7 Myths About CIV Players That Fooled Developers at Firaxis

[MutilationWave]

The ages system does do this mechanically, although, like many things, the numbers could be tuned better. The simple fact that you cannot research ahead of the era is massive. Notice what parts of "rubberbanding" players complain about - it's whenever they feel something is being taken away from them. Not when they are prevented from doing something nor when the opponent is given something (since all civs start an age at the same tech level, everyone is "given" missing techs.) Yet they all enjoy the games where there's a competitive rival and it's a close-run thing. This is a problem of presentation and design and it's not easy to solve.

This is so well put, especially regarding taking things away rather than preventing the player from having things. It's a big emotional reaction that's at the core of the hate of ages just as much as the intellectual hate directed at "ahistorical" civ switching.

I think some people are commingling their feelings about the things they lose on age change with the civ switch itself, without realizing it.

For me, civ is a fantasy game so I don't care at all about civ switching, it's the mechanics of age change that annoy me.

I think the people on the "ahistorical" facet of the issue could be placated with more civs to give a natural feeling progression. And who doesn't want more civs right?

Tuning the mechanics will be more difficult as you said. I think a big first step would be to just leave our damn units where they are, and don't change them into different types. I really like the commander-unit limits otherwise.

I would love to play a difficult game of civ 7, but it hasn't happened. I tried my first game on immortal because the game was new, no challenge then, no challenge on deity. I'm in favor of MORE rubberbanding. Good AI would be the best fix but that's a different discussion.

 

[Leucarum]

The simple fact that you cannot research ahead of the era is massive.

Interestingly that has come up with multiple friends who won't switch from 6 to 7 as a big reason they dislike the game. I haven't seen it talked about as much on here, but it's definitely something I've heard IRL.

There's a class of player who gets pleasure out of achieving a tech lead and then stomping people with more advanced units. My arguments that squishing everyone to a more narrow tech band has made combat more interesting and encouraged more "combined arms" fell on flat ears somewhat, when the other side felt that the tech squish was almost a personal attack on their playstyle.

 

[McSpank01]

I think some people are commingling their feelings about the things they lose on age change with the civ switch itself, without realizing it.

This is definitely how I feel. I am totally on board with the idea of Civ switching, because it is in fact more historic for a Civ to evolve into something else, rather than stay the same for thousands of years. No problem with that, though it could feel a bit more subtle rather than the crude way it is implemented now, which feels like a hard cut in the middle of your game. I think what people object to is the abruptness of the ages and how you get taken away from your civ, it's gets made worse and you have to come back to see things moved around and need to kind of start again. That is not a fun gameplay loop.

I think my issue with Civ 7 in general is that there are some good ideas, but the implementation is very crude and hard edged. They made a lot of tough decisions when making the game, but the way they implemented it was the most basic way they could think to do it. Maybe over time they will be able to add more complexity and fine tune how things work. So Legacy paths won't seem crude (no more collect your 20 Pokemon tasks, but a combination of actions), and ages will seem less like a hard cut. That is my hope.

 

[user746383]

It’s that early access feeling. All this new stuff still seems to me like rough ideas being figured out, rather than a full price game with paid DLC on day one. And now they’ve polarised the community to the extent that they can’t iterate on the features because a group of people think they are perfect the way they are and take it personally if anyone even discusses changing them.

But if we were in early access, that discussion around what to keep, what to change, and what to throw away would just be normal. The community wouldn’t be trying to sort itself into true fans and the undesirables who don’t like the game and should be sent to re-education camps or just banished to the shadow realm.

 

[Gorbles]

because a group of people think they are perfect the way they are and take it personally if anyone even discusses changing them.

Who is doing this?

 

[McSpank01]

It’s that early access feeling.

I understand the commerical reasons for not doing so, but Baldurs Gate was in early access for ages and ended up being an incredible game. It feels like Civ 7 devs took the approach of just releasing the game and hoping to get feedback live after people paid for it. I don’t love that.

 

[Gorbles]

I understand the commerical reasons for not doing so, but Baldurs Gate was in early access for ages and ended up being an incredible game. It feels like Civ 7 devs took the approach of just releasing the game and hoping to get feedback live after people paid for it. I don’t love that.

The problem is probably more logistical. Baldur's Gate (3) being self-published let them do whatever they want. The same goes for Supergiant Games (and it worked very well for Hades, and hopefully will as well for Hades 2).

But Early Access introduces logistical complications. The game has to be playable earlier on. The price tends to have to be adjusted (for both buy-in reasons and "I'm not paying £50 to test an unfinished game" reasons). These involve changes to the release window that are firmly in 2K's court (whose only real incentive is to make sure their quarterlies are appropriately-inflated).

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, and it's an interesting thought exercise for the future. But it's not something that Firaxis are at liberty to do themselves.

