Unique Civs is a Big mistake. Re-introduce traits.

[Roald Amundsen]

I guess by now it's apparent that the unique civ system is too complicated for the AI to handle, too easy for player to exploit and too hard for devs to design. Civ 3 and 4 had in my opinion a much more elegant design with traits. Flavorful, much more balanced and it was a system miles more easy to program to make AI understand.

 

[Biz_]

you're not wrong, but the entire civ5/civ6 gameplay is a mistake from the perspective of getting an AI to play it decently

 

[anandus]

The problem I have with traits is that is very gamey and lacks flavour. It reduces the personality of civs. It makes every civs feel more generic.
Unique traits give civs a distinct feel to them.

Although the AI doesn't handle it optimally, that's true.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yech. No thanks. If traits are what you want, go back and play Civ4.

 

[Agent327]

I guess by now it's apparent that the unique civ system is too complicated for the AI to handle, too easy for player to exploit and too hard for devs to design. Civ 3 and 4 had in my opinion a much more elegant design with traits. Flavorful, much more balanced and it was a system miles more easy to program to make AI understand.

Disagree. If only for the fact that the AI doesn't 'understand' anything; it's a collection of program subroutines. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "too hard for devs to design"; it's in the game, so it's already been designed. I also disagree that it's "too complicated for the AI to handle"; this is a matter of programming and can be improved if necessary. Civ 5 and 6 are quite different from their predessors; that doesn't man the game doesn't work or is 'unbalanced' (again, if it is, it can be improved).

If you don't like how Civ 6 is designed, don't play it. Easy enough to do. Otherwise make helpful suggestions (I know, it's much easier to simply complain about something, but that isn't helping anybody).

 

[bite]

The problem I have with traits is that is very gamey and lacks flavour. It reduces the personality of civs. It makes every civs feel more generic.
Unique traits give civs a distinct feel to them.

Although the AI doesn't handle it optimally, that's true.

Indeed this was the problem I had with BE, I would not want to go back down that route

 

[Roald Amundsen]

Actually I am playing Civ4 and greatly prefer IT to this New abomination to the franchise. And btw the whole go back and play civ4 comment is getting a little old.

 

[JtW]

Yech. No thanks. If traits are what you want, go back and play Civ4.

And if I want good AI, I should go play chess? Come on...

 

[Gorbles]

And if I want good AI, I should go play chess? Come on...

I think the point is more "try and be constructive with your suggestions instead of suggesting the wholesale removal of a mechanic with subtle digs at Firaxis' competence at the same time".

But sure, if you want to appeal to absurdity, go ahead.

 

[Uberfrog]

I disagree. More unique leaders and civs with traits are more "flavourful" for me than minor modifiers. I'm glad Firaxis decided to double down on leader personalities with separate abilities and agendas and so forth. Makes for a more interesting game.

There will be more issues with balance, that's true. I hope Firaxis pay attention and consider nerfs and buffs. But I prefer a developer being able to experiment and iterate on new features rather than just copying features from the past. Civ IV traits are intrinsically more balanced, since they're just numbers being pushed around between civs. I'm not sure that's the sort of balance I want. I'd ideally want greatly varying civs with pros and cons.

The AI isn't great, but I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a good idea. Besides I don't think there's ever been a Civ release where everyone was singing the AI's praises. Even the Civ IV expansions had to promise better AI at things like... performing military manoeuvres

The AI has gotten considerably better at its previous major weakness, which was conducting military operations, especially naval invasions. It is even stronger at managing its economy and it also knows how to use all the new features that were added.

 

[Haggbart]

I disagree. Although I loved Civ4, the trait system was boring. In Civ 5 and 6 I'm playing the game with every single civ, in 4 I never bothered.

 

[Nefelia]

I guess by now it's apparent that the unique civ system is too complicated for the AI to handle, too easy for player to exploit and too hard for devs to design. Civ 3 and 4 had in my opinion a much more elegant design with traits. Flavorful, much more balanced and it was a system miles more easy to program to make AI understand.

