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

[Leucarum]

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!

I like legacy paths, but I am glad they made them optional as they feel strange in MP games. In theory I like the idea for MP as you're creating this push and pull between players deciding whether to push the age forward or trying to drag it out... But in practice it's not interactive enough, often players end up pushing things forward when they don't want to, and the mechanic becomes quite all-consuming... And it always creates feels bad moments for someone. Moreso than in singleplayer as humans are much better at the paths. I'll probably keep it on for SP, but for MP it's a real downer and I'll be glad it's optional.

I have a tonne of questions about how this will work though. I had expected tweaks rather than removal outright, and I'm curious how many of their interconnected systems will also change!

 

[Siddorm]

If a community member raises the same concern repeatedly, it's not good. But if different members are doing it once or twice each, it should be tolerated.

 

[htafc23]

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:

"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.

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).

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...

It was made in good faith, and thank you for your response. It is both much appreciated and also very useful.

FWIW I have alpha and beta tested for other games before (very different genre to CIV). This is my first exposure to this community and forum as a registered posting member. I appreciate from my other experiences within gaming and simulation communities that you get a lot of people making the same repeated response, which of course can be frustrating to people.

All I would say is if it's someone making the same repeated point... sure, have a go. If it's a new person posting for the first time? Maybe give them the benefit of the doubt/a nicer first experience of the forum (not aimed at you).

 

[UWHabs]

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.

The non-UI mods I use are like the community bug-fix mod, and I've occasionally used some small balance ones (I played a few games with mods that extended the ages before they added those settings in, one that shifted the relic count in the exploration). And then dabbled a couple solo changes just to tweak some small items that I wanted to try (like having desert stop movement like wet/rough does, or tweak embarked unit movement).

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

I really appreciate this update, both as a fan of the series excited about the depth of some of the customisation options incoming and as someone for whom the big changes didn’t land on Civ VII’s release.

I expressed in a thread a while back that even a “we hear you” from Firaxis would mean a lot and for my part, I’m more than happy to now wait and see what they come up with re: smoothing transitions and improving empire identity/continuity through the ages.

 

[Yzman]

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

Pick something you really like to discuss. Now imagine I was following you and everytime you started to discuss something in it, I was right behind you and started passive aggressively talking trash about that topic, not even related to whatever you are discussing. This meant you could never actually have your discussion. This is what every topic like this becomes. The post was also incredibly passive aggressive with the "removed everything that made the game great" and somehow implying that despite reading the post and having access to detailed notes on a link, the poster did not have the ability to determine that the game did not completely change itself in a free patch to mimic the existing game they want?

Come on, you don't seriously believe that do you? Other posters in this thread are doing the exact same thing. Posting passive agressive postings and then pretending that OTHERS are being rude by not listening to their trolling that they post in EVERY topic they have a chance to.

I don't post about games I hate. In fact, I move on quite quick. So for me, it is really jarring that months after release you have the same actors coming to the message boards to talk trash about a game that they said they have no intention of ever playing. It just reeks of trying to destroy others enjoyment.

 

[htafc23]

Pick something you really like to discuss. Now imagine I was following you and everytime you started to discuss something in it, I was right behind you and started passive aggressively talking trash about that topic, not even related to whatever you are discussing. This meant you could never actually have your discussion. This is what every topic like this becomes. The post was also incredibly passive aggressive with the "removed everything that made the game great" and somehow implying that despite reading the post and having access to detailed notes on a link, the poster did not have the ability to determine that the game did not completely change itself in a free patch to mimic the existing game they want?

Come on, you don't seriously believe that do you? Other posters in this thread are doing the exact same thing. Posting passive agressive postings and then pretending that OTHERS are being rude by not listening to their trolling that they post in EVERY topic they have a chance to.

I don't post about games I hate. In fact, I move on quite quick. So for me, it is really jarring that months after release you have the same actors coming to the message boards to talk trash about a game that they said they have no intention of ever playing. It just reeks of trying to destroy others enjoyment.

When did I say that?

 

[Leucarum]

Pick something you really like to discuss. Now imagine I was following you and everytime you started to discuss something in it, I was right behind you and started passive aggressively talking trash about that topic, not even related to whatever you are discussing. This meant you could never actually have your discussion. This is what every topic like this becomes. The post was also incredibly passive aggressive with the "removed everything that made the game great" and somehow implying that despite reading the post and having access to detailed notes on a link, the poster did not have the ability to determine that the game did not completely change itself in a free patch to mimic the existing game they want?

Come on, you don't seriously believe that do you? Other posters in this thread are doing the exact same thing. Posting passive agressive postings and then pretending that OTHERS are being rude by not listening to their trolling that they post in EVERY topic they have a chance to.

I don't post about games I hate. In fact, I move on quite quick. So for me, it is really jarring that months after release you have the same actors coming to the message boards to talk trash about a game that they said they have no intention of ever playing. It just reeks of trying to destroy others enjoyment.

I love Civ7, I also make a lot of posts which are sharply critical of it, because as much as I love it, I feel invested in pointing out how it could be better. I almost feel like it's a great game in spite of itself, but it's so close to just being flat-out great!

