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

[McSpank01]

@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 gonnt a ***** about it now, past is past).

Yeah I don't disagree, I also prefer the slower, 'less stressful pace of the game, and often view it like a city builder. I don't like the pressure of legacy paths, but after playing the game you realise they don't actually make or break your game, and its easily possible to win whilst ignoring them.

Either way, I want to play the Civ game the devs believed they were building. The core concept was built around ages, crises and legacy paths. If you strip those away the game becomes pretty empty. I won't be turning those features off.

I just don't want the developers to think that giving us the option of turning these features off is some sort of cure. It isn't. I've been burnt on this with games like Warhammer 3, where they just switch things off and never actually fix the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

I disagree here. The feature is not implemented badly, because the majority of players are ok with it. Based on the analysis we had, even among those who left negative reviews on Steam, legacy paths were very rare concern.

So, even though this flexibility is given in the context of the game having bad press, it's still just flexibility.

 

[UWHabs]

I disagree here. The feature is not implemented badly, because the majority of players are ok with it. Based on the analysis we had, even among those who left negative reviews on Steam, legacy paths were very rare concern.

So, even though this flexibility is given in the context of the game having bad press, it's still just flexibility.

I think the crisis system and legacy paths need some adjusting. I wouldn't say they were implemented badly, they're just not quite what was advertised.

Like my last game, I had the "revolution" crisis in the exploration age, and basically, it did absolutely nothing. The first 10-15 turns the worst card was like -50 gold, or I could have chosen like -20 food/-20 happiness. Then when the next step came, I think I chose -8 influence and I think one of the -50 gold cards. I don't think I even got the last crisis choice because as soon as I hit 90% I think I finished the military path and it lept me to the end of the age directly.
If I was forced in the first crisis period to take the -50% gold in towns policy card, which would have cost me like 400 gold per turn, that would have been something noticeable. But in a game where I'm pulling in 2000 gold per turn, 50 is a rounding error on the total.

I mean, sure, I was way ahead, that none of the crisis events would have stopped me. But they might have slowed me down, or at least given me something to do while also chasing those last points. At least the religion crisis when I've had them before can be a little aggressive, with the chance of unrest and revolt, and giving you the choice to sort of give up religion, or be forced to aggressively spread it to your cities. It could still use a little balance and tweaks, but at least it forced me to pay attention to it slightly.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the crisis system and legacy paths need some adjusting. I wouldn't say they were implemented badly, they're just not quite what was advertised.

Crises are a bit separate from legacy paths and they are optional already.

I think the main problem with crises is that they are... crises. Pretty random punishments with very limited player ability to react.

 

[Civinator]

Let´s hope that Firaxis now is on the right way.

 

[Leucarum]

The ability to customize features is huge for me personally... I have not picked default settings often during Civ7. I don't know if I'd have an overall positive view of Civ7 if crises hadn't been optional from the start, and I preferred the balanced map gen scripts so I'm glad they didn't just replace them, and instead made them an option.

I'll definitely be turning off civ unlocks. If I can, I will be customizing my difficulty so I get the yields without the grindingly slow combat of deity; and having played the legacy paths to death I could see myself turning them off too very regularly - depending on how eras end without them.

What I would love to see from Firaxis is the ability to save your default game setup. If we're gonna be tweaking this many settings it'd be good if I could make the game remember my favourites!

 

[Elhoim]

View attachment 734094
this to me is the most interesting, it will make picking this option way more worth it.

Yeah, but still feels a bit too situational, it doesn't have a long term effect like the other ones. I'd rather have a bonus to buying units in those towns, for example.

 

[htafc23]

You already know the answer. No, these changes are not going to completely redesign how the game works, obviously.

Civ 7's just not for you. You clearly don't like it. That's fine. It's not going back so you might as well just move on at this point. It's OK, somehow Civ 7 will survive. We don't need these same complaints brought up over, and over, and over, and over again, especially when there are already plenty of other threads to share them in and we knew all of these things were going to be like this the day it was officially announced.

How very rude.

I made this account to ask that question as I'm a casual player. I sunk hundreds of hours into Civ 6, a few in 4 & 5 also when I was growing up. I also have casually browsed this forum both for 6 & 7 in the past to pickup tips, get the low down and also motivation to pick up the game on occasions from seeing other peoples threads.

Jumping into 7 on it's release was a whirlwind and learning curves. My question was genuine and not a dig. The opening post described a lot of change and I get mixed up with the legacies, era's and all the other stuff that's been introduced. Do you expect me to attempt to keep on top of every single dev release, update, ethos and long term vision of the game or Franchise?

