Update incoming

[Lily_Lancer]

I'm not disputing that there aren't problems with the mismatch, but with so many
combinations of pace, levels, number of civs, map sizes, and other factors, and
no real data (let alone standard deviations) the notion of an average player is
almost meaningless.
Even trying to come up with some rational definition of average for each level,
from lowest to highest, is fraught.

In fact for Civ6 I almost play without thinking.(at least half thinking compared to me playing Civ4 ),. I guess after I've learned the basic concepts of the game, I have never reached T180 without future tech or civic, however my goal is(sometimes immersive play), so T180 is a very safe upper bound.

Please look at my definition of normal player. He doesn't need to be intelligent, but he does need to know some basic concept of the game instead of being a green-hand player( or green-hand like player, who played a lot but still does not know basic concepts)

Can you please just accept that your standard gameplay =/= a normal player's standard gameplay? I myself typically play on Immortal or Deity, which probably puts me far above the average player*, and yet my standard information era is about 250 turns in. You are much better than the average player, and there's nothing wrong with that, but please, for the love of god, stop continuously implying on this forum that you are the average player. You're NOT.

*For reference, 37.8% of the players on Steam has won a game (using the Settler or harder achievement as stat for that, as any win will trigger the achievement) while only 4.2% of the players has won on Deity, meaning that about one in every nine players plays at the same difficulty I play at. Of course, this is excluding people who don't finish games, but that's only favorable to your argument.

I'm not referring to "average" player, "normal" player is a player with average intelligence but knows the game well, he shall be stronger than "average" player. He shall have interest on the game instead of just being "average".

Moderator Action: Please cease this characterization of other players. Stop the elitism and just discuss the game. This only serves to anger others. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Karpius]

Definition of normal player: A player with normal intelligence, knows the game well, and not focusing only on speed but also focus on some other interesting features.

Oh no! I have just learned I am not a normal player! My world is shattered! I feel....outcast. Alone.

Some people Rage Quit, some people Bliss Quit....
Perhaps it is time for me to Shame Quit.

But before I do, a comment on pacing....
In a game of this scale and scope, pacing is problematic precisely because the game is set up to allow different tech pacing for different civs based on a number of other factors. This can then appear counter-intuitive - or non-historical - to the average player who doesn't expect to see iron clads (or some such) in the middle ages. For my taste, I think the current pacing contributes to the great variety of experiences the game offers.

I suppose if the developers addressed this based on popular demand I really wouldn't mind. On the other hand, I would be concerned that any change to the current pacing might diminish the variety I currently experience through map size, number of civs and game speed.

 

[Katakanja]

I'm not referring to "average" player, "normal" player is a player with average intelligence but knows the game well, he shall be stronger than "average" player. He shall have interest on the game instead of just being "average".

I think the difference here might be more whether the individual in question derives amusement from treating the game as an equation to be solved or as a sandbox in which to tell a story.

 

[Leyrann]

I'm not referring to "average" player, "normal" player is a player with average intelligence but knows the game well, he shall be stronger than "average" player. He shall have interest on the game instead of just being "average".

Okay. I'm pretty sure I meet "average intelligence", as I go to university. I'm pretty sure I know the game well, as my frequent visits to this forum have made me aware of basically all interactions, and I have also played about 150 hours of Civ IV, over 400 hours of Civ V and over 400 hours of Civ VI. I also, at all times, have a drive to not make mistakes, even though I may not always attempt to play optimal (though, for Deity games, I certainly do attempt to play optimal). So I think that I would classify as a "normal" player in your book.

And yet, even when going for a science victory from turn 1 on, I would not expect to reach the end of the tech tree before, at the very earliest, turn 200.

But either way, your argument makes no sense. Even if your notion of normal player gets to the Information Era in 120-180 turns (and seriously, just because you and the people you play against can (presumably) do that, doesn't mean it's standard), Firaxis does not make the game for outliers like that, they make the game for the masses.

