Civ Switching - Will it prevent you from buying Civ 7?

[Kev1916]

While this may not be what you desire, I‘m sure that within a week of release a mod will take care of all of that. It will copy all civs to all ages and make 2/3 of them bland generic options that only differ in name/logo and restrict progression paths for players and AI to the same-named civ. That way, you will have your beloved San Marino experience back. Maybe even with another mod that links leaders to civs. The ages won‘t be that easy to mod out though.

Aye fair enough , you enjoy your day

 

[TheGrayFox]

Absolutely! This entire thread is indisputable proof of that. I wonder, therefore, why is it so important to argue that civ switching is a gameplay change? But there we go - to bed!

Again I think there are two different arguments going over one another right now. The people arguing that civ switching is a gameplay change are objectively correct, civ swapping as a mechanic in the VII (aka the act of choosing a new civ for new bonuses, units, buildings) IS a huge game play change

Now the above fact is completely divorced from the reasoning most people have for not liking the idea of civ swapping, which is flavor and immersion.

While this may not be what you desire, I‘m sure that within a week of release a mod will take care of all of that. It will copy all civs to all ages and make 2/3 of them bland generic options that only differ in name/logo and restrict progression paths for players and AI to the same-named civ. That way, you will have your beloved San Marino experience back. Maybe even with another mod that links leaders to civs. The ages won‘t be that easy to mod out though.

We shouldn't have to look to modders to fix Civ VII's inherent design but part of the issue of having to rely on modders is again the fact that civ swapping, eras, and crises are all so fundamentally linked together by design.

You can't just copy and paste an antinquity era civilization over the other two eras and wipe your hands clean. They've designed the game around three seperated rounds each with their own win conditions and the civs are designed with a very their specific eras and win conditions in mind.

 

[Siptah]

We shouldn't have to look to modders to fix Civ VII's inherent design but part of the issue of having to rely on modders is again the fact that civ swapping, eras, and crises are all so fundamentally linked together by design.

The inherent design might not need fixing. Moot point. Relying on modders to make a game more akin to the game of your dreams/preferences is fine since at least 2004. How many people play unmodded civ IV or V?

You can't just copy and paste an antinquity era civilization over the other two eras and wipe your hands clean. They've designed the game around three seperated rounds each with their own win conditions and the civs are designed with a very their specific eras and win conditions in mind.

Yes, of course. My previous post was just a quick concept statement in reply to someone lamenting that civ VII robs you of choosing your civs and opponents. I'm aware it's not just copy/paste to create the beloved San Marino mode (I think this name will stick with me as description of the forever-one-civ-concept). You need to create a blank generic civ (without any unique civics, units, buildings, and wonders - or include placeholders for these if the game doesn't allow to leave these blank) per age and then copy paste names/icons from the other civs onto multiple copies of that blank civ. Still, it's doable within a week of release, I assume, especially if the demand is high. Later versions might have more elaborate civics for example, or fantasy units, like the infamous Egyptian "Eagle Wings" flying spearmen, unlocked by the "Ptolemaic Legacy Myths" civic in the middle of the second age.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The inherent design might not need fixing. Moot point. Relying on modders to make a game more akin to the game of your dreams/preferences is fine since at least 2004. How many people play unmodded civ IV or V?

1) To the huge percentage who have no interest in the game because of these changes it is not a moot point.

2) I doubt most civilization players play with gameplay overhaul mods and I don't buy games for 70-80 USD that I have to rely on modders to make fun/enjoyable in the first place

3) the game is releasing on consoles that don't have mod support

Yes, of course. My previous post was just a quick concept statement in reply to someone lamenting that civ VII robs you of choosing your civs and opponents. I'm aware it's not just copy/paste to create the beloved San Marino mode (I think this name will stick with me as description of the forever-one-civ-concept). You need to create a blank generic civ (without any unique civics, units, buildings, and wonders - or include placeholders for these if the game doesn't allow to leave these blank) per age and then copy paste names/icons from the other civs onto multiple copies of that blank civ. Still, it's doable within a week of release, I assume, especially if the demand is high. Later versions might have more elaborate civics for example, or fantasy units, like the infamous Egyptian "Eagle Wings" flying spearmen, unlocked by the "Ptolemaic Legacy Myths" civic in the middle of the second age.

