7 Myths About CIV Players That Fooled Developers at Firaxis

[Gorbles]

Yea sure your right and other games got it wrong .
Civ vii ofc nailed it and it’s just better to forget all about Genghis Khan .

Yes, but without the sarcasm

I don't know, I'd have liked it if it was required and would install a mod that implemented it. The only thing I do with civ7 maps is look for camels and build cities there, otherwise doesn't matter. So maybe it's not a clear cut good design/bad design thing. Dwarf Fortress is an example of a fun, well designed game that will screw you with RNG. Most roguelikes/roguelites as well. I wouldn't say all those games have bad design because they gate features behind pRNG. I essentially play Civ games as a roguelite, and I know from comments in other strategy forums others do too.

Roguelites are an entirely different genre. While it's not at all impossible to make something that blends the two, putting it into an established franchise risks rocking the boat. As we have seen with changes to the formula in Ages in VII. As ever, we can all individually like whatever we want.

Your choice to play Civ "like a roguelite" isn't something that can be extrapolated enough to cause a core design shift like that. We have enough arguments from folks here that Firaxis, with all its data, listened to the wrong things. Heck, that's what this thread is about!

Remember; the mapgen outcome isn't intentional. It's not even a part of the actual design.

 

[protocol7]

I'm not saying they should add roguelite features (although they sort of did with the meta progression, but that's another story). You've already been able to play civ in the style of one going back as far as I can remember - start a game on a difficulty level you find hard, see what map you get, and play it as best you can, come what challenges may. Optionally use random civ and/or map if you like, but roguelites support both random and character selection. The design shift was making the map not really matter as much as it used to so you don't have to play it anymore, which harmed (among other things) the ability to challenge yourself in this way. If you look back at old versions of civ games strategy forums, playing the map was one of the first lessons people were taught when trying to challenge themselves on higher difficulty levels.

I don't know that we can really say mapgen isn't part of the design when they include maps that are naturally more or less balanced, and even include a balanced mapgen option as well as shuffle in the game. Some people for sure like balanced maps where you're guaranteed to get what you need, and that option is there so someone must have designed something or had some intent. Some people also like imbalanced, unpredictable maps too. You don't have to change genres to support this. My favorite map in civ6 is primordial, which is designed to be all kinds of messed up - and super fun for being so. That feature didn't make civ6 become a different genre, and I don't see how it's a betrayal of civ7 (or even general) design principles to have the same kinds of mapgen options now.

 

[Kev1916]

"random map generation slapping you in the face." "due to issues in resource allocation during the mapgen " "they shouldn't get RNGd into significantly harder games." "Relying on pRNG for primary access to a feature usually isn't."

Maybe you boys should just ask for the game to come with just one type map ?
Like a game of Ludo the board is exactly the same for all players , resources are the same, same amount, type and placement etc .


Also Horse's did not in Civ Vi Mongolia get a few due to start bias? I did enjoy them but never played them much as they were so over powered .

lastly Civ Vii who is the great Khan of the Mongol Empire this time round !! and folk get all annoyed that they might have no access to horses ....

 

[Gorbles]

The design shift was making the map not really matter as much as it used to so you don't have to play it anymore, which harmed (among other things) the ability to challenge yourself in this way.

I think this is entirely arguable, and various posters (including myself) have already argued why the map still matters.

You can't challenge yourself with RNG, either. Not reliably. But again, I've already said this.

I don't know that we can really say mapgen isn't part of the design when they include maps that are naturally more or less balanced, and even include a balanced mapgen option as well as shuffle in the game.

Mapgen doing a whoopsy and not giving (starting biased!) resources is most definitely not part of the design. It's an edge case. All systems above a (surprisingly basic) level of complexity end up with edge cases. You're a technical product manager, right? You've done design reviews, possibly even sat in on acceptance criteria. You get it.

The fact that the design allows this to happen is something that the developers have explicitly accounted for in VII's design. They've corrected it so that players aren't at the mercy of such severe RNG. However unlikely it was statistically to crop up - remember, players weight feelings strongly. See - immersion and Ages!

Maybe you boys should just ask for the game to come with just one type map ?

I don't think this is a fair characterisation of anyone's argument in this thread.

I also think you, protocol7 and McSpank01 would object if others characterised each of your arguments that uncharitably. Can we have a bit more valuing of other posters' arguments, please?

