Essentially all they are doing is allow you to turn off the core mechanics of the game, to the point of not really even playing the game at all.. and then they throw out words like ‘sandbox’ so that punters can nod along and think they are being given what they asked for.
These changes are not going to fix any of the problems inherent in the game, they are a pure damage limitation measure to get some good will. It’s going to be short lived because they don’t actually improve the game enough to get people coming back.
As if... the game was unfinished when the released it, and they were expecting people to love it anyway?
What needs to happen is for the roster of playable Civs and leaders to be expanded. Ideally so you have more overarching Civs that appear across all three ages in some capacity.
Make some of those updates free too, while you're at it.
I could probably, too - until we started going into all the details of the game's mechanics and features.
We could probably agree on a game like Checkers, but by the time you get into the complexity of the average modern computer game, there are just too many possibilities for differences of opinion about the way things were done.
I'd rather they stood their ground and say 'no, these legacy paths are going to be good, and we are going to tweak them until they are' rather than throwing their hands up and running away from the problem.
question on the update - if you turn off score victory and the modern era gets to 100% without one of the final projects completed, does that now become an automatic loss?
I think giving people the option to turn of the legacy paths is a good idea, while they are hopefully working for meaningful updates to them making them worthwile and enjoying to play with. On two occassions in the video (speaking about religion + speaking about treasure fleets) Zhang alluded to more substantial reworks being in the pipeline.
I just made a horrible mistake; I took that switch capital option at the start of exploration, and switched back at the start of modern, to save money on having to reconvert my cities. Unfortunately, the original capital that I have switched back to had limited land from mountains, water, and resources. Unfortunately, when I came to build a railway station, there is not space left, and without a railway station in the capital the financial path is a complete wash out. We no longer have an option to build a palace, so that a capital can be moved. I'm guessing it's a bit late for 1.2.2, but could you please make it possible in the future, or remove the limitation of having to have a station in the capital in the first place.
The big changes here are switching legacy paths on and off, clearing the requirements for civ switching. Yes there are some tweaking to stuff like AI and IS aggressiveness, but all of these are doing the exact same thing. They are handing over the responsibility to the player to make the game fun, because the devs can’t work out how to do it. It really is about turning off the stuff they implemented.
They can’t work out the right level of City States aggression? Nah you sort it out
Can’t fix legacy paths? Nah you sort it out.
Can’t make civ switching fun? Nah you sort it out.
What I tend to see repeatedly is people saying that they could buy into the ideas behind Civ 7, even eras and civ switching, but that the implementation is just bad. You can’t please everyone, but if Firaxis we’re convinced enough of their idea when the signed off on it, they should still be convinced of that vision. If they need extra time and effort to make it work, then I’m all for it. This all just feels like appeasement and a lack of willpower from them.
I’m sure they will fix it eventually, but I’m mostly angered by the messaging of these changes, like they are doing us a favour. Maybe it’s the reaction from pundits and YouTubers that has wound me up more than anything, who have gushed over these changes, when really I find them incredibly inconsequential. I almost certainly will never use any of these new options.
I'm really glad everything is being done as game options! So many people want change in so many different directions I don't see any way for Firaxis to thread the needle without making as many changes into optional modes as humanly possible.
I was a big fan of game modes in Civ6 too so hopefully this continues and 7 ends up being the most customizable game in the series.
I’m surprised they changed something as significant as the treasure fleets (now convoys) in an update/patch. That’s going to affect the pacing of the exploration age significantly and for the better. I appreciate the customization options and the addition of more town stuff.
I don’t know what else they could reasonably be doing in free updates that would satisfy everyone.
Has anybody else considered how increasing the map sizes and the potential number of Civs also increases the difficulty of some of the Legacy Paths?
Antiquity Culture Legacy: There are only 21 Wonders available in Antiquity. With 8 Civs (standard size maps) that means less than half of them have any Hope in a Hoot of completing the Legacy Path. Increase the number of Civs to 10, and the odds get worse. Already I write off this Legacy Path when playing Diety, because with the AI bonuses, there is no chance of getting enough Wonders to make it worthwhile.
Exploration Economic. There is already discussion about the lack of sufficient Treasure Resources. Allowing 'caravans' to access inland resources is a step, but unless they also increase the general numbers of Distant Lands Resources, that is not likely to be enough to make this Legacy other than an Uphill Struggle with more Civs competing for relatively rare resources.
