[NFP] What should be the focus of future updates?

[Francel]

Note: This poll references updates that drop between packs ("minor" updates).

I want to ask this in as unbiased a manner as possible. However, the poll assumes resources are finite and not everything can be done to the fullest without some tradeoff. Therefore, you can choose 2 options. However, if you don't like any of the choices, you can provide your own response (other).

 

[Tuvok694]

Interesting poll. I voted for "adding new content" and "new map scripts and settings". Especially I would be glad about a difficulty level between king and emperor. I mostly get bored on king and hardly ever win at emperor. Using a mod that weakens emperor level feels like cheating.

 

[8housesofelixir]

According to the NFP roadmap there won't be any new units or new wonders in the "minor" patches.

"Refining and balancing existing systems" and "Improving the AI" are not only very likely but also what the devs had one in the past few minor updates.
To name a few: Religion/Pantheon changes (well-received), CS changes (twice), Amenity changes (albeit a controversial one), the current spy change (also a controversial one), numerous AI reworks, etc.

I hope they can continue this refining trend/process.

 

[enKage]

Fixing diplo / alliances and barbs spawn before turn X

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

One thing I'd like them to look at is the use of Tourism for non-Cultural games, and a better indicator for where I stand with each civ regarding to the Domestic Tourism rather than an arbitary hard to comprehend value.

Tourism is currently ONLY useful for Cultural games so anything outside of that its' pretty easy to neglect while other areas are still as imporant (Religion, Science and Military).

 

[Francel]

Interesting. Preliminary results suggest devs are focusing on things few members off this forum would prioritize. Maybe they know something we don’t?

Perhaps this forum is not representative of all players, or they could be trying to reach new types of gamers.

TBH as you probably guessed I can’t fathom why they are going in this direction. It is exceedingly disappointing.

 

[rastak]

I voted other. Whatever they want! I like the studio.

 

[acluewithout]

• Rebalance Game Modes (particularly Secret Societies).

• Rebalance Combat Units.
  
  
• Rebalance Policy Cards like Natural Philosophy and Rationalism.
  
  
• Buff Workshop.
  
  
• Bring back Reformation Beliefs and the option to send Spies as Ambassadors.
  
  
• Production and or growth bonuses when you link Cities with Railways. Also, Engineers not needing a charge to build Roads.
  
  
• We can’t expect free content for the base game like units. That’s stuff FXS will generally want to include in paid content, which is fair enough IMO. But if Firaxis were going to do that, I’d like to see a few unit gaps filled, and maybe some additional Religious Units unlocked via Religious Beliefs.

 

[Francel]

According to the NFP roadmap there won't be any new units or new wonders in the "minor" patches.

"Refining and balancing existing systems" and "Improving the AI" are not only very likely but also what the devs had one in the past few minor updates.
To name a few: Religion/Pantheon changes (well-received), CS changes (twice), Amenity changes (albeit a controversial one), the current spy change (also a controversial one), numerous AI reworks, etc.

I hope they can continue this refining trend/process.

Fair point. Perhaps I should have said do less for the free updates and devote more attention to the paid ones. The wonders we got strike me as lackluster, for example.

 

[Sostratus]

Balance, balance, balance.
A ton of what people complain about as being “incomplete systems” etc can be solved by actually sitting down and doing some balance work.
Even when things aren’t perfect, a little alignment can give you smooth action:

Spoiler :

Really, adjusting some costs, some combat strength, some policies, some wonders- the difference will be night and day, folks. And I don’t mean a +1 here and there, I mean sitting down and coming up with a few guiding rules and applying them consistently.

 

[Gedemon]

voted "other", I'd like a diplomacy overhaul, simple balance and refining would not be enough for that mechanism IMO

 

[Duomo1334]

Great People...