 

[protocol7]

I'm just telling you my experience and preferences so you can't really prove me wrong in the way you're trying. I can and have done the things you're telling me you've already told me I couldn't. I've never had a game of civ7 where the map did anything interesting apart from putting camels in different places, which is almost the total opposite of my experience in the other civ titles where the map was the most interesting thing. In previous titles it felt like a designer considered my preferences and ensured they were accounted for, not necessarily as the default but as an option. Nobody before ever said anything like it was bad design to account for these preferences, or anything like that. Plenty of e-ink was spilled over how fun and strategically interesting it was to deal with unbalanced maps in the strategy forums of previous iterations. I'm not saying it's for everyone or it's the only way, just saying you can't really say things like it's prima facie bad design to have randomness or unbalanced maps or anything else like that.

I don't think that "Mapgen doing a whoopsy and not giving (starting biased!) resources is most definitely not part of the design." is a fair characterization or relates to what anyone is advocating for here either. Just - unbalanced, weird maps with missing resources and other challenges can be fun, and are not a design flaw end of story. That speaks more to the preferences of someone who likes knowing they're going to get the same required resources every game, which is cool too, but not the only way to play. It's not broken/bad design if someone designs and includes a map that is all kinds of weird that doesn't guarantee you everything your civ needs to grow out of the gate. It creates challenge and interesting games in tandem with the difficulty slider, and that doesn't mean it's not working as intended or an edge case or whatever. Same goes for enjoying starting the game missing key resources for your civ, and somehow making it work. Those are the games at least I personally remember the most when I pull out a win.

 

[McSpank01]

I think this is entirely arguable, and various posters (including myself) have already argued why the map still matters.

You would concede though that the map matters less than it does before right? From my perspective I echo the above, outside of looking for camels and maybe gold, there are almost no decisions I need to make when laying down my settlements. I could try and move closer to iron, but it’s inconsequential in terms of combat strength. Adjacency is so easy to come by that it’s almost meaningless.

Even natural wonders serve very little purpose.

I think it’s all pointing to a general trend in the game of simplification, so there is just far less strategic thinking needed to get through a game. Instead the best way to win is cheesing poorly thought out mechanics and stacking modifiers. That really is bad game design

 

[Gorbles]

I'm just telling you my experience and preferences so you can't really prove me wrong in the way you're trying.

In what way am I trying to prove you wrong?

I can and have done the things you're telling me you've already told me I couldn't.

What have I told you that you can't do?

In previous titles it felt like a designer considered my preferences and ensured they were accounted for, not necessarily as the default but as an option.

RNG in strategic resource spawns in Civ VI is not an option. It's not something you choose.

I don't think that "Mapgen doing a whoopsy and not giving (starting biased!) resources is most definitely not part of the design." is a fair characterization or relates to what anyone is advocating for here either.

I'm starting to feel like you're taking things personally that aren't aimed at you in the slightest.

The context here is Mongolia not spawning with Horses in Civ VI. The mapgen doing that is not your fault. The game being programmed in a way that leads this to happen is not your fault.

But it is, absolutely, 100%, what can happen in Civ VI. And some players don't like this. You (and others) say you enjoy the challenge that this situation can provide. But it's random! It's a side-effect of mapgen RNG. It's not an intentional outcome (otherwise, why have starting biases?). It is not a challenge you can decide to challenge yourself with. The game decides for you, and you only realise this once you've spent the time setting up and loading into a game.

If you think I'm discussing anything else, trust me, that's not my intent. I am specifically talking about the issues with resource generation in VI (and V / BE to be honest - I'm pretty familiar with the map function used to do this) and how VII improves this by reducing the RNG so that player-negative outcomes don't occur.

This doesn't mean you can't want a challenge, or want options to play the game a certain way. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy "unbalanced" map scripts. It doesn't mean they can't be something that is added to the game.

You would concede though that the map matters less than it does before right? From my perspective I echo the above, outside of looking for camels and maybe gold, there are almost no decisions I need to make when laying down my settlements. I could try and move closer to iron, but it’s inconsequential in terms of combat strength. Adjacency is so easy to come by that it’s almost meaningless.

I disagree. Nearly all resources are valuable when it comes to maximising Happiness (nevermind being useful when you hit Crises). Happiness is good because it powers Celebration overflow. Resources are also valuable for the Silk Road (in Antiquity). There are other bonuses too.

River / freshwater access is as useful as its always been, too.

