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

[NFP] Was Frontier Pack a success for you?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Disgustipated, Mar 7, 2021.


Rate your Frontier Pass experience

  1. Outstanding - I very enthusiastically would love more content like this in the future

    30 vote(s)
  2. Above average - I'm overall happy with my experience, most likely would purchase future content

    110 vote(s)
  3. Neutral - I could take it or leave it

    32 vote(s)
  4. Below Average - It wasn't all bad, but not enough good to justify this type of content

    54 vote(s)
  5. Horrible - absolutely would not purchase this type of content in the future

    12 vote(s)
  1. GinandTonic

    GinandTonic Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime

    May 25, 2005
    If I'm going to be locked in a room for a year thank god for monthly updates. Overall fantastic, marred by the AI shortcomings.
  2. Leucarum

    Leucarum Emperor

    Dec 21, 2018
    I think it's a pretty good sign that different people are liking different game modes. Suggests firaxis were on the mark.

    Another thing I have to say is that I like how some of the updates have opened up new ways to play the game. The Preserve especially makes a bunch of different play styles possible for multiple civs. That district was expertly done.
    Hellenism Salesman likes this.
  3. KayAU

    KayAU King

    Sep 1, 2014
    I love their Hul'che. Combined with their added strength within the 6 tile radius, it makes the Maya very hard to attack. Garrison your city with a Slinger, and it initially hits quite decently thanks to the +5 (strength 20). Then you give it the Garrison promotion for another +10 (strength 30). Then you upgrade to Hul'che (strength 43 against undamaged units, 48 once they're damaged). That's an amazingly heavy hitter defensively in the Ancient Era. Of course, as you point out, they're also pretty good on the offence. The basic Archer is already a good unit, the Hul'che has a +3 ranged strength advantage against undamaged units, +8 against wounded. I don't think it is as good as the amazing Pitati Archer, but it is certainly one of the better UUs.

    As for the Observatory, I do agree both that they are very map dependent, and that requiring setup before you get the adjacencies is a clear drawback. However, I usually find plenty of Plantation resources near my starting location, and it's not as if the builder charges I spend are wasted, as I did want those Plantations in the first place. Perhaps the potential delay is more noticeable on higher game speeds. I always play on Epic, and find that I get good adjacency bonuses early enough.
    Zaarin likes this.
  4. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Aug 19, 2012
    Some random thoughts about the Maya from my 2½ game experience perspective:
    • Housing is an issue basically from turn 1. Once your capital hit pop 2 you'll be restricted, and you need builders to overcome this, yet you get no bonus towards getting builders. Getting a free builder when founding a city, or even just when founding your capital, would be a great help to overcome this initial road block.
    • The farm paradox: You need farms to overcome housing issues, and you need to work those farms to benefit from the extra gold, yet working those farms will not help with your production issues to produce the builders to make the farms, nor will working the farms help you when you are housing limited.
    • The terrain paradox: Because production is a major roadblock (to produce builders to overcome the housing roadblock), your ideal start location has high production. Yet such a start will generally limit your options for making farms, and will be less likely to have plantation resources.
    • The Observatory paradox: Observatory adjacency is very luck dependent and requires builder charges to kick in. Thus the production you save on the cheaper district will at best be outweighed by the production you have to put into producing a builder to get the adjacency. Adjacency requires your research Irrigation, which is a leaf tech you might otherwise skip or leave for later, which means you have to invest science in order to get science from the Observatory. Adjacency generally kicks in later than for a normal campus, at least if you have a favorable start to that district.
    • Having to produce builders en mass early means you'll generally have to make the choice between early science or getting a religion - getting both seems not to be an option on higher difficulty. Foregoing the science in favor of a religion basically means you don't take what's supposed to be one of your civ's strengths. Giving the Observatory a Great Prophet Point yield could help with this issue, and would also make this district more interesting.
    • The bonus/malus of the civ being dependent on the capital placement is just annoying. Maybe let it depend on the Government Plaza position instead, if not let the civ have the ability to move its capital. Or let it work on BOTH the capital AND the government plaza to give the civ an overall boost.
    • The unique archer is great.
  5. Bitterman

    Bitterman Warlord

    Mar 1, 2018
    Granada, Spain
    I voted above average. The only real difference between this and the usual xpac we're all accustomed to is that the new civs do not have bonuses towards the new modular mechanics (precisely because they are modular), but the rest is the same or even better. I mean, Loyalty could have been one of the new mechanics and it wouldn't be weird at all.

