|
KyloWinter posted:Is this game still bad? Yes
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Come on firaxis, put the dlc on sale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:It's awesome if you just want to chill and plop cities on a map and occasionally stomp the poo poo out of an AI that barely understands the game. you would think that this would be the case, but i, king of chilling and plopping cities on a map and occasionally stomping the poo poo out of an ai that barely understands the game, don't really care for it. i honestly couldn't tell you specifically what it is that i don't like about it, i guess everything about it seems really hard to interpret visually and a lot of it feels like "bugs that we were too lazy to take out so we called them features." Gort posted:I haven't played in months. i took out civ 4 and civ 5 a few weeks ago and gave those a spin and they were still fun
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Does the AI still get loving pissed at you for being a warmonger despite never initiating a war?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
KyloWinter posted:Does the AI still get loving pissed at you for being a warmonger despite never initiating a war? the ai will always get loving pissed at you for capturing a city, so yes. but this is civ 5-style diplo ai so its basic state of being is "furious that you are playing the game" and idk i guess i don't care for an ai that insists on being so oppositional and disagreeable
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Ya. Sounds like nothing has changed. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
KyloWinter posted:Does the AI still get loving pissed at you for being a warmonger despite never initiating a war? Nobody should consider you a warmonger for prolonging a war you didn't start, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
homullus posted:Nobody should consider you a warmonger for prolonging a war you didn't start, right? not when the reason you're prolonging the war is because the ai's peace offer is "give me all your cities" no
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Me and 4 friends are looking to get a fun LAN-game - We've played a bit of Civ5 last year (biggest complaint was that you couldn't use DLC if not everyone had it I think?) and are now looking at Civ6. Does it allow for 5 Players versus 5 Computers in a non-frustrating way?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Lamquin posted:Me and 4 friends are looking to get a fun LAN-game - We've played a bit of Civ5 last year (biggest complaint was that you couldn't use DLC if not everyone had it I think?) and are now looking at Civ6. Does it allow for 5 Players versus 5 Computers in a non-frustrating way? iirc civ 6 doesn't support teams? unless this has changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:iirc civ 6 doesn't support teams? unless this has changed. I think they've added it in a recent patch. Yup, they did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
drat weren't even-numbered civ games supposed to be good
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Civ games aren't good until the second expansion. I knew this and brought it anyway. Honestly though it's a lot better at launch than V was. So in ten years we'll be set!  No but seriously the AI is still bad, the diplomacy system is still awful, and the religion system is an afterthought. Unpacked cities are super cool though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
From a technical point of view I quite like Civ 6. Multiplayer works, and the game doesn't have any weird multiplayer limitations like using a cut-down version of the AI for multiplayer, arbitrarily preventing you playing scenarios in multiplayer, that sort of thing. I think if they ever get around to releasing a proper SDK for the game it'll explode. Unpacked cities are OK, I really hate how district costs scale with the number of technologies you've researched, that's dumb as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Once you have electricity, nobody builds a district of their modern city without electricity. Maybe they should have made it more of a stair-step increase in prices; maybe they tried that, and ran into problems I can't think of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
homullus posted:Once you have electricity, nobody builds a district of their modern city without electricity. Maybe they should have made it more of a stair-step increase in prices; maybe they tried that, and ran into problems I can't think of. Thinking of it this way is overly simplistic. Sure, building a skyscraper with your hands is more effort than building an adobe hut with your hands, but construction technology advances over time. Impossible projects become possible as construction tech advances. People want electricity in their houses, but you also have electrically-powered machinery to make building them less effort. In Civ 6, learning the wheel, masonry, mathematics, and construction all make districts more expensive, which is utterly bonkers. They should've just made the more advanced districts more expensive to build, not made the discovery of professional sports make your theatres more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Gort posted:Thinking of it this way is overly simplistic. Sure, building a skyscraper with your hands is more effort than building an adobe hut with your hands, but construction technology advances over time. Impossible projects become possible as construction tech advances. People want electricity in their houses, but you also have electrically-powered machinery to make building them less effort. It's an abstraction, obviously. But to use the electricity example again, yes, you have machinery to make that construction process easier, but by that time you have 27 levels of "people making the piece of the tool that helps you make the next piece of the next tool" leading up to that machinery. It is an entire factory that produces the bulldozer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Yeah, a modern building is a lot more expensive a building was 300 years ago. At the same time, our industrial capacity and building tech advanced a lot, so much that is probably faster to build the modern building The way it is in Civ 6, is almost as if we were building 21 century buildings with ancient technology
