"Dev @ Gamescom says 5 player limit also applies to a full game with all eras"

[Mr. Man]

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1ezdplg/dev_gamescom_says_5_player_limit_also_applies_to

OH JEEZE OH NO

 

[user343744]

I usually play with a minimum of 8 to 12. This is disappointing, hope it's increased.

 

[Gedemon]

that's for human players as I understand it.

 

[Pedro P]

Increase might misteriously arrive when the Switch version is retired in favor of the Switch 2 version, not that consoles can limit the game.

 

[TreVor_ish]

The smaller they say, the faster will be approved for smoother release on consoles. I did have my doubts about switch especially.

 

[Jkchart]

that's for human players as I understand it.

It’s 8 humans in the Modern Era though, at least on PC according to Steam. I hope this is a soft limit or they later add support for a couple more in the earlier eras.

 

[Xur]

Gotta love how the franchise imploded and the community managers that were active just days ago, are gone and has nothing to say.

Basic information like this should be easy to deny if untrue. It’s an alledged statement made by an employee. Not denying it or not saying anything is basicly confirmation. Right now it’s hurting the game, so I would think they would want to deny it - if not true.

Back to typical Firaxis community management. They only talk before announcements and sales. No idea why I thought things would change.

 

[Metalz]

Bruh

 

[Gedemon]

It’s 8 humans in the Modern Era though, at least on PC according to Steam. I hope this is a soft limit or they later add support for a couple more in the earlier eras.

so it's the same as civ6, isn't it?

 

[The_J]

Gotta love how the franchise imploded and the community managers that were active just days ago, are gone and has nothing to say.

They are RIGHT NOW at the Gamescom, and busy with stuff in RL .

Also as Gedemon pointed out, this is for humans.

 

[pokiehl]

Increase might misteriously arrive when the Switch version is retired in favor of the Switch 2 version, not that consoles can limit the game.

Consoles didn't limit the game. The Switch's specific limit is lower than the rest, and the Switch version won't have access to the bigger map sizes. Clearly games can be modified to fit different platforms.

 

[Quintillus]

Like The_J said, Firaxis is still at Gamescon, including at least some of the community managers. We also aren't the only assignment for the community managers, much as we might like every Civ fan to become a member here.

Also a relevant question, why is this "Not Not Not Lars" a credible source of information? I presume it's someone who says they're attending Gamescon, but there's plenty of potential for misinterpretation, speculation, and unsubstantiated claims on the Internet. Don't assume the sky is falling just because you read that the sky was falling online while you were in the basement.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Five is too many.
The limit for human players should be one.
Without multiplayer the civs wouldn’t need to be balanced and we could get better flavor and interesting asymmetries

 

[ombak]

Five is too many.
The limit for human players should be one.
Without multiplayer the civs wouldn’t need to be balanced and we could get better flavor and interesting asymmetries

Balance is overrated. There was definitely a move towards that attitude in development, starting in the late 2010s, I feel. Not that anyone threw balance out the window, but I do feel that in many different genres there was a move towards recognizing that feeling overpowered is fun. There still needs to be some balance, but there was a time when everyone tried to make things even and that just resulted in blandness.

With Civ specifically, I see that reflected in Civ 6's abilities, more and more the alter you go in Civ 6's cycle.

 

[pokiehl]

Five is too many.
The limit for human players should be one.
Without multiplayer the civs wouldn’t need to be balanced and we could get better flavor and interesting asymmetries

Balance impacts single player too. At any rate, not wanting MP is kind of selfish--MP is my absolute favorite way to play the game. There's nothing like a good old, co-op "comp stomp" with a good friend or two. I'd be gutted if we lost MP.

 

[Zaarin]

Balance impacts single player too. At any rate, not wanting MP is kind of selfish--MP is my absolute favorite way to play the game. There's nothing like a good old, co-op "comp stomp" with a good friend or two. I'd be gutted if we lost MP.

I wouldn't say it's selfish. Multiplayer tuning ruined AoE4, which was fairly fun at launch but became less asymmetrical and more boring with every patch to cater to multiplayer and esports. I'm not saying that has or will affect Civ, but I think it's fair to say that multiplayer tuning isn't going to interest single-player only players (I'm also one).

 

[pokiehl]

I wouldn't say it's selfish. Multiplayer tuning ruined AoE4, which was fairly fun at launch but became less asymmetrical and more boring with every patch to cater to multiplayer and esports. I'm not saying that has or will affect Civ, but I think it's fair to say that multiplayer tuning isn't going to interest single-player only players (I'm also one).

I've never seen evidence that competitive MP is a real consideration of the developers. Like I said, balance matters for single player too. It's boring to play as super strong or very weak civs.

 

[Zaarin]

I've never seen evidence that competitive MP is a real consideration of the developers. Like I said, balance matters for single player too. It's boring to play as super strong or very weak civs.

Like I said, I'm not worried about it breaking Civ, just that I have seen it break other games.

 

[Linklite]

I'm in the middle.
Too much balance leads to bland choices. One of the two things that Battlefront (the truly original one) did better than its sequel was that each faction had slightly different abilities for each class compared to their opponents. Not massive differences, but it made each faction feel different. The sequel made each faction's version of a class basically identical to their opponent's...which meant they were very samey.

On the other hand, you never want to feel like you're getting the raw deal. Having obviously inferior choices just suck.

Hopefully, the different civs will be roughly ballpark balanced. Not mirror images of each other, but balanced enough that there are no clear "right choices".

 

[GeneralZift]

I wouldn't say it's selfish. Multiplayer tuning ruined AoE4, which was fairly fun at launch but became less asymmetrical and more boring with every patch to cater to multiplayer and esports. I'm not saying that has or will affect Civ, but I think it's fair to say that multiplayer tuning isn't going to interest single-player only players (I'm also one).

We're talking about aoe4? Mate that was a dumpster fire from the start, had nothing to do with multiplayer tuning. Relic should have never had anything do with "Age" series.

Five is too many.
The limit for human players should be one.
Without multiplayer the civs wouldn’t need to be balanced and we could get better flavor and interesting asymmetries

I can't tell if this is a joke post?