''No, these changes are not going to completely redesign how the game works, obviously.'' - Really? I remember legacy stuff being a big part of the selling part of this game and now it sounds like we have the ability to turn it off? I'd class that as an option to the user that redesigns the game. Obviously. Obviously. Obviously. Who do you think you are??

I do apologise if you think I was simply making an account to have a dig, I was not. I bought the game pre-release, I've enjoyed it to an extent but struggled to get into it for the reasons in my OP, and of course still end up and picking it up and playing in dribs and drabs. I wanted to make sure it was clear my issues with the game, and I was straight forwardly asking if any of those would be altered/changed in the future patch without wrapping my head around everything and the new terminology again.

Manners cost nothing.

 

[Niallism]

How very rude.

I made this account to ask that question as I'm a casual player. I sunk hundreds of hours into Civ 6, a few in 4 & 5 also when I was growing up. I also have casually browsed this forum both for 6 & 7 in the past to pickup tips, get the low down and also motivation to pick up the game on occasions from seeing other peoples threads.

Jumping into 7 on it's release was a whirlwind and learning curves. My question was genuine and not a dig. The opening post described a lot of change and I get mixed up with the legacies, era's and all the other stuff that's been introduced. Do you expect me to attempt to keep on top of every single dev release, update, ethos and long term vision of the game or Franchise?

''No, these changes are not going to completely redesign how the game works, obviously.'' - Really? I remember legacy stuff being a big part of the selling part of this game and now it sounds like we have the ability to turn it off? I'd class that as an option to the user that redesigns the game. Obviously. Obviously. Obviously. Who do you think you are??

I do apologise if you think I was simply making an account to have a dig, I was not. I bought the game pre-release, I've enjoyed it to an extent but struggled to get into it for the reasons in my OP, and of course still end up and picking it up and playing in dribs and drabs. I wanted to make sure it was clear my issues with the game, and I was straight forwardly asking if any of those would be altered/changed in the future patch without wrapping my head around everything and the new terminology again.

Manners cost nothing.

You said 'but since Civ 7 moved away from everything that made previous Civ's great and changed the core fundamental elements of the game.'

Can you see how that is aggressive also, and annoying? Instead of 'I don't like these changes' - the manners which cost nothing, you say - you make this hyperbolic complaint. I don't think you're as polite and self-effacing as you say you are.

It seems clear that Civ 7 has innovated, but certainly has plenty of what has made earlier versions great - along with bugs and other issues. But many people, like me, love the age system. I don't think they're going to remove it and make a clone of an earlier version, but prettier.

 

[protocol7]

People are a bit jumpy these days about having to hear any criticism, I wouldn't take it personally.

 

[AD1730]

The ability to customize features is huge for me personally... I have not picked default settings often during Civ7. I don't know if I'd have an overall positive view of Civ7 if crises hadn't been optional from the start, and I preferred the balanced map gen scripts so I'm glad they didn't just replace them, and instead made them an option.

I'll definitely be turning off civ unlocks. If I can, I will be customizing my difficulty so I get the yields without the grindingly slow combat of deity; and having played the legacy paths to death I could see myself turning them off too very regularly - depending on how eras end without them.

What I would love to see from Firaxis is the ability to save your default game setup. If we're gonna be tweaking this many settings it'd be good if I could make the game remember my favourites!

I love what they’re doing with difficulty settings, I just hope they take it to the next level and allow for even greater customization. For example, I’d love to be able to set the amount of different yield bonuses the AI gets.

 

[Kwami]

People are a bit jumpy these days about having to hear any criticism, I wouldn't take it personally.

I don't think that anyone minds hearing some criticism. Most of us have been critical of something, too.

The problem is that the same group of posters posts the same criticism in every thread. It's as if you can't accept that some people like this game and so you have to make us all miserable.

It should be obvious that Firaxis isn't going to completely redesign the entire game in a random free patch with no warning. Why even ask that?

 

[MutilationWave]

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 . . .

I have roughly 30 mods right now and none of them are gameplay, they're all UI and QOL.

 

[Leucarum]

The gameplay mods I use are ones which remove unlocks and AI preferences for specific civs. I think gameplay-wise I'll be looking out for mods which affect civ switching. I like eras other than that, so if mods effectively remove/blunt civ switching, I think I'll be very close to happy with where Civ7 is. Even happier if Firaxis does something official to effect the same thing.

 

[MutilationWave]

I think on reflection the change which will make me happiest here long-term is customizable AI difficulty. Warfare on deity/immortal is painfully slow to the point where I just don't enjoy the millitary game any more. 7's best feature is reduced micromanagement, I don't want to undo that by having every fight be death by 1000 papercuts. Being able to tune up AI yields to deity without the CS buff is the perfect version of a difficulty setting for me!