I think it’s all pointing to a general trend in the game of simplification, so there is just far less strategic thinking needed to get through a game.

I disagree. Independent Powers now reward more strategic planning than barbs and City-States did before. This is because beforehand, Barbs were always Barbs, and CSs, always CSs. They were always handled in the same way.

And that's just one area I can think of (mainly because it's a change I'm really enjoying).

 

[protocol7]

I'm starting to feel like you willfully forget things you've just said and misunderstand people to score easy points, easier then engaging with people's ideas anyway. I've already tried to be patient and repeatedly explain in as fair and open minded way as I can, so I'll just say good day and wish you best of luck in whatever you're trying to accomplish. I won't reply to your edits either.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm starting to feel like you willfully forget things you've just said and misunderstand people to score easy points, easier then engaging with people's ideas anyway. I've already tried to be patient and repeatedly explain in as fair and open minded way as I can, so I'll just say good day and wish you best of luck in whatever you're trying to accomplish. I won't reply to your edits either.

I'm sorry that I've caused you feel that way, because I don't know what you're referring to nor is it what I'm trying to achieve.

My PMs are always open. Have a good day!

 

[UWHabs]

I disagree. All resources are valuable when it comes to maximising Happiness (nevermind being useful when you hit Crises). Happiness is good because it powers Celebration overflow. Resources are also valuable for the Silk Road (in Antiquity).

River / freshwater access is as useful as its always been, too.

I disagree. Independent Powers now reward more strategic planning than barbs and City-States did before. This is because beforehand, Barbs were always Barbs, and CSs, always CSs. They were always handled in the same way.

And that's just one area I can think of (mainly because it's a change I'm really enjoying).

It's a weird situation, where on the one hand, you want strong and powerful resources to chase, but if every resource was strong, then basically none of them are. I do think right now camels and gold are too strong - without camels, basically half the resources you settle are useless because you can't slot them.

And yeah, I do think the IP decisions make some good challenges. Not least is trying to balance how much you try to suze them, vs wiping them out and saving that influence for diplo actions with other leaders.

I think my only "problem" with the civ 7 mapgen is that because all terrain types are valid, you don't really look at a vast desert and think "oh boy, I need to settle around the edge, because I don't want to be stuck with a terrible city in the middle". So while it's cool to have more valid options to settle, you miss a little bit of that balance between the fertile river valley vs the arid deserts in making your decisions. A couple natural wonders are worth chasing, and obviously the search for camels and gold matters, but because of the same-ness of terrain, the only real considerations for settlement spots is just the balance of resources/mountains/rivers.
I am starting to care a little more - if I'm low happiness for my empire, I do search pearls a little more than if I'm not struggling there. And maybe there's a few more times that I should pay attention - settling fresh water vs off is effectively worth 1 resource, since the city gets a happiness penalty. My last game I was playing last night there's a couple places where in retrospect I realize I maybe should have settled one tile up or down from where I did, either for river access or freshwater access. And I know I also probably need to be a little more efficient - in my brain I still settle everything sort of assuming that it's going to develop into a city so I'm trying to fit everything in, but I should probably in reality settle a few more spots knowing this is just becoming a farming town, so make sure to consciously only put farms down, or know that another town is a mining town. It's just a pain when you get that town which has like 3 farms, 3 mines, and is only connected to like 1 or 2 other settlements, so it just ends up being not good at anything.

 

[Leucarum]

You would concede though that the map matters less than it does before right? From my perspective I echo the above, outside of looking for camels and maybe gold, there are almost no decisions I need to make when laying down my settlements. I could try and move closer to iron, but it’s inconsequential in terms of combat strength. Adjacency is so easy to come by that it’s almost meaningless.

Even natural wonders serve very little purpose

My personal bugbear is non-antiquity civs with terrain-specific bonuses; Inca, Nepal, Russia, Shawnee, etc... I guess the idea was that if you had a good map for them you'd play them, but to me it feels like in any situation where it's good to pick them, the map is playing you. It's less "oh I did a great job of setting myself up for an Inca game, congratulations me" and more "guess the game has decided I should play Inca, I feel like I don't matter to this decision..."

 

[UWHabs]

My personal bugbear is non-antiquity civs with terrain-specific bonuses; Inca, Nepal, Russia, Shawnee, etc... I guess the idea was that if you had a good map for them you'd play them, but to me it feels like in any situation where it's good to pick them, the map is playing you. It's less "oh I did a great job of setting myself up for an Inca game, congratulations me" and more "guess the game has decided I should play Inca, I feel like I don't matter to this decision..."

