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

[UWHabs]

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 add 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

I do wonder if they give you the crisises based on your play-styles, because I think I've only gotten the antiquity plague once or twice, and haven't gotten the exploration plague yet. I think my fist game I had the plague crisis and it did stunt some of my cities, but I was still learning. The second time, I think one of my towns got hit, and that was it, I forgot that it was even happening.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Regarding unit saving with commanders, I believe the minimal change without any negative consequences is: if your unit is within limit and faced age end within your territory, span it in the same location. That would help a lot already.

Regarding the rest, I have thought that it may be worth to not count commanders for unit saving and just increase the limit. The reason is that players, who focus on war, already produce more commanders, ending up with much more units. So instead of preventing snowballing, current system supports it. Yes, it would reduce the role of commanders, but they look quite useful beyond saving units to me. And if they aren't, that should be balanced with their abilities.

 

[disjointaccount]

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.

I'm in this boat as well. I have made and will continue to make plenty of posts here and elsewhere outlining areas of the game I'd like to see improved. I just think there's a huge difference between:
- "Age transitions can feel very abrupt and it's frustrating to lose out on a wonder/capping a city/etc. because you can't tell if 1% progression translates to 1 or 2 turns, or if an AI somewhere completes something that causes it to jump suddenly from 95% to 100%"
- "If the paths are supposed to have relatively distinct identities and progressions from each other, science feels a bit overbearing, acting as almost a prerequisite especially for economic paths in exploration and modernity"
- "Religion feels a bit messy and there's little incentive to keep cities converted, particularly your own"
and:
- "Civ 7 removed everything that made the previous Civs great. I will not be stating what I think made previous civs great. It might be builders, a lack of civ switching, or Kupe's presence in the game. You'll have to guess"
- "I find civ switching ruins my historical immersion (whatever 'historical immersion' means in this context). Therefore it's objectively bad and if you disagree you're wrong."
- "Civ 7 is bad. I will not elaborate"

As someone who cares about the game, I want my feedback (both positive and negative) to actually articulate what I think might need changed so that it's useful to the devs in the event they see the complaints I have. Which is why I have little patience for vaguer "critiques" that just amount to "I don't like civ 7 and neither should you". At best they're unhelpful and unproductive; at worst they're a clear indicator that whoever is making them is just looking to rile people up and derail discussions into arguments rather than actually contribute to the conversation around the game.

 

[ferenginar]

Will the Large and Huge maps come with a rebalancing of victory conditions? I would assume, as previously, the larger maps, come with more civs, each civ giving the Banker another city to visit, but any changes to the others?

 

[Krikkit1]

Will the Large and Huge maps come with a rebalancing of victory conditions? I would assume, as previously, the larger maps, come with more civs, each civ giving the Banker another city to visit, but any changes to the others?

More resources you could get through trading
More competition for Artifacts
More potential ideological enemy targets

More competition for DL space
More possible Missions targets

More competition for Wonders
(More resources through trading also)

All those seem like they don’t really need rebalancing…just a slightly different way that they play.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm in this boat as well. I have made and will continue to make plenty of posts here and elsewhere outlining areas of the game I'd like to see improved. I just think there's a huge difference between:
- "Age transitions can feel very abrupt and it's frustrating to lose out on a wonder/capping a city/etc. because you can't tell if 1% progression translates to 1 or 2 turns, or if an AI somewhere completes something that causes it to jump suddenly from 95% to 100%"
- "If the paths are supposed to have relatively distinct identities and progressions from each other, science feels a bit overbearing, acting as almost a prerequisite especially for economic paths in exploration and modernity"
- "Religion feels a bit messy and there's little incentive to keep cities converted, particularly your own"
and:
- "Civ 7 removed everything that made the previous Civs great. I will not be stating what I think made previous civs great. It might be builders, a lack of civ switching, or Kupe's presence in the game. You'll have to guess"
- "I find civ switching ruins my historical immersion (whatever 'historical immersion' means in this context). Therefore it's objectively bad and if you disagree you're wrong."
- "Civ 7 is bad. I will not elaborate"

As someone who cares about the game, I want my feedback (both positive and negative) to actually articulate what I think might need changed so that it's useful to the devs in the event they see the complaints I have. Which is why I have little patience for vaguer "critiques" that just amount to "I don't like civ 7 and neither should you". At best they're unhelpful and unproductive; at worst they're a clear indicator that whoever is making them is just looking to rile people up and derail discussions into arguments rather than actually contribute to the conversation around the game.

Yeah it is sometimes easy, but at the same time vagueness can sometimes be legitimate. 7 changed so many things that I've spoken to people who can't clearly put their finger on an exact choice which turned them off. This game wasn't exactly an unit test. And all the controversial features are so joined up in Civ7 that it can be hard to work out what you don't like because of that too.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

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!