 

[McSpank01]

The problem is probably more logistical. Baldur's Gate (3) being self-published let them do whatever they want. The same goes for Supergiant Games (and it worked very well for Hades, and hopefully will as well for Hades 2).

But Early Access introduces logistical complications. The game has to be playable earlier on. The price tends to have to be adjusted (for both buy-in reasons and "I'm not paying £50 to test an unfinished game" reasons). These involve changes to the release window that are firmly in 2K's court (whose only real incentive is to make sure their quarterlies are appropriately-inflated).

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, and it's an interesting thought exercise for the future. But it's not something that Firaxis are at liberty to do themselves.

Yeah I think commercially it just would never have happened. It does seem like this is a game that would have very much benefited from large scale long term user testing and feedback however. All signs point to it being rushed out in an unfinished state, with the goal of ‘fixing it in post’

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah I think commercially it just would never have happened. It does seem like this is a game that would have very much benefited from large scale long term user testing and feedback however. All signs point to it being rushed out in an unfinished state, with the goal of ‘fixing it in post’

There's also the corresponding risk of "too many cooks". We have a lot of players with competing interests. Some proudly state that they think the franchise "went wrong" with Civ 5.

Distilling that into actionable feedback for a game two beyond CiV is tricky.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be worth it (impossible to say), but there are levels of feedback here on CFC (to say nothing of social media) that aren't always in the Venn circle of "constructive". Early Access would necessitate moderation of these kinds of things (which would be another community management burden).

 

[McSpank01]

There's also the corresponding risk of "too many cooks". We have a lot of players with competing interests. Some proudly state that they think the franchise "went wrong" with Civ 5.

Distilling that into actionable feedback for a game two beyond CiV is tricky.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be worth it (impossible to say), but there are levels of feedback here on CFC (to say nothing of social media) that aren't always in the Venn circle of "constructive". Early Access would necessitate moderation of these kinds of things (which would be another community management burden).

True, but I think if they were only paying attention to forums and steam reviews then they would be fooled by a lot of the noise. Actually getting data from users as they play it at a larger scale allows them to see what users are doing, rather than what they are saying. I’m sure they are taking all this in now, but they might be a year away from implementing real meaningful change.

 

[Krikkit1]

Interestingly that has come up with multiple friends who won't switch from 6 to 7 as a big reason they dislike the game. I haven't seen it talked about as much on here, but it's definitely something I've heard IRL.

There's a class of player who gets pleasure out of achieving a tech lead and then stomping people with more advanced units. My arguments that squishing everyone to a more narrow tech band has made combat more interesting and encouraged more "combined arms" fell on flat ears somewhat, when the other side felt that the tech squish was almost a personal attack on their playstyle.

They aren’t wrong. Their playstyle was heavily based on snowballing, which the devs specifically set out to squash.
(they can still probably do it, it just needs more setup for them to do that)

 

[McSpank01]

They aren’t wrong. Their playstyle was heavily based on snowballing, which the devs specifically set out to squash.
(they can still probably do it, it just needs more setup for them to do that)

You can never have tanks fighting spearmen, and honestly that is a massive loss as maybe one of the key memorable traits of the game.

 

[MutilationWave]

I understand the commerical reasons for not doing so, but Baldurs Gate was in early access for ages and ended up being an incredible game. It feels like Civ 7 devs took the approach of just releasing the game and hoping to get feedback live after people paid for it. I don’t love that.

I don't have any insider info, but I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to delay Civ. But Rockstar wanted to delay GTA so 2K said no delay for Civ, get it out the door.

 

[Leucarum]

They aren’t wrong. Their playstyle was heavily based on snowballing, which the devs specifically set out to squash.
(they can still probably do it, it just needs more setup for them to do that)

And it leaves me effectively saying "The way you like to play is bad for the game..." Which unfortunately, I think is true - the tech squish has been a really good call for making combat more interesting!

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

And it leaves me effectively saying "The way you like to play is bad for the game..." Which unfortunately, I think is true - the tech squish has been a really good call for making combat more interesting!

But you saying "how you like to play is bad for the game" is falling on deaf ears considering the player counts and review scores

your opinion seems out of line with the general fan consensus, so maybe what you think is good for the game is actually bad for the franchise?

 

[Krikkit1]

And it leaves me effectively saying "The way you like to play is bad for the game..." Which unfortunately, I think is true - the tech squish has been a really good call for making combat more interesting!

Well I think part of this is there isn’t an objective “good for the game”.* A game where there is one overwhelmingly obvious strategy that makes it easy…isn’t necessarily bad, because some people enjoy it.
Especially something like civ, there is a “strategy game” aspect but there is also the “alternate history writer” aspect and the “I want to remake the world in my image” aspect.