    Things that bug me out a little are reused leader animations, double used leaders (one for two civs) and the fantasy game modes. I really think that this season pass could've been better as a whole if not so many modes were introduced, and the ones which did, were a little bit more deep (namely Corporations, Barbs and the one about losing cities on dark ages). It also needs balance, but not that much as some are implying here.

    The new civ's gameplay is awesome (Babylon may need a little tweak tho), the new districts are awesome (special mention to the preserve here) and some of the new modes have a lot of potential. Overall I'm pretty satisfied with my purchase and really would not care if they decided to follow this model in future iteartions.
  6. KayAU

    KayAU King

    Sep 1, 2014
    Your points are mostly true, but I think people tend to overstate the Maya's challenges somewhat. Mayan cities don't need massive amounts of farmland. They generally need 2 or 3 farms. Cities have 18 tiles within the first two rings, it's not that hard to find a spot with a few good production tiles as well as some farmable ones easily available. After your first couple of farms, a Mayan city will usually not have any issues with housing ever again, as they get +1.5 for every farm they build, and always the full +6 from Aqueducts. In my experience the initial housing disadvantage is certainly noticeable, and it is one of the things you have to keep in mind when playing the Maya, but I do think it is overcome quickly enough.

    I also think any disadvantage for the required setup for the Observatory is overcome relatively quickly. When playing the Maya, I usually have very clear priorities: get out a Builder, put down a farm or two, preferably on resources. This gets me good housing, good population growth, and some extra gold. For research, I go Pottery first, as that leads to both Irrigation and Writing. I go Irrigation first, to put down my first Plantation. Then Writing, and get an early Observatory. From there, things tend to be quite easy. New cities need help to get their housing limit lifted, but this can be achieved either by buying a Granary, buying a Builder (with gold or faith), getting the Ancestral Hall *or* the Audience Chamber, or sending a Builder from one of the established cities.

    Again, I'm not saying the Maya are top tier in terms of power, but I really don't mind their specific challenges, and find them to be quite manageable most of the time. As stated, my impression is that their Observatory tends to end up with an average adjacency around 4, and often a bit higher. Being able to provide adjacency bonuses with farms as well as districts also tends to make them easy to push up to the threshold for Rationalism.

    I think the theme for the Maya is initial drawbacks which are overcome through building and city planning, and I think this is why I personally enjoy them.
  7. Wielki Hegemon

    Wielki Hegemon Emperor

    May 27, 2013
    What I love:
    1. New Civs design and more Civs in general.
    2. New features like Preserve (which opens a new way of play)
    3. Corporations game mode
    4. New content every 2 months. One big expansion per year is like 1 month of hype, 3 months of play, 1000 pages of "Still quiet on Civ front" topic on Civfanatics

    What I do not like:
    1. Game modes are fun, but not balanced. I don't think a base game with all modes on can be balanced at all (it is almost impossible, and obviously will have a lot of exploits), but let's take just a base game + one Mode. Corporation Mode for example (the one I do care about the most). Tourism income is ridiculous and almost ruins the game reception. Small thing but painful.
    2. Some mechanics like World Congress and Diplomatic Victory (common complaints about it) are still in a base game and are a little bit hard to fix with a philosophy of Civ, Mods, new features for a base game Pack. AI improvements are a part of this problem. I would like to see more space to revamp or improve the base game as a single Pack main content part even at the cost of the Game Mode in this Pack.
    3. I would like to see more frequent old Civs changes instead of one big patch (the April one).

    What I expect.
    1. Venice
    2. Economic Victory with expanded and more balanced corporation mode
    3. Revamping World Congress and Diplomatic Victory.
    4. More graphical Civ identity. (Not only palace and UI/UB)

    Would I buy season 2 NFP?
    Of course, I would.
    But remember. Venice and Economic Victory :mischief:
  8. _hero_

    _hero_ King

    Feb 21, 2002
    Assuming nothing crazy happens in the final update, I am voting Above Average. IMO the same value was added to the game as in each expansion. Personally, I prefer the concept of game modes to core features. I would much prefer if World Congress and Disasters were toggleable game modes so that I could avoid them sometimes. Having said that, I wish the game modes they did add were better balanced and a little less game-breaking or fantasy-based in some cases. Ideally, they should be things that are optional but that you'd prefer to have on most of the time rather than off. When they get too outlandish or game-breaking, it's hard to keep them on rather than off most of the time.

    I loved the idea of monthly or bimonthly updates as opposed to waiting a year to get the same amount of content which is what the traditional expansion model entailed and can't wrap my mind around people who prefer the other way.

