Turning off legacy paths does seem pointless to me, but i'm happy they are giving us the option of which crisis we want to play with as i always play with them off just because i dislike the plague.
Checking in from the dev team: June update is almost here!
- Thread starter FXS_Sar
- Start date
McSpank01
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 118
I always seem to end up with the same ones anyway.
Either way, this stuff is a very weak bandaid on a big wound. I want the game the devs believed they were making. If they think age transitions and crises are the point of Civ 7 then they should double down and work hard to get them perfected. The answer isn’t to get scared and just turn them off so that Civ 7 becomes this sort of empty featureless half-game.
user746383
King
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 775
For me I’m happy about it I guess because it’s a step in the right direction instead of denial or just being told to shut up or whatever. I like that they are doing it in a way that lets people who like the features keep enjoying them too.
But you don't have to turn them off. You can keep playing with them for now. The developers said that they're working on making legacy paths and age transitions better in future patches.
They’re not turning them off, they’re giving us the option to disable the ones we don’t want to use. Additional options are generally a good thing as it allows us to customize things
McSpank01
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 118
Yes I know, but it’s not really all that different if I turn them off or they do. The principle is the same, these changes are made as an acknowledgment that they messed up these features, but rather than fixing them (which requires a lot of work) they give you the option of turning them off. It’s a way of placating the complaints whilst not really doing anything substantial to address concerns.
No, it's allowing people who these things are a red line / extreme annoyance to turn them off.
This is like saying "being able to turn down disaster effects in Civ VI is acknowledging they messed up the Gathering Storm expansion". Which doesn't . . . make sense, really.
If you don't like them, think they're imbalanced, or flat out hate them, you now have options to deal with them. Firaxis will still be working on them in the future - not ignoring them.
McSpank01
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 118
Not really, these are core fundamental mechanics of the game. Legacy paths is an idea the devs decided are one of the core pillars on which the game is built. Same with crises.
Simply turning them off doesn’t fix the problem. Turning off crises doesn’t make the game better because ages are designed with them in mind, they leave a gap where nothing happens at the end of each age.
The problem isn’t that there are crises or legacy paths, it’s that the ones that have been put in the game are badly designed. I want there to be these features, because they ARE the game. They are just poorly thought out.
I want legacy paths, but they need to be more interactive, I need to be competing against other civs for them. They need to force me into focusing on one or two, not just passively getting them all without trying. They shouldn’t be number based either, I don’t want to collect 20 things, because it’s not immersive.
Turning these off misses the point of why there is a problem in the first place.
Disasters were pretty integral to Gathering Storm, in my opinion.
Your opinion on whether or not turning off Crises is useful or not is just that - your opinion. Other peoples' preferences can and will be different. For other players, turning them off does fix the problem. For them. You don't get to say that's not the case
Personally, I won't be turning anything off. Just like you don't have to. It's an option, not a mandate.
And like I (and others) have said - Firaxis will still be looking to improve these mechanics.
I hope they actually will. Crises and legacy paths need a lot of work to be in their best shape.
McSpank01
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 118
That is my hope too, I think my fear, based on the limited nature of these changes, is that the work needed to fundamentally rethink things like Crises and Legacy paths and Victory conditions is far too large for a dev team focused on multiple small scale patches and tweaks.
I deeply suspect that the game is going to stay essentially the way it is, until a major expansion is released, as those are the ones where money and dev effort is poured in to get some return. Until that point I think all we are going to get is some fiddling around the edges, the ability to customise your games to the point where you barely recognise it's Civ 7 any more and maybe some maps to keep people happy.
This realisation does not fill me with joy.
bengalryan9
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2018
- Messages
- 1,054
Ah yes, I'm sure them asking if this completely free monthly patch totally throws out all the new features the game has while completely redesigning the game from the ground up was done in earnest. For sure.
And who is saying you're not welcome here? You guys already have plenty of threads to share these same opinions over and over again in. By all means, continue doing so. Maybe you guys can wave your civ credentials around at each other and see if that makes any difference?
But sure, hijack another thread...
Pfeffersack
Deity
I see potential for more changes. They explained the approach with the bigger map size: Incremental patching. First paving the way with smaller supporting changes, then the bigger jump. Offering to disable certain features is to me a variant of it: Gaining time for a developing bigger change by offering an exit. Also it might yield some intersting feedback for the devs how e.g. playing with out legacy paths is perceived by fans or which crises are dealt off most time (which might give an indicator to which need a rework most dearly)
I can understand why anyone is worried about the scope of support VII is bookmarked for, for sure.
But if we're getting chunky things like mod support, bigger maps (modded attempts have met with rendering limits, which suggests tech investment to mitigate this), and so on . . . at the moment I'm hopeful for what they're able to provide without resorting to lumping things in with paid content.
Last edited:
stealth_nsk
Deity
Yes, but it doesn't disprove the thing you reply to. Legacy paths are actually minor version of victories and disabling individual victories was a feature in many civ games, despite victory conditions being even more fundamental pillar of the game.
It's about giving flexibility to people who dislike some of the paths, that's all. I think Firaxis expects the majority of players to have all legacy paths on and some minority disabling specific ones.
They have done some bigger changes in the patches than I necessarily would have expected (stuff like adding in new resources the last patch, and some of the items here like having convoys work on land).