In fact, let me go ahead and make a thread on the topic, and we'll see what the average forumer (who tends to be much more hardcore than the average player) achieves: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/how-fast-do-you-go-through-the-tech-tree.629790/

 

[Question]

I dont think Firaxis realises the problem with CSes is more than just needing faster walls...CSes cannot keep up with players or AI in terms of tech because they are stuck with one city, and they cannot repair stuff quickly enough because they get a -50% production penalty to most stuff. Nor can they build late game units quickly enough because the production costs assume you have trade routes, boosted improvements, industrial zones, etc.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I suppose if the developers addressed this based on popular demand I really wouldn't mind. On the other hand, I would be concerned that any change to the current pacing might diminish the variety I currently experience through map size, number of civs and game speed.

It's a difficult balancing effort to, to be sure.

Increasing the malus for researching "ahead era" techs / civics and increasing the bonus for researching "behind era" would at least be a self correcting mechanism. Especially if the malus / bonus is multiplied for every era you're ahead / behind.

Then, if you're mostly "on era" in your games currently, you wouldn't notice much / any difference. It would also be a boost for lagging civs, which may help the AI in some circumstances (especially city states, as I understand they don't get auto-techs like barbarians and free states do).

 

[bbbt]

In fact for Civ6 I almost play without thinking.(at least half thinking compared to me playing Civ4 ),. I guess after I've learned the basic concepts of the game, I have never reached T180 without future tech or civic, however my goal is(sometimes immersive play), so T180 is a very safe upper bound.

Try a game where you limit yourself to 6-8 cities and focus on building every wonder you can, see how fast you progress. That seems to be a significant swath of the player base (I think that largely came on with 5). These forums are not super representative, as said before, based on achievements at least, the majority of the player base is on prince or lower.

 

[bonafide11]

I dont think Firaxis realises the problem with CSes is more than just needing faster walls...CSes cannot keep up with players or AI in terms of tech because they are stuck with one city, and they cannot repair stuff quickly enough because they get a -50% production penalty to most stuff. Nor can they build late game units quickly enough because the production costs assume you have trade routes, boosted improvements, industrial zones, etc.

But the problem with CSes is not so much that they get eliminated late game, it's that they get eliminated in the first 30 turns of the game. So cheaper walls should help prevent that so more of them can at least survive past the ancient era.

 

[Ferocitus]

But the problem with CSes is not so much that they get eliminated late game, it's that they get eliminated in the first 30 turns of the game. So cheaper walls should help prevent that so more of them can at least survive past the ancient era.

Another problem is that there is no unanimity that it is actually
a problem. That's why IMO Firaxis have gone for a compromise solution
at this stage.

 

[Question]

Its two fold. Once CSes survive past the early game, they cant keep up with other civs.

When a war starts, the CS typically loses all their units fairly quickly and then seemingly builds nothing because their production is very low. When you liberate a CS, they often get stuck with pillaged improvements/buildings for seemingly forever and 40 turns later still have not built a single military unit. And then you have to babysit the CS because in civ 6 your allies do not care if you are the suzerain, they attack whatever CS they want and you cant stop them short of walling off the CS with your units, at which point the AI breaks and they sit there shooting the city forever but can't take it.

And of course you cant declare a protectorate war with your own ally...

 

[blackcatatonic]

These look like great changes. I'm especially pleased about the polders though I feel a bit sad as I just finished a mammoth Netherlands game!

 

[HyJinkx]

I’m still not sure building walls faster will save most city states on higher difficulty. Most of them I see fall go well before they would have a chance to build walls. The other problem is that if they react like the regular civs then once I defeat the majority of their troops and encircle the city they stop building walls there in most cases. I can’t count the times I’ve seen this happen to the point where I normally base a lot of my attacks with this very thing in be mind. Blitz, surround and then it’s easy going.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I’m still not sure building walls faster will save most city states on higher difficulty. Most of them I see fall go well before they would have a chance to build walls. The other problem is that if they react like the regular civs then once I defeat the majority of their troops and encircle the city they stop building walls there in most cases. I can’t count the times I’ve seen this happen to the point where I normally base a lot of my attacks with this very thing in be mind. Blitz, surround and then it’s easy going.

Ed said that they were also increasing basic city defence for City States, so that presumably will help them resist early game invaders before they get walls up.

 

[Stringer1313]

Nothing very significant from what I can gather. It's the basic functionality that's awkward, not the amount of information shown in the loyalty lens or tech tree, two of the areas with fairly good functionality. If they want to better-impart information they're better off looking at the cultural victory tracker.