    I would be fine with another pass but would personally prefer a Civ 7 sooner rather than later as most of the things in the game which bother me are mostly core to the game and will not be solved with content updates.
    • I think the district system needs a complete overhaul in order to make big cities satisfying again. So long as districts work the way they currently do, it will always be better to have many small to medium-sized cities rather than fewer large ones.
    • I think the AIs limitations in combat are directly related to 1UPT. The AI simply can't leverage its production bonuses on higher difficulties to full extent when the game rules limit the amount of units that can realistically fight each other in a given turn
    • The game has too many snowballing effects and not enough to slow snowballing down. This is IMO what causes the game to feel "boring" later on once you know you've won and also can have the reverse effect of causing "noob" players to feel overwhelmed as the AI actually CAN snowball too. In short, I think a game that is very loosely based around human history needs to have more representation of the difficulty in managing excessively large empires which have historically led to their collapse. The challenge is finding a way to do this that is interesting and fun rather than tedious and annoying
    Ultimately though, why not both another NFP and Civ 7 developed side by side for less of a dry spell? From what I can tell, Civ 6 has sold more than past games as they expanded their market by venturing into console and handheld devices. This means they should have the budget for a larger team than they used to.
    Buktu likes this.
  9. Karmah

    Karmah Emperor Supporter

    Mar 3, 2011
    I might be traumatized by the zombie rumours (whyyyy???) but compared to an expansion it sucks. As additional content it's ok with good ideas but as other mentioned it's not at all polished and the patches does not address polishing fast enough. You basically need at least two patch to be able to play a mod... so all in all , I'm not sure I'd subscribe to a new one in the future. They would have to make a really more 'sustained' work. And again compared to any of the two expansion it's ridiculous....
    kaspergm likes this.
  10. Wellfooled

    Wellfooled Chieftain

    Aug 15, 2016
    Now that the last game mode has been announced, I want to get something off my chest that I've been feeling for awhile with these patches and I think this thread is the best place.

    I feel misled by Firaxis about the New Frontier Pass.

    I know the history vs. fantasy topic has been discussed to death here, but I want to approach it purely from the angle of business honesty. Civilization has always been grounded in history and reality, though obviously an abstract representation of it. So when an expansion pass was announced and in the introduction video they describe it as "more civilization", it would be natural for the consumer to expect that means it will be a continuation of the franchise's current design.

    However, this wasn't the case. NFP changed Civilization VI from a abstraction of history to one of fantasy with soothsayers, mythology, Lovecraftian cults, leylines, vampires, and now zombies. This is not "more Civilization", but a different game entirely.

    You might say, but they did warn us. After all, the devs said during the introduction video, "We're focusing on adding new systems that add to the game in ways that change it up and give it some new flavors. Some of these flavors are going to be based on history, but we're also excited to change it up and take some creative liberties with history." But as a way to demonstrate what, "taking creative liberties with history" means, they showed us an example of the Apocalypse mode--namely a large meteor destroying an entire city. This is an event that has no confirmed cases in history that I'm aware of (though there are theories). Still, a meteor is based in reality. Though not included in recorded history, a meteor could absolutely hit a city and cause massive damage. Not purely historical, but based in reality, just like Civilization is classically.

    No one would have walked away from that announcement thinking that the New Frontier Pass would be mostly fantasy game modes. Likewise, no where in the official description of the pass are any fantasy elements mentioned. Even now, after the game mode's content is already released, they STILL do not describe it on the official page. Along side specifics about new Civs, City States, Wonders, etc it only lists "A new Game Mode" instead of describing the content of that game mode. The same description is found on NFP's steam page.

    I gave them $40 upfront, confident that It would be "more civilization" as promised. I know there are many here that are enjoying the game modes, historical or otherwise, and I'm happy they've found their audience, but if that was the route that Firaxis were going, they should have been upfront about it to begin with. Especially with the season pass model, because there is no way for consumers to know the content of the pass when it is first released. The way Firaxis chose to go though, feels like being intentionally deceptive. They could easily have mentioned, without spoilers, that the gamemodes would largely be fantasy. Even just mentioned vampires or zombies would have been enough to give us some small warning of what we'd be paying for.

    As is, I wish I would have saved my money. I enjoy the new Civilizations to choose from, but they weren't worth the cost of this pass. Half of the content included is for a game I don't want to play, but it was advertised to me as Civilization.
  11. acluewithout

    acluewithout Deity

    Dec 1, 2017
    No, it didn’t.