I was hoping to get an option to make AI civs better at war specifically, which was mentioned, but I wonder if it could go higher than current deity difficulty. AI choices, especially in war, are kinda a joke.

 

[CliffCo]

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.

I hated the religous victory in Civ6 so i always disabled it but i can't see me disabling any in Civ7 as i like them all, i just feel that the economic victory needs to be made harder to obtain, currently i often find myself delaying it so i can obtain a different victory.

 

[Leucarum]

I was hoping to get an option to make AI civs better at war specifically, which was mentioned, but I wonder if it could go higher than current deity difficulty. AI choices, especially in war, are kinda a joke.

I'd like better in war without making it so that wars take an hour to fight because the stopgap solution was to buff unit stats. Only the moon on a stick Firaxis, please, shouldn't be hard.

 

[disjointaccount]

How very rude.

I made this account to ask that question as I'm a casual player. I sunk hundreds of hours into Civ 6, a few in 4 & 5 also when I was growing up. I also have casually browsed this forum both for 6 & 7 in the past to pickup tips, get the low down and also motivation to pick up the game on occasions from seeing other peoples threads.

Jumping into 7 on it's release was a whirlwind and learning curves. My question was genuine and not a dig. The opening post described a lot of change and I get mixed up with the legacies, era's and all the other stuff that's been introduced. Do you expect me to attempt to keep on top of every single dev release, update, ethos and long term vision of the game or Franchise?

''No, these changes are not going to completely redesign how the game works, obviously.'' - Really? I remember legacy stuff being a big part of the selling part of this game and now it sounds like we have the ability to turn it off? I'd class that as an option to the user that redesigns the game. Obviously. Obviously. Obviously. Who do you think you are??

I do apologise if you think I was simply making an account to have a dig, I was not. I bought the game pre-release, I've enjoyed it to an extent but struggled to get into it for the reasons in my OP, and of course still end up and picking it up and playing in dribs and drabs. I wanted to make sure it was clear my issues with the game, and I was straight forwardly asking if any of those would be altered/changed in the future patch without wrapping my head around everything and the new terminology again.

Manners cost nothing.

I have a hard time believing that the original message was sincere, but to give the benefit of the doubt I'll do my best to answer genuinely, or at least explain why it's not possible/practical to do so:

Sorry for the silly question, but since Civ 7 moved away from everything that made previous Civ's great and changed the core fundamental elements of the game...

"What made previous Civs great" is entirely subjective (which is kind of the recurring theme here). Various aspects of previous games have been cut while others have been kept, and how core those were to the identity of the series and its greatness is a matter of opinion. Presenting your stance on it as objective fact to level critique at the game isn't really a productive way to go about voicing issues and only serves to be inflammatory.

Do any of these changes now mean I can
a) manage my own civ without needing to change it from age to age?
b) move into an age without losing things from my civ?

As others have said, it seems fairly common sense that a minor update/patch wouldn't upend fundamental systems of the game. Regardless, these questions are answered in the patch notes (no, you cannot yet have a game without civ switching), so asking it suggests you haven't bothered to read them and are just posting to make your gripes with the game known (in an argumentative manner).

c) have a fluid game rather than 3/4 seperate games in one?

As above, this is completely subjective. If you were to ask me this question, I would say having a game of Civ 7 that feels like one fluid game as opposed to 3 or 4 separate games in one has been possible since launch.

If this post was truly made in good faith then I'm sorry if I came off as harsh and welcome to the forums I guess, but like I said, I have a hard time believing that, and find "manners cost nothing" to be a bit ironic...

 

[disjointaccount]

I don't think that anyone minds hearing some criticism. Most of us have been critical of something, too.

The problem is that the same group of posters posts the same criticism in every thread. It's as if you can't accept that some people like this game and so you have to make us all miserable.

It should be obvious that Firaxis isn't going to completely redesign the entire game in a random free patch with no warning. Why even ask that?

Yeah, this is how I feel. I have no issue with people criticising the game (I have plenty criticisms of my own), but the same tired posts in every thread that just amount to "here is my opinion that Civ 7 is terrible for vague, nebulous, or outright unstated reasons. This is objective fact" get a bit old.

 

[MutilationWave]

Anyone heard anything about alternate ways to get legacy points with legacies turned off? I'd like to try a sandbox style on huge Pangaea, but thinking about losing things like Fealty will probably keep me playing with legacy paths on. I don't know how to work it out to grant points with the paths turned off, and I love the attribute trees. Maybe they've got a good idea, I hope so!