I agree that modders probably will be able to fix the problems many have with civ swapping (atleast on PC) but will they be able to do it well that's arguable. Again the point you missed is that a simple copy paste job like you're suggesting wouldn't fix the core problems that arise from civ swapping being inherently linked to and designed around eras. Civ abilities are specific to their era and its win conditions. In order to get the classic "immortal civ" experience, you have to change every single civilization's ability and civics make them applicable and balanced across all three eras and their seperate win conditions. Something I wouldn't have faith in a simple modder to design well in a week

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

The people arguing that civ switching is a gameplay change are objectively correct.

No, they are not. And it's incredibly easy to prove this. But I have said enough and don't really care, so I'll leave it there.

 

[TheGrayFox]

No, they are not. And it's incredibly easy to prove this. But I have said enough and don't really care, so I'll leave it there.

Yes they are because as already repeatedly stated and as you've already awknowledged

Civ swapping as a mechanic in this game (picking a new bonuses every era) is a gameplay change.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yes they are because as already repeatedly stated and as you've alread awknowledged

Civ swapping (picking a new bonuses every era) is a gameplay change.

You've not understood me at all, but ok. I'll accept the blame for not being able to communicate the point effectively and wish you a good day.

 

[TheGrayFox]

You've not understood me at all, but ok. I'll accept the blame for not being able to communicate the point effectively and wish you a good day.

No i understood you pretty clearly, I just believe you are wrong. Civ swapping IS a gameplay change regardless the actual reasons why people are opposed to the change

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

No i very clearly understood you, you were wrong. Civ swapping IS a gameplay change regardless the actual reasons why people are opposed to the change

I don't really want to continue this but equally it's a bit much to be constantly accused of being wrong when I absolutely do not accept that; I believe the contrary but I'm happy to agree to disagree so that everyone can move on, there is no need to be so aggressive about it.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I don't really want to continue this but equally it's a bit much to be constantly accused of being wrong when I absolutely do not accept that; I believe the contrary but I'm happy to agree to disagree so that everyone can move on, there is no need to be so aggressive about it.

I don't think pointing out that someone is wrong is aggressive, no more than you implying I didn't understand you at all but I actually went back to edit the post to make it less of a definitive statement. We can totally walk away from this conversation agreeing to disagree

 

[Siptah]

I agree that modders probably will be able to fix the problems many have with civ swapping (atleast on PC) but will they be able to do it well that's arguable. Again the point you missed is that a simple copy paste job like you're suggesting wouldn't fix the core problems that arise from civ swapping being inherently linked to and designed around eras. Civ abilities are specific to their era and its win conditions. In order to get the classic "immortal civ" experience, you have to change every single civilization's ability and civics make them applicable and balanced across all three eras and their seperate win conditions. Something I wouldn't have faith in a simple modder to design well in a week

I think we're actually on the same page here. It might have just been my laziness in typing all bits of thought out.

It's not a point that I missed or I'm unaware of, it's a point that I don't consider that important for many in the loud crowd against civ switching, at least not at first. America's ability might be specific to the last age, which might simply translate to no ability in the first two eras in early mods. I've read it often enough on these forums: let me not switch my civ, I will even take a bland civ for 2/3 of the game in a "classic mode" instead. Whether these people understood the base concept of civ VII is another question. That's also why I mentioned that ages aren't that easy to mod out - they change the game much more than civ switching does (imho). You obviously invested some time to learn about the game, but many others that want switching gone don't (and why would they? I have no clue about Anno 2270 despite being a game in one of my favorite franchises just because from the very first info, I disliked the concept).

Of course, if you want a balanced experience in the long run, in which all civs have their merit, niches, and fun ways to play, this will take a long time with mods (or even up until never). Call me cynical, but I think this is true regardless of mods - civ VI also never reached this state, and it took years to even improve some basic and very, very obvious things as useless spearmen or neighborhood buildings that made no sense to build in any circumstance. And as I said, I think the base mod for the beloved San Marino experience will be out quickly. And I wouldn't be surprised if it gains such things as unique abilities and civics and the like over the months to flesh it out.

And re: mods. Of course, I have no data on it, it's just my impression from the years lurking here and at the paradox plaza that using even large mods is quite common, but of course only a minority frequents such dedicated forums. I do hope that civ VII finally allows mods on consoles. It's an extra effort for sure to integrate mod.io (as in Humankind), a mod platform in the launcher (as for PDX), or an in-game mod menu (as in AoE) - but it is not impossible.