    Yeah, we got some vampires and stuff. But we also got industry and corporations, randomised tech trees, more interactive Barbarians, tougher dark / golden ages, a diplomatic / espionage district, more gameplay around appeal including a dedicated district, more maps and more set up customisation, a separate game based on piracy, new Civs, wonders, resources and city states.

    NFP has plenty of grounded historical content and, with corporations, Barbarians and shuffle, game modes which are basically new core game mechanics. It’s just we also got some light genre stuff like vampires and now zombies.

    To be honest, in some ways FXS over delivered. Anton said we were getting toppings not more scoops of ice-cream. NFP has mostly been toppings in fairness, but there has been a little bit of historical core game ice cream as well in terms of a few game modes and the new districts. I just don’t see a bit of light genre stuff is a problem. And moreover, if FXS come along in 6 months and do a dlc or season pass and something like Ideologies, some stuff around governors and spies, and maybe a couple more districts or units, which I think is quite possible, then no one is going to give a monkeys that one small part of one game mode has something that looks like a vampire if you really stare at it. And if you’re still not happy, just make it some unique Barb unit it your own head cannon.
    Marquese Weltschmerz likes this.
  12. Wellfooled

    Wellfooled Chieftain

    Aug 15, 2016
    I'm happy you're content with what we got in NFP, I really am. I'm glad the Dev's work have an audience that appreciates it. Creating anything is difficult, let alone a complex game like Civ.

    What I take umbrage with is how much of the content of NFP came out of left field without that change being clearly communicated.

    If I go to a hamburger restaurant, order a new item they advertise as "a new take on the hamburger's that you already love", and have a waffle delivered to my table, I won't be particularly happy. Even if I like waffles and even if this waffle is tasty. It wasn't the hamburger that was advertised. If they had said, "This is a waffle shaped like a hamburger" or "this is a hamburger that uses waffles instead of traditional buns", I would have been informed before I bought it. Firaxis advertised a hamburger to us and delivered a waffle.

    It doesn't matter if we liked the fantasy elements in NFP or not. They should have told us that's what we were buying. The amount of people on this forum upset at it's inclusion is evidence enough. They have all the right in the world to include it in their game if they'd like, but they shouldn't trick us into buying it.
  13. TreVor_ish

    TreVor_ish Warlord

    Sep 29, 2020
    With an AI that doesn't know how to play with any of them added modes? Sure...not to mention numerous bugs and shortcomings.
    Modes like M&C or Barbarian Clans are just touching a surface without adding anything that could change gameplay whatsoever. Do they expand upon gameplay? Yes, but just a little, leaving too much undone.
    And calling Tech and Civic Shuffle (that I like) a core mechanic is just an ignorance.

    Moderator Action: Please keep your argument civil and to the point. You should not pass negative judgment on the quality of other peoples' arguments (e.g. referring to an opinion as 'ignorant'). ~ LK
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2021
    Zegangani, onepurpose and kaspergm like this.
  14. snakeboy

    snakeboy Chieftain

    Dec 12, 2019
    Below average: call me a purist, but I dislike fantasy content in a (great) historical civ so much that it taints the whole experience for me. Ed Beach laid the foundation for civ 6 - you can argue about his choices but it had a clear philosophy - and then NFP sprinkled this frivolous nonsense on top of it. It's a shame really, the more so since so much in the second half of the game can be expanded and improved upon with a regular, decent expansion with integrated mechanics.
    I expected new civs, wonders & city states, and this I got. Therefore, not horrible. But most of the game modes are gamebreaking to me. Count me out if they do this again.
  15. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Sep 18, 2003
    I don't really play the modes either, but fantasy has been in the game since CIV II: Fantastic Worlds
  16. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Aug 19, 2012
    Yes, now that we are approaching the end, this is the core impression of NFP that I'm left with.

    I've said it before, but the City Lights mod project offers a much wider and in-depth rework of the game experience than NFP does, and it's available for free. I still hope at some point some talented modders will make something great out of M&C and Barb Clans.
    Hellenism Salesman likes this.
  17. Hellenism Salesman

    Hellenism Salesman Warlord

    Dec 28, 2020
    Well, that is the risk of buying any season pass. You have no guarantee its going to deliver what was promised- all you have is your trust in the seller. And, for good reason I'd say, Firaxis had a relatively spotless reputation with Civ VI content up until now.

    Not trying to suggest they used the general playerbase's trust in the developer to trick them into buying something they may not have actually wanted, but I have to assume they knew that a lot of people were going to buy it no matter what, and didn't feel as pressured to make stellar content or satisfy the wants of the players.

