Would you want Civ 6 to follow the paradox model?

[Alsark]

I'm not hugely fond of the Paradox model. I used to be okay with it but I think it has gotten a little out of hand. I've not played much Crusader Kings II, and I haven't played much Europa Universalis IV for awhile, but from following their forums and Steam reviews, I heard that they had a couple of really bad DLCs in a row that made Europa Universalis IV worse. So it seemed they were just popping out DLCs to make a buck rather than to make the game better. At this point I just run one expansion behind on Paradox DLCs because they come out so frequently and they always put the old ones on sale when a new DLC comes out.

I prefer an expansion approach, with some little content DLC here and there, as Civilization 5 had done. Although I didn't really think Civilization 5 was a very good game until Brave New World came out... but from the looks of the Civilization 6 previews, we're not nearly seeing the kind of content cuts that we saw between Civilization 4: Beyond the Sword and vanilla Civilization 5 that made Civ 5 feel so bare bones upon release. So it looks like, from what I've seen so far, that Civilization 6 will feel like a pretty complete game upon release (maybe not polished, but that's what patches are for), and then expansions can go above and beyond that... unlike Civ 5, that mostly just felt like it was catching up to Civ4: Beyond the Sword, in my opinion.

 

[Wolle68]

Leaders, civs, maps, and scenarios are fine, but no new core game play features in DLC, please. To avoid imbalancing the game, new game play features should come with a complete overhaul, and then we're talking expansion packs.

 

[Acken]

Somewhere in between. Paradox has the habit of doing just too many and constantly upseting the balance.

On the other hand Firaxis has a tendency to abandon the games a bit too quickly.

Ideally id want 2 or 3 expansion with the 3rd being about polising to the maximum rather than new features. They can add civilizations though. Id voluntarily pay 25$ for a very good ai, ui, qol and balance improvement expansion. Add some civs to justify the price and im happy for that to be the final version.

 

[Herakleides]

To clarify, Paradox sets up a base vanilla game, and then gradually expands it with alternating small/big expansions. Smaller expabsions generally just work on one specific geographic area, and don't introduce new game play mechanics, but the big expansions do.

In civ terms I think itz be tuebdifference between giving a few new civs ala carte/ in a scenario pack, and more classic expansions with new game features.

The pros of the system is that paradox games have a long life span of active development and evolution, and a lot of love for more minor areas of the world has been funded through that model both in and out of European areas.

You also get control over exactly what is in your game, in terms of features that you feel are worth paying for.

The con is that by the end of the lifespan to have a “complete” game is expensive unless you're willing to wait for bundles or sales.

I’d imaginw thay of civ6 multiplayer is handled loke civ5 itll screw up mp alot.

I voted on the poll and it appears lots of people are against the Paradox model. I like this model because it means that certain players can opt out of certain features they do not like.

 

[Xen]

I'm more inclined to like it than dislike it myself due to the longevity it gives games. Ibhad to wait a while but for both Crusader kings 2, and Europa Universalis the major areas and cultures I wanted expanded evenutally got some attention.

And that's usually civs biggest problem, is giving us all the different civs we want.

 

[Thormodr]

I wouldn't mind if they adopted some practices from Paradox. It is nice to see them implement some mechanics like cassus belli and lenses.

However, the DLC model they use wouldn't work well with Civ. It would give modders fits, as has been mentioned.

I think 2 large expansions and a whole bunch of DLC (Civs/Leaders/Map Scripts/Other stuff) will work fine.

Doesn't hurt to think outside the box, though. Sometimes doing the same thing over and over can lead to stagnation. So, I voted ambivalent.

 

[Ebrim]

Short answer: no. Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. With all due respect to Paradox, I don't find grand strategy anywhere near as enjoyable as 4x, and their model of tacking on millions of cosmetic DLC with the occasional actual content DLC is not something I want to see in Civ. Don't get me wrong, I want as many civ DLCs as Firaxis is willing to throw at me; what I don't want is "New hats for your exploration units! $5!"

Don't buy them. Why do you care if someone else does? You're basically telling someone else that they can't have cool hats on their units because YOU don't want to have the option.