 

[Gedemon]

No i understood you pretty clearly, I just believe you are wrong. Civ swapping IS a gameplay change regardless the actual reasons why people are opposed to the change

My point of view is that all gameplay changes introduced by the civ-swapping coud be done without civ-swapping, which is why I see it as an immersion problem first, and if one think that the 3 ages with crisis and choice of new abilities between age are also a problem, then it's also a gameplay issue.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yes they are because as already repeatedly stated and as you've already awknowledged

Civ swapping as a mechanic in this game (picking a new bonuses every era) is a gameplay change.

I think the point is
Bonus switching =gameplay change
Name switching=not (flavor only)

If you had bonus switching without name changed it probably wouldn’t be called civ switching, but they used differently named civs to come up with those bonuses…so in initial design civ switching includes both the bonus and the name.

However, most people’s problems are with the name switching, which is something that can be fixed without changing the mechanics.
Hopefully, Firaxis will implement that change soon (fixing the mandatory name change without changing the underlying mechanics)

 

[TheGrayFox]

My point of view is that all gameplay changes introduced by the civ-swapping

You said the key word right there. gameplay changes. So the argument that civ swapping isn't a gameplay change is simply wrong

My point of view is that all gameplay changes introduced by the civ-swapping coud be done without civ-swapping, which is why I see it as an immersion problem first, and if one think that the 3 ages with crisis and choice of new abilities between age are also a problem, then it's also a gameplay issue.

Now the greater issue of civ swapping being an immersion and flavor issues first and foremost to the majority of people who have a problem with the changes is a different conversation than whether or not it is a gameplay change (it is).

The people complaining about civ swapping most vocally aren't shy from telling you the problem is that it ruins their immersion.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I think the point is
Bonus switching =gameplay change
Name switching=not (flavor only)

If you had bonus switching without name changed it probably wouldn’t be called civ switching, but they used differently named civs to come up with those bonuses…so in initial design civ switching includes both the bonus and the name.

However, most people’s problems are with the name switching, which is something that can be fixed without changing the mechanics.
Hopefully, Firaxis will implement that change soon (fixing the mandatory name change without changing the underlying mechanics)

I get the point but they are literally connected. The naming is simple flavor but the actually act switching (aka the mechanic itself) is gameplay change. I understand very clearly that its the flavor and immersion aspect that upsets people more than the actual gameplay mechanic of picking new bonuses itself but that does not change that civ swapping is a gameplay change in VII.

Again its just two different arguments going over one another

 

[Krikkit1]

I get the point but they are literally connected. The naming is simple flavor but the actually act switching (aka the mechanic itself) is gameplay change. I understand very clearly that its the flavor and immersion aspect that upsets people more than the actual gameplay mechanic itself but that does not change that civ swapping is a gameplay change in VII.

But you could completely remove/make optional the Name switching (biggest problem with civ switching) without affecting the Bonus switching (gameplay part of civ switching) at all.

 

[TheGrayFox]

But you could completely remove/make optional the Name switching (biggest problem with civ switching) without affecting the Bonus switching (gameplay part of civ switching) at all.

yes i know

who is arguing otherwise?

 

[stealth_nsk]

My point of view is that all gameplay changes introduced by the civ-swapping coud be done without civ-swapping, which is why I see it as an immersion problem first, and if one think that the 3 ages with crisis and choice of new abilities between age are also a problem, then it's also a gameplay issue.

The only way to implement those gameplay changes without civ-swapping is to create a version of each civilization for each era and transition between them without choice. I.e. from Antiquity Egypt to Exploration Egypt to Modern Egypt. Any other approach would hurt gameplay as, for example, developers specifically stated what they wanted players to have a separate set of uniques for each era. However, this solution would lead to some problems:
1. The amount of work. If we consider putting the same amount of work as now, we'll end up with 10 civs overall. Even some "untouchable" civs of the series won't fit.
2. The immersion. This approach would require creating sets of uniques for each civilization, so developers would have to invent some fantasy antiquity building and units for America, or modern buildings and units for Maya.

So, compared to this, switching civs really looks like better and more immersive solution.

 

[Siptah]

The people complaining about civ swapping most vocally aren't shy from telling you the problem is that it ruins their immersion.

Which tells me that they don't know what that word means . Still, it's easy to guess what they mean with it: they want a believable world and civ switching stands against that in their opinion. I would say this is mostly a familiarity issue that would be easy to overcome with a bit of exposure regardless of all but the most stubborn mindest (and I know a thing or two about familiarity, liking, immersion, etc.).

 

[Gedemon]

You said the key word right there. gameplay changes. So the argument that civ swapping isn't a gameplay change is simply wrong

"My point of view is that all gameplay changes introduced by the civ-swapping coud be done without civ-swapping"