I don't foresee them drastically change the crisises and legacy paths in the regular monthly updates, no. They explicitly mention some stuff around that though in the text here, so it may be as soon as July as we start getting more work on there. I'd expect at the start, before any expansion, we could get any or all of:
-adding in a timer for the crisis/end of age
-some rebalancing of the crisis events
-I could see them add an entirely new crisis option too as a free update
-some changes to what carries over (my guess is we'll get an option for how much carries forward)
-More balancing of the requirements for legacies
I don't anticipate any deeper changes, stuff like giving us fully alternate legacy paths to choose from, deep changes to civs to give them more unique steps along legacy paths, or more along that line. If those are the changes you're looking for, yeah, I would anticipate you'll have to wait. I expect we'll see a lot of improvements to the mechanisms, but I don't anticipate any real shake-up of them.
McSpank01
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 118
Disabling victory conditions is something I did maybe 1 or 2 times in previous games. That feature was added to previous games as a way of giving people some flexibility. These changes are not being implemented to 'give flexibility' more that they are a way to appease loud voices complaining about poorly designed features. I think there is a difference. Crises are poorly designed, so the solution by the devs is to give you an option to turn them off. Legacy paths are poorly designed, so the solution by the devs is to give you an option to turn them off.
Some people might view these changes and feel thankful, they annoy me more than anything because they seem to be sending the wrong message.
I just don't think Civ 7 functions as a game without Crises or Legacy Paths. So turning them off doesn't actually improve things very much.
Yes I think you are right. If history is anything to go by, it really will be 1 or 2 major expansions before the game is in a proper state, because the resources are just not there to fundamentally rethink how the core mechanics of the game function. Right now they are only able to tweak things.
jaegermeister
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2025
- Messages
- 53
@McSpank01
Enforced legacy paths were turn off for some of the people since these people play Civ games for city-building purposes and they do not want any race condition, no stress/pressure on them. Just like "one more turn" option. You lost/won, ok? You just wanna continue, right? I do like legacy paths personally, but having an option to turn them off means that sometimes I could gather my old friends and just do a chill round, cooperate and build something aesthetically looking great, without actually caring about who found which artifact and where, who declares war on where, etc. So no I don't think this was an attempt to "fix the game" per se. They try to make the game playable for many people. Civ audience is like one of the most age-varying one, right? From age 14 to age 50 or so, we come in all ages. Not everybody likes the legacy paths since they enforce you to "strategize fast" or lose the game. You couldn't collect artifacts fast enough? Too bad, you lose the game. You start off with no buffs to your next age and whatever. Not everybody likes this kind of conditioning. Sometimes you just don't wanna give a fuss about all these. Same in Civ6, you always had to be careful about diplomatic victory, remember? Someone could just win/hijack the game by building state of liberty since it gave stupid amount of points towards it. I mostly played by turning that thing off, and I was glad there was such an option. I want the same for Civ7, and I am thankful to get it so that I can convince my old buddies to play this game with me without caring about being conditioned to do the necessary legacy mumbo jumbos.
That is to say, I think people have varying reasons to play a Civ game, and some people, whether you are aware or not, play this game purely for aesthetics and chill nature of it. Not every one is a competition buff trying to take down 8 deity AIs by himself. In fact, I think such folks are a minority. Civ is not a competetive game in its essense to begin with. We do not play this game for ranks, prizes and whatnot. There is no league, ladder, and thank God for that. Legacy paths/victory conditions should be optional and this was a good decisions by the devs (should have been there since the release but not gonna ***** about it now, past is past).
Enforced legacy paths were turn off for some of the people since these people play Civ games for city-building purposes and they do not want any race condition, no stress/pressure on them. Just like "one more turn" option. You lost/won, ok? You just wanna continue, right? I do like legacy paths personally, but having an option to turn them off means that sometimes I could gather my old friends and just do a chill round, cooperate and build something aesthetically looking great, without actually caring about who found which artifact and where, who declares war on where, etc. So no I don't think this was an attempt to "fix the game" per se. They try to make the game playable for many people. Civ audience is like one of the most age-varying one, right? From age 14 to age 50 or so, we come in all ages. Not everybody likes the legacy paths since they enforce you to "strategize fast" or lose the game. You couldn't collect artifacts fast enough? Too bad, you lose the game. You start off with no buffs to your next age and whatever. Not everybody likes this kind of conditioning. Sometimes you just don't wanna give a fuss about all these. Same in Civ6, you always had to be careful about diplomatic victory, remember? Someone could just win/hijack the game by building state of liberty since it gave stupid amount of points towards it. I mostly played by turning that thing off, and I was glad there was such an option. I want the same for Civ7, and I am thankful to get it so that I can convince my old buddies to play this game with me without caring about being conditioned to do the necessary legacy mumbo jumbos.
That is to say, I think people have varying reasons to play a Civ game, and some people, whether you are aware or not, play this game purely for aesthetics and chill nature of it. Not every one is a competition buff trying to take down 8 deity AIs by himself. In fact, I think such folks are a minority. Civ is not a competetive game in its essense to begin with. We do not play this game for ranks, prizes and whatnot. There is no league, ladder, and thank God for that. Legacy paths/victory conditions should be optional and this was a good decisions by the devs (should have been there since the release but not gonna ***** about it now, past is past).
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
I tend to agree with this. Legacy Paths are strict net neutral to the game for me that don't enhance or decrease my desire to play the game. Crises are an annoyance that add nothing to the game in their current state, and I've happily switched them off after my first game. I personally don't agree that the game needs crises - I haven't had a game yet where I ran out of things to do before the age ended, and I play with long ages on. There's always a settlement to develop further.
The ability to turn off some of the mechanics is good in the sense that it allows for better game customization. I will never turn legacy paths off, for one, but if someone doesn't want to play with them, well, now they can. Making the game more accessible and fluid in its ruleset is a good thing.
The ultimate solution will be to give alternative ways to complete the Legacies, but that takes time to design and implement.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