I like them for being sort of middle range goals. I don't like some of the specific ones they are using right now. Hopefully that will be worked out as more options and tweaks come along. I'm hoping, though, that the option to just not use them doesn't short circuit more changes.

 

[Leucarum]

I like them for being sort of middle range goals. I don't like some of the specific ones they are using right now. Hopefully that will be worked out as more options and tweaks come along. I'm hoping, though, that the option to just not use them doesn't short circuit more changes.

I like them too, it's just that the consequences of pushing ages forward in multiplayer is a bit awkward. They also aren't all created equal, and things go downhill after antiquity.

I'd love to see them be more dynamic if I'm honest. Goals arising as a consequence of things you do in game in some manner.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I like them too, it's just that the consequences of pushing ages forward in multiplayer is a bit awkward. They also aren't all created equal, and things go downhill after antiquity.

I'd love to see them be more dynamic if I'm honest. Goals arising as a consequence of things you do in game in some manner.

Ah, yeah I don't really MP so I wasn't considering that.

I do think making them more fluid like you said. They are already doing that with a lot of other things in the game. I don't know how they would do it but it would add even more variety.

Again, I love the idea; but just as an example, not only does running around converting cities not seem very fun, it also just doesn't scream "culture" to me like other options might.

 

[Siptah]

The difference of difficulty for the 7 wonder legacy paths between 2 and 12 players will be quite noticeable. I‘m not sure if I would rebalance the numbers per map size or player count though. If you need, e.g 12 wonders on tiny, it‘s too much of an investment while 4 on huge could be rushed with relative ease.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The difference of difficulty for the 7 wonder legacy paths between 2 and 12 players will be quite noticeable. I‘m not sure if I would rebalance the numbers per map size or player count though. If you need, e.g 12 wonders on tiny, it‘s too much of an investment while 4 on huge could be rushed with relative ease.

Yep, Wonders and Artifacts are 2 paths about competition, which are very dependent on number of players and difficulty. But those are only two.

 

[Leucarum]

Yep, Wonders and Artifacts are 2 paths about competition, which are very dependent on number of players and difficulty. But those are only two.

And both culture. You'd expect millitary would be the most player conflict inducing legacy paths but... Guess not

 

[Krikkit1]

Yep, Wonders and Artifacts are 2 paths about competition, which are very dependent on number of players and difficulty. But those are only two.

Well the number of Artifacts available could be increased for a greater number of players (say have multiple researches per continent.... or just more continents... on larger maps)

Wonders are a bit more difficult, since the number of them is fixed (although as more civs are added to Antiquity it will increase.)

 

[evonannoredars]

Wonders are a bit more difficult, since the number of them is fixed (although as more civs are added to Antiquity it will increase.)

And you'd need to dynamically balance it depending on how many DLC the player owns

 

[Krikkit1]

And you'd need to dynamically balance it depending on how many DLC the player owns

Which is why I don’t think they will do that.

 

[Osk21]

MSN

Recent Civ 7 article

 

[Yzman]

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.

Yeah I get it. Lets ignore the posts I am clearly referring to that are riddled with sarcasm about how the game is fine as long as developors like it, which no one is saying and demeans anyone that enjoys the game and instead you are attacking me. Talking trash is a term, I am not calling anyone's post trash. But you certainly seem to be doing it to me.

If you don't like my postings, please don't respond to me. I am not talking about you in anyway, nor did I respond to a post of yours. You responding in this way to me certainly makes me rethink how sincere you were being the last time we interacted when I did in fact quote you ( but once again, was not talking about you specifically, just the content of your post). I have in no way included you in this discussion...yet you are defending the same type of aggressive posting.

If you don't like the style of my post I apologize to you, but why do I have a suspicion that it isn't the style at all, but rather the content? Surely if my posting is causing you concern, you would have also had concerns about the posts I am specifically referring to as they are much worse and blatant? But no, you have said nothing about that. So once again, your attacks are personal it seems.

 

[Yzman]

Haven't seen much discussion about it, but I am interested in the additional beliefs to hopefully make religion more engaging. Currently I have found the best way to proceed is to not spread religion to my own cities at all and spread them to others to get relics. This seems counter-intuitive. I am glad to see they are aware of addressing this.

 

[Kurtbob]

Yes, other than a couple policies that give bonuses to your cities with your religion, there isn't an incentive to spread your religion to your cities. Unless I am missing something, having your religion in your settlements doesn't prevent or affect other civs spreading their religion into your settlements either. Hopefully these added beliefs help with that.

 

[user746383]

I basically never research piety until forced to. One (maybe all?) of the exploration age crises have negative effects related to your religion, and if you have none they do nothing so you can always pick them and have the crises hardly impact you.