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
homullus posted:It's an abstraction, obviously. But to use the electricity example again, yes, you have machinery to make that construction process easier, but by that time you have 27 levels of "people making the piece of the tool that helps you make the next piece of the next tool" leading up to that machinery. It is an entire factory that produces the bulldozer. Nah. This is dumb logic. If the end point is supposed to be the modern world, than districts should be geared towards producing modern sprawling cities. At no point in history did technological advance make it harder or relatively more expensive ( in building or maintenance) to build cities. In absolute costs maybe, but not in resource costs relative to total economic production.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Yeah, the progressive cost of districts is stupid and there's no good argument for it. Hopefully that gets fixed in one of the expansions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
It also has bad effects on the game. Cities you build later on take forever to get off the ground due to the ridiculous costs of late-game districts. Seriously, they inflate in cost by 1000% over the course of the game. I've seen mods which fix it - either by making district costs static, or by scaling them by the number of districts of that type you already own, which I think is an elegant balance fix.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Civ 6 is a good game in a vacuum, but I dislike it because it makes the same mistakes as the previous entries. It feels like the developers never bothered actually playing the game they are creating. Pedro pops up and offers friendship: where is Pedro on the map, who likes Pedro, who disliked Pedro, who is Pedro at war with? There is no place to get this information. One of the most popular mods in Civ 6 was infoaddict because it provided the player with an actual readable chart that displayed this information, but nothing like that exists in Civ 6. How did nobody at Firaxis play this game and not bring up that there is zero information available to the player in a strategy game? We needed a team of fans to make the CQUI mod just to provide things as simple as tooltips.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
I think you're all wrong about the progressive costs of districts, but whatever. They could just say that building a district takes x turns in a standard game in any era and divorce it from production. It would be more years in the ancient era than in the modern, but the same number of turns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Civ6 is too board gamey, and 1upt still sucks with all the same problems it had in CivV except they added religious combat for some reason to make it even worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Civ6 is too board gamey, and 1upt still sucks with all the same problems it had in CivV except they added religious combat for some reason to make it even worse. Define "board gamey"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Gort posted:Define "board gamey" Yeah I'd almost say it's not board gamey enough, because board games have (mostly) rigid, completely explained rules and don't try to obfuscate poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Maybe district cost and effectiveness should depend on the production or wealth generation of the city in which it is to be built. Maybe district cost should be proportional to the builder's relative position to the mean or median advancement of all the players in the game. theres a will theres moe fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jun 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
How is there still no way to start a new game with the same settings as the current one. It's not that hard to save settings or at least implement ctrl-shift-n.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
LLSix posted:How is there still no way to start a new game with the same settings as the current one. It's not that hard to save settings or at least implement ctrl-shift-n. It's because they're working real hard on higher priority issues. Like ten dollar map pack DLCs or something
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
LLSix posted:How is there still no way to start a new game with the same settings as the current one. It's not that hard to save settings or at least implement ctrl-shift-n. Becuase there is a mod to do it. Why spend dev time to put quality of life features in your game when some modder will do it for free? See also CQUI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:drat weren't even-numbered civ games supposed to be good It still works if you consider Beyond Earth the real Civ 6. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:It still works if you consider Beyond Earth the real Civ 6. Beyond Earth's poo poo though
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
Gort posted:Beyond Earth's poo poo though It's pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Mymla posted:It's pretty good. Nobody plays it 'cause it's poo poo. Civ 6 isn't even good and has fifteen times the playerbase
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:It still works if you consider Beyond Earth the real Civ 6. you thought BE was good at release so I think I know exactly how much weight to put on your opinion here anyway that would make SMAC the real civ 3 and then everything goes out the window
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:anyway that would make SMAC the real civ 3 and then everything goes out the window the odd-numbered smacs are good alternatively, count pirates
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
new rule: every civ game is good in precise proportion to the quality of the corresponding edition of d&d
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:new rule: every civ game is good in precise proportion to the quality of the corresponding edition of d&d But Civ 4 is actually good. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:But Civ 4 is actually good. easily the best civ game so far, yeah
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Civ 5 is the best analogy for 4e though A good game that draws/drew ire for trying to do something different from its predecessors cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 03:55
|
|