Yeah, they can be a little annoying. Especially if either you don't commit to knowing who you're playing from the start, or you do decide, but don't realize what their bonuses are until later. Like my game I just started I was leaning towards Maya-Shawnee, but I didn't really check their bonuses until later. Had I done so, a couple cities would have shifted over a tile or two, or you just live with the sub-optimal setup.

 

[Leucarum]

Yeah, they can be a little annoying. Especially if either you don't commit to knowing who you're playing from the start, or you do decide, but don't realize what their bonuses are until later. Like my game I just started I was leaning towards Maya-Shawnee, but I didn't really check their bonuses until later. Had I done so, a couple cities would have shifted over a tile or two, or you just live with the sub-optimal setup.

Even so the forward planning needed is kind-of minimal. I really feel like civs with "play the map" themes would have been better restricted to Antiquity...

 

[Krikkit1]

It seems like a good option for those who prefer a more OR less challenging map would be

1. Allow players to choose a start bias (biome/Mtn/River rather than Resources/NatWonders)
2. Allow players to disable any start bias

There could also be some changes to Terrain itself (so that some was more challenging)…but that is slightly different.

 

[Leucarum]

It seems like a good option for those who prefer a more OR less challenging map would be

1. Allow players to choose a start bias (biome/Mtn/River rather than Resources/NatWonders)
2. Allow players to disable any start bias

There could also be some changes to Terrain itself (so that some was more challenging)…but that is slightly different.

I kind of like the ability of letting people choose their start bias... I doubt firaxis will do it just because it would let new players screw thenselves...

 

[Krikkit1]

I kind of like the ability of letting people choose their start bias... I doubt firaxis will do it just because it would let new players screw thenselves...

Well I think it should be an advanced option (disable start bias OR add player start bias) but the default (and what the AI would get) would be the civ+leader start bias.

 

[Gorbles]

I definitely think being able to disable start bias, simply for a challenge, would be something that's very straightforward (ha ha ha). Easier than choosing one, for sure.

 

[McSpank01]

Just out of principal I don’t believe that giving players infinite flexibility to customise their games is a solution to bad game design. The latest patch smells of devs unable to fix their poor decisions, so rather than make sweeping changes, they just allow you to turn features off.

I’m all for giving players options, but what I really want is coherent game design and a cohesive concept.

 

[Mahi]

I do appreciate the the attempt to defeat late game fatigue with age transitions but it was just clearly not the right decision. At least, they tried something new and I can respect that, but I will not forgive them ruining the experience when completing a game by not having any proper statistic overview/end screen. They've tried to pull this stunt ever since civ 5, where they didn't include the map progression.

 

[Krikkit1]

Just out of principal I don’t believe that giving players infinite flexibility to customise their games is a solution to bad game design. The latest patch smells of devs unable to fix their poor decisions, so rather than make sweeping changes, they just allow you to turn features off.

I’m all for giving players options, but what I really want is coherent game design and a cohesive concept.

It the issue is that you (and some others) think balanced maps is bad game design... others players disagree and they think that RNG unbalanced maps is bad game design.
The developers chose what those other players thought over what you thought... and that is what they are designing the game around.

The point is the game is meant to be fun, which means different things to different people. Which is why
Marathon and Online speed are options
Long and short Ages are options
Tiny and Standard (and soon Huge) maps are options
Pangea/Archipelago/continents are options

People can easily say that any of those options should have been how the game "should have been designed" and having the option for Marathon or Archipelago is just covering up bad game design (because everything should be Marathon Archipelago, and people that play Online Pangea are just playing the game wrong.

The fact is they should put in options that can be easily put in... Having Trung lead the Maya starting in Mountainous Tundra is an interesting possibility, but for some players it would not be fun... for Others it would, so having both options would be fun... but they determined that the best for new players (ie the default that the game is based on) is to have them starting in Tropical.

Adding the option for
Trung Maya to start in Mountainous Tundra, because the bias free RNG put you there
or
Trung Maya to start in Mountainous Tundra, because you chose to be there
or
For Trung Maya to Guaranteed start in Tropical, because you chose to be there

would all be good options to add on to the
Trung Maya to start in Tropical, because Civ+Leader Bias made you more likely to be there