Exploration Cultural. This one may actually get easier. With more AI Capitals on the map, unless they nerf it, the ability to get 2 Relics by converting a capital doesn't even require you to convert all the capitals any more. This Legacy Path is already dead simple: it may be about to get even deader.
There's also the consideration that larger maps may make some Civ/Leader specific 'tricks' almost impossible. Isabella may always get an initial Natural Wonder, but being able to settle near a second one will be a real challenge on a larger map with more opponents, unless they also increase at least proportionally the number of spawned Natural Wonders. Battuta's map swapping, on the other hand, may be even more useful when the maps are that much larger and therefore, presumably, harder to explore completely with the usual 2.5 Scouts.
That's just off the top of me head: there is undoubtedly going to be a whole long list of potential Balance issues that will crop up when we start playing with the new larger maps and fiddling with the starting conditions . . .
Has anybody else considered how increasing the map sizes and the potential number of Civs also increases the difficulty of some of the Legacy Paths?
Antiquity Culture Legacy: There are only 21 Wonders available in Antiquity. With 8 Civs (standard size maps) that means less than half of them have any Hope in a Hoot of completing the Legacy Path. Increase the number of Civs to 10, and the odds get worse. Already I write off this Legacy Path when playing Diety, because with the AI bonuses, there is no chance of getting enough Wonders to make it worthwhile.
Exploration Economic. There is already discussion about the lack of sufficient Treasure Resources. Allowing 'caravans' to access inland resources is a step, but unless they also increase the general numbers of Distant Lands Resources, that is not likely to be enough to make this Legacy other than an Uphill Struggle with more Civs competing for relatively rare resources.
Exploration Cultural. This one may actually get easier. With more AI Capitals on the map, unless they nerf it, the ability to get 2 Relics by converting a capital doesn't even require you to convert all the capitals any more. This Legacy Path is already dead simple: it may be about to get even deader.
There's also the consideration that larger maps may make some Civ/Leader specific 'tricks' almost impossible. Isabella may always get an initial Natural Wonder, but being able to settle near a second one will be a real challenge on a larger map with more opponents, unless they also increase at least proportionally the number of spawned Natural Wonders. Battuta's map swapping, on the other hand, may be even more useful when the maps are that much larger than therefore, presumably, harder to explore completely with the usual 2.5 Scouts.
That's just off the top of me head: there is undoubtedly going to be a whole long list of potential Balance issues that will crop up when we start playing with the new larger maps and fiddling with the starting conditions . . .
I think this is an example of why I like that the devs are making things as customizable as possible. I'm happy enough with the existing map sizes, and to me (and for the reasons you listed) it feels like Civ7 doesn't scale up as well as previous iterations did to larger maps. I'm glad that players who want this are going to get it, but I'll stick to standard and small maps I think.
I think this is an example of why I like that the devs are making things as customizable as possible. I'm happy enough with the existing map sizes, and to me (and for the reasons you listed) it feels like Civ7 doesn't scale up as well as previous iterations did to larger maps. I'm glad that players who want this are going to get it, but I'll stick to standard and small maps I think.
The reason I started thinking about it was that I always played on the largest map my computer could handle in Civ V and VI, and was anticipating with some glee using the larger map sizes for Civ VII.
- And then started contemplating the consequences . . .
The reason I started thinking about it was that I always played on the largest map my computer could handle in Civ V and VI, and was anticipating with some glee using the larger map sizes for Civ VII.
- And then started contemplating the consequences . . .
Truth be told, I was fairly surprised the developers designed the Legacy Paths in such a way that they were map dependent with no visible or invisible scaling (i.e. scaling that is shown to the player vs sneakily moving the goalposts to a natural level at the start of the Age).
It seems very likely that the next step on the path to full release of this game (which I still enjoy in EA) is legacy paths that scale with map size, and multiple legacy paths for the same thing, i.e. two different economic paths that can be chosen or randomly selected.
Or at least, that's the logical next step, e.g. a path that is about economic deals with other factions, or about maximizing income while minimizing expenses, as an alternative to a path that is about getting the most resources. Similar but different.
Or even more than 4 types of legacy paths, but only four being put in each game. For example a diplomatic path, a social path (related to happiness), and more. And then you get 4 per game, either random or chosen.
It'll be very hard to balance, but I'm pretty sure they want to do that. Whether they have the time and money remains to be seen.
I enjoy taking my time and building a good looking empire but i can't see myself turning off all the victory conditions, i may consider turning of the military victory at some point as i never play for it but it may make the AI focus more on the other victory conditions if so. Only one i turned off in Civ6 was religion just because i didn't like it
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