 

[ehecatzin]

I don't think strictly following the paradox model would be best for a game like civ. The free patch content that comes with every mayor paradox dlc is great, however, very often when they go back and revision certain mechanics they end up feeling like they take mechanics already included and gating the new version behind a paywall, so, thats a drawback (one that traditional expansions deal with very well)

That said, Civ6 could use a lot more dlc than 5, multiple leaders, new civs, map scripts and purely easthetical add ons are perfect for DLC's. A DLC that adds diferent sets of terrains inspired by continents (civ 5 style) would be welcome, just so we dont have all pine woods for example.

Thats said, civ6 I think shouldn't completely forego the expansion model, after all its the best way to revisit existing mechanics.

So I would like DLC's that include:

-leaders
-civs
-map/map scripts
-cosmetic add ons.

And Expansions that include:

-Revisited mechanics/New mechanics
-More civs and multiple leaders that use the new mechanics
-Units/techs/overall content
-natural wonders
-new terrain types

 

[Zaarin]

Don't buy them. Why do you care if someone else does? You're basically telling someone else that they can't have cool hats on their units because YOU don't want to have the option.

I'm so sorry I gave my opinion when asked for it. Surely I misunderstood that the question was directed at everyone but myself.

 

[migalhone]

Voted Somewhat opposed/ Disinclined towards.

While the Paradox model somewhat works for their games, i do not want Firaxis to follow that.

Paradox have already done some damage to their games by cutting something from the base game, revamp it and release it as DLC material. Not to mention having a certain mechanic in a game and not implementing it in another similar game! An example: In Vic2 HoD, you have army and navy rally points. EU4 is launched in the same year, has no army and navy rally points. Some DLC's later, they release a army builder, which funnily enough, is DLC-exclusive.

I love Civilization, i love Paradox games (most of them). They complement each other quite well, and there's no need to copy Paradox in this matter.

 

[LDiCesare]

So I would like DLC's that include:

-leaders
-civs
-map/map scripts
-cosmetic add ons.

I really can't understand how people can want that, nad especially maps or map scripts.
Do you realise that (free) patches to BtS included such things, done by modders, which actually didn't cost Firaxis a cent, and that you could have downloaded anyway?

I think Firaxis should concentrate on stuff they are the only ones able to do,namely gameplay changes, and put these in expansions.
Leaders are probably a PITA to do because it requires a lot of work, so that's understandable for paying DLC's. Iwouldn't buy these, but to each their own, the artists don't have anything better to do anyway.
Civs imply unique buildings or units, but these should be easy enough to mod. If not, then the game is not the game it's advertised to be. I'm ok with paying for civs if they come with a lot of content (as in expansions). I wouldn't buy them by themselves, as I can mod them myself, or probably download a boatload of these for free.

 

[ehecatzin]

I really can't understand how people can want that, nad especially maps or map scripts.
Do you realise that (free) patches to BtS included such things, done by modders, which actually didn't cost Firaxis a cent, and that you could have downloaded anyway?

I think Firaxis should concentrate on stuff they are the only ones able to do,namely gameplay changes, and put these in expansions.
Leaders are probably a PITA to do because it requires a lot of work, so that's understandable for paying DLC's. Iwouldn't buy these, but to each their own, the artists don't have anything better to do anyway.
Civs imply unique buildings or units, but these should be easy enough to mod. If not, then the game is not the game it's advertised to be. I'm ok with paying for civs if they come with a lot of content (as in expansions). I wouldn't buy them by themselves, as I can mod them myself, or probably download a boatload of these for free.

If they ever release civ packs they are sure to bundle them together in some sort of scenario or maps. It's very close to what they were doing with civ5.

I've offered this example before, but should you do a pack of civs, say extra leader isabella and mesoamerican civs (Maya and Inca), you could of course just bundle them together and thats it.

But what would most likely happen is that they would bundle them in a scenario or map script as well.

 

[Ebrim]

I'm so sorry I gave my opinion when asked for it. Surely I misunderstood that the question was directed at everyone but myself.

Surely you're allowed to give you're opinion. I'm just trying to understand why one would hold that opinion when if it became policy would just mean that a lot of people wouldn't be able to get cool hats on their units with no cost to you other than perhaps being jealous that other people have cool hats on their units that you didn't want to pay for?

 

[Zaarin]

Surely you're allowed to give you're opinion. I'm just trying to understand why one would hold that opinion when if it became policy would just mean that a lot of people wouldn't be able to get cool hats on their units with no cost to you other than perhaps being jealous that other people have cool hats on their units that you didn't want to pay for?

