No feature can't be "removed" by Civ7 from Civ6, because it's not an expansion, it's a new game, where all features are made from scratch.
Speaking about this particular example, separating civs and leaders and age split made this feature totally different. Owners of basic version have 10 civs per age, owners of more advanced versions have 11 per age and by the end of founders edition content flow we'll have 13 civs per age. With standard map now having 8 civs by default and larger maps coming soon in patches, ability to prevent any civs from appearing just will not work as before, because some map setups would eat all the available civs. It probably should make sense to block leaders, or maybe only allow it if duplicate civs are enabled... In any case, that's the feature which has to be planned from scratch.
Speaking about Songhai, I don't see them (or any other civ at the moment) as too overpowered to block. There are some bugs causing unexpected effects (like Carthage UU), but they are likely to be fixed soon together with some patches. So, the necessity of this feature in the coming future is quite questionable.
Yes, as others have mentioned, I understand that implementing this feature in Civ VII might be complicated (though not impossible). At the very least, it should be feasible for the first age. I know I can manually select the leaders I want, but having a "pool of possible leaders" would be much better—especially since I enjoy the element of mystery in every match, and as already said by others I can't anyway "block" the AI to pick Songhai or another Age 2/3 Civ's that I would like to avoid.
That said, fixing existing bugs should be the priority and the most obvious solution for this problem, the 'pool selection' feature is secondary for me.
So your problem is that people have differing levels of leeway, and that this somehow translates into actionable efforts by the publisher wrt. allocating resource?
I think that regardless, a different level of tolerance is nowhere near acceptance, of any kind. Agree to disagree.
No, I don’t have an issue with people having different levels of leeway—that would be a strange problem to have, considering it’s obvious that people have varying standards. My issue is when the majority have an extremely low level of expectations for expensive AAA games. I think you—and probably 99% of people—would agree with this, since no one wants companies to release terrible products (yet they will, if people lower their standards enough to buy them anyway).
At the same time, the real difference between you, me, and many others is how we define "really low" expectations, which is, of course, subjective. From my first post in this thread, I’ve been explaining what that means to me, and that’s the main focus of this discussion (not if people can have different opinion, which is obvious to me, and not that "these things take time / might be more complicated than they look" is or isn't a valid opinion, which again means almost nothing in this context, and not even that I generally think that "people think bugs are acceptable", which is something I simply never stated).
As stated in the thread title, I was disappointed by this patch and wanted to gauge whether others here share my expectations. Given the review bombing Civ VII is receiving, it seems like a common sentiment in the gaming community, but I wasn’t sure if the same feeling was prevalent in this forum. Most importantly, since the developers sometimes read this forum, I wanted to express my concerns, hoping that if enough people agree, they will address these issues. An AAA game should not have untested features—or, worse, features that were tested and then ignored (like many of the bugs I've reported in these thread).
Anyway agree to disagree eventually