An interesting feature (that greatly increases flavor and replay ability) in a brand new game needs a bit of balancing... And your immediate suggestion is to scrap that feature entirely and return to the bland and tired features of a past title.

No.

 

[JtW]

I think the point is more "try and be constructive with your suggestions instead of suggesting the wholesale removal of a mechanic with subtle digs at Firaxis' competence at the same time".

But sure, if you want to appeal to absurdity, go ahead.

Then they should make their point and not make a useless snide remark. As confirmed by the second part of your response, sarcasm is the default medium of communication here, so I am simply adhering to it...

 

[Gorbles]

Then they should make their point and not make a useless snide remark. As confirmed by the second part of your response, sarcasm is the default medium of communication here, so I am simply adhering to it...

Nothing about my post was sarcastic. I'm way too familiar with the tired trope of calling out fallacies to want to bother stopping them. They undermine points made by themselves well enough.

The point was obvious. I'm moving on before this argument for the sake of argument spirals into something worse.

Personally I think traits are nice, and given that we're, what, five days from launch? The AI has plenty of time for Firaxis to fill that room for improvement. I certainly wouldn't want a mechanic yanked just because that's what a few people on these forums think should happen.

 

[genyl]

I prefer unique civs to generic ones. This being said I think there should be more "all purpose" civs with straight forward bons like Poland in civ5 (no need to be so OP bonuses )

 

[Kozmos]

If I do remember right, they did fire a bunch of AI devs after IV. Which really explains why there are the same AI bugs in V and VI. They are probably using interns as bulk of their workforce with QA being composed of basically one game not played to the end.

 

[Gorbles]

If I do remember right, they did fire a bunch of AI devs after IV. Which really explains why there are the same AI bugs in V and VI. They are probably using interns as bulk of their workforce with QA being composed of basically one game not played to the end.

I'm intrigued as to how you think they basically hired nobody new for their next two (three, if you count BE) major titles? Are you one of those people that reads news about developers being let go and use that kind of news to justify things you don't like about a product?

Games development has an incredibly high turnover rate. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but it's a fact within the industry as it stands currently. It doesn't mean people aren't then hired afterwards - it's a cost-benefit exercise; publishers dislike paying for staff that currently aren't needed for developing a product.

 

[jjkrause84]

I think the agendas should be far more randomised and swap between leaders each play-through (otherwise playing against certain Civs might become too samey...besides the agendas just mean they all end up hating you anyway).

As for Civ abilities and UUs, etc. I like the differentiation. Makes the Civs unique and fun to play. The only thing I don't like are extreme Civs like Venice in Civ 5 or Kongo this time. I'll never play as Kongo because I hate the idea that the religion game is totally out of bounds. How lame....

 

[Kozmos]

Because I know how industries work, because I know basic competence often seems like genius to people in management, because I hung around modder forums and I saw how sloppily put together everything is (lol Blizzard) and because I have friends who work as devs in the industry and because I know standard hires are lazy and have low standards without someone actively whipping them. It's the same story everywhere. I'd rage more but the fire has gone out through the years, the casuals rule the market, movies, games, whatever. Once an outlet of creative expression truly becomes an industry its output is largely reduced to pig fodder.

 

[Gorbles]

Because I know how industries work, because I know basic competence often seems like genius to people in management, because I hung around modder forums and I saw how sloppily put together everything is (lol Blizzard) and because I have friends who work as devs in the industry and because I know standard hires are lazy and have low standards without someone actively whipping them. It's the same story everywhere. I'd rage more but the fire has gone out through the years, the casuals rule the market, movies, games, whatever. Once an outlet of creative expression truly becomes an industry its output is largely reduced to pig fodder.

See, I know people too, and in my experience the complete opposite is true. I guess it must be a matter of perspective and context, as supposed to wholesale fact.