    But, the final choice is still in the hands of the consumer...
    Elhoim likes this.
  18. thecrazyscot

    thecrazyscot Spiffy

    Dec 27, 2012
    I suppose I might be virtually alone in this, but the civilizations are the least exciting part of the NFP for me. There are already more civilizations than I can actually get around to playing, so each new civ is just another one on the pile that I may or may not get around to. The game modes are far more interesting, and ones which I can mix and match regardless of which civ I'm playing.

    Even though I've been on somewhat of a break from Civ 6, I think Firaxis has done some really fun and exciting stuff. We now have:
    • Apocalypse
    • Secret Societies
    • Tech and Civic Shuffle
    • Dramatic Ages
    • Heroes & Legends
    • Monopolies and Corporations
    • Barbarian Clans
    • Zombie Defense
    On the whole I think they are a tremendous success, even if a few of them are distinctly underwhelming (*cough*Apocalypse*cough*). I've always enjoyed the Civ scenarios (raise your hand if you are the other person who seems to agree), but the core of the game has always been the sandbox, and these game modes allow scenario-like elements to be incorporated into the sandbox at your own discretion. I think they could go even further with the modes to make the gameplay changes more comprehensive, in fact. And as a side note - Firaxis, more scenarios, please? I enjoy the snot out of them, and have since CivII.

    They're also a good mix between fantastical and more down-to-earth modes - 50/50 in fact, or even weighted more heavily towards the non-fantastical since Apocalypse is pretty light on the fantastical elements.

    I hope Firaxis incorporates some variation of the game mode concept in future iterations of Civ, particularly as they are a great way to try out some fun-but-unbalanced ideas that would just be the source of tremendous saltiness from quite a few of you lot if it were part of the main game.

    PS - Firaxis, my dearest wish for years now has been an advanced setup option to specify the ending era, so I can happily play a fully Medieval game all the way to the end.
    Hellenism Salesman likes this.
  19. Jimdigriz

    Jimdigriz Prince

    May 7, 2006
    Wales, UK
    As long as we can switch the fantasy stuff off then that's fine. I like it to be historical too - and I still think there is room for an extra melee unit or two in between Musketmen and Infantry to be honest - never mind bloody zombies! :lol:
    Hellenism Salesman likes this.
  20. Zegangani

    Zegangani Prince

    Oct 9, 2020
    I'm the same oppinion as @Wellfooled . The content in NFP were advertised as new Systems that change up the Game and add some new Flavors. And Yes, they didn't lie, that's exactly what we've got, but I think we all can agree that we were expecting something completely else, we were building on things that we have seen in previous Expansions (Like WC, Governors, Strategic Resource overhaul, but not necessarily Climate Change or Loyalty (which are the core Mechanisms of the Expansions)).
    Nothing against some Fantasy stuff in Civ, especially since they are Modes that can be turned on&off as you like, but it was too much. Apocalypse, Secret Societies, Heroes&Legendes and now Zombies too? 4 Fantasy Modes? vs 2 Historical Modes (Dramatic Ages, C&M )??? Shuffle and Barbarian Modes can't be included as they are free, and not what we spent our Money on. For one that enjoys realistic Gameplay and has bought NFP just for this Purpose, getting 4 Fantasy Modes and just 2 historical Modes feels underwhelming. It would have been half as bad if we at least got a historically accurate Game Mode with Portugal DLC. I would have been OK with a 50/50 Fantasy/Historical Modes ratio.

    Zombies could have been easily part of Apocalypse, maybe as a second Mode that you can turn with or without the Mega Desasters. Tbh I like this over the Desasters Apocalypse, but it isn't worth it as a Standalone Mode in a Pay to Play DLC.

    And on top of all that, nearly all the Modes are Buggy or not completely thought out. Unbalanced and/or too OP. But the Topping: AI crippling.
    Man! Not all Players are Happy with new Civs/Leaders. 40$ for 2 Buggy or unbalanced AI crippling realistic Modes...? :nono:

    City Lights is one of the best Mods out there. But since FXS said that they won't tackle the Game deeply, I wasn't expecting something in that Dimension. With Toppings, I was expecting something like:
    - Global Governors without the Fantasy stuff. With good Effects/Bonusses and Less micromanagement compared to City Governors.
    - a bit more dynamic and diplomatic CS: not the usual friendly/neutral/unfriendly moods (perhaps based on your Government), trade Luxury/Strategic resources they possess, being able to join you...etc.
    - Expanded Powering System...etc. Even new Future Era Units.

    Things that add to the Gameplay and feel like a part of the Game, and not as Game breaking Add-ons.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2021
    Elhoim, PiR and TreVor_ish like this.

Share This Page