I don't have anything against cosmetic DLC--art style is a significant part of any game--my problem with Paradox is: A) overpriced cosmetic DLC and B) an excess of cosmetic DLC and a dearth of real content. The bulk of DLC, IMO, should add real content to the game--particularly new civs and leaders (and I'm okay with some map packs--I definitely got my money's worth out of Scrambled Continents, for example). Cosmetic DLC plummet further in value if they're simple reskins; cosmetic DLC should definitely add new graphic elements to the game to be worth their value.

 

[ehecatzin]

Cosmetic DLC plummet further in value if they're simple reskins; cosmetic DLC should definitely add new graphic elements to the game to be worth their value.

We were shown some ethnic variations on a couple of units, like the swordsman, and frigates, I think other than that we've seen nothing more, right now thats a bit of a coin toss, I'm really hoping its a WIP and they'll be ready by release, instead of being scrapped for later.

As for the Cosmetic DLC reskins value. I'd argue you could say the same about city graphics, we could have just 1 style of housing and the game would play exactly the same. However graphics are also a part of immersion and replayabilty. I can tell you it annoyed me to no end to play any non european civ and get clearly European looking pikemen. Mods did alleviate this, the ethnic units mod did add a lot of immersion and replayability to civ5, even european civs got a lot of replayability this way, having Triarii skins instead of spearmen on Rome for example.

So yeah, while mods do make a great job making ethnic variation, it should be something already included in the game (just like city graphics).

For cosmetic elements that add something else into the game, I think there's plenty of improvement on the terrain department. While some terrains did get some love, like coasts and tundras, the woods got less variety, all of them being pine woods.

I we could see DLC packs that also include maps (and scripts), natural wonders and new graphics for existing terrains, similar to the continental graphical diferences of civ5. We could have an Asian set, an african set, a Caribbean set (think of the beaches and jungles) etc.

It would certainly make wondering into a new continent in game that much more interesting and easier to spot.

 

[Zaarin]

We were shown some ethnic variations on a couple of units, like the swordsman, and frigates, I think other than that we've seen nothing more, right now thats a bit of a coin toss, I'm really hoping its a WIP and they'll be ready by release, instead of being scrapped for later.

As for the Cosmetic DLC reskins value. I'd argue you could say the same about city graphics, we could have just 1 style of housing and the game would play exactly the same. However graphics are also a part of immersion and replayabilty. I can tell you it annoyed me to no end to play any non european civ and get clearly European looking pikemen. Mods did alleviate this, the ethnic units mod did add a lot of immersion and replayability to civ5, even european civs got a lot of replayability this way, having Triarii skins instead of spearmen on Rome for example.

So yeah, while mods do make a great job making ethnic variation, it should be something already included in the game (just like city graphics).

For cosmetic elements that add something else into the game, I think there's plenty of improvement on the terrain department. While some terrains did get some love, like coasts and tundras, the woods got less variety, all of them being pine woods.

I we could see DLC packs that also include maps (and scripts), natural wonders and new graphics for existing terrains, similar to the continental graphical diferences of civ5. We could have an Asian set, an african set, a Caribbean set (think of the beaches and jungles) etc.

It would certainly make wondering into a new continent in game that much more interesting and easier to spot.

Agreed, the visual variations in Civ6 could stand improvement (though unique architecture and ethnic variations are already a huge step in the right direction compared to Civ5). I'd be willing to buy DLC that improved on that model, assuming it was reasonably priced for the amount of content it provided.

 

[Depravo]

I used to be okay with it but I think it has gotten a little out of hand.

This. They've screwed the pooch with DLC. Their two non-sucky releases (CK2 and EU4) were in hindsight anomalies, and both are drowning under the weight of ill-thought-out cash-grab featurettes. HoI4 is a disaster. I'm sure they're raking it in but I've bought my last Paradox game.

 

[Zenstrive]

I want the current version of the DLC, since the DLCs we have for Civ V are adding more features plus the Civs that are using said additional features as their powers.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No, I don't think firaxis should engage in false advertising and creating problems in patches that dlc lets you bypass. Why would you even consider that?

 

[Biz_]

the model of releasing a bunch of overly complicated systems without an actual strategy game attached?

no thanks