To some degree those can work together (some challenges in remaking the world makes it feel like I earned it)…but other times there is tension.

Snowballing is one thing that is bad for strategy, but good for megalomaniac escapism. So for some people that will be worse. I want less snowballing in my games but I can see where someone might want more.


*even some “bugs” are sometimes good for the game (unless they are crashes)

 

[Leucarum]

But you saying "how you like to play is bad for the game" is falling on deaf ears considering the player counts and review scores

your opinion seems out of line with the general fan consensus, so maybe what you think is good for the game is actually bad for the franchise?

Well at least the poster below you understood the point being made...

Well I think part of this is there isn’t an objective “good for the game”.* A game where there is one overwhelmingly obvious strategy that makes it easy…isn’t necessarily bad, because some people enjoy it.
Especially something like civ, there is a “strategy game” aspect but there is also the “alternate history writer” aspect and the “I want to remake the world in my image” aspect.

To some degree those can work together (some challenges in remaking the world makes it feel like I earned it)…but other times there is tension.

Snowballing is one thing that is bad for strategy, but good for megalomaniac escapism. So for some people that will be worse. I want less snowballing in my games but I can see where someone might want more.


*even some “bugs” are sometimes good for the game (unless they are crashes)

Yep, agreed, there is no one way to play Civ "correctly" - I'm hoping that removing legacy paths might be pretty helpful in terms of letting people play their way. But I suspect players who enjoy the "megalomania" style of play will be disappointed with Civ7 in the same way the "never-1UPT" crowd remain disappointed.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You can never have tanks fighting spearmen, and honestly that is a massive loss as maybe one of the key memorable traits of the game.

As far as I know, the only time that actually happened was in the Italian campaign in Ethiopia in 1936 - 37, when Ethiopian militia armed only with spears and a few rifles went up against Italian tanks. Mind you, they were pretty dinky tanks, little 2-man vehicles armed only with machineguns, but the principle holds. I suspect it wasn't any more fun for the Ethiopians than it would be for the Civ spearmen or the gamer playing their Civ.

To return to the 'abrupt and arbitrary' change of everything at the Age changes, I can see why they did it that way - if you are trying to 're-level' the playing field, giving the human gamer any input at all into what is happening opens the door for said human to game the system against the hapless (so far!) AI and defeats the leveling purpose.

Also, making the changes rather arbitrary (moving all your armies and fleets, for instance) neatly models the fact that no one in 'real' history predicted the changes that were occuring - no one in Rome or China, at least in any surviving records, predicted the Fall of either western Rome or the Han or what came next: neither the Tang Dynasty nor Charlemagne's post-Roman empire show up in any form in any earlier musings.

But being 'realistic' or even a good game mechanic does not necessarily make for a Fun Game, and that is as basic as anything in game design - if people don't enjoy it, it is a doomed game.

Perhaps the answer is to allow some form of control over elements of the Crisis Changes, but at a cost. That is, you can mass your armies where you want to start the new Age, but at the cost of possibly losing a settlement or two or a massive reduction in Gold, Influence, or Production at the start of the new Age.

If everything you want to do is presented accompanied by seriously painful costs, it is the gamer's decision which costs they are willing to endure, not a Mandatory Event rammed down his/her throat by the game design.

 

[McSpank01]

And it leaves me effectively saying "The way you like to play is bad for the game..." Which unfortunately, I think is true - the tech squish has been a really good call for making combat more interesting!

The problem is it really is fun to snowball against some civs and grind them to dust with your gunpowder when they are still waving swords at you. The fun came from that sort of contrast, it fires the imagination. That doesn’t mean you want there to be no challenge, or that snowballing is good. But if some civs get left behind and don’t advance well past the Bronze Age, that is also pretty cool.

Battles right now are not very fun because there is little in the way of contrast and identity. You end up with units which can only be differentiated by an icon or how many chevrons they have, otherwise feeling pretty similar. Combat in civ 7 is simply not complex enough to replace that fun factor, so when similarly teched units face each other it’s just a dull grind.

 

[MutilationWave]

The problem is it really is fun to snowball against some civs and grind them to dust with your gunpowder when they are still waving swords at you. The fun came from that sort of contrast, it fires the imagination. That doesn’t mean you want there to be no challenge, or that snowballing is good. But if some civs get left behind and don’t advance well past the Bronze Age, that is also pretty cool.

Battles right now are not very fun because there is little in the way of contrast and identity. You end up with units which can only be differentiated by an icon or how many chevrons they have, otherwise feeling pretty similar. Combat in civ 7 is simply not complex enough to replace that fun factor, so when similarly teched units face each other it’s just a dull grind.

I think combat is the most complex it's ever been in civ with commanders. I get the appeal of crushing a knight with a tank a couple times, but no challenge for me is no fun.