When do you expect next patch fall and what could be it's priorities?

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, default is small, I'm assuming so people with low-specced PCs don't have big performance issues. I usually run medium maps. Larger to me is just longer and more of the same.

 

[Leyrann]

I haven't played in a few weeks, but isn't the "default" setting small sized maps? I know mentally you'd think it would be standard, but I could have sworn small was the default.

Yes, but I'd say you can still call the "standard" map size the standard, right?

 

[acluewithout]

I’d be very sad if sythia, gilgabro, mongols, or for that matter monty or rome got nerfed. Who else would I have to fight with when I play Norway?

Also. The game does seem more “balanced” to me if you play at least standard or large map. Lots of things just work better.

 

[Duuk]

Yes, but I'd say you can still call the "standard" map size the standard, right?

And that's where you get into an interesting discussion. If the game is balanced around a map size that the game developers KNEW wasn't going to be the most commonly used setting... then that means they intentionally balanced the game incorrectly.

It's a bit like saying "horse racing is really easy if you're driving a mustang gt convertable" or when the responses roll in like "there is a mod that fixes that". If the game settings and resource allocation is based on a "standard" sized map... but all of the developers knew and all of the game statistics and marketing feedback tells them that the overwhelming majority of their players don't play that way, then really (using my favorite phrase stolen from these very forums) the developers are basically telling their players that they are "doing fun wrong".

If the map settings only really work on map sizes that most people don't use, then the logical statement flows that most of the time the map settings don't work.

 

[Leyrann]

And that's where you get into an interesting discussion. If the game is balanced around a map size that the game developers KNEW wasn't going to be the most commonly used setting... then that means they intentionally balanced the game incorrectly.

It's a bit like saying "horse racing is really easy if you're driving a mustang gt convertable" or when the responses roll in like "there is a mod that fixes that". If the game settings and resource allocation is based on a "standard" sized map... but all of the developers knew and all of the game statistics and marketing feedback tells them that the overwhelming majority of their players don't play that way, then really (using my favorite phrase stolen from these very forums) the developers are basically telling their players that they are "doing fun wrong".

If the map settings only really work on map sizes that most people don't use, then the logical statement flows that most of the time the map settings don't work.

I at the very least would expect small and standard maps to be the most played, and as far as I have seen, they are pretty well balanced.

 

[Kruos]

It's quite obivous that the game is balanced around the 'standard' map settings, as it's quite obvious that the 'small' size and 'prince' difficulty are selected by default to help new players get their hands on the game.

 

[Kruos]

I’d be very sad if sythia, gilgabro, mongols, or for that matter monty or rome got nerfed. Who else would I have to fight with when I play Norway?

Also. The game does seem more “balanced” to me if you play at least standard or large map. Lots of things just work better.

Interesting. I have no problem with some Civs being overpowered/underpowered when playing solo against the IA, but I have always thought that it would be better to improve the Civs balance for the multiplayer experience (and also solo), espescially with the (few) ridiculous Civ balance issues currently existing (basically the Civs you mentionned - I would add the Macedonians also).

 

[acluewithout]

Interesting. I have no problem with some Civs being overpowered/underpowered when playing solo against the IA, but I have always thought that it would be better to improve the Civs balance for the multiplayer experience (and also solo), espescially with the (few) ridiculous Civ balance issues currently existing (basically the Civs you mentionned - I would add the Macedonians also).

I think there should be a slightly different rule set for multiplayer. What is a “balanced” (or “enjoyable”) game is very different between SP and MP.

 

[Leyrann]

I think there should be a slightly different rule set for multiplayer. What is a “balanced” (or “enjoyable”) game is very different between SP and MP.

Let's call it a "Multiplayer Balance Mod".

 

[acluewithout]

Let's call it a "Multiplayer Balance Mod".

Quite.

There are obviously mods that try to rebalance the game for MP - isn’t the NQ Mod one of those? I’m not sure what these mods change, but having the community themselves balance the game for MP doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me (so long as people are willing to do that).

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think this is a bit of a "Civfanatics bias", and let me tell you why.

Outside of this forum, a vast majority of players DO NOT player on Huge+ Maps with Marathon speed games that last two months of play time. The Steam achievement stats back me up on this.

I can tell you I play on tiny maps (small if I'm feeling feisty) and the "8 out of 10 times I don't have iron, oil, horses, niter, or literally anything else" thing is real. I stock the maps full of AI (usually 2-3x the default number, plus a pile of city-states) so I have people to talk to. Founding 4-5 cities and then warring to get me to 10 before everyone starts moving towards victory conditions, whether that's conquest, religious, science, whatever. I always set the map to abundant resources.

And I still don't have iron at least 2/3 of the time without doing an early rush.

This forum has a tendency to think we're the center of the world, and I promise you we're not.

