"ageless" vs. "persistent"

[Deggial]

I just watched JumboPixel's YouTube covery of the recent dev stream and his remarks regarding the naming convention mentioned in the title.

I have to agree. The current naming convention is interchangable at best and missleading at worst.

My argument: As the currently "ageless" quaters can only be formed in certain ages (= by the then recent civs), they are actually aged locked. Their effect then persists in following ages.
Buildings that can be built not withstanding the (current) age, should be called ageless instead.

Feel free to discuss the topic, if you like.
The main reason I created this post is, that I know the developers tend to read this forum and I wanted to bring the issue to their attention.
Anyway, Bob's your uncle and the nomenclatur won't be changed, I guess.
It's just that (while being a minor issue), I know it will confuse/irritate me.

 

[AriochIV]

I agree, the names are kind of backwards.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Name could easily be modded in past Civs, probably be the case for 7 as well

 

[JNR13]

Yes, flipping them would make sense. However, I warehouse buildings should allow some overbuilding as well, especially since these ancient granaries and brickworks don't upgrade their visuals over time. A Sawmill should be able to replace a Saw Pit. I think it could be different from other buildings in that the old buildings don't lose any effects, but the new ones make them redundant.

Name could easily be modded in past Civs, probably be the case for 7 as well

Even if it's confusing, the official terminology will stick because it's official and playing with a mod flipping the terms would be even more confusing because you'd have to use them the other way around in conversation, still, and you'd have to make sure any other mods or otherwise new content is covered by the change, too.

 

[Deggial]

Even if it's confusing, the official terminology will stick because it's official and playing with a mod flipping the terms would be even more confusing because you'd have to use them the other way around in conversation, still, and you'd have to make sure any other mods or otherwise new content is covered by the change, too.

This exactly.

 

[chaosprophet]

Also pointing out that on the building interlace they're all called ageless as persistent are pretty much ageless but with the addition of being buildable at any time.

However, I warehouse buildings should allow some overbuilding as well, especially since these ancient granaries and brickworks don't upgrade their visuals over time. A Sawmill should be able to replace a Saw Pit. I think it could be different from other buildings in that the old buildings don't lose any effects, but the new ones make them redundant.

Or at least, would be nice if they upgrade their visuals at some point, like when you reach some later tech that upgrade their effect (likely to exist), or at least that new ones built in a new era have newer graphics.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yes, flipping them would make sense. However, I warehouse buildings should allow some overbuilding as well, especially since these ancient granaries and brickworks don't upgrade their visuals over time. A Sawmill should be able to replace a Saw Pit. I think it could be different from other buildings in that the old buildings don't lose any effects, but the new ones make them redundant.


Even if it's confusing, the official terminology will stick because it's official and playing with a mod flipping the terms would be even more confusing because you'd have to use them the other way around in conversation, still, and you'd have to make sure any other mods or otherwise new content is covered by the change, too.

No overbuilding, just switch the visuals on age change.

 

[Kulko]

I agree with the opening poster that the naming convention seems unlucky at best.
Unfortunately I assume it would sow too much chaos in the development process to swap them at this stage. But maybe somebody at Firaxis can come up with 2 new wordings which could describe the thing better.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I have probably missed a nuance here, but is there even a gameplay need to distinguish between the two? Can't they all be marked as persistent and leave it at that? The unique buildings & quarters have an additional requirement (can only be built by X Civ) but is this any different to the requirements for Wonders? Can't this be communicated in a tooltip & the Civilopedia, in the same way?

 

[Black Gate]

Better terminology could be something like ageless for buildings that can be built regardless of which age it is, and something along the lines of irreplaceable/heritage for buildings that can only be built in one age and can't be built over.

 

[Siptah]

I don't understand the need to have both terms in the game. As I understand it, there are four types of buildings: normal, unique, persistent, wonders. I think it is easy to communicate how wonders and unique buildings work without having an additional game term, such as ageless or persistent for them. That leaves normal buildings (available in one age, can be overbuilt) and persistent (available in all ages, cannot be overbuilt).

 

[Krikkit1]

Better terminology could be something like ageless for buildings that can be built regardless of which age it is, and something along the lines of irreplaceable/heritage for buildings that can only be built in one age and can't be built over.

I like “irreplaceable”…
perhaps “permanent” for uniques and wonders
and
“ageless” for granaries, etc.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I don't understand the need to have both terms in the game. As I understand it, there are four types of buildings: normal, unique, persistent, wonders. I think it is easy to communicate how wonders and unique buildings work without having an additional game term, such as ageless or persistent for them. That leaves normal buildings (available in one age, can be overbuilt) and persistent (available in all ages, cannot be overbuilt).

That's exactly how it seems to me too. I can understand that they want some sort of visual/UI signal to quickly indicate buildings that can't be replaced, but I'm really struggling to see why both Ageless and Persistent are needed.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't understand the need to have both terms in the game. As I understand it, there are four types of buildings: normal, unique, persistent, wonders. I think it is easy to communicate how wonders and unique buildings work without having an additional game term, such as ageless or persistent for them. That leaves normal buildings (available in one age, can be overbuilt) and persistent (available in all ages, cannot be overbuilt).