So FWIW it's possible to be invested, like it and post in a manner that comes accross as trashing the game. It's tough to know who's being critical from a place of wanting it to improve, versus wanting it to burn down so nobody else has fun.

 

[Kwami]

It's tough to know who's being critical from a place of wanting it to improve, versus wanting it to burn down so nobody else has fun.

Not really. A lot of them write that they haven't bought the game, haven't played the game, and will never play the game as long as X is true. But they sure do keep posting to tell us that. Over and over and over again.

 

[protocol7]

I’ve bought and played the game so I couldn’t speak for people who haven’t. I’m personally fine with people posting who vociferously like, vociferously dislike, or vociferously feel quite in the middle about the game.

 

[Leucarum]

Not really. A lot of them write that they haven't bought the game, haven't played the game, and will never play the game as long as X is true. But they sure do keep posting to tell us that. Over and over and over again.

I mean, I do feel like I've been rounded on even when I preface that I'm trying to be constructive sometimes. I understand the urge to be defensive when something we're invested in gets targetted as Civ7 has been lately, but I'm not sure we're all being as civil as we think we are...

 

[Kurtbob]

I am happy to see this update. Giving players options is NEVER a bad thing. People like playing their civ games their way, and the more options you give players to play the game how they want to, the better. Giving players more options does not detract from the game, it only adds more. Whether or not Firaxis's decision to make legacy paths, crises optional was made to 'placate' players, it is a good decision.

I am looking forward to my first Carthage game on a Huge map with Urban Center towns. And yes, I will be deactivating plagues

 

[bluesboy67]

I'm pleased to see this update coming next week, as someone who stopped playing VII, this is intriguing enough of an update to get me to consider re-installing the game and giving it another shot. I'll wait and see how people feel about the update before jumping back in, but at least this update seems like a big step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

 

[moondog385]

I somehow missed this! This is a huge update and it all looks awesome. The option to disable Legacy Path is a big shock but I think I'm gonna go for it as soon as the update's live. Whenever there's a checklist in a game, I can get a bit too focused on that at the loss of fun. I haven't even noticed how a Score Victory works in this game because of the Legacy Paths.

More freedom to tweak the AI difficulty is another thing I'm going to being playing around with a lot. Town specialization tweaks look sweet. Will be using Urban Center a lot more; I really only used it on conquered cities that already had districts built. I respect Firaxis' commitment to really making this game come together and listening to player feedback. I've been off the game for about a week now because of Mario Kart and the Zelda upgrade but I'll be diving back in next week for sure. This all sounds fun.

 

[Osk21]

I would like to hear from people who like and don't like Civ 7. I will buy it, but it is just a question of how much it needs to be patched for me to enjoy my purchase. Currently, my favorite game is Civ 4 Beyond the Sword Caveman2Cosmos mod but I have purchased everything from Civ 2 through Civ 6 with all of the DLC and spin-off games and lots of the Mods. Cheers!!!!

 

[Civinator]

Posting passive agressive postings and then pretending that OTHERS are being rude by not listening to their trolling that they post in EVERY topic they have a chance to.

I don't post about games I hate. In fact, I move on quite quick. So for me, it is really jarring that months after release you have the same actors coming to the message boards to talk trash about a game that they said they have no intention of ever playing. It just reeks of trying to destroy others enjoyment.

Passive aggressive postings, this is such a "nice" term for every posting that is not 100 % on your line. One fact is clear: Your post is an active aggressive posting. I don´t hate games and especially not Civ 7, but I don´t like the style in your post, that you would call trash.

 

[Luddify]

These are welcome changes but kick the can down the road on the biggest issues - the leader-centric approach and the gamey civ/era switching. We badly need more civs - the more we have the more it becomes possible to play a historically plausible progression. Hopefully we'll also get the option to turn off some of the wonkier civ/leader combinations for random AI opponents as well. The game is still shedding players like a shaggy dog's hair in summer and I hope these incremental changes aren't just a case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[McSpank01]

I am optimistic about the comment on making age transitions smoother and less abrupt. This seems doable.

One of my issues is that I lose too much progress from the last age, and it feels bad to be reset so heavily when you have built up your empire, only to lose much of the science and culture you built up. I’d prefer to switch the system so players can catch up if they make the right choices at the start of an age, rather than hobbling everyone and creating a blank slate. That is bad design.

Then if they make the transition for units smoother, making it less dependent on commanders and keeping them in roughly the same spot you left them, it might feel more seamless.

On top of that, work on those damn tech trees. Starting each age with 3 boring choices, which are totally unrelated to what you did in the past, again doesn’t feel good.

I think the problem is the design choice of thinking people are going to play these short games in just one age, I bet my pants almost nobody does that.

 

[protocol7]

Who else is looking forward to petting the scout dog? And who is ready for the scout cat mod?

 

[Gorbles]

I definitely think they should look at unit placement (and in-Commander stack composition), but I wouldn't want them to weaken the need for Commanders.

Maybe as an advanced game option? But not as a core balance change.

I think the problem is the design choice of thinking people are going to play these short games in just one age, I bet my pants almost nobody does that.

I've overwhelmingly played Antiquity, non-stop. I've done a few transitions, but I love that ancient era (and I've read about all the pacing issues Exploration and Modern have).