I don't play on Huge+ maps with Marathon speed games, and I'm sceptical that the vast majority of players on this forum do, either. My observation was based on the "standard" size map with all default settings.

I didn't say 8 of 10 wasn't real, I said it was bad luck. There's a set amount of each strategic resource allocated across each continent, and based on my observations, if you have 3 to 4 cities then on average I estimate you'll have access to at least one Iron about 50% of the time. You can improve your odds by researching Iron early, of course, so that you can settle towards it if need be, but I'm talking settle first and then reveal and see what the fates held.

Horses are a different matter. You need two Horse resources to build your first Horseman, as opposed to needed only one of all the other strategic resources. I believe Horse spawns are also ore heavily determined by terrain than Iron is, so depending on the civ you play and it's start bias, the odds of being able to build Horsemen is going to vary quite a bit.

 

[AvianBritish]

People complain a lot about the fact that there is no "Team victory". But I think there is a simple way to implement that. What if it was linked to alliances?

So if one of two people had a cultural alliance and one of those got a culture victory, then it's a allied culture victory. (Or even if combined; they are both influential over everyone else)
If one of two people in a scientific alliance finish the space race then they get an allied science victory. (Or they can both produce the space parts)
If two people in a military alliance have every single capital on the map between them, it would trigger a allied domination victory.
If two people in a religious alliance have converted all Civs to a majority religion of either of their founded religions, then it would trigger an allied religious victory. (Of which, if someone who does not found their own religion has a religious alliance with a founder; there should be bonuses to spreading that religion through their allies' territory.)

I can't think of anything for the economic alliance though; probably related to a diplomatic victory due in a later expansion.

 

[Haig]

When did the mysterious "GH" file appear to the SteamDatabase before the release of Rise&Fall?

 

[AvianBritish]

When did the mysterious "GH" file appear to the SteamDatabase before the release of Rise&Fall?

I think our prophet said it appeared shortly after XCOM2: WotC was released, so at some point during September I would guess. But I'm sure @Eagle Pursuit will be able to confirm this for us.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

When did the mysterious "GH" file appear to the SteamDatabase before the release of Rise&Fall?

The DLC package first appeared unnamed on May 25th, 2017 at the same time as Nubia and Khmer/Indonesia. The GH depot for it appeared on June 28th, 2017 and began QA testing that day with branches 2kqa_g and 2kqa_h.

If the next expansion is intended to mirror the development cycle of R&F, it's a little late. Although there are probably other factors. The XCOM expansion had already been announced when R&F began QA. Whatever is currently getting QA tested on the XCOM side (read: expansion) hasn't been announced yet and is currently a year and 3 weeks past when WotC was announced.

They could also intend to roll with a compressed testing schedule or a later release date.

 

[Duuk]

Which means, if I am hearing you correctly, that my dire prediction that there may BE NO 2nd expansion has not yet been ruled out.

Pondering changing my forum title.

 

[Leyrann]

Which means, if I am hearing you correctly, that my dire prediction that there may BE NO 2nd expansion has not yet been ruled out.

Pondering changing my forum title.

That is an appropriate title for making such statements...

 

[Funababbitt]

The game badly needs a map editor, either through the patch or through mods. I have just gone through several restarts, with the full maps revealed, trying different ages, different water levels, climates, map types etc. The last group of maps for example, (on "new") revealed many mountains NO HILLS on the entire maps, maps with extremely restrictive production potential. I don't like being hemmed in by tundra but I am on or within a few hexes of tundra on nine maps out of ten. Coastal cities, near the poles or hemmed in by mountains. I have had to install mods to get rivers. I see complaint after complaint from players who simply "hate' the map generation. Whoever designed these maps and surely they appear to reveal certain biases despite all disclaimers, may have thought they were making the game more challenging, failing to realize they were simply generating re-roll after re-roll, which simply makes the game boring.

I returned to Civ 6 only about two weeks ago, after buying R&F. I quit vanila 6 over a year ago from sheer exasperation with the useless AI, incapable doing anything but having its troops mill around after DoW. I have yet to complete a game in R&F, so I don't know how well that has been addressed.

The naval game not only has been nerfed, it's been orphaned so thoroughly that it appears to be intentional. I'd like to see that brought back from the dead.

There is a lot to like about R&F, after the Civ 6 debacle. I had wondered whether it was time to abandon the franchise permanently. I do see R&F, so far, as a big improvement.

FWIW, I took a couple of years to buy Civ V and really enjoyed the game. I feel as if I should have paid greater heed to my experience rather than buying Civ 6 at the launch, which despite its obvious potential I considered to be one of the worst games ever, of any genre.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Aspyr is reporting on Steam Discussions that the Spring patch for Mac is coming out today.

 

[ripple01]

Aspyr is reporting on Steam Discussions that the Spring patch for Mac is coming out today.

Finally!