That's exactly how it seems to me too. I can understand that they want some sort of visual/UI signal to quickly indicate buildings that can't be replaced, but I'm really struggling to see why both Ageless and Persistent are needed.

If the only type of persistent buildings are unique ones, I tend to agree. Otherwise, the distinction is pretty clear - ageless could be built in any age, while persistent could only built in their age, but stay active at all time.

I also wonder if there is such thing as changing building role. In previous civ games walls were changing from defensive structure to cultural one. Potentially they could work the same in Civ7 (need to see modern gameplay) and if yes, which term is used for the walls?

 

[Uberfrog]

Someone on Reddit (in a very similar thread!) suggested ageless for buildings that can be built at any point, and legacy for unique buildings and wonders. Which I think makes sense.

I agree that the current terminology is the wrong way round and needlessly confusing.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Otherwise, the distinction is pretty clear - ageless could be built in any age, while persistent could only built in their age, but stay active at all time.

But why is it important to make that distinction? A player needs to know which buildings can't be replaced. Isn't that it?

A unique building is... unique. So isn't it obvious that it is locked to a specific civ in a specific Age? Isn't the word Unique enough to indicate that? So then all you need is to indicate that it can't be replaced?

I think I'm missing something but can't really work out what.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But why is it important to make that distinction? A player needs to know which buildings can't be replaced. Isn't that it?

A unique building is... unique. So isn't it obvious that it is locked to a specific civ in a specific Age? Isn't the word Unique enough to indicate that? So then all you need is to indicate that it can't be replaced?

I think I'm missing something but can't really work out what.

Different building types:
1. Ageless. Could be built at any age and perform the same. Could be replaced. You could delay building them.
2. Persistent. Could ony be built only specific age, can't be replaced. Require careful planning.
3. Regular. Could only be built at specific age and lose adjacency bonuses afterwards. You need to consider whether to build them at all.

Now, if unique buildings are not the only persistent buildings, this terminology makes total sense, as persistent and ageless work really differently. If all persistent buildings are unique ones, this term is obviously redundant.

 

[Deggial]

But why is it important to make that distinction? A player needs to know which buildings can't be replaced. Isn't that it?

A unique building is... unique. So isn't it obvious that it is locked to a specific civ in a specific Age? Isn't the word Unique enough to indicate that? So then all you need is to indicate that it can't be replaced?

I think I'm missing something but can't really work out what.

I think you are indeed missing something.

Yes, both building categories can not be overbuild. Insofar no difference.

However, what you call "unique" buildings (and what Firaxis calls "ageless") can only be built in their time. After an age transition, they are not available any more. (Sorry, if you didn`t build them in halve of your cities. Try harder next time! )

"Persistent" buildings, on the other hand, can be built in every age (once researched). Hence, if you found a town in the modern age, you still will be able to build a granary (or any other "persistant" building).

This is a distinction worth making.

 

[Siptah]

I think you are indeed missing something.

Yes, both building categories can not be overbuild. Insofar no difference.

However, what you call "unique" buildings (and what Firaxis calls "ageless") can only be built in their time. After an age transition, they are not available any more. (Sorry, if you didn`t build them in halve of your cities. Try harder next time! )

I don't think this is necessary. If they are unique to the civ, it is clear (or easy to grasp after one game) that this means it is only available for the civ in question. As soon as you are not that civ anymore, the building isn't available. Hence, I think normal - unique - persistent - wonder would be enough as distinction. I don't think heritage or legacy would work well, as these (to me as a non-native speaker) imply something like uniques form earlier civs.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I think you are indeed missing something.

Yes, both building categories can not be overbuild. Insofar no difference.

However, what you call "unique" buildings (and what Firaxis calls "ageless") can only be built in their time. After an age transition, they are not available any more. (Sorry, if you didn`t build them in halve of your cities. Try harder next time! )

"Persistent" buildings, on the other hand, can be built in every age (once researched). Hence, if you found a town in the modern age, you still will be able to build a granary (or any other "persistant" building).

This is a distinction worth making.

I'm still not getting it.

If you tell me that a building is unique to a civ, you have already told me that it can only be built in the time of that civ, haven't you? Why does it need a new and confusing term? Firaxis is calling them both Unique and Ageless, but one of these is redundant, isn't it?

Different building types:
1. Ageless. Could be built at any age and perform the same. Could be replaced. You could delay building them.
2. Persistent. Could ony be built only specific age, can't be replaced. Require careful planning.
3. Regular. Could only be built at specific age and lose adjacency bonuses afterwards. You need to consider whether to build them at all.

Now, if unique buildings are not the only persistent buildings, this terminology makes total sense, as persistent and ageless work really differently. If all persistent buildings are unique ones, this term is obviously redundant.

Can Ageless buildings be replaced? I thought the point of both terms was to convey that neither could be replaced?

Edit: so that is probably what I've missed - the granaries etc. (whatever term they're using ) can be replaced but their effects persist, they don't become redundant in a new Age. Still think you can signify this with one tag though.