Checking in from the dev team: June update is almost here!

[stealth_nsk]

Right now, a major critique of the game is the boringly-similar Legacy Paths that are the same in every game and bend game-play into the same directions every single game.

I think we had this discussion on release already. Most of legacy paths are pretty natural, they don't bend gameplay in any way. Regardless of your playstyle, you'll be settling, buildings wonders, collecting resources, researching techs and so on.

Two exploration legacy paths related to distant lands are a bit less natural, but that's the problem of how distant lands are implemented, not legacy paths themselves.

Also, regarding those two legacy paths, they improve experience of peaceful players a lot exactly due to forcing specific actions. In Civ5 and Civ6 I, as a peaceful player, often ended up turtling on a limited territory pretty early, making further game boring. Now Civ7 forces me to get outside, stretch my empire and be ready for fight.

 

[sonicmyst]

Map edge scrolling pls?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

On the religion side, we’ve added two new Antiquity-Age Pantheons and a range of new Beliefs, with a focus on creating more reasons to actually convert your cities, not just cities belonging to your neighbors. We’ll be sharing these beliefs in more detail when the update releases!

 

[Leucarum]

Most of legacy paths are pretty natural

In antiquity for sure. In exploration it's mixed, in modern it's way out of whack.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm still surprised! I had thought maybe there would be alternative legacy paths rather than deleting them wholesale! I wonder what that means for culture - is there a point in religion/artifacts beyond a tiny amount of culture if you delete that path? Do civs with path related bonuses like Mongolia need adjustment?

I will say I like that their approach seems to be to add as many options as possible. They have a very fragmented audience to please. I don't see how they do it otherwise.

The Legacy Path problem is not a simple one, because right now the problem is a combination of paths that are boringly simple once you learn the 'trick' to them (Antiquity Science, Exploration Culture for two), OR have little relationship to their supposed Legacies (Modern Culture entirely based on stealing archeological artifacts, Exploration Science based on having Bigger Cities regardless of scientific progress) OR, for almost all of them, a single linear progression to the Legacy goal with only a few Civ-specific deviations (Mongolia, Songhai, etc).

That means solving the entire problem is going to take a combination of solutions that have to be worked out, tested and balanced, and then checked against what other unintended consequences they might have on each Civ, Leader, and other Legacy paths in the game.

Absolutely necessary, IMHO, but not quick or easy.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Oh yeah and the gameplay changes: great, continue doing that. But what are the UI polishes, which are unlisted in the patchnotes.

I'm currently compiling a comprehensive list of the UI changes I'd like to see, and it's becoming quite the document. It would be nice to improve in that area and make the game less frustrating to play.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Largely agreeing with what others have said...some highly desired items from my personal list (bigger map sizes, steam workshop) and some welcome surprises (e.g. individual crisis picking and the difficulty finetuning). I'm also looking forward to the refesh on town spezializations (and I have to say: I like the nerf to hub towns...I converted way too many towns into those and drowned in influence). "Land treasure carawans" will give the exploration age a new spin and also help with the recent scarcity of treasure resources.

It is also worth to emphasize that the criticism from a part of the community not only gets recognized and valued in words (the first time? At least I can't remember having seen it mentioned in such a clear way...), but also seems to lead to changes. It will be just impossible to please everyone and I also don't expect that Civ7 will be transformed into Civ 6 and 1/2 or Civ8, but it is a good sign that there is the will to adress weaknesses. I especially like that they seem to have religion on their radar...

Hopefully they will be given the chance and time to put the game to a new level with that iterative approach of first paving the way with small changes, then delivering the big ines...but this update is really a bold one and I'm eager to get my hands on it!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Oh yeah and the gameplay changes: great, continue doing that. But what are the UI polishes, which are unlisted in the patchnotes.

I'm currently compiling a comprehensive list of the UI changes I'd like to see, and it's becoming quite the document. It would be nice to improve in that area and make the game less frustrating to play.

Another suspicion: since the bulk of early Mods to the game were UI changes and improvements (I am sure I am not the only one on these forums that now plays with about a dozen Mods enabled, most of them enhancing the UI systems), they may be holding off making those 'official' until they fix the worst problems with actual game play.

Just a suspicion . . .

 

[CliffCo]

Agree this is all good news.
I hope the feature of being able to toggle between "pretty" view and tactical view without all the visual clutter is under consideration.

Personally i don't miss it as i much preferred using the normal view, yes it removed some of the "clutter" but i didn't find it beneficial to play without it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

In antiquity for sure. In exploration it's mixed, in modern it's way out of whack.

Modern economic path is pretty natural. Military is a bit problematic because ideologies are optional, but once you pick one, it's also natural. Cultural needs more bonuses from slotted artifacts to be natural, but generally it's also almost there. The only "unnatural" path is science, where, as far as I know, the only project which gives bonuses is the last one (reveals map).

All this is pretty easy to tweak and fix and I expect this in ongoing patches.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Science is also the stupidest victory path in Modern. You can literally SKIP the first two projects to launch the Earth Satellite, and then win Economic instead..x

 

[FXS_Gilgamesh]

Thank you for all of the work you are doing on the game. I know I can be critical, and sometimes too critical, but I am this way because I do love the Civilization series. Updates like these make me feel like our feedback is valued and heard.

Truthfully, being critical is fine. I find the feedback to be honest and productive, but occasional pieces of positive feedback are always welcome . We know you are all passionate about the game and you voice your opinions to make the best version of Civ. Thanks for all the feedback, and keep voicing your thoughts. I look forward to seeing what people think of the new changes in 1.2.2.

 

[CliffCo]

Science is also the stupidest victory path in Modern. You can literally SKIP the first two projects to launch the Earth Satellite, and then win Economic instead..x

I feel that the economic victory needs to be nerfed to make it harder to achieve, i often find myself purposefully delaying the economic path so i can obtain one of the other victory conditions.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Put the Great Banker to sleep?

 

[Leucarum]

Modern economic path is pretty natural

We seem to have different perspectives quite often! I find the resource juggling/assignment minigame f ro modern economic quite distracting from my gameplay loop. It is my favourite win condition in modern but I don't find it natural at all.

 

[stealth_nsk]

We seem to have different perspectives quite often! I find the resource juggling/assignment minigame f ro modern economic quite distracting from my gameplay loop. It is my favourite win condition in modern but I don't find it natural at all.

By natural I mean that if we remove legacy path and victory condition, you still want to slot factory resources due to benefits they provide. So, this legacy path doesn't enforce specific direction.

 

[AD1730]

These changes appear to be a significant step in the right direction. I would still remove the treasure fleet/distant lands mechanic as it creates more problems than it is worth.

 

[CliffCo]

I would still remove the treasure fleet/distant lands mechanic as it creates more problems than it is worth.

Why, what what problems are so bad you feel the need for it to be removed?

 

[AD1730]

Why, what what problems are so bad you feel the need for it to be removed?

Destroys the map generation for one.

 

[UWHabs]

These changes appear to be a significant step in the right direction. I would still remove the treasure fleet/distant lands mechanic as it creates more problems than it is worth.

I like the distant lands/fleets option, but I wouldn't mind seeing the other paths need the distant lands a little less, and be able to be self-contained somehow outside of the distand lands mechanism.