 

[c4c6]

Preliminary results suggest devs are focusing on things few members off this forum would prioritize. [...] why they are going in this direction

"They" are developers, who in general want mainly to make a better game (and sell more as a result of that, simply) and determinant marketing people, who in general want mainly to sell more copies of the game (and apply proven clever methods to achieve that goal, such as trying to create the demand they wish to satisfy etc.). Sometimes customers don't like over-boarding manipulation.

Btw, in 4 single player games you find nearly 4 happy winners - a multiplayer game with 4 participants has only one happy winner. And the others are not always so patiently loosing as shown.

Effects seen in action games will not work considerably in strategy games, because the players behave different.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Fixing bugs. The trade bug, the Macedon bug, the Byzantium bug, the Melee promotion bug, the Ranged promotion bug, etc.

 

[gcampono]

Improve multiplayer stability (improve desync and disconnect problems).

Better and less passive AI (both war/tactical AI + strategical/simming AI).

Better diplomacy and trade.

I also agree 100% with "Balance, Balance, Balance", "Fixing Bugs" and the idea of tourism being useful for something else (e.g. provide gold or better relations with AIs).

 

[kaspergm]

Voted for "Refining and balancing" and "AI". With regards to the former, I guess I might instead change vote to "Other" to cover "Modding tools", because I have more faith in a mod makeover fixing the issues I have with the game than it being done in development within the frame of Civ6.

 

[HiRezAudio]

Fixing bugs. The trade bug, the Macedon bug, the Byzantium bug, the Melee promotion bug, the Ranged promotion bug, etc.

Please excuse my ignorance - not heard of these issues and would you please elaborate?

 

[KayAU]

Well, this was an easy one, and it looks like the majority of respondents agree: refining and balancing what is already in the game, and improving the AI would be my top priorities. I have stated my reasons in a couple of ongoing threads already, so I won't bore everybody by repeating them. I will give an honorable mention to what @kaspergm pointed out as well: modding tools. Potentially this could solve a lot. If Civ 6 was to get something equivalent to Vox Populi at some point, that would be absolutely amazing. I recognize that would require a monumental effort by modders though, and that it would probably take a long time.

 

[bengalryan9]

I'd like them to take a look at barbarians... they still don't feel right to me. They have way too large of an impact on the early game IMO.

If you (or an AI) gets unlucky with where a camp spawns and don't catch the scout on time (which is basically impossible unless you've already happen to have troops in the right spots to cut them off), your early game can be completely crippled. All it takes is one barb scout to get back to the camp and you're looking at a ridiculous amount of warriors, archers, horseman, or even crossbowmen coming at you. Considering it's not unusual for a camp to spawn right outside your borders and for that scout to start right next to you, that's not even fair... sometimes there's literally nothing you can do.

Of course then you'll have other games where you don't see barbs at all, they cripple an AI or two, and your path to victory is much easier without you having done a thing.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I'd like them to take a look at barbarians... they still don't feel right to me. They have way too large of an impact on the early game IMO.

If you (or an AI) gets unlucky with where a camp spawns and don't catch the scout on time (which is basically impossible unless you've already happen to have troops in the right spots to cut them off), your early game can be completely crippled. All it takes is one barb scout to get back to the camp and you're looking at a ridiculous amount of warriors, archers, horseman, or even crossbowmen coming at you. Considering it's not unusual for a camp to spawn right outside your borders and for that scout to start right next to you, that's not even fair... sometimes there's literally nothing you can do.

Of course then you'll have other games where you don't see barbs at all, they cripple an AI or two, and your path to victory is much easier without you having done a thing.

I wonder if the Barb settings (fail to) take map and game settings into account? The reason I ask is because I never experience what you're describing (I tend to play on big Continents & Islands maps, at Epic turn speed, if you want to try it and see what happens). I would love it if "barbarians" were more interesting than they are, but that's not the type of small tweak the OP is asking about. But maybe there could be a check-box that's the opposite of "Raging Barbarians", but isn't "No Barbarians." I dunno, maybe "Distant Barbarians", preventing camps from spawning within N hexes of a Civ-owned hex. Or something.