charge system for a cool down, or a mechanic to spend faith when casting faith ability (or both). Charge bonus would turn into cheaper uses or faster cool downs.
    • Rework religious promotions, so they get applied with experience obtained at theological combat or using religious abilities.
    • Allow religious units to have support roles, like the Soothsayer, with promotions (there is already a medic one).
    • Allow escort formations of religious units with military units.
    • Have a small spread effect when a military unit is defeated if you have an adjacent religious unit.
    • Increase the religious influence of a city, if a religious unit of the same faith is stationed in its holy site. Reduce the religious influence of a city, if a religious unit of a different faith is stationed in its holy site.
    • Disable the religious lenses by default. And showcase the holy-sites where the unit can heal when selecting a religious unit.
    • Allow religious units to heal in holy sites of the same religion in foreign lands.
    • Add a modern visual replacement for religious units, though the current ones are not as bad as the soothsayer. This is not important, but would add variety.
    • Add a modern visual replacement for religious combat. That is, in modern times after the discovery of humanism religious combat should stop being about thunder and lightning. A faster animation without lightning will do. Being more fast, this will make less tedious the religious combat. It will also increase immersion and additionally illustrate how modernity has replaced mysticism, and modern religion is a matter of spirituality not of who is casting more thunders.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  9. Isengardtom

    Isengardtom Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2018
    Messages:
    221
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Antwerp, Belgium
    I like the world congress voting system and the emergencies tie in , but I would also make it so that a presiding civ can choose which proposals to add to the table.
    The choice to see who presides would be based on diplo favour gathered for example. But the civ that wins should spend x amount of favour to add a proposal, and by doing so making this a strategic choice. Do I want to have only one proposal or should I add a second
     
    Mr Jon of Cheam likes this.
  10. Mr Jon of Cheam

    Mr Jon of Cheam Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    501
    I was thinking about religion earlier (as you do) and it occured to me that it might work really well with a combat/spread system that functioned a little more like espionage.

    Here's what I imagined: there are still the same types of religious unit with their specific function but you can only have a certain number of active religions units at a time. You can therefore choose either to spread a religion or squash another player's religion by simply transfering the relevant unit to the city of interest and then running the spread religion/inquisition mission for X turns until that unit is consumed. You can only transfer units to cities within a certain range of a city already following your religion (i.e. a bit like trading posts, you have to work your way across the map).

    I feel like this would be a nice balance, allowing you to have some active part in the spread of religion but without the tiresome march of missionaries across the map.
     
  11. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,766
    Also, to account for the difference in impact of some of these resolutions, maybe there could be some sort of favor cost for bringing up a resolution, which depends on which resolutions are chosen - so if you want the resolution that, say, adds another wildcard slot to a government, this one costs more favor than the one that, say, impacts how much grievance a certain player does.
     
  12. Mahi

    Mahi Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    263
    Regarding the hate for policy cards. Yes, they are interesting but annoying to manage all the time (but really not needed). And in what world would you be able to change policies in a civilization like you change underwear and expect the effect to be implemented immidiately?
     
  13. Mr Jon of Cheam

    Mr Jon of Cheam Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    501
    I love the policy cards for what it's worth. They could maybe do with a little more theming but from a gameplay perspective they are much better than anything in previous Civ games.
     
    tedhebert and yung.carl.jung like this.
  14. criZp

    criZp Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,678
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    I think there are too many +X% production policies, which is kinda boring. And those cards that give their full effect in the first turn and then become useless (professional army, public transport) I think are just bad design.
     
  15. yung.carl.jung

    yung.carl.jung Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,780
    Location:
    The Twilight Zone
    if you care, there is a chart which shows pretty much exactly what the AI flavors for every decision are. I can almost always guess it by now. like, for example, I have never seen the AI vote for anything but +100% production to city center buildings. It's always the choice. but yeah, some seem truly random, and the system itself is horribly flawed.

    It's an intensely complex and micro-management intensive system and some players simple hate to have to do work/have to be actively thinking about it every turn, which I completely understand.

    Civ 6 forces you to do so much extra thinking and extra clicking. Even the trade screen takes much more time than in Civ 6. Trading strategics now takes even more time. Micromanaging 20 cities takes so much time. Micromanaging Eurekahs/Inspos takes time.

    If you wanted to argue positively, you could say Civ 6 is a much more complex and cerebral game than 5, which is true. If you wanted to argue negatively, you could say that the developers purposefully waste your time with some """features""", which might also be true (again, strategic ressource trading takes up like 20% of my playtime, which is insane..).

    All in all the policy system is a complete win for min-maxers like me, and for everyone who wants player decisions to matter. And if you don't like it, just leave the strong cards slotted in and don't chang them every other turn. Problem solved.
     
    oSiyeza likes this.
  16. Brutus2

    Brutus2 Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    510
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Philadelphia, USA
    I appreciate the time and effort that went into gathering and presenting this information but I think it is very important to understand that the number of people who participated in this survey are a very, very small number comprised of the most passionate fans compared to the overall number and play style of people who play civ6 across all platforms.