This is a peril of paying too much attention to the community. The Netherlands is strong and polders were fine - yes, people want to be able to use the UI if they're playing the civ, especially if it's a powerful UI, but this would be better-addressed by adjusting map generation to produce appropriate polder sites with greater frequency, not by making polders too easy to place without any attendant reduction to their yield.



This is promising, but I wonder why they didn't also adjust AI behaviour to make AIs less prone to going on a killing spree. Seems this is yet another issue that arises from Civ VI AIs lacking discrete personalities - in Civ V you'd have certain aggressive civs that would go out and conquer the city-states, but it was behaviour that was held in check by the fact that only a few civs were inclined to do so. When every one of 30+ civs is led by Attila to all intents and purposes it's not much surprise that this is the result.

I wasn't expecting a patch this soon - any prospect there will be an accompanying DLC as usual?

What thi

Regarding warmongering, I was able to fully conquer and destroy a Civ with no warmonger penalty at all thanks to a declaration of war from an City State Liberation Emergency.

Same. When an emergecy is declared, i use that opportunity to completely annhilate the civilization who triggered teh emergency, and get zero warmonger penalties.

 

[HyJinkx]

Ed said that they were also increasing basic city defence for City States, so that presumably will help them resist early game invaders before they get walls up.

I did hear that and I hope it will be enough. I hope on the other hand that the civs will refrain from throwing their entire army against a cs and therefore weakening themselves though. With the issue they have with handling barbs they normally need all the army they can keep.

 

[Inlex]

Regarding the pace, ignoring the bickering:
I play on all shapes and sizes of maps, difficulties king and higher (mostly emperor), with a range from 4 to 25-ish civs in game (I would do more, though I fear risking burning my house down due to the CPU load)

I have yet to encounter a single game where I was in the information era later than turn 250 and have never seen a game end later than 375-ish. Though the games I see through to the end, are the ones I am leading myself, and often I am ahead in science and/or culture by a very wide margin. I guess the higher difficulties naturally are paced quicker on average, due to the simple fact that the AI cheat bonuses force an 'arms race'. For the player, this means beelining to anything deemed "OP" as targeted as possible, ignoring many optional choices along the way, which would flesh out the feel of a real civilization and pace the game a bit more realistically when they would have been explored.

Risking sounding like an elitist: I have yet to test anything lower than Prince (which I believe my first Vanilla game was), but I imagine that prince and lower will feel much better paced. Since the vast majority of people who purchased this game will be playing on those difficulties, it's hard to blame the fast pacing on the game design. Other than the fact that there's a case to be made for a better AI in general, which doesn't rely on cheating to keep up with the human brain. Given the (ever increasing) complexity of this game, that might not be a realistic goal until Civilization XX...

 

[Athmos]

I dont think Firaxis realises the problem with CSes is more than just needing faster walls...CSes cannot keep up with players or AI in terms of tech because they are stuck with one city, and they cannot repair stuff quickly enough because they get a -50% production penalty to most stuff. Nor can they build late game units quickly enough because the production costs assume you have trade routes, boosted improvements, industrial zones, etc.

I think the most glaring issues with city states is how fast they get taken out in the early game. In my experience, if they survive the first 50 turns of the game, their chance of survival already increase significantly. I won't pretend their fix is perfect, specially with zero experience of its effect, but I think it's going in the right direction.

Another problem is that there is no unanimity that it is actually
a problem. That's why IMO Firaxis have gone for a compromise solution
at this stage.

Unanimity ? Man, this is internet, what are you talking about ?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I don't know about how they keep up in tech, but in a few games where I've had a continent alone with a CS or two the screen is clogged with CS units by the end.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

I'm heavily crossing fingers they would simply give much more love to the SDK toolset and hand over the whole DLC "pantry" assets including R&F components!!

Eventually.. i'd also prefer to have a true BLP file extractor/viewer device.You may say it's nearly cheating with some of the systems in place -- but, Modding is already a form of hacking. We just need user-friendly tools (nearly 80% done along with very good documentation i should add) & basic control over such (and many more) important stuff.

Sooooo -- let's go Firaxis staff... just a little more magic for us Modders, please!

 

[DrJambo]

Anyth8ng about AI and using airforces? Nope.. ? See you in 6 Months