    As much as we would love the devs to cater to our wishes, we should understand that making a game that is broadly appealing to a mass audience across different platforms requires the inclusion of different things that appeal to different people and different play styles, including the more casual player. In the end, high game sales benefits us all as it insures more content, dlc, expansions and squeals in the future. I'm not saying the devs shouldn't try to make improvements. I just feel we shouldn't expect every feature to be exactly the way we wish it to be and no matter what they do, some people will love it and some people will hate it. The beautiful thing is that we have an amazing community of moders who often can give you the options to tailor things just how we prefer.

    Of course the devs should continue making adjustments where reasonable but I feel their job is more about introducing new systems and content and if it's not exactly what we were hoping for, we can look to our amazing mod community for the tweaks we are wishing for. Also, keep in mind that as PC players we have the luxury of being able to use mods where as console players do not. So it is reasonable that the game might have to sometimes be built more towards that audience.
     
  17. yung.carl.jung

    yung.carl.jung Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,780
    Location:
    The Twilight Zone
    I dislike this way of thinking so much. "Let's just accept that we pay incredible prices for absolutely suboptimal products, and let's invest our own free-time to fix them". Yeah, no, that's just complete bootlicker mentality. It's the exact kind of mentality that enables publisher and game studios to get away with this stuff.

    Also, Civ 6 developers are actively discouraging modders by not releasing the .dll, which just adds insult to injury. It's such a defeatist position, like you're already expecting companies to betray you and not respect your preferences, and then you reward them by fixing all the problems yourself?..

    Yeah, that's what difficulties/game modes are for. They could make changes exclusively to immortal/deity in order to cater to the hardcore players (who have supported them financially for years, some people here even decades!) and the majority of the player base would not be affected. You can easily have both, not a problem.

    But they actively choose not to do that, because Firaxis knows that most of their money doesn't come from their long-time supporters (as you correctly state) and that there is more money being made to pander to the "casual" audience (as you correctly state), because a lot of hardcore players are so trusty and loyal they'll buy any bone you throw them anway. It's pretty sad, but it's not actively malevolance from 2K/Firaxis at all! Rather just them surviving in an increasingly turbocapitalist gaming scene.

    I strongly disagree. I never knew when exactly the majority of "gamers" agreed that it's totally okay to release sub-par products and have people finish them via unpaid work, but I think it's pretty disgusting that this is a common occurance today, and it should be called out with every opportunity. Always.

    The opposite, I actually think the developer has a moral duty to fine-tune and polish the games they release without monetary incentive, that's simply the kind of service I want from every product I buy (it's pretty much like a warrancy. you pay lots of money for a "triple A" game, compared to an older game or an indie title, so I expect that extra support).

    The only reason why developers choose to make new content instead of fixing their games, is because they can make money off of the new content, and they can't really make money off of a hotfix. How you don't acknowledge this is beyond me.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2020
    Ron West and NCC-1701 like this.
  18. oSiyeza

    oSiyeza Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Messages:
    430
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain

    You have a point, but the criticism of the system is not only about not wanting micromanaging. I think the UI does not need to be card like to work, and the cards take away a bit from the experience.

    Another criticism is that many of the cards are simply not useful, and therefore is less about decision making or strategy than about “learning the meta”. This is also another valid criticism I agree with. Many people want the game to feel like a game of civilization managing, not like an experience of learning how the algorithms work so they can maximize their efficiency.

    Another valid criticism is that actually some systems like the tax system, where actually handled in a simpler but more meaningful way in in previous civ games, 20 years ago. With a simple slider to let you decide how much you wanted to risk the happiness of your citizens to get the money you needed for keep a war going. I’m not saying cards should be replaced by these systems. I’m just saying, not everything should be based on cards and adding modifiers on top of more modifiers.

    Overall I dont really dislike the system. I just think is fairly mediocre.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2020
    yung.carl.jung likes this.
  19. tedhebert

    tedhebert Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,029
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    I LOVE the card system too. The main problem is that the UI doesn't give you enough information specific to the real impact on your current game. BETTER REPORT SCREEN mod is an absolute must for this; It tells you the impact on your current game for Every card that is related to yields/cost, and it makes the decisions purely strategical ones, not mathematical and memory ones.
     
  20. Brutus2

    Brutus2 Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    510
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Philadelphia, USA
    You actually just proved my point. Does the fact that YOU don't like something make it a "sub-optimal product"? This is not a case of bugs or game crashes or things that are obviously broken or unintended exploits. No developer should be allowed to get away with that and community should not be asked to fix something like that.

    What we are talking about here is different tastes and preferences. As I said, no matter what they do some people will love it and some people will hate it. You seem to think that if YOU don't like something then the devs need to fix it to make it the way YOU think it should be without any consideration that maybe many other people like it just fine. I do feel that making changes to systems so that they play the way you or I prefer is exactly the point of mods.

    The bottom line here is that you seem to think that YOU get to decide what is "sub-par" because it is not exactly what you wanted them to do or because a survey of a very, very small sample size doesn't like it. Perfect example, there is another thread here complaining about how unfair and awful the loyalty system is but this survey indicates people like it.

    I'm not a "bootlicker" just because I'm reasonable enough not to expect them to make everything about how the game works, exactly the way I personally think it should work without respecting that other people might like something different and just because it's not what I would have preferred, that does not make it a "sub-optimal product" that needs to be "fixed."
     

Share This Page